XP with W2k-- Sorry - - I still have questions

[Slip Kid]

I've seen this topic discussed with mostly favorable results.

Current Setup:

C:\ FAT/DOS & boot files

E:\ on Drive 0 W2k that is corrupt and has to go. -I'd like yank it
and place XP there.

F:\ on Drive 1 W2k I wish t keep.


I'm concerned whether I should even put XP in with the other W2k
install (the one that'st OK).

The problem -- or my concern? XP must go in after W2k -- no problem
for the first install?

At least no problem for XP.

But what if I need to do something drastic with the W2k install after XP
goes in? What sort of changes might affect the boot files that they
share, but - well, they are really SP boot files and W2k seems to
corrupt an XP install if major changes are made.

As I understand it, major changes to W2k mean serious trouble for XP.
XP must be the last OS installed - a major change to W2k may "disturb"
XP? In effect - XP isn't the last install anymore?!

If you know? The 'repair' for XP (from the disk, not the console) isn't
as selective as in W2k. . In fact? They admit that 'R'" - Repair in
XP amounts to an install! Not the selective repair like in W2k!

So, am I looking for trouble with XP and W2k in the same machine ---
Different volumes and a different boot partition don't seem to solve the
potential danger?

Am I going to be looking at a lot of downtime for both OS's when one
has a problem or if a major update changes the files in the boot
partition that they will both share (C:\ The FAT/DOS partition that is
only a boot partition)?

Anyone running W2k & XP as a multiboot? What kind of changes to W2k
cause problems for XP? ViceVersa. How to you approach the repair?

How serious of a change in one or the other requires "what kind of
attention" to either or both?

I want to stay away from a boot manager...while they are working they
offer benefits - when they fail? it's a nightmare.

So, give me the lowdown of a multiboot with SP and W2k. I know they
'run' happily together? I'm concerned what happens if there is a
problem with one or the other and how difficult it is (or what impact it
has) on the other.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Have you considered Virtual PC 2004?
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/default.mspx
Then not only do you not have to worry about corruptions but there is no
reboot and you can run more than one OS on your desktop at the same time. I
dropped multibooting entirely when VPC came out.

 

[Slip Kid]

Have you considered Virtual PC 2004?
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtualpc/default.mspx
Then not only do you not have to worry about corruptions but there is no
reboot and you can run more than one OS on your desktop at the same time. I
dropped multibooting entirely when VPC came out.

Not familiar with it -though I have heard of it.

Thaks for the clue. I downloaded the .doc file!

Afraid to see the price!

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Only a little more than Partition Magic. I used to have one disaster or
another every few months with my multiboot systems. Worse, I kept changing
my mind. This is much safer.

I keep the virtual computers backed up to dvd's with a backup program just
like any other files.

I have all the versions of Windows and dozens of Linux distributions. No
more fiddling with hardware just to try Red Hat or SUSE. And I can drop and
drag from Win95 or Win98 or Server 2003 right on to my XP desktop (and vice
versa). Since I have more than 512mb ram, I can still run Win98 OK just by
not allocating more than 512mb to the Win98 virtual machine.

Now I use my second hard drive for the virtual hard drive files instead of
fiddling with partitioning and worrying about how I am going to get an older
version of Windows to run without messing up XP.

Of course, you can download a 45 day free trial.

 

[Slip Kid]

Only a little more than Partition Magic. I used to have one disaster or
another every few months with my multiboot systems. Worse, I kept changing
my mind. This is much safer.

I keep the virtual computers backed up to dvd's with a backup program just
like any other files.

I have all the versions of Windows and dozens of Linux distributions. No
more fiddling with hardware just to try Red Hat or SUSE. And I can drop and
drag from Win95 or Win98 or Server 2003 right on to my XP desktop (and vice
versa). Since I have more than 512mb ram, I can still run Win98 OK just by
not allocating more than 512mb to the Win98 virtual machine.

Now I use my second hard drive for the virtual hard drive files instead of
fiddling with partitioning and worrying about how I am going to get an older
version of Windows to run without messing up XP.

Of course, you can download a 45 day free trial.

It looks great -- I didn't get ot the ..doc yet.

However I want to install it on my older machine a P-233. It runs
great -- has half a gig of dimms. I'm curious why the processer is an
issue. I run some serious applicatins (graphics/media) on that old goat
and it does fine. Then again, MS says W2k nees a larger processor than
it has?! Odd? When I got it in '97 there were some powerful things
done with less than a 233 and a lot less than 256 meg of ram.

I've really not had any problems with multi-boot (and I go back to 3X
and NT). Since XP, it seems I run into trouble if I have to make a
change to one OS ort he other (W2k and XP are in my new box).

I don't know what happened with this last fiasco with the W2k crash --
during the SP4 install (I reinstalled w2k on a new drive and had to
bring it up to date. In fact the install of SP4 went well, (I must
have done a dozen SP4's without a problem and the SP2 on XP was a breeze).

Then, as it was finished and I clicked OK (with no errors) - it dumped.
It wouldn't reboot - I was able to look at the system files in my
other install ( a great reason to multiboot, folks) and saw the profiles
were wiped out. No, Documents And Settings looked like it was hit witha
bunker buster.

Hey, no sweat? It seemed simple enough to rebuild them - But the
'fix' won't stick (replacing regfiles in the config folder and next
replacing the ntuser.dat files) but it keeps defaulting to multiple
(and corrupt profiles) upon boot. No, my Admin info must have been
trashed in the registry at a level I haven't explored... It gets to
logon and cycles. A long boring story -- sorry.

I figured if the corrupt 2k has to go? I may as well run XP as a second
OS. I realize the 'run' well together -- but based on my other box,
W2k better not need a major change or XP 'believes' (prolly with good
reason) the an 'older' version of Windows has been installled.

If the "processer' isn't a limiting factor? Your suggestion is
intriguing - But I have a lot to read...

Anyone know if the P-233 will be a limiting factor?

Thanks!

Michael

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

400 Mhz is required and 1Ghz is recommended. The ram would not be a
problem, but that is moot.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Current Setup:

C:\ FAT/DOS & boot files

E:\ on Drive 0 W2k that is corrupt and has to go. -I'd like yank it
and place XP there.

F:\ on Drive 1 W2k I wish t keep.


I'm concerned whether I should even put XP in with the other W2k
install (the one that'st OK).

The problem -- or my concern? XP must go in after W2k -- no problem
for the first install?

At least no problem for XP.

But what if I need to do something drastic with the W2k install after XP
goes in? What sort of changes might affect the boot files that they
share, but - well, they are really SP boot files and W2k seems to
corrupt an XP install if major changes are made.

As I understand it, major changes to W2k mean serious trouble for XP.
XP must be the last OS installed - a major change to W2k may "disturb"
XP? In effect - XP isn't the last install anymore?!

If you know? The 'repair' for XP (from the disk, not the console) isn't
as selective as in W2k. . In fact? They admit that 'R'" - Repair in
XP amounts to an install! Not the selective repair like in W2k!

So, am I looking for trouble with XP and W2k in the same machine ---
Different volumes and a different boot partition don't seem to solve the
potential danger?

Am I going to be looking at a lot of downtime for both OS's when one
has a problem or if a major update changes the files in the boot
partition that they will both share (C:\ The FAT/DOS partition that is
only a boot partition)?

Anyone running W2k & XP as a multiboot? What kind of changes to W2k
cause problems for XP? ViceVersa. How to you approach the repair?

How serious of a change in one or the other requires "what kind of
attention" to either or both?

I want to stay away from a boot manager...while they are working they
offer benefits - when they fail? it's a nightmare.

So, give me the lowdown of a multiboot with SP and W2k. I know they
'run' happily together? I'm concerned what happens if there is a
problem with one or the other and how difficult it is (or what impact it
has) on the other.

Here is the way to do it with the least danger and the least
amount of software:

Use two hard drives, each bootable and each with its own
operating system, and select which boots by adjusting the
hard drive boot order in the BIOS. If they each have the same
file format, the running operating system will see the partitions
on the other hard drive as "Local Disks" with their own hierarchical
file structures, allowing drag 'n drop between hard drives. But
when you do OS updates, just disconnect the other hard drive,
or do as I do - run the power cable to each hard drive through a
DPDT toggle switch, and "disconnect" an unneeded drive before
startup by removing its power via the toggle switch. (Actually,
I'm lazy and I update each OS with the others powered and visible,
but nothing ever went wrong.) Since the boot.ini file in each OS
can be ammended to include options that select any of the
OS(es) on the other hard drive(s), I only have them independently
bootable to handle scenarios involving a hard drive failure.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Use two hard drives, each bootable and each with its own
operating system, and select which boots by adjusting the
hard drive boot order in the BIOS. If they each have the same
file format, the running operating system will see the partitions
on the other hard drive as "Local Disks" with their own hierarchical
file structures, allowing drag 'n drop between hard drives.

Does anyone know if the two file systems *have* to be the
same for Drag 'N Drop to work?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

No, they don't.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Does that mean nobody knows.... or that it works?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

The file systems don't have to be the same. I use drag and drop between
NTFS and FAT32 using Virtual PC 2004 with a Win98 virtual machine window
open on my XP Pro desktop. It works for moving a file from a FAT32
partition to an NTFS one and back (unless, of course, the NTFS partition is
hidden as in the case of a multiboot system). The file system does not
affect the data. Of course you cannot copy a file exceeding 4.2GB from an
NTFS partition to a FAT32 partition without problems because of FAT32's file
size limit. Just out of curiousity, why didn't you simply try it to see
what happens?

 

[Timothy Daniels]

I figured a simple Yes or No from you would be a lot easier than my
futzing with digging up another hard drive that I could risk making
test partitions on and then formatting them, etc. And I wouldn't have
been reminded about the file length restriction if I had. Thanks.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

You're welcome.

 

[Guest]

Does anybody have any information about setting up multiple hardware
profiles in XP? I tried to set up a new hardware profile but I was unable to
load different drivers (i.e. Nic, Video, Audio). When I looked up some
information on Microsoft website, the only information I found was regarding
laptop hardware profiles. Does XP allow you to set up different hardware
profiles between different PC models (i.e. Dell GX270,GX260,GX240, etc.) I
would really appreciate any assistance on this as I am trying to setup a
ghost deployment for the project I am working on.

Thank you
JohnT.

You're welcome.

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

I figured a simple Yes or No from you would be a lot easier than my
futzing with digging up another hard drive that I could risk making
test partitions on and then formatting them, etc. And I wouldn't have
been reminded about the file length restriction if I had. Thanks.

*TimDaniels*