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

 
 
Aaron Kelley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2007
It is definately necessary to install 32-bit first. If you install 32-bit
after 64-bit, you will not be able to boot the 64-bit OS until you fix it.

- Aaron

"d.arbib" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>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 out of date, of course,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
 
 
 
 
John Barnes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2007
When you say you cannot modify the boot.ini in safe mode, are you talking
about thru system properties? Have you tried to edit it directly using
explorer. Make sure you have system and hidden files checked or unchecked
so you can see them. In my computer, open your system drive. open boot.ini
using notepad and make sure you only have one item in your default area.
This should have no bearing on whether a system boots or not, only which
system boots at the end of the timeout period.
See the other post about which ntldr and ntdetect.com you must have on your
system drive. Determine your 'system drive' from Disk Management and then
make sure you have the two files from your X64 install disk (they can be
drag and dropped from the CD) on the root of that drive. That is where the
boot.ini must also be.

"d.arbib" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>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
 
 
 
 
R. C. White, MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-29-2007
Hi, d.arbib.

> 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.


The advice usually is stated as, "install the oldest first". Actually, the
important point is to install the newest last. I know that sounds like the
same thing and it is, if you are installing just two operating systems.

Windows NT, Windows 2000 and Windows XP all use startup files with the same
names: NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and Boot.ini. They kept the same names as they
migrated through the generations. But if you look, you will see that each
later version is larger than the earlier versions of the same files. That's
because the later versions include instructions for how to handle the
earlier versions of Windows. For example, WinXP's NTLDR knows exactly how
to handle an installation of Win2K if it finds one already installed. But
Win2K's NTLDR hasn't the slightest idea of what to do with WinXP, which
wasn't released until about 18 months after Win2K's NTLDR was written.

NTLDR in WinXP SP1 was dated 8/29/02 and was 233,632 bytes; in SP2, it was
dated 8/3/04 and 250,032 bytes. In WinXP x64, it is dated 3/25/05 and is
295,536 bytes, because it includes instructions for what to do about WinXP
x86 if it finds that installed.

Vista changed to a new system, called BCD for Boot Configuration Data.
Let's not get into that here, except to say that Vista Setup knows how to
handle one or more existing installations of WinNT/2K/XP and one
installation of Win9x, if it finds those on any hard drive in the computer.
When booting a system with both Vista and an earlier Windows version, BCD
will include "earlier" as an option. If that is chosen, BCD will step back
out of the way and load the WinNT-style boot sector, which will find NTLDR
and offer the familiar Boot.ini menu.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Running Windows Mail in Vista Ultimate x64)

"d.arbib" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>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
 
=?Utf-8?B?ZC5hcmJpYg==?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-15-2007


"R. C. White, MVP" wrote:

Hi, d.arbib.

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.

The advice usually is stated as, "install the oldest first". Actually, the
important point is to install the newest last. I know that sounds like the
same thing and it is, if you are installing just two operating systems.

Windows NT, Windows 2000 and Windows XP all use startup files with the same
names: NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and Boot.ini. They kept the same names as they
migrated through the generations. But if you look, you will see that each
later version is larger than the earlier versions of the same files. That's
because the later versions include instructions for how to handle the
earlier versions of Windows. For example, WinXP's NTLDR knows exactly how
to handle an installation of Win2K if it finds one already installed. But
Win2K's NTLDR hasn't the slightest idea of what to do with WinXP, which
wasn't released until about 18 months after Win2K's NTLDR was written.

NTLDR in WinXP SP1 was dated 8/29/02 and was 233,632 bytes; in SP2, it was
dated 8/3/04 and 250,032 bytes. In WinXP x64, it is dated 3/25/05 and is
295,536 bytes, because it includes instructions for what to do about WinXP
x86 if it finds that installed.

Vista changed to a new system, called BCD for Boot Configuration Data.
Let's not get into that here, except to say that Vista Setup knows how to
handle one or more existing installations of WinNT/2K/XP and one
installation of Win9x, if it finds those on any hard drive in the computer.
When booting a system with both Vista and an earlier Windows version, BCD
will include "earlier" as an option. If that is chosen, BCD will step back
out of the way and load the WinNT-style boot sector, which will find NTLDR
and offer the familiar Boot.ini menu.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(E-Mail Removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP
Running Windows Mail in Vista Ultimate x64)

"d.arbib" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
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.
Forthose 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 orderthey
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}


I am returning to this question again, sorry.

In my dual boot system I installed the 64 bit XPpro first on my "C" drive
and followed it by my usual XPpro/SP2 on my slave drive "D". Because of the
paucity of 64 bit software, I made the 32 bit "D" drive as default with a
mass of drivers and applications.

The 64 bit version purports to permit 32 bit applications, but it does not
always do so, for example Real Player will not install.

However one peculiarity has emerged for which I hope you experts will
explain and find a solution. If I use the default drive exclusively there is
no problem, but then if I boot the 64 bit version and use whatever programs I
have. then shut down and choose the default drive, it partly boots up,
suddenly closes down, and instantly re-boots up quite normally with no error
messages. Why, oh why?

I am now re-building my computer to have plug-in hard drives in caddies
which hopefully will eliminate this type of problem, in particular with Vista.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Barnes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-15-2007
Your post is difficult to follow as there is nothing to indicate current vs.
old material. First it is obvious that either something posted here or
elsewhere, worked so you could boot into normal startup (not just SAFE mode
as in your original post), but you never had the courtesy to post back and
say what worked. I have picked out a couple of items to try to comment on.

> 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


With SATA there is no master/slave relationship.
Default is set in the boot.ini to determine which installed system will boot
if NO action is taken before the time-out


> 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.


Still true. You need two licenses to have Vista86 and Vista64 installed and
activated at the same time.

> 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!)


Slave has no meaning with SATA drives.
Two versions of Vista can be installed in either order. The boot file will
recognise the other version as they are parallel releases.
Again you need two licenses.

> I am returning to this question again, sorry.
>
> In my dual boot system I installed the 64 bit XPpro first on my "C" drive
> and followed it by my usual XPpro/SP2 on my slave drive "D". Because of
> the
> paucity of 64 bit software, I made the 32 bit "D" drive as default with a
> mass of drivers and applications.
>
> The 64 bit version purports to permit 32 bit applications, but it does not
> always do so, for example Real Player will not install.
>
> However one peculiarity has emerged for which I hope you experts will
> explain and find a solution. If I use the default drive exclusively there
> is
> no problem, but then if I boot the 64 bit version and use whatever
> programs I
> have. then shut down and choose the default drive, it partly boots up,
> suddenly closes down, and instantly re-boots up quite normally with no
> error
> messages. Why, oh why?


Go into system properties/advanced/startup and recovery and make sure to
uncheck 'automatically restart' You should generally do this on both systems
so error messages are displayed for you to see. In your case, at least do
it on the system that is restarting.
When you say 'partly boots up' no one knows what you mean. What screen or
screens show up before the reboot.

> I am now re-building my computer to have plug-in hard drives in caddies
> which hopefully will eliminate this type of problem, in particular with
> Vista.


Are you talking about just removing your two SATA drives and hooking them up
in E-SATA caddies? I have no idea why you think this will make any
difference as they will be plugged into the same controllers (unless your
system has separate RAID controllers, in which case you will have a whole
new set of problems)


 
Reply With Quote
 
Christopher
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2009
Sorry John, but tom is correct and you are wrong. I just installed xp86 on a
separate drive then my xp64 so I could have a duel boot system. I installed
from the CD with both hard drives connected and now when I start the PC it
asks me which I would like to boot. It is set to default to my new xp86
install if I don't push anything. Which I would like to change ( I'm sure a
little more reading and I will find out how to) but it did make it dual boot
by itself and all I did was install on separate drive.
Thanks for everyones input on this because I didn't have a clue before I
read this thread.


 
Reply With Quote
 
nvida
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2009


"CBNelson" wrote:

> 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
 
Juergen Kluth
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-09-2009

nvida schrieb:
>
> "CBNelson" wrote:
>
>> 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.


dont bet a dime on this !

The removing and reconnecting of drives will in most cases corrupt the
drive letters (especially for the x32 sytem) by reorganising them.

You should prepare a partition (on the new drive) for x32,
format it ntfs and reboot, make sure a drive letter is assigned.
AND THEN install.

Install x32 regular by booting the installation cd.

BEFORE, you should backup the files (copy, the hidden too)in the root
folder of your current "c:" drive.

After the installation some of these files are replaced by x32.
And must be restored from the original you saved.

In the saved (x64-) boot.ini you must add (edit) a entry for the
x32 system (which you can find in the (x32-)boot.ini).

By the installation of x32 the master boot record is overwritten.
This then must be restored from the x64 cd.
Get information of "fdisk /mbr" and "fixboot" and how to invoke
from the x64 cd.

Either. Or you could have saved it befor with a tool like mbrtool
(google it).

jk
 
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