On 26 July 2010 16:43, Norman Silverstone <nor...@littletank.org> wrote: > >> >> > I do understand that and the drive I have is large enough to dual boot >> > on that drive the problem is that it already has Ubuntu installed on it >> > and I therefore assumed that it would be easier to dual boot by adding >> > the extra drive. >> > >> > <snip> >> > >> > How does this affect your suggested method? >> >> The existing Ubuntu install... tell us about it. Is it partitioned or >> is /home on the same volume as /? > > The existing install is 9.10, which I intended to upgrade to 10.04, and > it is not partitioned
Hmm. Not ideal. I recommend, for what it's worth, that for future use, you put /home in its own partition. This makes life much easier in many ways. But saying that, it should work, nonetheless. >> >> Is it expecting to be the 1st or 2nd or other drive in the system? > > I would expect Ubuntu to be on the 1st drive. Well, in that case, I can't help. That is, as per my previous messages, exactly the way that I do *not* recommend. Others have commented with their suggestions; you may wish to ask them rather than me. >> Same or different hardware? > > Both drives SATA. Um. This appears to be an answer to a completely different question. The question I was asking was: Was the installation of Ubuntu and Windows on your disk(s) done on the same PC, or on a different PC? Ubuntu will probably handle a move fine. Windows probably won't. -- Liam Proven • Profile & links: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lpro...@gmail.com Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419 AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508 -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
