Creating Multi-Boot system against microsoft advisement

[Guest]

I'm planning on using a windows 98 impovered (no ram drive) startup disk to
install windows 98 on a 5 gigabyte clean logical partition formated to FAT32
while having an active existing WinXP on another partition. Afterwards using
the WinXP cd-boot recovery console's 'fixboot' and 'bootcfg' to repair the
XP's boot instructions and implement Win98 as a multi-boot option. Do you
believe this should work?

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

How do I install Windows 98/Me after I've installed XP?
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/tips/xp_repair_9x.htm

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.mspx

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| I'm planning on using a windows 98 impovered (no ram drive) startup disk to
| install windows 98 on a 5 gigabyte clean logical partition formated to FAT32
| while having an active existing WinXP on another partition. Afterwards using
| the WinXP cd-boot recovery console's 'fixboot' and 'bootcfg' to repair the
| XP's boot instructions and implement Win98 as a multi-boot option. Do you
| believe this should work?

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Have you considered using Virtual PC 2004
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/default.mspx?

Then you don't have to reboot and you can run Win98 and XP at the same time.
Also, if you have more than 512mb of ram, Win98 will have problems in a
multiboot scenario. VPC allows you to set the amount of system ram Win98
will use.

VPC offers the advantage of also letting you run any of hundreds of other
operating systems without reboots or partitioning. See:
http://vpc.visualwin.com/

 

[Guest]

As far as i understand, that doesn't apply to me since my WinXP drive is F:
and is NTFS. Now i suppose i could tweak the procedure proposed, but the
author is so dedicated to it being applied only in drive C: circumstances
that it leads me to believe there are reasons it's untweakable.

I think my option is valid, but i might be missing something, and am open to
criticism.

 

[Guest]

I'm not familiar with virtual pc, but i assume it emulates an environment
(perhaps i'm wrong, i'll read up on it), where as i need an actual win98
environment for running XP and 2000 incompatible programs not working under
compatibility modes.

What i'd most like to hear is if whether my original multi-boot solution is
wrong, and if so why.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I'm planning on using a windows 98 impovered (no ram drive) startup disk to
install windows 98 on a 5 gigabyte clean logical partition formated to FAT32
while having an active existing WinXP on another partition. Afterwards using
the WinXP cd-boot recovery console's 'fixboot' and 'bootcfg' to repair the
XP's boot instructions and implement Win98 as a multi-boot option. Do you
believe this should work?

Only if the Primary Active partition (the C:\ drive) is also formatted
in FAT32.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

VPC is not an emulator. It virtualizes. Win98 runs in its own virtual
computer and is a full blown computer in which you install Win98 just as you
would on any other computer. I have 30+ virtual computers that I can run at
will. I have all the flavors of Windows, including a couple of servers, and
sever Linux machines that run on my XP desktop. The hard drive requirements
are much less than in a multiboot scenario and because I have more than
512mb of ram I can run the Win9x/ME systems even though they would not work
if I multibooted.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Only if the Primary Active partition (the C:\ drive) is also formatted
in FAT32.

Presumably, WinXP and its boot files (boot.ini, ntldr, ntdetect.com)
are on a primary partition that is marked "active". This would
allow WinXP's ntldr to load either WinXP from its own partition or
Win98 from either another primary partition or a logical partition.

Are you then saying that WinXP's partition must also be formatted
FAT32 because Win98's partition is to be formatted FAT32?

Why?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

VPC is not an emulator. It virtualizes. Win98 runs in its own virtual
computer and is a full blown computer in which you install Win98
just as you would on any other computer. I have 30+ virtual computers
that I can run at will. I have all the flavors of Windows, including a
couple of servers, and sever Linux machines that run on my XP
desktop. The hard drive requirements are much less than in a
multiboot scenario and because I have more than 512mb of ram
I can run the Win9x/ME systems even though they would not work
if I multibooted.

Is one primary partition required for each virtual computer?

Does Virtual PC require its own primary partition?

Does using Virtual PC require less RAM and hard drive
resources than does XOSL?

How much does Virtual PC cost (if it does cost)?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

No partitioning is required for the virtual computers. The host sees the
virtual harddrive as a data file.

Virtual PC is an application like Office. It requires no partitions.

I am not familiar with XOSL, but the ram requirement is what the host OS
needs plus ram allocated to any guests running. Each guest is allocated the
amount of system ram you specify (but only when the guest is running).

Depends on where you buy it. It is a Microsoft product. On the web prices
are ranging between $110 and $130. You can download a 45-day evaluation
copy from Microsoft.

Please see: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/default.mspx for
details, ram requirements, and trial copy.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Further note: XOSL is a boot loader. Virtual PC 2004 is not a boot loader.
It virtualizes computers on your XP desktop. The whole idea behind VPC is
to leave reboots and partitions behind. It runs as an application and
manages virtual computers which run just like applications on your desktop.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

No partitioning is required for the virtual computers. The host
sees the virtual harddrive as a data file.

Virtual PC is an application like Office. It requires no partitions.

Do you notice a slowdown of guest OS function when running
on Virtual PC as opposed to running on silicon?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Depends on the hardware on the host and how the priorities are set for the
virtual machine. VPC virtualizes the processor rather than emulates one, so
on my 2.8Ghz P4 Northwood I get excellent results. I can't tell too much
difference between the responsiveness of the host and the guest, both
running XP. When I run Win95 or Win98 I get far better performance than the
hardware I abandoned once VPC was introduced. Installations are slower in
VPC than on native hardware when using expanding virtual disks, but with
fixed disks it is about the same.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Presumably, WinXP and its boot files (boot.ini, ntldr, ntdetect.com)
are on a primary partition that is marked "active". This would
allow WinXP's ntldr to load either WinXP from its own partition or
Win98 from either another primary partition or a logical partition.

Are you then saying that WinXP's partition must also be formatted
FAT32 because Win98's partition is to be formatted FAT32?

Why?

There can be only one *Active* Primary partition. If the OP expects
Win98 to boot, that partition must be FAT32, because Win98 cannot access
an NTFS partition.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Timothy Daniels]

There can be only one *Active* Primary partition. If the OP expects
Win98 to boot, that partition must be FAT32, because Win98 cannot
access an NTFS partition.

Question #1:
The orig. poster wanted to use WinXP's multi-boot feature to select
and load Win98 as an option. That means Win98 would be loaded
with an ntldr that is resident on WinXP's NTFS partition. Does your
comment stem from ntldr on an NTFS partition not being able to
access the FAT32 files on which the Win98 resides?

Question #2:
Or is your comment based on the belief that the WinXP and Win98
OSes will reside on the same partition but in different folders? I ask
because I don't see why you even mention "'active' primary partition".
That the "active" primary partition is the partition containing WinXP
and its boot files seems irrelevant to the FAT32/NTFS conflict - if there
is one. So why the reference to "'active' primary partition"?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Question #1:
The orig. poster wanted to use WinXP's multi-boot feature to select
and load Win98 as an option. That means Win98 would be loaded
with an ntldr that is resident on WinXP's NTFS partition. Does your
comment stem from ntldr on an NTFS partition not being able to
access the FAT32 files on which the Win98 resides?

To use WinXP's built-in boot process, regardless of on which partition
the bulk of Win98 resides, it's boot files (Command.com, MSDOS.SYS,
IO.SYS, etc.) *must* be placed on the Primary *Active* partition. This
cannot happen while that Primary Active partition is NTFS.

Question #2:
Or is your comment based on the belief that the WinXP and Win98
OSes will reside on the same partition but in different folders?

No, not at all.

I ask
because I don't see why you even mention "'active' primary partition".
That the "active" primary partition is the partition containing WinXP
and its boot files seems irrelevant to the FAT32/NTFS conflict - if
there
is one. So why the reference to "'active' primary partition"?

Because an "Active" partition is the only one that is "bootable." It's
possible to have up to 4 primary partitions on a single physical hard
drive, only one of them can be marked as "Active," and therefore
bootable, at any given time.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Timothy Daniels]

To use WinXP's built-in boot process, regardless of on which partition
the bulk of Win98 resides, it's boot files (Command.com, MSDOS.SYS,
IO.SYS, etc.) *must* be placed on the Primary *Active* partition. This
cannot happen while that Primary Active partition is NTFS.

I assume that by "it's boot files" you refer to Win98 (because I've
not heard of those files in connection with WinXP). Why must they
be on the "active" partition of a hard drive? IOW, why does ntldr
need to load Win98 from an "active" partition when it can load
WinNT, Win2K, and WinXP from *any* kind of partition - logical or
primary, "active" or not "active"? Does ntldr load Win98 differently
from WinNT/2K/XP? Perhaps it passes control to a boot sector
for Win98 instead of directly loading the OS?

Because an "Active" partition is the only one that is "bootable." It's
possible to have up to 4 primary partitions on a single physical hard
drive, only one of them can be marked as "Active," and therefore
bootable, at any given time.

As far as WinXP and its family of OSes is concerned, the "active"
partition is one with a boot sector and the boot files boot.ini, ntldr,
ntdetect.com, (and sometimes others). But this partition need NOT
be the partition that contains the OS that ntldr will load and start.
If by "bootable" you mean the boot-strap startup and load process
that leads to the running of ntldr, the "active" partition is the
"bootable" partition, but it need not be the partition that contains
the operating system that gets loaded by ntldr. So which partition's
formatting leads to the conflict - that of the "active" partition, or that
of the running operating system?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Because Windows 4.x (Win9x/ME) simply is not Windows 5.x (W2K, XP, 2003).

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Because Windows 4.x (Win9x/ME) simply is not
Windows 5.x (W2K, XP, 2003).

What is that statement an answer to?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

The use of methods that worked on Win98. XP is not descended from Win9x and
does not tolerate the Win98 methods.