I have been running a dual-boot (Win98 / XP) system ever since
a couple of programs I needed to use were only compatible with
Win98. Now I don't need these programs any longer, while at the
same time I was going to upgrade to a newer machine, so I was
wondering if anyone else has been using a dual-boot "XP/XP"
configuration?
The reason I'm considering another dual-boot system is that it
was easy to clone the XP partitions with Win98, to make a spare
HDD in case of a crash, rather than using a program like Acronis,
which forces specific partition sizes and requires the target HDD
to be of equal or larger size than the source HDD.

Whenever I had a HDD crash in the past, it always affected the
C-partition only, so by keeping my data on other partitions, I have
been fortunate so far to never losing any. With this in mind, I was
going to set up the main XP OS again on the D-drive (data on drive E,
etc), while the C-drive would just occupy an unused 2nd XP system
whose only purpose would be to allow me to clone (or delete) material
on my main system which couldn't be done while in use. -H.

If you are using (d as your system drive and you then clone partition 1,
using partition copying software, onto partition 0 you will not be able to
dual-boot into the backup (c partition by trying to boot into partition
0.

This is because all the locations in the registry, including expandable
environment variables such as %HOMEDRIVE% and %SystemRoot% will be
incorrect. As at present on your system, as I understand it, these
variables should point to (d and therefore will still do so when you try
to boot the cloned partition on drive (c.

Because drive (d is still in existence, and for all intents and purposes,
is still an exact copy to (c the boot should actually work, but only
because it's using file-locations pointed at by the same system variables
(i.e.; on (d) and would completely fail to boot if (c were left as the
only drive.

For both XP installations to work, you would have to install them
consecutively, first on (c and then again onto (d - but then you would
not be able to clone one onto another and still have them be truly
dual-bootable.

To do that, you would have to have two physical hard-drives and set-up the
first with the dual-bootable twin XP installations - then when you wanted
to clone an XP installation, you would do so to it's respective counterpart
on the other physical hard-drive.

i.e.
clone drive 0 partition 0 onto drive 1 partition 0
clone drive 0 partition 1 onto drive 1 partition 1

Then both disks would be dual-bootable and you would be able to clone
either partition on drive 0 to it's respective partition on drive 1

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)




"Heather" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:isk86c$cv8$(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have been running a dual-boot (Win98 / XP) system ever since
> a couple of programs I needed to use were only compatible with
> Win98. Now I don't need these programs any longer, while at the
> same time I was going to upgrade to a newer machine, so I was
> wondering if anyone else has been using a dual-boot "XP/XP"
> configuration?
> The reason I'm considering another dual-boot system is that it
> was easy to clone the XP partitions with Win98, to make a spare
> HDD in case of a crash, rather than using a program like Acronis,
> which forces specific partition sizes and requires the target HDD
> to be of equal or larger size than the source HDD.
>
> Whenever I had a HDD crash in the past, it always affected the
> C-partition only, so by keeping my data on other partitions, I have
> been fortunate so far to never losing any. With this in mind, I was
> going to set up the main XP OS again on the D-drive (data on drive E,
> etc), while the C-drive would just occupy an unused 2nd XP system
> whose only purpose would be to allow me to clone (or delete) material
> on my main system which couldn't be done while in use. -H.
>
>
>

Bill,
It isn't that simple - the point being that, I believe, the OP has
said, her present XP is installed to (d and that she wants to backup
(copy) that partition to (c and be able to boot both (via an XP-managed
dual-boot setup)!!

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)




"Bill in Co" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Heather wrote:
>> I have been running a dual-boot (Win98 / XP) system ever since
>> a couple of programs I needed to use were only compatible with
>> Win98. Now I don't need these programs any longer, while at the
>> same time I was going to upgrade to a newer machine, so I was
>> wondering if anyone else has been using a dual-boot "XP/XP"
>> configuration?
>> The reason I'm considering another dual-boot system is that it
>> was easy to clone the XP partitions with Win98, to make a spare
>> HDD in case of a crash, rather than using a program like Acronis,
>> which forces specific partition sizes and requires the target HDD
>> to be of equal or larger size than the source HDD.
>>
>> Whenever I had a HDD crash in the past, it always affected the
>> C-partition only, so by keeping my data on other partitions, I have
>> been fortunate so far to never losing any. With this in mind, I was
>> going to set up the main XP OS again on the D-drive (data on drive E,
>> etc), while the C-drive would just occupy an unused 2nd XP system
>> whose only purpose would be to allow me to clone (or delete) material
>> on my main system which couldn't be done while in use. -H.
>
> For the purposes of discussion below, I'm going to assume C: is your main
> system partition, as it is in most cases (you can modify that as needbe).
>
> I would think it would be a lot simpler to use Acronis to make a backup
> IMAGE of your main system C: partition, and to use that as a backup, if
> needed.
>
> This way there wouldn't be any need for dual booting. PLUS the only
> thing stored would be an backup IMAGE of the entire C: partition (which
> could be stored in any other partition of your choice).
>
> But note, this is using imaging as a backup, not cloning a drive. Hence
> the only requirement for the partition storing the image is that it is
> large enough to store the image.
>
> So, for example, if you're creating an image backup of a C: partition,
> with 20 GB of stuff in it, it would require something less than 20 GB to
> store the backup image (since there is some compression). (But if you
> really want to use CLONING instead, that's a different story). Either
> way works.
>

On 6/7/2011 1:11 AM, Heather wrote:
> I have been running a dual-boot (Win98 / XP) system ever since
> a couple of programs I needed to use were only compatible with
> Win98. Now I don't need these programs any longer, while at the
> same time I was going to upgrade to a newer machine, so I was
> wondering if anyone else has been using a dual-boot "XP/XP"
> configuration?
> The reason I'm considering another dual-boot system is that it
> was easy to clone the XP partitions with Win98, to make a spare
> HDD in case of a crash, rather than using a program like Acronis,
> which forces specific partition sizes and requires the target HDD
> to be of equal or larger size than the source HDD.
>
> Whenever I had a HDD crash in the past, it always affected the
> C-partition only, so by keeping my data on other partitions, I have
> been fortunate so far to never losing any. With this in mind, I was
> going to set up the main XP OS again on the D-drive (data on drive E,
> etc), while the C-drive would just occupy an unused 2nd XP system
> whose only purpose would be to allow me to clone (or delete) material
> on my main system which couldn't be done while in use. -H.

Sure, that is simple as pie. Just install Windows XP on the first
partition and then install it again on the second partition, that is all
there is to it. You can install it to as many partitions as you want on
the same disk, you can even install it on logical drives if you want,
only the system files (ntldr, NTDETECT.COM & boot.ini) need to be on the
primary active partition, the rest can be installed wherever you want as
often as you want, it is only limited to the size of the disk and the
number of available partitions. BUT.... keep this in mind, you will
only be able to activate ONE of the installations!

So, how do you go about using a second installation when you can only
activate one? The easiest way is to clone your Windows installation to
a second hard disk. If you insist on doing this with one disk only you
can clone one installation to a second partition, it takes a few extra
steps but that isn't that big a deal. You can go about it this way:

1- Install and activate your first copy of Windows XP on the primary
active partition, we will consider this partition to be your C: drive.

2- Use your cloning software and clone the Windows installation on C:
to your second partition, we will assume the second partition to be D:,
your C: drive will remain the primary active partition, the Windows
installations will be booting using the ntldr, NTDETECT.COM & boot.ini
files on the C: drive.

3- Edit the boot.ini file on C: and add a second line where the ARC
path points to the second (cloned) installation on the D: drive,
typically the edited boot.ini file will look like this:

===================================================================
[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP
Professional" /fastdetect
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP
Professional" /fastdetect

====================================================================

Note that partition enumerations start at number 1, there is no such
thing as partition 0, the second "multi(0)..." line (the ARC path) in
the boot.ini file instructs ntldr to load the Windows installation
located in the WINDOWS folder on the second partition. The stuff
between the "quotation marks" is just descriptive text for human eyes,
you can enter whatever you want there, for example:

multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows XP on Partition 1"
/fastdetect
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS="Windows XP on Partition 2"
/fastdetect


4- Edit the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\MountedDevices\DosDevices\D:
value on the SECOND (drive D installation and change the the value to
\DosDevices\C: To do this will will first have to release the C: drive
letter to make it available, do it this way:

Remember, this is done on the registry on the SECOND installation:

1- Rename \DosDevices\C: to \DosDevices\X:, this will free up drive
letter C.
2- Rename \DosDevices\D: to \DosDevices\C:
3- Rename \DosDevices\X: (from step 1) to \DosDevices\D:

You can remotely edit the registry on the second while logged on to the
first installation, you can use Regedit to load the SYSTEM hive of the
second installation, see here for easy to follow instructions:
http://www.rwin.ch/xp-live/regedit.htm Don't forget to unload the hive
when you are done or else the changes will not be saved.

And that is it. When you boot the computer you will be presented with
two boot options, you just have to select the installation that you want
to boot and away you go. The drive letter assignments on Windows XP are
recorded in the Mount Manager database
(HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\MountedDevices) and are persistent:

- When you boot the Windows installation on partition 1:
The first partition will be assigned drive letter C:
The second partition will be assigned drive letter D:

- When you boot the Windows installation on partition 2 the Windows
installation will retain its drive C: letter assignment:
The first partition will be assigned drive letter D:
The second partition will be assigned drive letter C:

After all of this is said and done do I think that this is a good
recovery strategy? No, not at all! If you really want to use a "2
Windows installation" setup you really should use TWO hard disks! Your
comment that "Whenever I had a HDD crash in the past, it always affected
the C-partition only, so by keeping my data on other partitions, I have
been fortunate so far to never losing any..." is nothing but pure luck,
this is a very poor backup and recovery strategy! You are tempting fate
and sooner or later your luck will run out and this strategy will leave
you up the creek without a paddle. Get yourself a second hard disk for
your backups, you can use an external USB or eSata disk for this (eSata
is faster than USB). As for "cloning" this is ok but it's usually used
when you replace failing drives rather than a backup, images use less
space and they can quickly be restored in emergency situations, I like
TeraByte's Image for Windows, it's a small and clean imaging utility and
it works like a charm, you can get it here:
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/image-for-windows.htm

John

I guess I wasn't clear enough on my intentions.
(Tim, I wanted to copy the exact same configuration - NOT switch drives).

The only reason for a dual-boot was to be able to make an exact SPARE
2nd copy of my existing HDD without using Acronis, because the cloning
software won't let me choose the size of the drive and partitions
(I have made clones with Acronis before but didn't like that I could not
choose the configuration myself).

Right now, I can use Win98 (C-drive) and xcopy the entire HDD,
containing Win98, XP and the data on the other partitions to another
HDD as an exact clone. If the present HDD dies, I just swap the drives
and continue with the cloned HDD.

I was intending to do the exact same thing with the next computer,
except that instead of using Win98 as the copying tool, I thought of
using a 2nd XP OS instead.

From the reply by "John John MVP" -- the only potential problem then
is activation of the second XP installation. Not disputing this, but it
does sound odd that using the same computer, activation wouldn't go
through? But then, that is why I posted here to see if anyone else has
done this before.

This, was more or less, what I was saying - and that, conversely, it's also
true that if you can clone the partitions to another, physical, HDD, then
everything's sweet - it's when you only have *one* HDD and two partitions;
each with XP on it.

So, you can't then copy one partition onto another, without ruining the
dual-boot capability.

So, I got it wrong, when I thought that was what you wanted to do. For
this, I do apologize.

But I think we're both on the same page, and my little diagramette on my
previous post still holds true ;


copy partitions as follows ;

you may clone : [drive 0 partition 0] onto : [drive 1 partition 0]
you may clone : [drive 0 partition 1] onto : [drive 1 partition 1]

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)



"Heather" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:islgha$nmd$(E-Mail Removed)...
>I guess I wasn't clear enough on my intentions.
> (Tim, I wanted to copy the exact same configuration - NOT switch drives).
>
>
> < cliped >
>

On 6/7/2011 1:45 PM, Tim Meddick wrote:

> So, you can't then copy one partition onto another, without ruining the
> dual-boot capability.

Of course you can and you will still be able to dual boot between the
different installations.

John

On 6/7/2011 12:40 PM, Heather wrote:
> I guess I wasn't clear enough on my intentions.
> (Tim, I wanted to copy the exact same configuration - NOT switch drives).
>
> The only reason for a dual-boot was to be able to make an exact SPARE
> 2nd copy of my existing HDD without using Acronis, because the cloning
> software won't let me choose the size of the drive and partitions
> (I have made clones with Acronis before but didn't like that I could not
> choose the configuration myself).
>
> Right now, I can use Win98 (C-drive) and xcopy the entire HDD,
> containing Win98, XP and the data on the other partitions to another
> HDD as an exact clone. If the present HDD dies, I just swap the drives
> and continue with the cloned HDD.
>
> I was intending to do the exact same thing with the next computer,
> except that instead of using Win98 as the copying tool, I thought of
> using a 2nd XP OS instead.
>
> From the reply by "John John MVP" -- the only potential problem then
> is activation of the second XP installation. Not disputing this, but it
> does sound odd that using the same computer, activation wouldn't go
> through? But then, that is why I posted here to see if anyone else has
> done this before.

The EULA states that you can only activate (use) ONE copy of Windows XP
on one machine at any given time, you are not allowed to have TWO or
more copies of the software installed at any given time even if the
copies are on the same computer. According to the terms of the EULA you
are not even allowed to run another copy inside a virtual machine on
your already existing installation.

To me you are over-complicating things, if Acronis doesn't work properly
for you just dump it and get something else that does the job properly.
For what you want to do I would recommend that you give Casper a try:
http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/ I think this will do exactly what
you want to do with the least amount of fuss and complications, this is
a TWO hard disk solution and you will be able to do exact clones of your
installation without having to boot on to a different installation. I
still think that you should create an image of your base installation,
regularly cloning the installation is fine but if the installation
develops an unseen or unnoticed problem you might be cloning the problem
into your backups and the backup may be useless at a later point. An
image of a pristine new installation is always a good thing to have on
hand when the Windows installation develops problems.

John

Great feedback -- thanks everyone !!

On 6/7/2011 3:58 PM, Bill in Co wrote:

> I still don't see the great advantage of cloning over imaging here, UNLESS
> she (or anyone) insists on being able to swap drives for backup, if the need
> arises.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, regular cloning can serve as a quasi
redundancy solution (RAID-1 mirror being the ultimate redundancy
solution). With regular cloning if the main drive develops problems one
can easily switch to the cloned drive with the least amount of down
time. With a RAID-1 mirror of course if one drive fails the computer
just keeps on working with the mirror without even as much as a reboot!
With hot swappable drives a failed RAID drive can be removed and the
mirror can be rebuilt without bringing down the computer, this is really
only good for redundancy and usually only used on servers and on mission
critical workstations. The problem with these things is that they are
not really backups, if you bork a Windows installation on a RAID-1
machine then the mirror is also borked! The same thing also applies to
cloning, if you get an undetected virus or rootkit, or if you
unknowingly delete important files and then clone the drive you are
carrying the old baggage along with the clone. If one week later you
find out that files are missing or that the security of the machine is
compromised beyond trust then the clone is no better than the
installation from which it was made. And, as you mentioned, compared to
images clones take a lot of disk space, you can't easily keep many
clones without investing into extra storage capacity.

I think that the best solution is to do a nice, clean, fully updated
Windows installation and to then make an image of the installation and
store it in a safe place. You can then take regular updated images of
your installation or rely on clones but you still have the clean image
that you can use when things go really wrong. I also don't like the
idea of relying on clones or system images for my personal data backups,
I do take images of my whole drives, including my data, but for peace of
mind I also backup my data files separately.

John