If you already have Windows 2000 installed and running properly you're already half way there and have the most problematic part out of the way. At this point, provided you have space free on your HDD for a Linux partition (if not, be prepared to fiddle a bit with something like Partition Magic to resize your existing partition), it really should be just a simple matter of running the RH installer and it should detect your 2000 NTFS partition (you are running NTFS aren't you? If not, stop reading this and convert it right away!) and add it as an option in the relevant bootloader. If not, it should be relatively easy to add the NTFS partition to the bootloader manually.

http://linuxcourse.mutgers.edu/dualboot.php
 
good luck...

Excuse me?
 

Quote:(you are running NTFS aren't you? If not, stop reading this and convert it right away!) 
Why? Everything I have read in several linux forums in the last few weeks has indicated that linux can read ntfs, but not write to ntfs! Isn't it bad enough that Windows cannot even see linux partitions without adding the inability to copy stuff to the windows partition? I use Linux to surf the net, and if I find images or even programs that I want to use in windows, I copy them there. In most dual boot systems I have heard about, the windows disk or partition is usually the largest, so why make the larger part of your storage read only from Linux? ;(

Quite simply FAT, in all its forms, is crap. It was designed solely for 160K floppy disks and on anything larger than that (and even on those) it's hopelessly inefficent and unreliable. I'd rather have my Windows partitions formatted in the best fs available for that OS and only have read support in Linux than subject them to the horror that is FAT just to get write support.

Quote:I'd rather have my Windows partitions formatted in the best fs available for that OS and only have read support in Linux than subject them to the horror that is FAT just to get write support.

OK. Your choice, your loss. I am not rich enough to have drive space to burn like that.

My Windows partition is only 30Gb (with the remaining 90-odd Gb divided up between my Linux /, /usr, /home and swap partitions) so it's not like I'm burning space. And even if it were the other way around I'd still format the Windows partitions as NTFS simply because it's the best filesystem for that OS. I'd be losing more formatting them as FAT32 (performance, efficiency, security and reliability) than keeping them as NTFS.

I was discussing this with a friend of mine who is the computer administrator at our local school district about fat 32 and ntfs and he agrees that fat 32 has caused him a lot of blue screens and lost data over the years. He far prefers ntfs as well. An interesting question came to my mind. I know Slackware makes a version that runs on fat 32. How does Linux fare under it? Is it the combination of Windows and fat 32 that can potentially cause such problems or just the file system itself? If just the file system, then even Linux could experience hard Windows like crashes on fat 32 as well couldn't it? Or not?

Thanks for the Linuxcourse.mutgers.edu/dualboot.php instructions.
 
Very helpful. I am assuming these instructions don't change if we are talking WINDOWS XP and another distribution of LINUX? (haven't decided yet which way to go)
 
IN general, I am going to jump into the LINUX/OPENSOURCE world and am setting up a new desktop for having a dual boot WIN/LINUX system. I'm planning on using LINUX/GNOME/OPENOFFICE/MOZILLA environment and the standard WINXP.
 
Any good general information available I may want to start with?
 
The PC I'll build will most likely be an ASUS A7N8X DLX with AMD 2600+, 512mb memory, dual hard drives (seems easier than separate partitions)
 
Does that make any sense? Any suggestions?
 
Thanks!!!!