multiple XP's not completely separated ?

[Hildegard]

This happend so far:
bought a new PC with Windows XP Media Center Edition.
Installed Partition Magic 8.1
Copied the XP partition (lets call it PROD) to create a 'test'
partition (lets call it TEST)
Created Fat partition for BootMagic
Created Extented Partition for logical partitions
Installed some application programs on PROD
Installed some application programs on TEST
Now, after installing another program on TEST, the connection
to the internet didn't work anymore. So I booted PROD.
Surprise: also no connection to the internet !
Checked the device manager and found identical conflicts for the network
interface on *both* partitions !
Removed the last installed program on TEST.
Internet works on TEST again and on PROD.
What might be the reason for this behaviour ?

 

[Guest]

Why did you do all that,microsoft says that running two copys of x
will create a conflict in more than one area.Installing 2 on seperate hd
works ok,but on the same drive ? "The webs we weave"

 

[Hildegard]

Where is this restriction documented ?
Why shouldn't two XP's work on the same HD ?

 

[Guest]

Why shouldn't two XP's work on the same HD ?

Do you mean that you have to install XP on hard disk 1 (master IDE) and install XP on hard disk 2 (slave IDE)?
Is this correct?
How can I choose which XP will be started??

Toone

----- Hildegard wrote: -----

Where is this restriction documented ?
Why shouldn't two XP's work on the same HD ?

 

[Hildegard]

I think two XP's on one HD should work. The question is how is it possible
that in the setup I described, the two XP's seem not to be totally
independent. It seems as if the two registries populate each other.
How is this possible ?

Why shouldn't two XP's work on the same HD ?

Do you mean that you have to install XP on hard disk 1 (master IDE) and

install XP on hard disk 2 (slave IDE)?

 

[I'm Dan]

I think two XP's on one HD should work. The question is
how is it possible that in the setup I described, the two XP's
seem not to be totally independent. It seems as if the two
registries populate each other. How is this possible ?

Not just "should work", it definitely does work. I currently have two XP's
on this single-HD machine (as well as two 98's, a 2K, and linux). As for
the registry conflicts, that's perhaps more common than you might think.
Your symptoms are not quite what I would have expected, but I think
regenerating your partition signature table might do the trick, as I
described in my other post.

The problems stem from the fact that in some places XP references file
locations by partition signature and in other places by drive letter. When
these fail to track each other correctly, you can end up with a
schizophrenic operating system. Cloned systems are the most vulnerable to
this, where you're moving one OS intact to another partition. When cloning
from one HD to another, it's wise to remove the original HD when the clone
is first booted. That way, the clone doesn't get confused by seeing the
original partition still there. When cloning from one partition to another
in the same HD, though, it's difficult to remove the original partition
while the clone is being booted for the first time. (Tech note: actually,
some boot managers such as BootIt NG can achieve that effect.)

 

[Hildegard]

Hello Dan, do you propose that one should change from Bootmagic to
BootIt NG in an cloned XP-environment ?

 

[I'm Dan]

BootMagic is okay for what you're doing. As far as you are into this, I
wouldn't toss out BM yet, but if you were starting over from scratch, then
yes, BootIt NG (BING) would be preferable. BING is a better boot manager -
much more versatile and practically bulletproof - but all that versatility
comes with a bit of a learning curve. The interface is bit quirky and
documentation leaves something to be desired. But online support is good
and you'll find lots of avid supporters here in the ng's. Once you figure
it out, it's a great tool, but don't switch thinking it's going to magically
fix the problem you're having. The price is a bargain for a boot manager,
partitioner, and imager all rolled into one . . . but you already have a
boot manager (BootMagic - not great, but adequate for your purpose) and a
partitioner (PartitionMagic), so that makes BING's price a little less
attractive (though still good even if you only need the imaging part of it -
cheaper than DriveImage or Ghost).