Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > Install 32 bit Version of XP Pro after x64

Reply
Thread Tools

Install 32 bit Version of XP Pro after x64

 
 
Tom Ferguson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-15-2006
8/4/2004 is the date on the ntldr file on your XP86 in the I386 folder
while the date on the file as installed in the system drive was and
stays 3/25.2005 after the completion of the XP Pro 32 bit install.

Tom

"John Barnes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Not to doubt your success, let's speculate why you are able to do so
> and most are not.
>
> Perhaps Microsoft started including the newer version of ntldr on X86
> disks at some point after the release of X64. Those with older
> versions of XP won't work. Mine version of XP86 was released in
> December of 2004 with SP2 included and version of ntldr is dated
> Wednesday, ‎August ‎04, ‎2004, ‏‎4:00:00 AM.
>
> What is the date on the ntldr file on your XP86 in the I386 folder?
>
> The other possibility is Microsoft in later versions included a date
> check in the install program that would bypass rewriting the ntldr
> file if the one present is a later version. This I would assume
> unlikely, but possible.
>
>
> "Tom Ferguson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> How foolish of me to believe the evidence of my own eyes.
>>
>> So, when I took some time yesterday to:
>>
>> 1) delete every partition from the three drives of one of my
>> computers;
>> 2) used Acronis Disk Director to create one primary partition on
>> each drive;
>> 3) installed Windows XP 64 bit with disk 1 as system (startup/boot
>> files) and 2 as boot volume (OS files);
>> 4) installed Windows XP 32 bit with disk 3 as boot volume and 1 still
>> as system;
>>
>> and ended up with a dual-booting system using the Windows XP boot
>> loader, I was actually living in a not-so-parallel universe where the
>> "usual rules", those you and others have stated, did not apply.
>>
>> As I have written twice before-it does work. I have done it.
>>
>> Is it that you simply do not believe me?
>>
>> I suggest you try it.
>>
>> Tom
>> MSMVP
>> Windows Shell/User
>>
>> "John Barnes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Sorry Tom, but when you install XP86 after X64 with X64 still
>>> visible to allow dual booting, the ntldr and ntdetect.com files are
>>> overwritten and the ntldr file from the X86 install does not
>>> recognize X64 and therefore you cannot boot into X64.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Tom Ferguson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:OM317y$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Thank you for your reply. This reply reflects the usual advice on
>>>> the topic, contains only assertion; it is well-intentioned and
>>>> well-founded assertion but assertion nonetheless; and is only
>>>> partly correct.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect you have not actually tried to do what you claim is not
>>>> possible _with _ _Windows_ _XP64_ _and_ _Windows_ _XP32_. If you
>>>> had, you would have discovered that you can install Windows pro 64
>>>> and then, when that installation is complete or at some future
>>>> time, install Windows XP Pro 32 bit. As part of that procedure, one
>>>> must select a drive (real or logical) that does not contain another
>>>> operating system. When you have finished the installation of the 32
>>>> bit system, you will have a dual booting system using the Windows
>>>> XP boot manager.
>>>>
>>>> I have done it more than once.
>>>>
>>>> To forestall misunderstanding, I repeat that this is an exception
>>>> to the usual best-practice recommendation of installing OSs in
>>>> order of release.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>> MSMVP
>>>> Windows Shell/User
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Theo" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> Win XP Pro 32-bit cannot set up a dual boot with Win x64 already
>>>>> installed because it cannot recognize the newer operating system.
>>>>> If Win XP Pro 32-bit is already installed (the older OS) and you
>>>>> then install Win x64 (the newer OS) on a separate drive or
>>>>> partition, Win x64 does recognize the older OS and configures the
>>>>> Boot.Ini for dual booting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom Ferguson wrote:
>>>>>> I am puzzled. Why don't you simply install the new drive as
>>>>>> slave, then use the Disk Manager of the present installation to
>>>>>> set up the new drive. Next, install XP Pro 32 with the old drive
>>>>>> connected. That way the installer will set up the dual boot for
>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Usually, one would try to install the OSs in order of release;
>>>>>> however, I believe the 64 and 32 bit versions of XP use the same
>>>>>> boot loader. Now, mix in Windows 9x, older NT up to Windows 2000
>>>>>> or Longhorn/Vista and, the situation changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are only two reasons I can think of for disconnecting the
>>>>>> original HS before the install of XP Pro 32: 1) you have fear
>>>>>> that somehow the installation procedure for the 2nd OS will
>>>>>> corrupt the first; 2) you want to use something other than the XP
>>>>>> boot manager.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That aside, nothing wrong with what you outline but why
>>>>>> complicate matters? Is there something I have overlooked in all
>>>>>> of this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>> MSMVP
>>>>>> Windows Shell/User
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "CBNelson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>> I upgrade my computers (2) ever 3 years or so. Last year I
>>>>>>> upgraded to dual
>>>>>>> core ... and had xp pro x64 installed. This works good for me.
>>>>>>> However my
>>>>>>> wife is having dificulty with some websites. I am going to try
>>>>>>> uninstalling
>>>>>>> the NVida firewall and see if that works for her. I did buy two
>>>>>>> full copies
>>>>>>> of the 32 bit XP Pro to install on both computers. My thoughts
>>>>>>> are that I
>>>>>>> install a new HD and disconect the x 64 drive. Install the 32
>>>>>>> bit o/s on the
>>>>>>> new drive. Set the new drive as a slave, and reinstall the x64
>>>>>>> drive. Now
>>>>>>> from there how do I get the dual boot to work?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> btw I am a not an IT professional, just a hobbiest.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>

>>

>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Barnes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-15-2006

> Windows XP 32 bit is SP 2, Windows XP 64 bit is SP1. So, as I am
> confident you all know, both are at the same "patch level" despite the
> different SP designation.


And the point is? XP 64 is based on Windows Server 2003 (SP1) code base and
has no relation to XP86.

>
> After installation of XP 64 bit, ntdetect.com and ntldr are dated
> 3/25/2005. After installing XP Pro 32 bit, the dates are the same.


On my system and hundreds of others here, the installation of XP86, with the
system drive not being changed, the older ntldr overwrites the newer version
and makes X64 not bootable. Charlie has a blog on the subject (much of
which he attributed to Darrell Gorter (MSFT)) it happened so ofter.
That basically leaves my previous suggestions or Colins suggestion that you
used Acronis to change the install process.
>
> Not only do both systems appear on the XP boot menu, each will boot
> properly when selected. If you later install Vista (either 32 or 64 bit or
> one after the other), Vista will set up its boot loader with a reference
> to earlier OSs. Selecting that during boot will cause the Vista boot
> loader to pass control to the XP loader just as happens if you set it all
> up installing strictly in the order of issue.
>

Not relevant since this is a newer version of Windows and as it passes
control to ntldr where the process that was present at the install of Vista
will prevail.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Colin Barnhorst
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-15-2006
As a note on the service pack levels, they don't mean anything. XP x86 is
NT 5.1 and XP Pro x64 is NT 5.2. They are different code bases.

"Tom Ferguson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have read the subsequent replies from Theo, John, Colin, and John (second
>reply). Here I add some information that might be useful in understanding
>what is and is not happening.
>
> Windows XP 32 bit is SP 2, Windows XP 64 bit is SP1. So, as I am confident
> you all know, both are at the same "patch level" despite the different SP
> designation.
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Tom Ferguson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-15-2006

"John Barnes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>> Windows XP 32 bit is SP 2, Windows XP 64 bit is SP1. So, as I am
>> confident you all know, both are at the same "patch level" despite
>> the different SP designation.

>
> And the point is? XP 64 is based on Windows Server 2003 (SP1) code
> base and has no relation to XP86.


The point is exactly as stated and means nothing more than that they are
contemporaneous, and designed to meet the same threat level with regard
to malware and have fixes to remefy any bugs discovered and reported to
roughly the same time. There is no intention to imply anything more.



>
>>
>> After installation of XP 64 bit, ntdetect.com and ntldr are dated
>> 3/25/2005. After installing XP Pro 32 bit, the dates are the same.

>
> On my system and hundreds of others here, the installation of XP86,
> with the system drive not being changed, the older ntldr overwrites
> the newer version and makes X64 not bootable. Charlie has a blog on
> the subject (much of which he attributed to Darrell Gorter (MSFT)) it
> happened so ofter.
> That basically leaves my previous suggestions or Colins suggestion
> that you used Acronis to change the install process.


"Hundreds"? I told you a million times not to exxagerate!

But seriously...

I'm not sure what you mean here. Acronis was used simply to delete and
create and format partitions in preparation for the installations.
Although there is an Acronis loader which can be used, it was not. The
only loader in use at any time was that provided XP whether 64 or 32
bit. Further, There was nothing unusual done during any part of the
install process. By this I mean that each install was started from the
CD and allowed to complete with serial number inserted, &c as required.
Whatever happens, it happens purely as a result of the process MS coded.
I am merely reporting what my experience has been and I freely
acknowledge that it differs from that experience reported by others.
Many of these, I am sure, are more intelligent, more experienced and
more knowledgeable than I shall ever be. Nonetheless, I have a system
that is bootable to either XP Pro 32 bit or XP 64 bit using the
Microsoft XP loader that was set up by installing the 64 bit and then
the 32. You or anyone can say whatever you want about whether or not it
should work, the installs did work and OSs both do work.

I cannot address the question about any possible changes that might have
been made by MS, anything that might differ between the "gold" versions
and those install routines present in the SPx versions I used, if indeed
they differ.


>>
>> Not only do both systems appear on the XP boot menu, each will boot
>> properly when selected. If you later install Vista (either 32 or 64
>> bit or one after the other), Vista will set up its boot loader with a
>> reference to earlier OSs. Selecting that during boot will cause the
>> Vista boot loader to pass control to the XP loader just as happens if
>> you set it all up installing strictly in the order of issue.
>>

> Not relevant since this is a newer version of Windows and as it passes
> control to ntldr where the process that was present at the install of
> Vista will prevail.


Further information and clearly intended as such, I thought when I wrote
it and still think now.

Tom
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin Barnhorst
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-15-2006
Threat-protection in XP Pro x64 is the same as in Server 2003 SP1 and is
better than in XP SP2. XP x86 and XP x64 are feature equivalent but do
differ under the hood. In the year and a half that XP x64 has been out no
major attacks have been recorded against it. The security patches for XP
x64 and XP SP2 have been very different (although the patches for the
bundled programs like IE and WMP have been very similar).

"Tom Ferguson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
> The point is exactly as stated and means nothing more than that they are
> contemporaneous, and designed to meet the same threat level with regard to
> malware and have fixes to remefy any bugs discovered and reported to
> roughly the same time. There is no intention to imply anything more.
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Tom Ferguson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-16-2006
PS1 on the point of Acronis Disk Director use.

I still maintain that since Acronis was used just to prepare the HDs for
installation of XP 64 and 32, it had no bearing on the result. However,
the point was in question. So, for greater certainty, this morning, I
undertook to put the CD for Windows XP 64 bit in the CD drive, boot from
it and use the disk management facilities it contains to delete,
recreate and format partitions. Next, I installed XP 64 bit, used the
MoBo CD to install a few drivers. Then, I put the XP Pro CD in the
drive. I booted from that and installed X 32 bit. Next, I used the MoBo
CD to install a few device drivers.

The system now has both XP 64 bit and 32 bit installed in that order
with an XP boot menu. The system boots to either operating system. Both
systems appear to be working normally.

PS2 on the point of ntldr version/date

The ntldr date for the version in the system drive is 3/25/2005. This
stays the same after the XP 32 bit install. If that version is replaced
by the version from the I386 directory of the XP 32 bit CD (date of
8/4/2004). the system will boot the 32 bit version. While the 64 bit
version is still on the menu, one gets an error massage about a missing
file* and the system fails to boot. Reinstating the 3/25/2005 version
restores the ability to boot to either system.

This did not surprise me nor will it many others. Still left unanswered
is the question of why the ntldr file is overwritten in some
circumstances and not others.

The unquestioned best practice is still to install OSs in the order they
were released; however, investigating and pinning dorm the reasons for
such behavior tends to lead to greater understanding of underlying
mechanisms and help develop procedures to deal with unusual
circumstances.

In this case, it would appear that one can install the systems in the
"wrong" order. If the 64 bit system does not boot, one can try replacing
the ntldr file with that from the XP 64 CD. Failing that, perhaps repair
console can be used to fix the loader. Perhaps I'll have time later next
week to check on that.


Tom
MSMVP
Windows Shell/User


Tom Ferguson
* <Windows root>\System32\ntosknl.exe

{Snip}

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Barnes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-17-2006
You certainly proved your tenacity (which I admire) and for you the later
version of ntldr wasn't overwritten. Just curious, when Microsoft comes
across a more recent version of a file than the one in the program (haven't
seen this with os's) it has a popup that asks if you want to replace the
newer version with the older version. Did you get that option, or did it
just leave the newer one. Also, on your boot.ini, which system was your top
entry?

It does leave the question unanswered as to why some and not others. For
those for whom it works like yours did, we will not likely ever see posts
here, and for those for whom it worked like mine, there is Charlie's blog to
help them. Like you said, it is basically replacing the ntldr, ntdetect.com
files with the newer version and adding the second entry to the boot.ini.


"Tom Ferguson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> PS1 on the point of Acronis Disk Director use.
>
> I still maintain that since Acronis was used just to prepare the HDs for
> installation of XP 64 and 32, it had no bearing on the result. However,
> the point was in question. So, for greater certainty, this morning, I
> undertook to put the CD for Windows XP 64 bit in the CD drive, boot from
> it and use the disk management facilities it contains to delete, recreate
> and format partitions. Next, I installed XP 64 bit, used the MoBo CD to
> install a few drivers. Then, I put the XP Pro CD in the drive. I booted
> from that and installed X 32 bit. Next, I used the MoBo CD to install a
> few device drivers.
>
> The system now has both XP 64 bit and 32 bit installed in that order with
> an XP boot menu. The system boots to either operating system. Both systems
> appear to be working normally.
>
> PS2 on the point of ntldr version/date
>
> The ntldr date for the version in the system drive is 3/25/2005. This
> stays the same after the XP 32 bit install. If that version is replaced by
> the version from the I386 directory of the XP 32 bit CD (date of
> 8/4/2004). the system will boot the 32 bit version. While the 64 bit
> version is still on the menu, one gets an error massage about a missing
> file* and the system fails to boot. Reinstating the 3/25/2005 version
> restores the ability to boot to either system.
>
> This did not surprise me nor will it many others. Still left unanswered is
> the question of why the ntldr file is overwritten in some circumstances
> and not others.
>
> The unquestioned best practice is still to install OSs in the order they
> were released; however, investigating and pinning dorm the reasons for
> such behavior tends to lead to greater understanding of underlying
> mechanisms and help develop procedures to deal with unusual circumstances.
>
> In this case, it would appear that one can install the systems in the
> "wrong" order. If the 64 bit system does not boot, one can try replacing
> the ntldr file with that from the XP 64 CD. Failing that, perhaps repair
> console can be used to fix the loader. Perhaps I'll have time later next
> week to check on that.
>
>
> Tom
> MSMVP
> Windows Shell/User
>
>
> Tom Ferguson
> * <Windows root>\System32\ntosknl.exe
>
> {Snip}


 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?ZC5hcmJpYg==?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-28-2007
I have followed this sequence with great interest because installing the 64
bit XPpro as slave drive resulted two default drives during boot-up and
neither drive would boot! So, am I right in thinking 64 bit must always be
installed first as default and 32 bit as slave (installed after default
drive)? And will this be the case with 64 and 32 bit Vista Ultimate which I
will be acquiring shortly (against most advice in this forum!)


"John Barnes" wrote:

> You certainly proved your tenacity (which I admire) and for you the later
> version of ntldr wasn't overwritten. Just curious, when Microsoft comes
> across a more recent version of a file than the one in the program (haven't
> seen this with os's) it has a popup that asks if you want to replace the
> newer version with the older version. Did you get that option, or did it
> just leave the newer one. Also, on your boot.ini, which system was your top
> entry?
>
> It does leave the question unanswered as to why some and not others. For
> those for whom it works like yours did, we will not likely ever see posts
> here, and for those for whom it worked like mine, there is Charlie's blog to
> help them. Like you said, it is basically replacing the ntldr, ntdetect.com
> files with the newer version and adding the second entry to the boot.ini.
>
>
> "Tom Ferguson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > PS1 on the point of Acronis Disk Director use.
> >
> > I still maintain that since Acronis was used just to prepare the HDs for
> > installation of XP 64 and 32, it had no bearing on the result. However,
> > the point was in question. So, for greater certainty, this morning, I
> > undertook to put the CD for Windows XP 64 bit in the CD drive, boot from
> > it and use the disk management facilities it contains to delete, recreate
> > and format partitions. Next, I installed XP 64 bit, used the MoBo CD to
> > install a few drivers. Then, I put the XP Pro CD in the drive. I booted
> > from that and installed X 32 bit. Next, I used the MoBo CD to install a
> > few device drivers.
> >
> > The system now has both XP 64 bit and 32 bit installed in that order with
> > an XP boot menu. The system boots to either operating system. Both systems
> > appear to be working normally.
> >
> > PS2 on the point of ntldr version/date
> >
> > The ntldr date for the version in the system drive is 3/25/2005. This
> > stays the same after the XP 32 bit install. If that version is replaced by
> > the version from the I386 directory of the XP 32 bit CD (date of
> > 8/4/2004). the system will boot the 32 bit version. While the 64 bit
> > version is still on the menu, one gets an error massage about a missing
> > file* and the system fails to boot. Reinstating the 3/25/2005 version
> > restores the ability to boot to either system.
> >
> > This did not surprise me nor will it many others. Still left unanswered is
> > the question of why the ntldr file is overwritten in some circumstances
> > and not others.
> >
> > The unquestioned best practice is still to install OSs in the order they
> > were released; however, investigating and pinning dorm the reasons for
> > such behavior tends to lead to greater understanding of underlying
> > mechanisms and help develop procedures to deal with unusual circumstances.
> >
> > In this case, it would appear that one can install the systems in the
> > "wrong" order. If the 64 bit system does not boot, one can try replacing
> > the ntldr file with that from the XP 64 CD. Failing that, perhaps repair
> > console can be used to fix the loader. Perhaps I'll have time later next
> > week to check on that.
> >
> >
> > Tom
> > MSMVP
> > Windows Shell/User
> >
> >
> > Tom Ferguson
> > * <Windows root>\System32\ntosknl.exe
> >
> > {Snip}

>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Barnes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2007
With XP you install the oldest system first XP86 then install XP64.
Vista will make no difference which order, but you will require two licenses
to have both installed at the same time.
I have no idea what you are talking about - slave default. Are you
referring to master/slave on IDE or the default system to boot on the boot
menu?

"d.arbib" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I have followed this sequence with great interest because installing the 64
> bit XPpro as slave drive resulted two default drives during boot-up and
> neither drive would boot! So, am I right in thinking 64 bit must always
> be
> installed first as default and 32 bit as slave (installed after default
> drive)? And will this be the case with 64 and 32 bit Vista Ultimate which
> I
> will be acquiring shortly (against most advice in this forum!)
>
>
> "John Barnes" wrote:
>
>> You certainly proved your tenacity (which I admire) and for you the later
>> version of ntldr wasn't overwritten. Just curious, when Microsoft comes
>> across a more recent version of a file than the one in the program
>> (haven't
>> seen this with os's) it has a popup that asks if you want to replace the
>> newer version with the older version. Did you get that option, or did it
>> just leave the newer one. Also, on your boot.ini, which system was your
>> top
>> entry?
>>
>> It does leave the question unanswered as to why some and not others. For
>> those for whom it works like yours did, we will not likely ever see posts
>> here, and for those for whom it worked like mine, there is Charlie's blog
>> to
>> help them. Like you said, it is basically replacing the ntldr,
>> ntdetect.com
>> files with the newer version and adding the second entry to the boot.ini.
>>
>>
>> "Tom Ferguson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > PS1 on the point of Acronis Disk Director use.
>> >
>> > I still maintain that since Acronis was used just to prepare the HDs
>> > for
>> > installation of XP 64 and 32, it had no bearing on the result. However,
>> > the point was in question. So, for greater certainty, this morning, I
>> > undertook to put the CD for Windows XP 64 bit in the CD drive, boot
>> > from
>> > it and use the disk management facilities it contains to delete,
>> > recreate
>> > and format partitions. Next, I installed XP 64 bit, used the MoBo CD to
>> > install a few drivers. Then, I put the XP Pro CD in the drive. I booted
>> > from that and installed X 32 bit. Next, I used the MoBo CD to install a
>> > few device drivers.
>> >
>> > The system now has both XP 64 bit and 32 bit installed in that order
>> > with
>> > an XP boot menu. The system boots to either operating system. Both
>> > systems
>> > appear to be working normally.
>> >
>> > PS2 on the point of ntldr version/date
>> >
>> > The ntldr date for the version in the system drive is 3/25/2005. This
>> > stays the same after the XP 32 bit install. If that version is replaced
>> > by
>> > the version from the I386 directory of the XP 32 bit CD (date of
>> > 8/4/2004). the system will boot the 32 bit version. While the 64 bit
>> > version is still on the menu, one gets an error massage about a missing
>> > file* and the system fails to boot. Reinstating the 3/25/2005 version
>> > restores the ability to boot to either system.
>> >
>> > This did not surprise me nor will it many others. Still left unanswered
>> > is
>> > the question of why the ntldr file is overwritten in some circumstances
>> > and not others.
>> >
>> > The unquestioned best practice is still to install OSs in the order
>> > they
>> > were released; however, investigating and pinning dorm the reasons for
>> > such behavior tends to lead to greater understanding of underlying
>> > mechanisms and help develop procedures to deal with unusual
>> > circumstances.
>> >
>> > In this case, it would appear that one can install the systems in the
>> > "wrong" order. If the 64 bit system does not boot, one can try
>> > replacing
>> > the ntldr file with that from the XP 64 CD. Failing that, perhaps
>> > repair
>> > console can be used to fix the loader. Perhaps I'll have time later
>> > next
>> > week to check on that.
>> >
>> >
>> > Tom
>> > MSMVP
>> > Windows Shell/User
>> >
>> >
>> > Tom Ferguson
>> > * <Windows root>\System32\ntosknl.exe
>> >
>> > {Snip}

>>
>>


 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?ZC5hcmJpYg==?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2007
I am sorry you have no idea what I am talking about - probably because I am a
beginner talking to a fully fledged expert.

I have 2x200 GB SATA drives and a 64 bit AMD (4200+) CPU - more than sightly
out of date, of course,

On my primary (master/default) drive I have 32 bit XPpro/SP2

I installed (from the Microsoft iso download) the 64 bit version and both
activated and updated it normally. But on a re-boot I noted that both drives
were identified as "default" and neither would ope other than in "safe" mode
in which I could not change/modify "boot.ini" nor access
System.Advanced/Startup & Recovery/Edit.

Elsewhere in the 64 bit discussions I have seen that it is neceesary to
instal the 64 bit verion first and not, as you say, the oldest first.

Does this give you a better uderstanding, but, of course, if you still have
no idea what I am talking about, say so, and I will not reply again. Sorry.

"John Barnes" wrote:

> With XP you install the oldest system first XP86 then install XP64.
> Vista will make no difference which order, but you will require two licenses
> to have both installed at the same time.
> I have no idea what you are talking about - slave default. Are you
> referring to master/slave on IDE or the default system to boot on the boot
> menu?
>
> "d.arbib" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >I have followed this sequence with great interest because installing the 64
> > bit XPpro as slave drive resulted two default drives during boot-up and
> > neither drive would boot! So, am I right in thinking 64 bit must always
> > be
> > installed first as default and 32 bit as slave (installed after default
> > drive)? And will this be the case with 64 and 32 bit Vista Ultimate which
> > I
> > will be acquiring shortly (against most advice in this forum!)
> >
> >
> > "John Barnes" wrote:
> >
> >> You certainly proved your tenacity (which I admire) and for you the later
> >> version of ntldr wasn't overwritten. Just curious, when Microsoft comes
> >> across a more recent version of a file than the one in the program
> >> (haven't
> >> seen this with os's) it has a popup that asks if you want to replace the
> >> newer version with the older version. Did you get that option, or did it
> >> just leave the newer one. Also, on your boot.ini, which system was your
> >> top
> >> entry?
> >>
> >> It does leave the question unanswered as to why some and not others. For
> >> those for whom it works like yours did, we will not likely ever see posts
> >> here, and for those for whom it worked like mine, there is Charlie's blog
> >> to
> >> help them. Like you said, it is basically replacing the ntldr,
> >> ntdetect.com
> >> files with the newer version and adding the second entry to the boot.ini.
> >>
> >>
> >> "Tom Ferguson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> > PS1 on the point of Acronis Disk Director use.
> >> >
> >> > I still maintain that since Acronis was used just to prepare the HDs
> >> > for
> >> > installation of XP 64 and 32, it had no bearing on the result. However,
> >> > the point was in question. So, for greater certainty, this morning, I
> >> > undertook to put the CD for Windows XP 64 bit in the CD drive, boot
> >> > from
> >> > it and use the disk management facilities it contains to delete,
> >> > recreate
> >> > and format partitions. Next, I installed XP 64 bit, used the MoBo CD to
> >> > install a few drivers. Then, I put the XP Pro CD in the drive. I booted
> >> > from that and installed X 32 bit. Next, I used the MoBo CD to install a
> >> > few device drivers.
> >> >
> >> > The system now has both XP 64 bit and 32 bit installed in that order
> >> > with
> >> > an XP boot menu. The system boots to either operating system. Both
> >> > systems
> >> > appear to be working normally.
> >> >
> >> > PS2 on the point of ntldr version/date
> >> >
> >> > The ntldr date for the version in the system drive is 3/25/2005. This
> >> > stays the same after the XP 32 bit install. If that version is replaced
> >> > by
> >> > the version from the I386 directory of the XP 32 bit CD (date of
> >> > 8/4/2004). the system will boot the 32 bit version. While the 64 bit
> >> > version is still on the menu, one gets an error massage about a missing
> >> > file* and the system fails to boot. Reinstating the 3/25/2005 version
> >> > restores the ability to boot to either system.
> >> >
> >> > This did not surprise me nor will it many others. Still left unanswered
> >> > is
> >> > the question of why the ntldr file is overwritten in some circumstances
> >> > and not others.
> >> >
> >> > The unquestioned best practice is still to install OSs in the order
> >> > they
> >> > were released; however, investigating and pinning dorm the reasons for
> >> > such behavior tends to lead to greater understanding of underlying
> >> > mechanisms and help develop procedures to deal with unusual
> >> > circumstances.
> >> >
> >> > In this case, it would appear that one can install the systems in the
> >> > "wrong" order. If the 64 bit system does not boot, one can try
> >> > replacing
> >> > the ntldr file with that from the XP 64 CD. Failing that, perhaps
> >> > repair
> >> > console can be used to fix the loader. Perhaps I'll have time later
> >> > next
> >> > week to check on that.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Tom
> >> > MSMVP
> >> > Windows Shell/User
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Tom Ferguson
> >> > * <Windows root>\System32\ntosknl.exe
> >> >
> >> > {Snip}
> >>
> >>

>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Where to get stand alone Dot Net Framework version 1.1, version2.0, version 3.0, version 3.5, version 2.0 SP1, version 3.0 SP1 ? MowGreen [MVP] ASP .Net 5 02-09-2008 01:55 AM
Re: Where to get stand alone Dot Net Framework version 1.1, version 2.0, version 3.0, version 3.5, version 2.0 SP1, version 3.0 SP1 ? PA Bear [MS MVP] ASP .Net 0 02-05-2008 03:28 AM
Re: Where to get stand alone Dot Net Framework version 1.1, version 2.0, version 3.0, version 3.5, version 2.0 SP1, version 3.0 SP1 ? V Green ASP .Net 0 02-05-2008 02:45 AM
Can't get net 2 or 3 to install on new install of winxp pro x64 Mark Windows 64bit 0 02-02-2008 05:42 AM
64-bit dual core: vista business x64 or XP Pro x64? Jon Windows 64bit 1 05-29-2007 06:53 PM



Advertisments