Creating Multi-Boot system against microsoft advisement

[Timothy Daniels]

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

What "methods" of Win98 will WinXP "not tolerate"?

Keep in mind that Microsoft claims that Win98 can be
multi-booted by WinXP. Since WinXP uses ntldr under
direction of option entries in boot.ini to load WinXP, ntldr
must do something similar when loading Win98. Does it
load Win98 directly as it does with WinXP? Or knowing that
the OS is to be Win98, does ntldr pass control to a Win98
boot sector which then in turn loads Win98? IOW, does
ntldr simulate the Win98 MBR and thereby tell Windows 4.x
loaders to do the loading instead of doing the loading itself?

But whichever method is used to load Win98 under the
multi-boot manager of WinXP, where does the NTFS/FAT32
conflict arise? That conflict, apparently, is the root of the
problem, and as long as that is not clarified, Kartinsky's
question has not been answered.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

I never said there was a conflict with the file systems.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I assume that by "it's boot files" you refer to Win98 (because I've
not heard of those files in connection with WinXP).

Yes, that's clearly what I said. No need to assume anything.

Why must they
be on the "active" partition of a hard drive?

Because that is howe the OS is designed, coded, and intended to work.

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"?

Same as above. Because that's the way it's meant to work.

Does ntldr load Win98 differently
from WinNT/2K/XP?

Well, of course it does. How could it not? During the installation of
WinXP, Win98's boot files are combined into BootSec.dos.

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).

Correct. This is called the System partition.

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?

You can't very well install Win98's boot file on an NTFS partition.
Howe many times does this need to be repeated?

--

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

 

[Guest]

This is taken from the Acronis Disk Director Suite manual:
1.. 8.2 Installing several Windows copies to a single PC
8.2.1 General information Any Windows operating system consists of two parts, bootable and main.

Windows 95/98/Me has the MS-DOS 7.0, 7.1, 8.0 operating system, respectively, as bootable, while Windows NT/2000/XP has NTLDR OS core loader (that is also a simple boot manager) that requires BOOT.INI configuration file NTDETECT.COM initial hardware detector (for more details see Appendix B «Particularities of Operating System Function».

The main part of Windows OS is located in Windows (or WINNT), Program Files, Documents and settings system folders that might be stored on any hard disk partition and even disk, while the bootable part is required to be located on the first hard disk primary partition.



The disk has to be the first, according to BIOS. This may vary from the enumeration several operating systems provide. If there are several disks in the PC, you can see their enumeration in the partition list in the Acronis Disk Director Suite main window. The disk number will be provided in the WinNT4/2000/XP Number column (to make it visible, right-click on column header line and check it.) The first disk in the system is numbered 0.





Due to these bootable part location limitations, you can avoid problems with Windows only if you follow the installation order, according to which, older operating systems are to be installed first:

Windows 95 􀃆 Windows NT 4.0 􀃆 Windows 95 OSR2 􀃆 Windows 98 􀃆 Windows Me 􀃆 Windows 2000 􀃆 Windows XP.

This operating system installation order solves boot problems. Otherwise, boot files of a newer OS will be damaged by those of an older version of Windows that knows nothing of its subsequent versions.

Acronis OS Selector breaks this limitation and eliminates the need to worry about Windows installation order.



--
Just my 2¢ worth,
Jeff
__________In response to__________

| Timothy Daniels wrote:
|
| >
| >
| >
| > I assume that by "it's boot files" you refer to Win98 (because I've
| > not heard of those files in connection with WinXP).
|
|
| Yes, that's clearly what I said. No need to assume anything.
|
| > Why must they
| > be on the "active" partition of a hard drive?
|
|
| Because that is howe the OS is designed, coded, and intended to work.
|
|
| > 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"?
|
|
| Same as above. Because that's the way it's meant to work.
|
|
|
|
| > Does ntldr load Win98 differently
| > from WinNT/2K/XP?
|
|
| Well, of course it does. How could it not? During the installation of
| WinXP, Win98's boot files are combined into BootSec.dos.
|
|
|
| >
| > 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).
|
|
| Correct. This is called the System partition.
|
|
| > 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?
| >
|
| You can't very well install Win98's boot file on an NTFS partition.
| Howe many times does this need to be repeated?
|
| --
|
| 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]

I never said there was a conflict with the file systems.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)

What "methods" of Win98 will WinXP "not tolerate"?

Keep in mind that Microsoft claims that Win98 can be
multi-booted by WinXP. Since WinXP uses ntldr under
direction of option entries in boot.ini to load WinXP, ntldr
must do something similar when loading Win98. Does it
load Win98 directly as it does with WinXP? Or knowing that
the OS is to be Win98, does ntldr pass control to a Win98
boot sector which then in turn loads Win98? IOW, does
ntldr simulate the Win98 MBR and thereby tell Windows 4.x
loaders to do the loading instead of doing the loading itself?

But whichever method is used to load Win98 under the
multi-boot manager of WinXP, where does the NTFS/FAT32
conflict arise? That conflict, apparently, is the root of the
problem, and as long as that is not clarified, Kartinsky's
question has not been answered.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

I never said there was a conflict with the file systems.

OK, that's Bruce's explanation. You wrote:
"XP is not descended from Win9x and does not tolerate the Win98
methods."

So what "methods" of Win98 will WinXP "not tolerate", and why
would they require Win98 to be loaded from an "active" partition,
keeping in mind that WinXP *can* multi-boot Win98?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Yes, that's clearly what I said. No need to assume anything.

Not at all. You wrote:
"To use WinXP's built-in boot process, regardless of on which
partition the bulk of Win98 resides, it's boot files .....". The
subject of the sentence was WinXP, the subject of the clause
that began with "regardless" was Win98. So, in fact, "it's"
referred to WinXP. So not knowing if what you wrote was
what you meant, I had to make an assumption.

Because that is howe the OS is designed, coded, and intended to work.

Really? How does a WinXP installation multi-boot Win98 if
WinXP is on the hard drive's sole "active" partition, then?

Same as above. Because that's the way it's meant to work.

Same as above. Your "explanation" would have *two* "active"
partitions on a single hard drive if the Win98 were on the same
hard drive as the multi-booting WinXP.

Well, of course it does. How could it not? During the installation
of WinXP, Win98's boot files are combined into BootSec.dos.

And *what* is BootSec.dos - what does it do, and where does
it reside?

Correct. This is called the System partition.



You can't very well install Win98's boot file on an NTFS partition.
Howe many times does this need to be repeated?

What you wrote was:
"If the OP expects Win98 to boot, that partition must be FAT32,
because Win98 cannot access an NTFS partition."

That is not the same as saying:
"You can't very well install Win98's boot file on an NTFS partition."

And the implication that Win98's "boot file" (whatever that is)
must be on an NTFS partition has not yet been made. Would you
care to say which file is Win98's "boot file" and why it would have to
be on an NTFS partition in order to boot?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Not at all. You wrote:
"To use WinXP's built-in boot process, regardless of on which
partition the bulk of Win98 resides, it's boot files .....". The
subject of the sentence was WinXP,

No, the subject of the sentence and the entire conversation is adding
Win98 to an existing WinXP installation. So what other boot files would
I possibly be talking about?

Really?

Yes, really.

How does a WinXP installation multi-boot Win98 if
WinXP is on the hard drive's sole "active" partition, then?

It won't until the Win98 boot files are adeed and the WinXP system
files subsequently repaired.

Same as above. Your "explanation" would have *two* "active"
partitions on a single hard drive if the Win98 were on the same
hard drive as the multi-booting WinXP.

No, it wouldn't. There cannot be two Active primary partitions.

And *what* is BootSec.dos - what does it do, and where does
it reside?

It resides on the Primary Active partition (C: drive) and is used by
WinXP's NTLDR to start the DOS session required for Win98.

What you wrote was:
"If the OP expects Win98 to boot, that partition must be FAT32,
because Win98 cannot access an NTFS partition."

That is not the same as saying:
"You can't very well install Win98's boot file on an NTFS partition."

And the implication that Win98's "boot file" (whatever that is)
must be on an NTFS partition has not yet been made. Would you
care to say which file is Win98's "boot file" and why it would have to
be on an NTFS partition in order to boot?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

--

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]

No, the subject of the sentence and the entire conversation is
adding Win98 to an existing WinXP installation. So what other
boot files would I possibly be talking about?

There are "boot files" for WinXP, and "boot files" for Win98.
For WinXP's boot manager to invoke Win98, there may be
"boot files" of both OSes that come into play. Or not. So far,
you haven't explained how either of them come into play.
Or not. Or even what you mean by "boot files".

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

It won't until the Win98 boot files are adeed and the WinXP
system files subsequently repaired.

To what are Win98's boot files adeed?
Why do WinXP's system files need repairing?

You've stated that Win98's "boot files" must be on the
active primary partition. Since WinXP's "boot files"
(if by "boot files" you mean boot.ini, ntdetect.com,
ntldr, et.al.) must also be on an active primary partition
in order for them to be invoked by the MBR (via the
primary partition's boot sector), I am guessing that
this conflict in the implied requirement for TWO
active primary partitions is resolved by the
INCORPORATION of Win98's "boot files" into the
"boot files" of WinXP so that WinXP's "boot files" can
thereby load Win98 and there need then be only
ONE active primary partition - the one containing
WinXP's "boot files". It *that* correct?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

It resides on the Primary Active partition (C: drive) and is used by
WinXP's NTLDR to start the DOS session required for Win98.

The *system* partition (containing what I think you mean by
the "boot files") needn't be on the C: Local Disk. The *OS,*
loaded from the boot partition, is usually on the C: Local Disk.
And the two partitions (called "Local Disks" by Disk Management)
needn't be the same partition (at least not for WinXP). So by
saying that BootSec.dos resides on the "C: drive" (i.e. C: Local Disk)
doesn't specify much. But even assuming that you mean the
*boot* partition (i.e. where the OS is), it's not clear whether you
mean the partition containing the WinXP operating system or the
Win98 operating system. Put another way, although ntldr *uses*
BootSec.dos, where *is* BootSec.dos, and is BootSec.dos a
legacy utility from the Win98 family or the WinXP family of OSes?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No, I wouldn't waste the time. I am trying to understand
the basis of your belief that even with some editing, Win98
can't be installed after WinXP has been installed. So far,
you've only hand-waved.

*TimDaniels*