using an old OS on XP

[Bill Cunningham]

I know this is about XP and I have XP x64 Pro edition. I would like to
create a small partition to install win98se onto for fun and nostalgia

But when I put that old disk into my XP's DVD-RW I can't do anything
with it. Does anyone know anything about this kind of thing? I how this is
on topic.

Thanks

Bill

 

[BillW50]

I know this is about XP and I have XP x64 Pro edition. I would like to
create a small partition to install win98se onto for fun and nostalgia

But when I put that old disk into my XP's DVD-RW I can't do anything
with it. Does anyone know anything about this kind of thing? I how this is
on topic.

Thanks

Hi Bill, Windows 98SE needs a FAT partition I believe. Did you set up a
FAT partition for it? It might also need that partition being within the
first 120GB of the drive. Setting up dualboot is indeed possible, but
the installer will likely setup it up all wrong if you install an older
Windows version last. But it is indeed fixable.

 

[Bill Cunningham]

Hi Bill, Windows 98SE needs a FAT partition I believe. Did you set up a
FAT partition for it? It might also need that partition being within the
first 120GB of the drive. Setting up dualboot is indeed possible, but the
installer will likely setup it up all wrong if you install an older
Windows version last. But it is indeed fixable.

The thing is installing XP as a fresh install will absolutely not let me
format c: with FAT32. It will only let me format with NTFS. I have another
partinio that is FAT32. I don't know what MS has against fat32 now, ntfs is
fine but I like fat32 too. And it's more universal. Which OS has to be
installed first? I can't reformat a mounted partition either of course.

Bill

 

[BillW50]

The thing is installing XP as a fresh install will absolutely not let me
format c: with FAT32. It will only let me format with NTFS. I have another
partinio that is FAT32. I don't know what MS has against fat32 now, ntfs is
fine but I like fat32 too. And it's more universal. Which OS has to be
installed first? I can't reformat a mounted partition either of course.

XP install should let you use either FAT or NTFS as long as the
partition is 32GB or smaller if I recall correctly. Any larger and it
will only install using NTFS. There are utilities that will convert from
NTFS to FAT32 anyway, so no big deal. And if you install Windows 98SE
first, dualboot should work just fine.

 

[Jon Danniken]

I know this is about XP and I have XP x64 Pro edition. I would like to
create a small partition to install win98se onto for fun and nostalgia

But when I put that old disk into my XP's DVD-RW I can't do anything
with it. Does anyone know anything about this kind of thing? I how this is
on topic.

If it was me, I would install VirtualBox and install it in there. It's
a great place to test all types of different operating systems, from
Windows to Linux, and even Macintosh.

Jon

 

[Bill Cunningham]

XP install should let you use either FAT or NTFS as long as the partition
is 32GB or smaller if I recall correctly. Any larger and it will only
install using NTFS. There are utilities that will convert from NTFS to
FAT32 anyway, so no big deal. And if you install Windows 98SE first,
dualboot should work just fine.

Humm. I have one partiion about 200GB. Maybe that's it then. And does
this 32G or less partition have to be at the beginning on the drive? Or can
it be the 2nd or 3rd primary partition?

Bill

 

[Bill Cunningham]

Hi Bill, Windows 98SE needs a FAT partition I believe. Did you set up a
FAT partition for it? It might also need that partition being within the
first 120GB of the drive. Setting up dualboot is indeed possible, but the
installer will likely setup it up all wrong if you install an older
Windows version last. But it is indeed fixable.

True But his pc to new a 64 bit os
and his Ram will be to Big too

But Windows 98 will run good on a
Microsoft Virtual PC 2007.

Too much memory? Do you mean win98se wouldn't be able to manage today's
memory? I agree. But it should work. And what's 64 bit processor registers
got to do with anything? It should still run.

Bill

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Humm. I have one partiion about 200GB. Maybe that's it then. And does
this 32G or less partition have to be at the beginning on the drive? Or can
it be the 2nd or 3rd primary partition?

The message you are replying to is *not* correct. XP cannot *create* a
FAT32 partition larger than 32GB. But it will happily use one if it
was created by other software.

 

[Paul]

The message you are replying to is *not* correct. XP cannot *create* a
FAT32 partition larger than 32GB. But it will happily use one if it
was created by other software.

What does "happily use" mean exactly ?

My WinXP sits on a 72GB FAT32 partition.

http://i59.tinypic.com/jayhp3.gif

I could make it bigger, but why bother ? You can
see it's only got 26GB on it right now.

If you want to make big FAT32, try this. Fat32formatter.

http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/index.htm?fat32format.htm

And that tool in fact, is exactly how an empty 72GB FAT32
partition was made, then files were Robocopied over.
Followed by a "fixboot" to restore the PBR. I could just
as easily have used Partition Magic.

Is FAT32 "efficient" on a 2TB partition ? Not really. But if you
want to run volumes a hair over 32GB, no problem with that.
You can see it works. With the 4GB individual file size limit
on FAT32, it doesn't make a lot of sense for me to store
everything on it. For example, my 30GB Virtual Machines have
to live on an NTFS data partition. I have a Ubuntu which is
that big.

I keep the OS portion small, so the backup takes ten minutes.

Paul

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

What does "happily use" mean exactly ?

Just a figure of speech. I mean that it has no problems using it.

 

[BillW50]

On 8/14/2014 9:25 AM, Paul wrote:
[...]

I keep the OS portion small, so the backup takes ten minutes.

I never understood why people can't backup just the OS regardless if it
lives on a separate partition or not. What kind of poor backup software
are people using that doesn't allow backing up by path(s)? I've been
backing up by paths since the 90's at least. There is no need to backup
by partition unless you are just not very bright and just don't know how
to do anything else.

 

[BillW50]

The message you are replying to is *not* correct. XP cannot *create* a
FAT32 partition larger than 32GB.

That is what I said.

But it will happily use one if it was created by other software.

But that wasn't Bill's question. Bill's question was XP install will
only allow formatting with NTFS. This is true if the partition is larger
than 32GB.

 

[BillW50]

Humm. I have one partiion about 200GB. Maybe that's it then. And does
this 32G or less partition have to be at the beginning on the drive? Or can
it be the 2nd or 3rd primary partition?

I believe early versions of XP might have problems with partitions
larger than 132GB (or was it 128GB?), but that problem disappears with a
hotfix quickly down the line.

Windows 98SE is stuck with only using the first 128GB of the drive. So
it must be within this first part and can't see further than this. I
believe there are hacks around this problem if you need more.

 

[BillW50]

On 8/14/2014 9:25 AM, Paul wrote:
[...]

I keep the OS portion small, so the backup takes ten minutes.

I never understood why people can't backup just the OS regardless if it
lives on a separate partition or not. What kind of poor backup software
are people using that doesn't allow backing up by path(s)? I've been
backing up by paths since the 90's at least. There is no need to backup
by partition unless you are just not very bright and just don't know how
to do anything else.

I think they are talking about being able to image your C: drive where
all of the hard to reconstruct structures are and using another drive
for "data" which is easily copied.

Yes I understand this. But it isn't necessary at all. Virtually all
backup software can backup by paths and you can create one backup for
boot/system and another one for data if you would prefer, even if
everything is on one partition.

My favorite method is a bit different, as I prefer to sync my data
instead of backing it up. And I prefer to clone my boot/system vs.
backing up. And I prefer to have everything on my drive C and I have no
problems separating boot/system and data on a single partition.

 

[Paul]

On 8/14/2014 9:25 AM, Paul wrote:
[...]
I keep the OS portion small, so the backup takes ten minutes.

I never understood why people can't backup just the OS regardless if it
lives on a separate partition or not. What kind of poor backup software
are people using that doesn't allow backing up by path(s)? I've been
backing up by paths since the 90's at least. There is no need to backup
by partition unless you are just not very bright and just don't know how
to do anything else.

I think they are talking about being able to image your C: drive where
all of the hard to reconstruct structures are and using another drive
for "data" which is easily copied.

Yes I understand this. But it isn't necessary at all. Virtually all
backup software can backup by paths and you can create one backup for
boot/system and another one for data if you would prefer, even if
everything is on one partition.

My favorite method is a bit different, as I prefer to sync my data
instead of backing it up. And I prefer to clone my boot/system vs.
backing up. And I prefer to have everything on my drive C and I have no
problems separating boot/system and data on a single partition.

It's a pushbutton backup strategy. Start it and walk away.

When I bought Retrospect, I spent two solid days scripting
the thing. In another case with Retrospect, I ended up
writing a fifteen page, step by step guide to using it,
so someone else would know how to use it. I was shocked
at the length of the procedure.

Compared to the 30 seconds I last spent to backup the WinXP drive.
Click the button and walk away (or, go to bed).

What prize do I win, if I'm more surgical in my approach ?
When the backup I made, doesn't happen to have the file
I need, what do I say then ? Better luck next time ?

The nickel and dime approach made sense, when we didn't
have big enough storage devices.

Paul

 

[Paul]

That is what I said.


But that wasn't Bill's question. Bill's question was XP install will
only allow formatting with NTFS. This is true if the partition is larger
than 32GB.

You have some options.

The naive user starts with a hard drive completely blank, no MBR, nothing.
Under those conditions, you accept whatever the installer CD
throws at you in terms of policy. You're not going to be all that
happy with the choices.

However, you also have the option of preparing a partition
in advance. The install can then be instructed to "eat its
vegetables", use the offered partition, don't format it or
attempt to format it. You can do that with later OSes,
like on Windows 7, force a one-partition install instead
of the default two-partition install. All by offering a
pre-formatted partition.

In the case of an OS like Debian, it gives you royal hell
to offer it a pre-defined partition setup. For that OS,
it "wants the whole damn drive" and out of frustration,
I generally just give it the whole drive. Because I've
got better things to do, figuring out the installer
with no web browser to consult. Windows installers
are a little more flexible, in that I usually get
what I'm after.

Just because they artificially cut off partition
size at 32GB for FAT32, doesn't mean that there aren't
ways available to do it.

Paul

 

[BillW50]

You have some options.

The naive user starts with a hard drive completely blank, no MBR, nothing.
Under those conditions, you accept whatever the installer CD
throws at you in terms of policy. You're not going to be all that
happy with the choices.

However, you also have the option of preparing a partition
in advance. The install can then be instructed to "eat its
vegetables", use the offered partition, don't format it or
attempt to format it. You can do that with later OSes,
like on Windows 7, force a one-partition install instead
of the default two-partition install. All by offering a
pre-formatted partition.

In the case of an OS like Debian, it gives you royal hell
to offer it a pre-defined partition setup. For that OS,
it "wants the whole damn drive" and out of frustration,
I generally just give it the whole drive. Because I've
got better things to do, figuring out the installer
with no web browser to consult. Windows installers
are a little more flexible, in that I usually get
what I'm after.

Just because they artificially cut off partition
size at 32GB for FAT32, doesn't mean that there aren't
ways available to do it.

Of course, there are always ways around the defaults. Nobody ever
questioned this at all.

 

[David Catterall]

Bill
That old School
Use This This

Virtual PC 2007
< http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=4580 >

It Supported your Operating System
Or
< https://www.virtualbox.org>

He's right, Bill.

I once tried to install W95 on to a FAT32 partition on a computer with XP
on it.

The machine jammed. Not because my installation was faulty, but because
the 2002 processor executed the 1995 code too quickly and caused, IIRC, a
division by zero error.

Good luck!

 

[BillW50]

On 8/14/2014 9:25 AM, Paul wrote:
[...]
I keep the OS portion small, so the backup takes ten minutes.

I never understood why people can't backup just the OS regardless if it
lives on a separate partition or not. What kind of poor backup software
are people using that doesn't allow backing up by path(s)? I've been
backing up by paths since the 90's at least. There is no need to backup
by partition unless you are just not very bright and just don't know
how
to do anything else.

I think they are talking about being able to image your C: drive where
all of the hard to reconstruct structures are and using another drive
for "data" which is easily copied.

Yes I understand this. But it isn't necessary at all. Virtually all
backup software can backup by paths and you can create one backup for
boot/system and another one for data if you would prefer, even if
everything is on one partition.

My favorite method is a bit different, as I prefer to sync my data
instead of backing it up. And I prefer to clone my boot/system vs.
backing up. And I prefer to have everything on my drive C and I have
no problems separating boot/system and data on a single partition.

It's a pushbutton backup strategy. Start it and walk away.

When I bought Retrospect, I spent two solid days scripting
the thing. In another case with Retrospect, I ended up
writing a fifteen page, step by step guide to using it,
so someone else would know how to use it. I was shocked
at the length of the procedure.

Compared to the 30 seconds I last spent to backup the WinXP drive.
Click the button and walk away (or, go to bed).

What prize do I win, if I'm more surgical in my approach ?
When the backup I made, doesn't happen to have the file
I need, what do I say then ? Better luck next time ?

The nickel and dime approach made sense, when we didn't
have big enough storage devices.

Yes but it isn't that difficult anymore. You just point and click the
folders the first time around and then save that profile. From there on,
you just run that one profile. Same idea as push button backup strategy.
It is really simple.

I find lots of problems with keeping boot/system and data on separate
partitions. One is somewhere down the line I always have to resize one
or more of them. Keeping both on the same partition solves this problem.
It doesn't matter if one grows larger or not.

Then there are other problems too. Like applications will store stuff in
the Program Folder, Documents and Settings, User, etc. folders. What do
you consider this stuff as? Some stuff could be considered as data,
configurations, profiles, accounts, updates, temp area, etc. And if you
create two partitions, this stuff could easily be spread between the
system and data partitions. This could cause problems down the line. Why
cause more headaches than you really need?

 

[BillW50]

On 8/14/2014 9:25 AM, Paul wrote:
[...]
I keep the OS portion small, so the backup takes ten minutes.

I never understood why people can't backup just the OS regardless if it
lives on a separate partition or not. What kind of poor backup software
are people using that doesn't allow backing up by path(s)? I've been
backing up by paths since the 90's at least. There is no need to backup
by partition unless you are just not very bright and just don't know how
to do anything else.

I think they are talking about being able to image your C: drive where
all of the hard to reconstruct structures are and using another drive
for "data" which is easily copied.

Yes I understand this. But it isn't necessary at all. Virtually all
backup software can backup by paths and you can create one backup for
boot/system and another one for data if you would prefer, even if
everything is on one partition.

My favorite method is a bit different, as I prefer to sync my data
instead of backing it up. And I prefer to clone my boot/system vs.
backing up. And I prefer to have everything on my drive C and I have no
problems separating boot/system and data on a single partition.

I suppose if you only have one machine this is a good way to deal with
it but I have a bunch. The only thing that is unique on any of them is
the C: drive and that (loaded) software. The big files are movies,
songs and other byte hungry files that are duplicated all around the
network so my main backup concern is the C:
I use File Synchronizer to keep these "data" files backed up on a
mirrored set of drives on my server, along with a couple of other
machines where they may be played.
Disk drives are cheap, you might as well have a lot of redundancy with
your data..

I too have a lot of machines and I still keep everything on drive C. I
have no problems whatsoever separating the system files from the data
files. And I too sync my data files from machine to machine using
SyncBack (the free one). And it doesn't matter if the data is on the
same partition as the system files or not. There is no difference
whatsoever where they are at.

And if you want to make a system backup while ignoring the data, no
problem. You tell your backup program to backup everything except temps,
browser cache, etc. and all of this data. You tell it once and then it
is just one button press to do so from there on. It is really easy.

I do have some data that are usually really huge that doesn't make sense
to have on every machine. Those are generally movies, videos, music
collections, etc. This data is completely different than other data.
Those are generally kept on different external drives instead.