Does XP support a dual boot mode?

Looking to do this on a development box with different O/S's on it such as
Win2003 server and Windows 2000 server.

Hi,

As much as any version of Windows does. Frankly, that ain't much.
Multi-booting various Win environments is best done with a boot manager.

Boot Managers and Partitioning programs:

BootIT NG www.terabyteunlimited.com
Partition Magic www.powerquest.com/partitionmagic
Partition Commander http://www.v-com.com/product/pc_ind.html
Ranish Partition Manager http://www.ranish.com/part/

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"Jack Snow" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:A1ITc.1490$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Does XP support a dual boot mode?
>
> Looking to do this on a development box with different O/S's on it such as
> Win2003 server and Windows 2000 server.
>
>
>

>> Does XP support a dual boot mode?
Looking to do this on a development box with different O/S's on it such as
Win2003 server and Windows 2000 server.

Jack:

Yes.
NT based op systems support dual/multi booting natively.

I run Win2k Pro, XP Pro, Win2k3 server, SBS2k3 with ISA on a single
computer.

Some thoughts:
Install the op systems in order of release by MS (oldest first).

After each install, copy the following files into their own folder:
ntldr
ntdetect.com
Generally, later released op systems tend to have their own version of these
files, and will not boot with an earlier version (blank, black screen).

>> Multi-booting various Win environments is best done with a boot manager.

Rick:

I multi-boot 9 op systems (Win9x thru Win2k3 server) on a multihomed box
(one op system uses ISA) with two hard disks using the multi boot function
included with all NT based op systems. I have used the NT based system for
years, and I have never had a problem.

Have you had problems with the NT based setup?

TIA

Hi,

It's not a matter of trouble setting up, it can be if done properly, and it
can be maintained infinitely. It's a matter of configurability and ease of
use, and Windows is notorious for liking to think it's the only operating
system on the drive. If someone is going to multiboot several systems as a
regular thing, then a boot manager is the way to go. Using the native Win
functions is fine as a temporary thing, or for the classic dual-boot (and
most of the time people discover that they primarily only use one anyways,
they just had a hard time letting go of an older operating system).

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"CZ" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Multi-booting various Win environments is best done with a boot manager.
>
> Rick:
>
> I multi-boot 9 op systems (Win9x thru Win2k3 server) on a multihomed box
> (one op system uses ISA) with two hard disks using the multi boot function
> included with all NT based op systems. I have used the NT based system
> for years, and I have never had a problem.
>
> Have you had problems with the NT based setup?
>
> TIA
>

BS.

I still set up most of my systems dual boot, 98SE on C:, XP on D: and
all data for both operating systems on E:.

And it works just wonderfully with the default Microsoft setup (install
98 first, then XP). Some of the systems have the recovery console
installed on the hard drive, which is effectively a 3rd OS, still with
the MS basic multi-boot software.

For more than 2 OS', it's better to use a boot manager, but for 2 OS',
and certainly 2 MS OS', the standard MS software works fine.


Rick "Nutcase" Rogers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's not a matter of trouble setting up, it can be if done properly, and it
> can be maintained infinitely. It's a matter of configurability and ease of
> use, and Windows is notorious for liking to think it's the only operating
> system on the drive. If someone is going to multiboot several systems as a
> regular thing, then a boot manager is the way to go. Using the native Win
> functions is fine as a temporary thing, or for the classic dual-boot (and
> most of the time people discover that they primarily only use one anyways,
> they just had a hard time letting go of an older operating system).
>

Reread what I wrote:

"Using the native Win functions is fine as a temporary thing, or for the
classic dual-boot"

Which agrees with what you wrote - or are you writing BS as well?

Now look at what the original poster wrote: He/She wants "a development box
with different O/S's on it such as
Win2003 server and Windows 2000 server". This implies several things: 1)
They are going to be using SEVERAL different OS's on it simultaneously. 2)
It's a DEVELOPEMENT box. Where I come from that means constant changes,
reformatting, testing, etc., meaning this is not going to be a fixed setup.
3) "such as" implies they are going to be TESTing several different OS's,
not two or three, but several, and possibly making frequent changes to both
the OS's and the system configuration.

I stand by my original response: What this particular person is looking for
is best addressed by using a boot manager. In addition to the flexibility,
most boot managers can be used to isolate the partitions visible by each
installation, thereby keeping one system from affecting or interfering with
another.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"Barry Watzman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> BS.
>
> I still set up most of my systems dual boot, 98SE on C:, XP on D: and all
> data for both operating systems on E:.
>
> And it works just wonderfully with the default Microsoft setup (install 98
> first, then XP). Some of the systems have the recovery console installed
> on the hard drive, which is effectively a 3rd OS, still with the MS basic
> multi-boot software.
>
> For more than 2 OS', it's better to use a boot manager, but for 2 OS', and
> certainly 2 MS OS', the standard MS software works fine.
>
>
> Rick "Nutcase" Rogers wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It's not a matter of trouble setting up, it can be if done properly, and
>> it can be maintained infinitely. It's a matter of configurability and
>> ease of use, and Windows is notorious for liking to think it's the only
>> operating system on the drive. If someone is going to multiboot several
>> systems as a regular thing, then a boot manager is the way to go. Using
>> the native Win functions is fine as a temporary thing, or for the classic
>> dual-boot (and most of the time people discover that they primarily only
>> use one anyways, they just had a hard time letting go of an older
>> operating system).
>>
>

CZ wrote:
> I multi-boot 9 op systems (Win9x thru Win2k3 server) on a multihomed box
> (one op system uses ISA) with two hard disks using the multi boot function
> included with all NT based op systems. I have used the NT based system
> for years, and I have never had a problem.
> Have you had problems with the NT based setup?

Rick wrote:
It's not a matter of trouble setting up, it can be if done properly, and it
can be maintained infinitely. It's a matter of configurability and ease of
use, and Windows is notorious for liking to think it's the only operating
system on the drive. If someone is going to multiboot several systems as a
regular thing, then a boot manager is the way to go. Using the native Win
functions is fine as a temporary thing, or for the classic dual-boot (and
most of the time people discover that they primarily only use one anyways,
they just had a hard time letting go of an older operating system).

Rick:

This computer has been muti-boot (more than two op systems) for about 6
years (it currently does 9 op systems).
One portable has been dual booting for about three years, another for about
four years.
All are using MS's native NT based dual/multi boot system.

On my computer with 9 op systems, I periodically reformat and reinstall one
or more of the op systems for various reasons. This computer is used for
learning and testing (and is my main computer). To me it is very important
to only have a MS environment to avoid other vendor system level issues. If
I need to resize a vol, I use PM v7.01.

I have never had a problem with this setup, and cannot understand how any
other boot mgr could be easier to setup or use.

I am curious, what is your experience with the NT based system? What op
systems? What problems did you have? How long did you run it?

TIA

>> For more than 2 OS', it's better to use a boot manager, but for 2 OS',
and certainly 2 MS OS', the standard MS software works fine.

Barry:

Why?
I current run 9 op systems on this computer via two hard disks using MS's
native NT based multi-boot system.

TIA

>> For more than 2 OS', it's better to use a boot manager, but for 2 OS',
and certainly 2 MS OS', the standard MS software works fine.

Barry:

Why?
I current run 9 op systems on this computer via two hard disks using MS's
native NT based multi-boot system.

TIA