Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and win2k???

Reply
Thread Tools

Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and win2k???

 
 
=?Utf-8?B?ZGFrb3RhMDI=?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-11-2007
I have tried everything, and nothing works, other than booting with floppies
with the "appropriate" version of ntldr. I just went out and bought a program
(Partition Table Doctor) that fixes partition and other drive problems. It
did find some surprises (not surprising after all the drives have been
through over the last few weeks.) And, it fixed them. Now, I am back to where
I was a week or so ago when I deleted the extended partition with my logical
drive for win2k and made it a primary drive. That definitely screwed things
up. That is why the first portion of my first drive was being called
partition 2 and the second part was partition 1, and the third was 3. That is
probably, also, why boot.ini and ntdetect.com had to be on partition 1 (the
system partition), while ntldr had to be on partition 2, the boot partition,
even though the order of the partitions on the drive was reversed. Anyway,
now partition 1 is the first portion of the drive, partition 2 is the second,
and partition 3 is the third. And, partition 1 (my c drive) is now listed as
the system drive. So, all looks good. win xp x64 on partition 1, win2k on
partition 2 (as a logical drive, again, in an extended partition), and ntldr,
ntdetect.com, and boot.ini all have to be in the root of the first partition,
which is the system partition.

So, all looks well. xp x64 boots fine. But, if I try to boot win2k, I get
the message winnt\system32\config\system missing or corrupt. This happens
consistently, now, whether I try to boot from a floppy (unless I change the
version of ntldr on the floppy to the old version), or I try to boot from the
hard drive (again, unless I switch the version of ntldr on the hard drive.

Now, here is where it gets interesting and makes me think there is something
basically wrong with my new version of ntldr.

If I do switch the version of ntldr from the new version to the old version,
on either the floppy of the hard drive, and try to boot xp x64, I get the
dual boot selection screen from windows 2000 (not surprisingly), complete
with the comment at the bottom "For troubleshooting and advanced startup
options for windows 2000, press f8". Then, when I select xp x64 from the
selection window, I get the old horizontal line of boxes that win2k puts at
the bottom of the screen when it is booting up, and then I get the message
"Windows 2000 could not start because the following file is missing or
corrupt: <Windows 2000 root>\system32\ntoskrnl.exe. Please re-install a copy
of the aabove file."

But, of course, I was not trying to boot win2k, here. I was trying to boot
xp x64. At least when I was using the new ntldr and trying to boot win2k, te
error message referred to the win2k installation by saying the file
winnt\system32\config\system is missing or corrupt.

Is there something that I am supposed to do to winnt\system32\config\system
in a dual boot system that is different from a regular boot of win2k (which
is in winnt??) Or, is the installer supposed to do something to change that
file (system) that is not being done?

I am really beginning to think that it is impossible to get xp x64 and win2k
to actually dual boot, at least on my AMD Opteron machine with scsi drives
(Adaptec 29320A, btw, with latest drivers, which have not changed in years).
I am beginning to wonder if, perhaps, I am the only person trying to dual
boot xp x64 pro, sp1, and win2k, sp4, or at least the only one still trying??

If I have to change winnt\system32\config\system, how do I do that? It
certainly does not happen in repair mode, at least not that I can see, and I
tried reinstalling xp x64 several times in the early days, and that did not
work, either.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
=?Utf-8?B?bG9hZGVyb3Bw?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-11-2007
I never played with xp 64 or w2k But are they not different versions of NT
and do they not format drive's differently like trying to run dos and nt on
the same disk. would you not be alot better off to dual boot on 2 drives
instead of partitions.
i have windows 98 xp and vista 64 tribooting but all on their own drives.

"dakota02" wrote:

> I have tried everything, and nothing works, other than booting with floppies
> with the "appropriate" version of ntldr. I just went out and bought a program
> (Partition Table Doctor) that fixes partition and other drive problems. It
> did find some surprises (not surprising after all the drives have been
> through over the last few weeks.) And, it fixed them. Now, I am back to where
> I was a week or so ago when I deleted the extended partition with my logical
> drive for win2k and made it a primary drive. That definitely screwed things
> up. That is why the first portion of my first drive was being called
> partition 2 and the second part was partition 1, and the third was 3. That is
> probably, also, why boot.ini and ntdetect.com had to be on partition 1 (the
> system partition), while ntldr had to be on partition 2, the boot partition,
> even though the order of the partitions on the drive was reversed. Anyway,
> now partition 1 is the first portion of the drive, partition 2 is the second,
> and partition 3 is the third. And, partition 1 (my c drive) is now listed as
> the system drive. So, all looks good. win xp x64 on partition 1, win2k on
> partition 2 (as a logical drive, again, in an extended partition), and ntldr,
> ntdetect.com, and boot.ini all have to be in the root of the first partition,
> which is the system partition.
>
> So, all looks well. xp x64 boots fine. But, if I try to boot win2k, I get
> the message winnt\system32\config\system missing or corrupt. This happens
> consistently, now, whether I try to boot from a floppy (unless I change the
> version of ntldr on the floppy to the old version), or I try to boot from the
> hard drive (again, unless I switch the version of ntldr on the hard drive.
>
> Now, here is where it gets interesting and makes me think there is something
> basically wrong with my new version of ntldr.
>
> If I do switch the version of ntldr from the new version to the old version,
> on either the floppy of the hard drive, and try to boot xp x64, I get the
> dual boot selection screen from windows 2000 (not surprisingly), complete
> with the comment at the bottom "For troubleshooting and advanced startup
> options for windows 2000, press f8". Then, when I select xp x64 from the
> selection window, I get the old horizontal line of boxes that win2k puts at
> the bottom of the screen when it is booting up, and then I get the message
> "Windows 2000 could not start because the following file is missing or
> corrupt: <Windows 2000 root>\system32\ntoskrnl.exe. Please re-install a copy
> of the aabove file."
>
> But, of course, I was not trying to boot win2k, here. I was trying to boot
> xp x64. At least when I was using the new ntldr and trying to boot win2k, te
> error message referred to the win2k installation by saying the file
> winnt\system32\config\system is missing or corrupt.
>
> Is there something that I am supposed to do to winnt\system32\config\system
> in a dual boot system that is different from a regular boot of win2k (which
> is in winnt??) Or, is the installer supposed to do something to change that
> file (system) that is not being done?
>
> I am really beginning to think that it is impossible to get xp x64 and win2k
> to actually dual boot, at least on my AMD Opteron machine with scsi drives
> (Adaptec 29320A, btw, with latest drivers, which have not changed in years).
> I am beginning to wonder if, perhaps, I am the only person trying to dual
> boot xp x64 pro, sp1, and win2k, sp4, or at least the only one still trying??
>
> If I have to change winnt\system32\config\system, how do I do that? It
> certainly does not happen in repair mode, at least not that I can see, and I
> tried reinstalling xp x64 several times in the early days, and that did not
> work, either.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-11-2007
Oh yes, it should work!

What has messed you up, I guess, is that you want XP as your C: partition
and W2K as D:, right? That may not work, however.

Now, the easiest thing for you to do - now that you have partitioning
software and both systems fresh, is to start over from scratch. Partition
your drive(s) the way you prefer the most, it doesn't really matter if they
are Primary or Logical, but I prefer Primaries too.

If you want a third partition to be a data-disk for both systems (something
I would not advice) then you can make three Primaries, if you want each
system to have it's own data-disk, then I would make the twoOS partitions
Primary, and the data-disks Logical from each one of the Primaries, but it
is important to remember that the system enumerates the partitions in the
order, Primary first, Logical second - so a disk in this lay-out will have
the primaries as C: and D: and the two Logical drives as E: and F: in the
order they are found. If there are multiple drives, then the Primary
partitions are still counted first and assigned a drive letter before any
Logical drives.

If your third partition is to harbour something else entirely, like Linux -
then that should be Primary too.

Now, your partitions are in place, and your mind is clear about what you
want to do, make sure that you name, or label all the partitions in
accordance with your intended use, I think you can do that (I have not used
that kind of software myself!) - Install W2K to the Partition that you
intended to be the D: drive (it may not end up being that, but if you made a
label you should have no trouble, in addition you could make the partitions
to be different sizes), this means that you should not install it to the
partition that is listed at the top, then install XP to it's intended
Partition (the topmost in the list) and everything should be fine - except
that XP may sit on the D: drive (With an identifying label!) but the XP
installer has knowledge about W2K, since it is newer. W2K has no knowledge
of anything XP. . .this is crucial, this way you should have both systems
booting right away.

You can install in the reversed manner (like you have), but it will be a
bumpy route, filled with issues of the kind you are describing, above all,
it doesn't help to start moving things around and then re-installing and
moving the things back and forth again - it only brings confusion!

I recommend you to wip up some kind of graphical drawing with notes of your
ideas of your intentions, it doesn't matter how it looks as long as you can
follow your own ideas. Have a good night's sleep and have a good quiet day
making your notes, that is probably the most helpfull thing you can do.

Remember, though, that if your HD is SATA, to have a floppy ready for each
system as you install them. The fact that you served up the Drivers for one
system, doesn't mean they will be seen by the next Installer, you need them
on both occasions!

I cannot remember where all this started, you didn't have two HD's, did you?
If you are having IDE and SATA drives together, then you are facing a whole
different issue, and you should make sure that you install to the disk that
is the first that is seen by the system. This could mean that you'd have to
disconnect the other. But I assume not, from your post I read it as 'one
disk - multiple partitions'.

Good Luck!


Tony. . .




 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Sperling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-11-2007
Ah - sorry, (forgot to mention) if it is a SATA HD, then it might be a good
idea to disconnect the CD/DVD drive(s) while partitioning - obviously,
you'll need them for installing, later!


Tony. . .



 
Reply With Quote
 
John Barnes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-11-2007
Not correct Tony. See
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b/234048/en-us for the most
common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.

"Tony Sperling" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Oh yes, it should work!
>
> What has messed you up, I guess, is that you want XP as your C: partition
> and W2K as D:, right? That may not work, however.
>
> Now, the easiest thing for you to do - now that you have partitioning
> software and both systems fresh, is to start over from scratch. Partition
> your drive(s) the way you prefer the most, it doesn't really matter if
> they
> are Primary or Logical, but I prefer Primaries too.
>
> If you want a third partition to be a data-disk for both systems
> (something
> I would not advice) then you can make three Primaries, if you want each
> system to have it's own data-disk, then I would make the twoOS partitions
> Primary, and the data-disks Logical from each one of the Primaries, but it
> is important to remember that the system enumerates the partitions in the
> order, Primary first, Logical second - so a disk in this lay-out will have
> the primaries as C: and D: and the two Logical drives as E: and F: in the
> order they are found. If there are multiple drives, then the Primary
> partitions are still counted first and assigned a drive letter before any
> Logical drives.
>
> If your third partition is to harbour something else entirely, like
> Linux -
> then that should be Primary too.
>
> Now, your partitions are in place, and your mind is clear about what you
> want to do, make sure that you name, or label all the partitions in
> accordance with your intended use, I think you can do that (I have not
> used
> that kind of software myself!) - Install W2K to the Partition that you
> intended to be the D: drive (it may not end up being that, but if you made
> a
> label you should have no trouble, in addition you could make the
> partitions
> to be different sizes), this means that you should not install it to the
> partition that is listed at the top, then install XP to it's intended
> Partition (the topmost in the list) and everything should be fine - except
> that XP may sit on the D: drive (With an identifying label!) but the XP
> installer has knowledge about W2K, since it is newer. W2K has no knowledge
> of anything XP. . .this is crucial, this way you should have both systems
> booting right away.
>
> You can install in the reversed manner (like you have), but it will be a
> bumpy route, filled with issues of the kind you are describing, above all,
> it doesn't help to start moving things around and then re-installing and
> moving the things back and forth again - it only brings confusion!
>
> I recommend you to wip up some kind of graphical drawing with notes of
> your
> ideas of your intentions, it doesn't matter how it looks as long as you
> can
> follow your own ideas. Have a good night's sleep and have a good quiet day
> making your notes, that is probably the most helpfull thing you can do.
>
> Remember, though, that if your HD is SATA, to have a floppy ready for each
> system as you install them. The fact that you served up the Drivers for
> one
> system, doesn't mean they will be seen by the next Installer, you need
> them
> on both occasions!
>
> I cannot remember where all this started, you didn't have two HD's, did
> you?
> If you are having IDE and SATA drives together, then you are facing a
> whole
> different issue, and you should make sure that you install to the disk
> that
> is the first that is seen by the system. This could mean that you'd have
> to
> disconnect the other. But I assume not, from your post I read it as 'one
> disk - multiple partitions'.
>
> Good Luck!
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?ZGFrb3RhMDI=?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-11-2007
Unfortunately, reformatting and reinstalling the 2 operating systems would be
virtually impossible at this point, since there are literally hundreds of
programs installed, and it would take weeks, especially since it would take a
long time, and might even be impossible to find all of the sources and the
license keys for each. I backup regularly, and just this one computer, has
over 39 gb in the backup, which is over 100 mb uncompressed.

But, that is not the point. As long as you have the two operating systems,
it should be possible to make them work using ntldr, ntdetect.com, and
boot.ini. I know my boot.ini is correct, because it works from floppies, and
I have had to modify it many times when I made changes that did not allow one
system or the other to boot. I now use the exact same boot.ini on all
floppies and on c:\. The only problem that I have is I have to constantly
change ntldr, depending on which version I want to boot. My suspicion is that
although ntldr may work fine for xp x32, it looks like it does not work for
2000 sp4. I don't know if it is related to the fact that I have sp1 on xp x64
(maybe the ntldr is only good for sp1 when trying to boot 2000 sp4??). I
suspect I am an unusual case, since there are probably not too many x64 amd
machines around trying to dual boot xp x64 sp1 and 2000 sp1. Most are
probably trying to dual boot xp 32 and xp 64. Perhaps something was supposed
to modify the winnt\system32\config\system for a dual boot with xp x64 and
that is not happening for some reason.

I tried to do a boot logging when performing a failed 2000 boot, but nothing
showed up anywhere. Is there any way to trace through the process to see
exactly where the problem is? Or, does someone have a working system? If so,
where can I get that version of ntldr, since that seems to be the problem.

"John Barnes" wrote:

> Not correct Tony. See
> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b/234048/en-us for the most
> common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.
>
> "Tony Sperling" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Oh yes, it should work!
> >
> > What has messed you up, I guess, is that you want XP as your C: partition
> > and W2K as D:, right? That may not work, however.
> >
> > Now, the easiest thing for you to do - now that you have partitioning
> > software and both systems fresh, is to start over from scratch. Partition
> > your drive(s) the way you prefer the most, it doesn't really matter if
> > they
> > are Primary or Logical, but I prefer Primaries too.
> >
> > If you want a third partition to be a data-disk for both systems
> > (something
> > I would not advice) then you can make three Primaries, if you want each
> > system to have it's own data-disk, then I would make the twoOS partitions
> > Primary, and the data-disks Logical from each one of the Primaries, but it
> > is important to remember that the system enumerates the partitions in the
> > order, Primary first, Logical second - so a disk in this lay-out will have
> > the primaries as C: and D: and the two Logical drives as E: and F: in the
> > order they are found. If there are multiple drives, then the Primary
> > partitions are still counted first and assigned a drive letter before any
> > Logical drives.
> >
> > If your third partition is to harbour something else entirely, like
> > Linux -
> > then that should be Primary too.
> >
> > Now, your partitions are in place, and your mind is clear about what you
> > want to do, make sure that you name, or label all the partitions in
> > accordance with your intended use, I think you can do that (I have not
> > used
> > that kind of software myself!) - Install W2K to the Partition that you
> > intended to be the D: drive (it may not end up being that, but if you made
> > a
> > label you should have no trouble, in addition you could make the
> > partitions
> > to be different sizes), this means that you should not install it to the
> > partition that is listed at the top, then install XP to it's intended
> > Partition (the topmost in the list) and everything should be fine - except
> > that XP may sit on the D: drive (With an identifying label!) but the XP
> > installer has knowledge about W2K, since it is newer. W2K has no knowledge
> > of anything XP. . .this is crucial, this way you should have both systems
> > booting right away.
> >
> > You can install in the reversed manner (like you have), but it will be a
> > bumpy route, filled with issues of the kind you are describing, above all,
> > it doesn't help to start moving things around and then re-installing and
> > moving the things back and forth again - it only brings confusion!
> >
> > I recommend you to wip up some kind of graphical drawing with notes of
> > your
> > ideas of your intentions, it doesn't matter how it looks as long as you
> > can
> > follow your own ideas. Have a good night's sleep and have a good quiet day
> > making your notes, that is probably the most helpfull thing you can do.
> >
> > Remember, though, that if your HD is SATA, to have a floppy ready for each
> > system as you install them. The fact that you served up the Drivers for
> > one
> > system, doesn't mean they will be seen by the next Installer, you need
> > them
> > on both occasions!
> >
> > I cannot remember where all this started, you didn't have two HD's, did
> > you?
> > If you are having IDE and SATA drives together, then you are facing a
> > whole
> > different issue, and you should make sure that you install to the disk
> > that
> > is the first that is seen by the system. This could mean that you'd have
> > to
> > disconnect the other. But I assume not, from your post I read it as 'one
> > disk - multiple partitions'.
> >
> > Good Luck!
> >
> >
> > Tony. . .
> >
> >
> >
> >

>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Barnes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-11-2007
I was not responding to your dilemma. As understand it you have
drive 0 partition 1 primary active system drive os= x64
partition 2 Logical os= win2k
partition 3 primary??? os= none
Boot.ini shows drive 0 partition 1 windows second record shows partition 2
winnt

Might help someone to know what the format is of each of your partitions.
NTFS, FAT32

I don't know why you would even mention reinstalling your two operating
systems. You have a relatively easy way of choosing between them so now
there's only the satisfaction of figuring out why your later version of
ntldr won't get you into win2k while the earlier version will.

When I have time later I will study the new info you have presented and see
if anything clears up for me. Good luck.

"dakota02" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Unfortunately, reformatting and reinstalling the 2 operating systems would
> be
> virtually impossible at this point, since there are literally hundreds of
> programs installed, and it would take weeks, especially since it would
> take a
> long time, and might even be impossible to find all of the sources and the
> license keys for each. I backup regularly, and just this one computer, has
> over 39 gb in the backup, which is over 100 mb uncompressed.
>
> But, that is not the point. As long as you have the two operating systems,
> it should be possible to make them work using ntldr, ntdetect.com, and
> boot.ini. I know my boot.ini is correct, because it works from floppies,
> and
> I have had to modify it many times when I made changes that did not allow
> one
> system or the other to boot. I now use the exact same boot.ini on all
> floppies and on c:\. The only problem that I have is I have to constantly
> change ntldr, depending on which version I want to boot. My suspicion is
> that
> although ntldr may work fine for xp x32, it looks like it does not work
> for
> 2000 sp4. I don't know if it is related to the fact that I have sp1 on xp
> x64
> (maybe the ntldr is only good for sp1 when trying to boot 2000 sp4??). I
> suspect I am an unusual case, since there are probably not too many x64
> amd
> machines around trying to dual boot xp x64 sp1 and 2000 sp1. Most are
> probably trying to dual boot xp 32 and xp 64. Perhaps something was
> supposed
> to modify the winnt\system32\config\system for a dual boot with xp x64 and
> that is not happening for some reason.
>
> I tried to do a boot logging when performing a failed 2000 boot, but
> nothing
> showed up anywhere. Is there any way to trace through the process to see
> exactly where the problem is? Or, does someone have a working system? If
> so,
> where can I get that version of ntldr, since that seems to be the problem.
>
> "John Barnes" wrote:
>
>> Not correct Tony. See
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b/234048/en-us for the most
>> common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.
>>
>> "Tony Sperling" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Oh yes, it should work!
>> >
>> > What has messed you up, I guess, is that you want XP as your C:
>> > partition
>> > and W2K as D:, right? That may not work, however.
>> >
>> > Now, the easiest thing for you to do - now that you have partitioning
>> > software and both systems fresh, is to start over from scratch.
>> > Partition
>> > your drive(s) the way you prefer the most, it doesn't really matter if
>> > they
>> > are Primary or Logical, but I prefer Primaries too.
>> >
>> > If you want a third partition to be a data-disk for both systems
>> > (something
>> > I would not advice) then you can make three Primaries, if you want each
>> > system to have it's own data-disk, then I would make the twoOS
>> > partitions
>> > Primary, and the data-disks Logical from each one of the Primaries, but
>> > it
>> > is important to remember that the system enumerates the partitions in
>> > the
>> > order, Primary first, Logical second - so a disk in this lay-out will
>> > have
>> > the primaries as C: and D: and the two Logical drives as E: and F: in
>> > the
>> > order they are found. If there are multiple drives, then the Primary
>> > partitions are still counted first and assigned a drive letter before
>> > any
>> > Logical drives.
>> >
>> > If your third partition is to harbour something else entirely, like
>> > Linux -
>> > then that should be Primary too.
>> >
>> > Now, your partitions are in place, and your mind is clear about what
>> > you
>> > want to do, make sure that you name, or label all the partitions in
>> > accordance with your intended use, I think you can do that (I have not
>> > used
>> > that kind of software myself!) - Install W2K to the Partition that you
>> > intended to be the D: drive (it may not end up being that, but if you
>> > made
>> > a
>> > label you should have no trouble, in addition you could make the
>> > partitions
>> > to be different sizes), this means that you should not install it to
>> > the
>> > partition that is listed at the top, then install XP to it's intended
>> > Partition (the topmost in the list) and everything should be fine -
>> > except
>> > that XP may sit on the D: drive (With an identifying label!) but the XP
>> > installer has knowledge about W2K, since it is newer. W2K has no
>> > knowledge
>> > of anything XP. . .this is crucial, this way you should have both
>> > systems
>> > booting right away.
>> >
>> > You can install in the reversed manner (like you have), but it will be
>> > a
>> > bumpy route, filled with issues of the kind you are describing, above
>> > all,
>> > it doesn't help to start moving things around and then re-installing
>> > and
>> > moving the things back and forth again - it only brings confusion!
>> >
>> > I recommend you to wip up some kind of graphical drawing with notes of
>> > your
>> > ideas of your intentions, it doesn't matter how it looks as long as you
>> > can
>> > follow your own ideas. Have a good night's sleep and have a good quiet
>> > day
>> > making your notes, that is probably the most helpfull thing you can do.
>> >
>> > Remember, though, that if your HD is SATA, to have a floppy ready for
>> > each
>> > system as you install them. The fact that you served up the Drivers for
>> > one
>> > system, doesn't mean they will be seen by the next Installer, you need
>> > them
>> > on both occasions!
>> >
>> > I cannot remember where all this started, you didn't have two HD's, did
>> > you?
>> > If you are having IDE and SATA drives together, then you are facing a
>> > whole
>> > different issue, and you should make sure that you install to the disk
>> > that
>> > is the first that is seen by the system. This could mean that you'd
>> > have
>> > to
>> > disconnect the other. But I assume not, from your post I read it as
>> > 'one
>> > disk - multiple partitions'.
>> >
>> > Good Luck!
>> >
>> >
>> > Tony. . .
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >

>>
>>

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Barnes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-11-2007
Have you run fixboot on both of your os volumes?
Check the drive letters assigned in Recovery Console and do a fixboot
(defaults to system volume)
and a fixboot d: or whatever the drive letter is assigned (in Recovery
Console) to the Win2k volume.


"John Barnes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I was not responding to your dilemma. As understand it you have
> drive 0 partition 1 primary active system drive os= x64
> partition 2 Logical os= win2k
> partition 3 primary??? os= none
> Boot.ini shows drive 0 partition 1 windows second record shows partition
> 2 winnt
>
> Might help someone to know what the format is of each of your partitions.
> NTFS, FAT32
>
> I don't know why you would even mention reinstalling your two operating
> systems. You have a relatively easy way of choosing between them so now
> there's only the satisfaction of figuring out why your later version of
> ntldr won't get you into win2k while the earlier version will.
>
> When I have time later I will study the new info you have presented and
> see if anything clears up for me. Good luck.
>
> "dakota02" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Unfortunately, reformatting and reinstalling the 2 operating systems
>> would be
>> virtually impossible at this point, since there are literally hundreds of
>> programs installed, and it would take weeks, especially since it would
>> take a
>> long time, and might even be impossible to find all of the sources and
>> the
>> license keys for each. I backup regularly, and just this one computer,
>> has
>> over 39 gb in the backup, which is over 100 mb uncompressed.
>>
>> But, that is not the point. As long as you have the two operating
>> systems,
>> it should be possible to make them work using ntldr, ntdetect.com, and
>> boot.ini. I know my boot.ini is correct, because it works from floppies,
>> and
>> I have had to modify it many times when I made changes that did not allow
>> one
>> system or the other to boot. I now use the exact same boot.ini on all
>> floppies and on c:\. The only problem that I have is I have to constantly
>> change ntldr, depending on which version I want to boot. My suspicion is
>> that
>> although ntldr may work fine for xp x32, it looks like it does not work
>> for
>> 2000 sp4. I don't know if it is related to the fact that I have sp1 on xp
>> x64
>> (maybe the ntldr is only good for sp1 when trying to boot 2000 sp4??). I
>> suspect I am an unusual case, since there are probably not too many x64
>> amd
>> machines around trying to dual boot xp x64 sp1 and 2000 sp1. Most are
>> probably trying to dual boot xp 32 and xp 64. Perhaps something was
>> supposed
>> to modify the winnt\system32\config\system for a dual boot with xp x64
>> and
>> that is not happening for some reason.
>>
>> I tried to do a boot logging when performing a failed 2000 boot, but
>> nothing
>> showed up anywhere. Is there any way to trace through the process to see
>> exactly where the problem is? Or, does someone have a working system? If
>> so,
>> where can I get that version of ntldr, since that seems to be the
>> problem.
>>
>> "John Barnes" wrote:
>>
>>> Not correct Tony. See
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b/234048/en-us for the most
>>> common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.
>>>
>>> "Tony Sperling" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> > Oh yes, it should work!
>>> >
>>> > What has messed you up, I guess, is that you want XP as your C:
>>> > partition
>>> > and W2K as D:, right? That may not work, however.
>>> >
>>> > Now, the easiest thing for you to do - now that you have partitioning
>>> > software and both systems fresh, is to start over from scratch.
>>> > Partition
>>> > your drive(s) the way you prefer the most, it doesn't really matter if
>>> > they
>>> > are Primary or Logical, but I prefer Primaries too.
>>> >
>>> > If you want a third partition to be a data-disk for both systems
>>> > (something
>>> > I would not advice) then you can make three Primaries, if you want
>>> > each
>>> > system to have it's own data-disk, then I would make the twoOS
>>> > partitions
>>> > Primary, and the data-disks Logical from each one of the Primaries,
>>> > but it
>>> > is important to remember that the system enumerates the partitions in
>>> > the
>>> > order, Primary first, Logical second - so a disk in this lay-out will
>>> > have
>>> > the primaries as C: and D: and the two Logical drives as E: and F: in
>>> > the
>>> > order they are found. If there are multiple drives, then the Primary
>>> > partitions are still counted first and assigned a drive letter before
>>> > any
>>> > Logical drives.
>>> >
>>> > If your third partition is to harbour something else entirely, like
>>> > Linux -
>>> > then that should be Primary too.
>>> >
>>> > Now, your partitions are in place, and your mind is clear about what
>>> > you
>>> > want to do, make sure that you name, or label all the partitions in
>>> > accordance with your intended use, I think you can do that (I have not
>>> > used
>>> > that kind of software myself!) - Install W2K to the Partition that you
>>> > intended to be the D: drive (it may not end up being that, but if you
>>> > made
>>> > a
>>> > label you should have no trouble, in addition you could make the
>>> > partitions
>>> > to be different sizes), this means that you should not install it to
>>> > the
>>> > partition that is listed at the top, then install XP to it's intended
>>> > Partition (the topmost in the list) and everything should be fine -
>>> > except
>>> > that XP may sit on the D: drive (With an identifying label!) but the
>>> > XP
>>> > installer has knowledge about W2K, since it is newer. W2K has no
>>> > knowledge
>>> > of anything XP. . .this is crucial, this way you should have both
>>> > systems
>>> > booting right away.
>>> >
>>> > You can install in the reversed manner (like you have), but it will be
>>> > a
>>> > bumpy route, filled with issues of the kind you are describing, above
>>> > all,
>>> > it doesn't help to start moving things around and then re-installing
>>> > and
>>> > moving the things back and forth again - it only brings confusion!
>>> >
>>> > I recommend you to wip up some kind of graphical drawing with notes of
>>> > your
>>> > ideas of your intentions, it doesn't matter how it looks as long as
>>> > you
>>> > can
>>> > follow your own ideas. Have a good night's sleep and have a good quiet
>>> > day
>>> > making your notes, that is probably the most helpfull thing you can
>>> > do.
>>> >
>>> > Remember, though, that if your HD is SATA, to have a floppy ready for
>>> > each
>>> > system as you install them. The fact that you served up the Drivers
>>> > for
>>> > one
>>> > system, doesn't mean they will be seen by the next Installer, you need
>>> > them
>>> > on both occasions!
>>> >
>>> > I cannot remember where all this started, you didn't have two HD's,
>>> > did
>>> > you?
>>> > If you are having IDE and SATA drives together, then you are facing a
>>> > whole
>>> > different issue, and you should make sure that you install to the disk
>>> > that
>>> > is the first that is seen by the system. This could mean that you'd
>>> > have
>>> > to
>>> > disconnect the other. But I assume not, from your post I read it as
>>> > 'one
>>> > disk - multiple partitions'.
>>> >
>>> > Good Luck!
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Tony. . .
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>


 
Reply With Quote
 
=?Utf-8?B?ZGFrb3RhMDI=?=
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-12-2007
Yes, that is basically correct, except that map or diskpart show the first
drive as drive 1, and have a message that there is no drive 0, or it is
unknown, or something to that effect. But, other than that, disk 1 partition
1 is xpx64, file system ntfs, 31 GB, sector size 512. (It was 1k or 2k at one
time, but I reduced it to 512 to be more efficient.) Disk 1, partition 2 is
x2000, file system ntfs, about 38 GB, with 512 sectors. (They were 1 k or 2k
a while ago, but I reduced to 512 to get the maximum efficiency, since I
always seem to be running out of disk space.) INT 13 is on in bios, and scsi
is set as the boot, while the on-board sata raid is disabled. Disk 1
partition 3 is a fat 32 partition of about 1 gb. It is basically just
containing some data at this point. I put it in to perhaps hold windows 95,
or dos, but it was really just an afterthought when I was running partition
magic one day. I have tried fixboot on both partitions 1 and 2. I think, at
one point, many months ago, one of those partitions may have been fat32 and I
may have converted to ntfs, but that was long before this multiple boot
question arose. As I may have mentioned, at one point, almost 2 years ago,
when I first built up the machine, I think I had dual boot working, but I am
not sure. I know that I was having driver issues with xp x64 and so I stopped
using it. I also know, however, that I could not dual boot shortly after
that. What I don't recall is if I was ever able to successfully dual boot xp
x64 and win2k. If I could, it was shortly after I set up the machine, and
that was in July 2005 with a version of xp x64 that I downloaded for a trial
from Microsoft in July of 2005. I know that I could no longer dual boot as of
August or September of 2005, if I ever could. Since then, and before I
purchased a copy of xp x64 last month and installed it, I completely removed
any remnants of xp x64 from the machine by totally deleting c:\windows where
it was (and now is) contained. So, essentially, this is a fresh install of xp
x64 in c:\windows on a dual core, dual processor Opteron that had, and has
had for over 18 months, win2k sp4 running in f:\winnt. SCSI drive is Adaptec
29320a with latest bios and latest drivers. (For a while I was trying this
with the latest bios, but not the latest drivers. I downloaded and installed
the latest drivers this weekend, but it made no difference.) The motherboard
is a TYAN S2885. All three internal drives are 15k, U320 scsi drives. Two are
73 GB, one is 146 GB. (Drives 1 and 2 are 73 GB, drive 3 is 146 GB.) I am
moving to xp x64 mostly because I often tend to run up against memory
limitations. This machine has 4 GB of ram, and I could only use about 2.5 of
them in win2k because of it's limitations. I also suspect I will get better
harddisk performance with xp x64, since my card is a 64 bit card, designed to
work with the pci-x slot in which it is installed.

"John Barnes" wrote:

> I was not responding to your dilemma. As understand it you have
> drive 0 partition 1 primary active system drive os= x64
> partition 2 Logical os= win2k
> partition 3 primary??? os= none
> Boot.ini shows drive 0 partition 1 windows second record shows partition 2
> winnt
>
> Might help someone to know what the format is of each of your partitions.
> NTFS, FAT32
>
> I don't know why you would even mention reinstalling your two operating
> systems. You have a relatively easy way of choosing between them so now
> there's only the satisfaction of figuring out why your later version of
> ntldr won't get you into win2k while the earlier version will.
>
> When I have time later I will study the new info you have presented and see
> if anything clears up for me. Good luck.
>
> "dakota02" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Unfortunately, reformatting and reinstalling the 2 operating systems would
> > be
> > virtually impossible at this point, since there are literally hundreds of
> > programs installed, and it would take weeks, especially since it would
> > take a
> > long time, and might even be impossible to find all of the sources and the
> > license keys for each. I backup regularly, and just this one computer, has
> > over 39 gb in the backup, which is over 100 mb uncompressed.
> >
> > But, that is not the point. As long as you have the two operating systems,
> > it should be possible to make them work using ntldr, ntdetect.com, and
> > boot.ini. I know my boot.ini is correct, because it works from floppies,
> > and
> > I have had to modify it many times when I made changes that did not allow
> > one
> > system or the other to boot. I now use the exact same boot.ini on all
> > floppies and on c:\. The only problem that I have is I have to constantly
> > change ntldr, depending on which version I want to boot. My suspicion is
> > that
> > although ntldr may work fine for xp x32, it looks like it does not work
> > for
> > 2000 sp4. I don't know if it is related to the fact that I have sp1 on xp
> > x64
> > (maybe the ntldr is only good for sp1 when trying to boot 2000 sp4??). I
> > suspect I am an unusual case, since there are probably not too many x64
> > amd
> > machines around trying to dual boot xp x64 sp1 and 2000 sp1. Most are
> > probably trying to dual boot xp 32 and xp 64. Perhaps something was
> > supposed
> > to modify the winnt\system32\config\system for a dual boot with xp x64 and
> > that is not happening for some reason.
> >
> > I tried to do a boot logging when performing a failed 2000 boot, but
> > nothing
> > showed up anywhere. Is there any way to trace through the process to see
> > exactly where the problem is? Or, does someone have a working system? If
> > so,
> > where can I get that version of ntldr, since that seems to be the problem.
> >
> > "John Barnes" wrote:
> >
> >> Not correct Tony. See
> >> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b/234048/en-us for the most
> >> common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.
> >>
> >> "Tony Sperling" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> > Oh yes, it should work!
> >> >
> >> > What has messed you up, I guess, is that you want XP as your C:
> >> > partition
> >> > and W2K as D:, right? That may not work, however.
> >> >
> >> > Now, the easiest thing for you to do - now that you have partitioning
> >> > software and both systems fresh, is to start over from scratch.
> >> > Partition
> >> > your drive(s) the way you prefer the most, it doesn't really matter if
> >> > they
> >> > are Primary or Logical, but I prefer Primaries too.
> >> >
> >> > If you want a third partition to be a data-disk for both systems
> >> > (something
> >> > I would not advice) then you can make three Primaries, if you want each
> >> > system to have it's own data-disk, then I would make the twoOS
> >> > partitions
> >> > Primary, and the data-disks Logical from each one of the Primaries, but
> >> > it
> >> > is important to remember that the system enumerates the partitions in
> >> > the
> >> > order, Primary first, Logical second - so a disk in this lay-out will
> >> > have
> >> > the primaries as C: and D: and the two Logical drives as E: and F: in
> >> > the
> >> > order they are found. If there are multiple drives, then the Primary
> >> > partitions are still counted first and assigned a drive letter before
> >> > any
> >> > Logical drives.
> >> >
> >> > If your third partition is to harbour something else entirely, like
> >> > Linux -
> >> > then that should be Primary too.
> >> >
> >> > Now, your partitions are in place, and your mind is clear about what
> >> > you
> >> > want to do, make sure that you name, or label all the partitions in
> >> > accordance with your intended use, I think you can do that (I have not
> >> > used
> >> > that kind of software myself!) - Install W2K to the Partition that you
> >> > intended to be the D: drive (it may not end up being that, but if you
> >> > made
> >> > a
> >> > label you should have no trouble, in addition you could make the
> >> > partitions
> >> > to be different sizes), this means that you should not install it to
> >> > the
> >> > partition that is listed at the top, then install XP to it's intended
> >> > Partition (the topmost in the list) and everything should be fine -
> >> > except
> >> > that XP may sit on the D: drive (With an identifying label!) but the XP
> >> > installer has knowledge about W2K, since it is newer. W2K has no
> >> > knowledge
> >> > of anything XP. . .this is crucial, this way you should have both
> >> > systems
> >> > booting right away.
> >> >
> >> > You can install in the reversed manner (like you have), but it will be
> >> > a
> >> > bumpy route, filled with issues of the kind you are describing, above
> >> > all,
> >> > it doesn't help to start moving things around and then re-installing
> >> > and
> >> > moving the things back and forth again - it only brings confusion!
> >> >
> >> > I recommend you to wip up some kind of graphical drawing with notes of
> >> > your
> >> > ideas of your intentions, it doesn't matter how it looks as long as you
> >> > can
> >> > follow your own ideas. Have a good night's sleep and have a good quiet
> >> > day
> >> > making your notes, that is probably the most helpfull thing you can do.
> >> >
> >> > Remember, though, that if your HD is SATA, to have a floppy ready for
> >> > each
> >> > system as you install them. The fact that you served up the Drivers for
> >> > one
> >> > system, doesn't mean they will be seen by the next Installer, you need
> >> > them
> >> > on both occasions!
> >> >
> >> > I cannot remember where all this started, you didn't have two HD's, did
> >> > you?
> >> > If you are having IDE and SATA drives together, then you are facing a
> >> > whole
> >> > different issue, and you should make sure that you install to the disk
> >> > that
> >> > is the first that is seen by the system. This could mean that you'd
> >> > have
> >> > to
> >> > disconnect the other. But I assume not, from your post I read it as
> >> > 'one
> >> > disk - multiple partitions'.
> >> >
> >> > Good Luck!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Tony. . .
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>

>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bjorn Landemoo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-12-2007
Hi again!

One thing you could try would be to use a third row in boot.ini,
containing:

scsi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\winnt="Win2000 NTBOOTDD.SYS"

This also requires that you copy your current SCSI adapter driver to the
root of your C drive (or the floppy, if you boot from it), and rename it to
ntbootdd.sys.

This way you do not rely on ntldr to find your partition, but rather
Adaptecs own driver. Might be worth a try.

Best regards

Bjorn

dakota02 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Yes, that is basically correct, except that map or diskpart show the first
>drive as drive 1, and have a message that there is no drive 0, or it is
>unknown, or something to that effect. But, other than that, disk 1 partition
>1 is xpx64, file system ntfs, 31 GB, sector size 512. (It was 1k or 2k at one
>time, but I reduced it to 512 to be more efficient.) Disk 1, partition 2 is
>x2000, file system ntfs, about 38 GB, with 512 sectors. (They were 1 k or 2k
>a while ago, but I reduced to 512 to get the maximum efficiency, since I
>always seem to be running out of disk space.) INT 13 is on in bios, and scsi
>is set as the boot, while the on-board sata raid is disabled. Disk 1
>partition 3 is a fat 32 partition of about 1 gb. It is basically just
>containing some data at this point. I put it in to perhaps hold windows 95,
>or dos, but it was really just an afterthought when I was running partition
>magic one day. I have tried fixboot on both partitions 1 and 2. I think, at
>one point, many months ago, one of those partitions may have been fat32 and I
>may have converted to ntfs, but that was long before this multiple boot
>question arose. As I may have mentioned, at one point, almost 2 years ago,
>when I first built up the machine, I think I had dual boot working, but I am
>not sure. I know that I was having driver issues with xp x64 and so I stopped
>using it. I also know, however, that I could not dual boot shortly after
>that. What I don't recall is if I was ever able to successfully dual boot xp
>x64 and win2k. If I could, it was shortly after I set up the machine, and
>that was in July 2005 with a version of xp x64 that I downloaded for a trial
>from Microsoft in July of 2005. I know that I could no longer dual boot as of
>August or September of 2005, if I ever could. Since then, and before I
>purchased a copy of xp x64 last month and installed it, I completely removed
>any remnants of xp x64 from the machine by totally deleting c:\windows where
>it was (and now is) contained. So, essentially, this is a fresh install of xp
>x64 in c:\windows on a dual core, dual processor Opteron that had, and has
>had for over 18 months, win2k sp4 running in f:\winnt. SCSI drive is Adaptec
>29320a with latest bios and latest drivers. (For a while I was trying this
>with the latest bios, but not the latest drivers. I downloaded and installed
>the latest drivers this weekend, but it made no difference.) The motherboard
>is a TYAN S2885. All three internal drives are 15k, U320 scsi drives. Two are
>73 GB, one is 146 GB. (Drives 1 and 2 are 73 GB, drive 3 is 146 GB.) I am
>moving to xp x64 mostly because I often tend to run up against memory
>limitations. This machine has 4 GB of ram, and I could only use about 2.5 of
>them in win2k because of it's limitations. I also suspect I will get better
>harddisk performance with xp x64, since my card is a 64 bit card, designed to
>work with the pci-x slot in which it is installed.
>
>"John Barnes" wrote:
>
>> I was not responding to your dilemma. As understand it you have
>> drive 0 partition 1 primary active system drive os= x64
>> partition 2 Logical os= win2k
>> partition 3 primary??? os= none
>> Boot.ini shows drive 0 partition 1 windows second record shows partition 2
>> winnt
>>
>> Might help someone to know what the format is of each of your partitions.
>> NTFS, FAT32
>>
>> I don't know why you would even mention reinstalling your two operating
>> systems. You have a relatively easy way of choosing between them so now
>> there's only the satisfaction of figuring out why your later version of
>> ntldr won't get you into win2k while the earlier version will.
>>
>> When I have time later I will study the new info you have presented and see
>> if anything clears up for me. Good luck.
>>
>> "dakota02" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > Unfortunately, reformatting and reinstalling the 2 operating systems would
>> > be
>> > virtually impossible at this point, since there are literally hundreds of
>> > programs installed, and it would take weeks, especially since it would
>> > take a
>> > long time, and might even be impossible to find all of the sources and the
>> > license keys for each. I backup regularly, and just this one computer, has
>> > over 39 gb in the backup, which is over 100 mb uncompressed.
>> >
>> > But, that is not the point. As long as you have the two operating systems,
>> > it should be possible to make them work using ntldr, ntdetect.com, and
>> > boot.ini. I know my boot.ini is correct, because it works from floppies,
>> > and
>> > I have had to modify it many times when I made changes that did not allow
>> > one
>> > system or the other to boot. I now use the exact same boot.ini on all
>> > floppies and on c:\. The only problem that I have is I have to constantly
>> > change ntldr, depending on which version I want to boot. My suspicion is
>> > that
>> > although ntldr may work fine for xp x32, it looks like it does not work
>> > for
>> > 2000 sp4. I don't know if it is related to the fact that I have sp1 on xp
>> > x64
>> > (maybe the ntldr is only good for sp1 when trying to boot 2000 sp4??). I
>> > suspect I am an unusual case, since there are probably not too many x64
>> > amd
>> > machines around trying to dual boot xp x64 sp1 and 2000 sp1. Most are
>> > probably trying to dual boot xp 32 and xp 64. Perhaps something was
>> > supposed
>> > to modify the winnt\system32\config\system for a dual boot with xp x64 and
>> > that is not happening for some reason.
>> >
>> > I tried to do a boot logging when performing a failed 2000 boot, but
>> > nothing
>> > showed up anywhere. Is there any way to trace through the process to see
>> > exactly where the problem is? Or, does someone have a working system? If
>> > so,
>> > where can I get that version of ntldr, since that seems to be the problem.
>> >
>> > "John Barnes" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Not correct Tony. See
>> >> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b/234048/en-us for the most
>> >> common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.
>> >>
>> >> "Tony Sperling" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> >> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> > Oh yes, it should work!
>> >> >
>> >> > What has messed you up, I guess, is that you want XP as your C:
>> >> > partition
>> >> > and W2K as D:, right? That may not work, however.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now, the easiest thing for you to do - now that you have partitioning
>> >> > software and both systems fresh, is to start over from scratch.
>> >> > Partition
>> >> > your drive(s) the way you prefer the most, it doesn't really matter if
>> >> > they
>> >> > are Primary or Logical, but I prefer Primaries too.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you want a third partition to be a data-disk for both systems
>> >> > (something
>> >> > I would not advice) then you can make three Primaries, if you want each
>> >> > system to have it's own data-disk, then I would make the twoOS
>> >> > partitions
>> >> > Primary, and the data-disks Logical from each one of the Primaries, but
>> >> > it
>> >> > is important to remember that the system enumerates the partitions in
>> >> > the
>> >> > order, Primary first, Logical second - so a disk in this lay-out will
>> >> > have
>> >> > the primaries as C: and D: and the two Logical drives as E: and F: in
>> >> > the
>> >> > order they are found. If there are multiple drives, then the Primary
>> >> > partitions are still counted first and assigned a drive letter before
>> >> > any
>> >> > Logical drives.
>> >> >
>> >> > If your third partition is to harbour something else entirely, like
>> >> > Linux -
>> >> > then that should be Primary too.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now, your partitions are in place, and your mind is clear about what
>> >> > you
>> >> > want to do, make sure that you name, or label all the partitions in
>> >> > accordance with your intended use, I think you can do that (I have not
>> >> > used
>> >> > that kind of software myself!) - Install W2K to the Partition that you
>> >> > intended to be the D: drive (it may not end up being that, but if you
>> >> > made
>> >> > a
>> >> > label you should have no trouble, in addition you could make the
>> >> > partitions
>> >> > to be different sizes), this means that you should not install it to
>> >> > the
>> >> > partition that is listed at the top, then install XP to it's intended
>> >> > Partition (the topmost in the list) and everything should be fine -
>> >> > except
>> >> > that XP may sit on the D: drive (With an identifying label!) but the XP
>> >> > installer has knowledge about W2K, since it is newer. W2K has no
>> >> > knowledge
>> >> > of anything XP. . .this is crucial, this way you should have both
>> >> > systems
>> >> > booting right away.
>> >> >
>> >> > You can install in the reversed manner (like you have), but it will be
>> >> > a
>> >> > bumpy route, filled with issues of the kind you are describing, above
>> >> > all,
>> >> > it doesn't help to start moving things around and then re-installing
>> >> > and
>> >> > moving the things back and forth again - it only brings confusion!
>> >> >
>> >> > I recommend you to wip up some kind of graphical drawing with notes of
>> >> > your
>> >> > ideas of your intentions, it doesn't matter how it looks as long as you
>> >> > can
>> >> > follow your own ideas. Have a good night's sleep and have a good quiet
>> >> > day
>> >> > making your notes, that is probably the most helpfull thing you can do.
>> >> >
>> >> > Remember, though, that if your HD is SATA, to have a floppy ready for
>> >> > each
>> >> > system as you install them. The fact that you served up the Drivers for
>> >> > one
>> >> > system, doesn't mean they will be seen by the next Installer, you need
>> >> > them
>> >> > on both occasions!
>> >> >
>> >> > I cannot remember where all this started, you didn't have two HD's, did
>> >> > you?
>> >> > If you are having IDE and SATA drives together, then you are facing a
>> >> > whole
>> >> > different issue, and you should make sure that you install to the disk
>> >> > that
>> >> > is the first that is seen by the system. This could mean that you'd
>> >> > have
>> >> > to
>> >> > disconnect the other. But I assume not, from your post I read it as
>> >> > 'one
>> >> > disk - multiple partitions'.
>> >> >
>> >> > Good Luck!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Tony. . .
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>

>>


 
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
to dual boot or not to dual boot Hugh Sutherland Computer Support 5 01-21-2010 09:37 PM
dual boot or not to dual boot Hugh Sutherland Computer Support 1 01-20-2010 10:10 PM
Installing XP Pro x64 in a dual boot/vm with XP Pro x32? Pat Windows 64bit 7 03-31-2008 02:15 PM
Dual boot with XP Pro and XP Pro x64? =?Utf-8?B?UmVnYWwyNjAw?= Windows 64bit 5 02-09-2006 02:29 AM
Can't Dual Boot XP Pro and XP x64! HELP... =?Utf-8?B?SlA=?= Windows 64bit 2 11-28-2005 09:07 PM



Advertisments