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

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?ZGFrb3RhMDI=?=, Mar 11, 2007.

  1. 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.
     
    =?Utf-8?B?ZGFrb3RhMDI=?=, Mar 11, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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.
     
    =?Utf-8?B?bG9hZGVyb3Bw?=, Mar 11, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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. . .
     
    Tony Sperling, Mar 11, 2007
    #3
  4. 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. . .
     
    Tony Sperling, Mar 11, 2007
    #4
  5. =?Utf-8?B?ZGFrb3RhMDI=?=

    John Barnes Guest

    Not correct Tony. See
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/234048/en-us for the most
    common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.

    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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. . .
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    John Barnes, Mar 11, 2007
    #5
  6. Re: Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and win2

    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.aspx/kb/234048/en-us for the most
    > common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > 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. . .
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?ZGFrb3RhMDI=?=, Mar 11, 2007
    #6
  7. =?Utf-8?B?ZGFrb3RhMDI=?=

    John Barnes Guest

    Re: Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and win2

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.aspx/kb/234048/en-us for the most
    >> common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.
    >>
    >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > 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. . .
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >

    >>
    >>
     
    John Barnes, Mar 11, 2007
    #7
  8. =?Utf-8?B?ZGFrb3RhMDI=?=

    John Barnes Guest

    Re: Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and win2

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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.aspx/kb/234048/en-us for the most
    >>> common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.
    >>>
    >>> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>> > 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. . .
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>>
    >>>
     
    John Barnes, Mar 11, 2007
    #8
  9. Re: Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and win2

    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" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > 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.aspx/kb/234048/en-us for the most
    > >> common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.
    > >>
    > >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> > 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. . .
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >>

    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?ZGFrb3RhMDI=?=, Mar 12, 2007
    #9
  10. Re: Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and win2

    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 <> 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" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > 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.aspx/kb/234048/en-us for the most
    >> >> common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.
    >> >>
    >> >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:...
    >> >> > 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. . .
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >>

    >>
     
    Bjorn Landemoo, Mar 12, 2007
    #10
  11. Re: Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and win2

    Interesting that you should mention that. I've been wondering about that for
    a while. I read in one of many books that I have that ntbootdd.sys should be
    in the root of the system drive. However, there is NO ntbootdd.sys file
    anywhere on my system. I don't think there ever was. But, there certainly is
    not, now. Of course, that did not prevent win2k from booting as long as I
    used the old version of ntldr (and the book says it still needs
    ntbootdd.sys), but there is no such file.

    Do I need to copy a file and call it ntbootdd.sys? Perhaps that is the
    problem?

    "Bjorn Landemoo" wrote:

    > 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 <> 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" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> > 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.aspx/kb/234048/en-us for the most
    > >> >> common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > >> >> news:...
    > >> >> > 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. . .
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >>

    >
    >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?ZGFrb3RhMDI=?=, Mar 12, 2007
    #11
  12. Re: Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and win2

    Yes, you need to find the driver for yor SCSI adapter and rename it to
    ntbootdd.sys. You told us previously that you used an "Adaptec 29320A with
    latest BIOS and latest driver". This driver is the file you need to rename
    to ntbootdd.sys, and put on the floppy, along with the modified boot.ini as
    explained below, together with ntldr and ntdetect.com.

    Best regards

    Bjorn

    dakota02 <> wrote:

    >Interesting that you should mention that. I've been wondering about that for
    >a while. I read in one of many books that I have that ntbootdd.sys should be
    >in the root of the system drive. However, there is NO ntbootdd.sys file
    >anywhere on my system. I don't think there ever was. But, there certainly is
    >not, now. Of course, that did not prevent win2k from booting as long as I
    >used the old version of ntldr (and the book says it still needs
    >ntbootdd.sys), but there is no such file.
    >
    >Do I need to copy a file and call it ntbootdd.sys? Perhaps that is the
    >problem?
    >
    >"Bjorn Landemoo" wrote:
    >
    >> 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 <> 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" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:...
    >> >> > 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.aspx/kb/234048/en-us for the most
    >> >> >> common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >> >> >> news:...
    >> >> >> > 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. . .
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>
    >> >>

    >>
    >>
     
    Bjorn Landemoo, Mar 12, 2007
    #12
  13. Re: Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and win2

    Hello,
    THis should be working fine.
    NTLDR and NTDetect.com are supposed to be backwards compatible so the ones
    from Windows XP X64 should work fine with Windows 2000 SP4
    The error message is more indicative of that it cannot locate
    \winnt\system32\config\system hive of the registry than anything wrong with
    the registry file itself
    So the boot order should be>
    NTLDR which reads the boot.ini.
    WE then load ntdetect.com which detects hardware and passes that
    information back to NTLDR.
    NTLDR than passes that information along to ntoskrnl.exe which would then
    load the registry.

    So what are the versions of ntdetect.com(matched to NTLDR) that are being
    used, maybe it is not passing the correct information along.
    Make sure the SP4 version of ntoskrnl.exe is in Windows 2000.

    Thanks,
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT]

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
    --------------------
    |>Thread-Topic: Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and
    win2
    |>thread-index: Acdk768/oDcUmWFqR7yBT6zTB8iOLw==
    |>X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 71.225.149.237
    |>From: =?Utf-8?B?ZGFrb3RhMDI=?= <>
    |>References: <>
    <>
    <>
    <>
    <>
    <>
    <>
    |>Subject: Re: Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and
    win2
    |>Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:45:00 -0700
    |>Lines: 250
    |>Message-ID: <>
    |>MIME-Version: 1.0
    |>Content-Type: text/plain;
    |> charset="Utf-8"
    |>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    |>X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
    |>Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
    |>Importance: normal
    |>Priority: normal
    |>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2757
    |>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    |>Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
    |>Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:4607
    |>NNTP-Posting-Host: tk2msftsbfm01.phx.gbl 10.40.244.148
    |>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    |>
    |>Interesting that you should mention that. I've been wondering about that
    for
    |>a while. I read in one of many books that I have that ntbootdd.sys should
    be
    |>in the root of the system drive. However, there is NO ntbootdd.sys file
    |>anywhere on my system. I don't think there ever was. But, there certainly
    is
    |>not, now. Of course, that did not prevent win2k from booting as long as I
    |>used the old version of ntldr (and the book says it still needs
    |>ntbootdd.sys), but there is no such file.
    |>
    |>Do I need to copy a file and call it ntbootdd.sys? Perhaps that is the
    |>problem?
    |>
    |>"Bjorn Landemoo" wrote:
    |>
    |>> 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 <> 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" <> wrote in message
    |>> >> news:...
    |>> >> > 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.aspx/kb/234048/en-us for the
    most
    |>> >> >> common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.
    |>> >> >>
    |>> >> >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    |>> >> >> news:...
    |>> >> >> > 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. . .
    |>> >> >> >
    |>> >> >> >
    |>> >> >> >
    |>> >> >> >
    |>> >> >>
    |>> >> >>
    |>> >>
    |>>
    |>>
    |>
     
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT], Mar 15, 2007
    #13
  14. Re: Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and win2

    I tried that, and it did not work. When I select that line of boot.ini, the
    screen just goes blank and that is that. Nothing else happens. I have to turn
    off the machine and turn it back on. With ntbootdd.sys in the root, the other
    boot.ini selections work, or don't work, depending on the version of ntldr
    and ntdetect.com. (And, actually, if I recall correctly, it is only the
    version of ntldr that seems to matter.)


    "dakota02" wrote:

    > Interesting that you should mention that. I've been wondering about that for
    > a while. I read in one of many books that I have that ntbootdd.sys should be
    > in the root of the system drive. However, there is NO ntbootdd.sys file
    > anywhere on my system. I don't think there ever was. But, there certainly is
    > not, now. Of course, that did not prevent win2k from booting as long as I
    > used the old version of ntldr (and the book says it still needs
    > ntbootdd.sys), but there is no such file.
    >
    > Do I need to copy a file and call it ntbootdd.sys? Perhaps that is the
    > problem?
    >
    > "Bjorn Landemoo" wrote:
    >
    > > 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 <> 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" <> wrote in message
    > > >> news:...
    > > >> > 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.aspx/kb/234048/en-us for the most
    > > >> >> common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.
    > > >> >>
    > > >> >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > > >> >> news:...
    > > >> >> > 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. . .
    > > >> >> >
    > > >> >> >
    > > >> >> >
    > > >> >> >
    > > >> >>
    > > >> >>
    > > >>

    > >
    > >
     
    =?Utf-8?B?ZGFrb3RhMDI=?=, Mar 16, 2007
    #14
  15. Re: Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and win2

    The version of ntldr is 295536 in size with a modified date of 4-4-06. The
    ntdetect.com is 47772 bytes, with the same modified date. (I don't know how
    significant that date is. I think it has changed a few times as I have copied
    files from computer to computer and loaded and unloaded things in an effort
    to resolve this.)

    I have a bunch of ntoskrnl.exe files. I think the pertinent ones are
    f:\winnt\system32 it is 174432 in size, and version 5.0.2195.7111.
    I also have the same version of that file in f:\winnt\driver cache\i386 and
    f:\winnt\system32\dllcache, but it is only 1690880 in both of those
    locations. For the win xp pro x64, I have version 5.2.3790.2661 of
    ntoskrnl.exe in c:\windows\system32, where it is 4611072 in size. It is also
    in c:\windows\drivercache\amd64 and c:\windows\system32\dllcache, although in
    those two locations, it is only 4476416. I don't understant why, in both
    cases, the files not in the ssytem32 directory are different sizes, even
    though they are the same version. There are also files in driver.cab and
    sp4.cab, and other similar locations.

    I did notice that the file in the win2k locations has a "compatibility"
    mode. That is not set. Should it be, or is there another change that needs to
    be made? I notice that the versions in the xp x64 locations do not offer
    those kind of choices. (I would have thought it would be the other way
    around, actually.)

    ""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" wrote:

    > Hello,
    > THis should be working fine.
    > NTLDR and NTDetect.com are supposed to be backwards compatible so the ones
    > from Windows XP X64 should work fine with Windows 2000 SP4
    > The error message is more indicative of that it cannot locate
    > \winnt\system32\config\system hive of the registry than anything wrong with
    > the registry file itself
    > So the boot order should be>
    > NTLDR which reads the boot.ini.
    > WE then load ntdetect.com which detects hardware and passes that
    > information back to NTLDR.
    > NTLDR than passes that information along to ntoskrnl.exe which would then
    > load the registry.
    >
    > So what are the versions of ntdetect.com(matched to NTLDR) that are being
    > used, maybe it is not passing the correct information along.
    > Make sure the SP4 version of ntoskrnl.exe is in Windows 2000.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    >
    > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
    > --------------------
    > |>Thread-Topic: Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and
    > win2
    > |>thread-index: Acdk768/oDcUmWFqR7yBT6zTB8iOLw==
    > |>X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 71.225.149.237
    > |>From: =?Utf-8?B?ZGFrb3RhMDI=?= <>
    > |>References: <>
    > <>
    > <>
    > <>
    > <>
    > <>
    > <>
    > |>Subject: Re: Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and
    > win2
    > |>Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:45:00 -0700
    > |>Lines: 250
    > |>Message-ID: <>
    > |>MIME-Version: 1.0
    > |>Content-Type: text/plain;
    > |> charset="Utf-8"
    > |>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    > |>X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
    > |>Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
    > |>Importance: normal
    > |>Priority: normal
    > |>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2757
    > |>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    > |>Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl
    > |>Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:4607
    > |>NNTP-Posting-Host: tk2msftsbfm01.phx.gbl 10.40.244.148
    > |>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    > |>
    > |>Interesting that you should mention that. I've been wondering about that
    > for
    > |>a while. I read in one of many books that I have that ntbootdd.sys should
    > be
    > |>in the root of the system drive. However, there is NO ntbootdd.sys file
    > |>anywhere on my system. I don't think there ever was. But, there certainly
    > is
    > |>not, now. Of course, that did not prevent win2k from booting as long as I
    > |>used the old version of ntldr (and the book says it still needs
    > |>ntbootdd.sys), but there is no such file.
    > |>
    > |>Do I need to copy a file and call it ntbootdd.sys? Perhaps that is the
    > |>problem?
    > |>
    > |>"Bjorn Landemoo" wrote:
    > |>
    > |>> 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 <> 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" <> wrote in message
    > |>> >> news:...
    > |>> >> > 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.aspx/kb/234048/en-us for the
    > most
    > |>> >> >> common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.
    > |>> >> >>
    > |>> >> >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > |>> >> >> news:...
    > |>> >> >> > 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
     
    =?Utf-8?B?ZGFrb3RhMDI=?=, Mar 16, 2007
    #15
  16. =?Utf-8?B?ZGFrb3RhMDI=?=

    Theo Guest

    Re: Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and win2

    Your problem has absolutely nothing specifically related to
    Win x64 not Win 2k. I have set up a system similar to yours
    and I can boot between the two systems without any problems.
    I specifically installed Win x64 on C: partition first and
    the Win 2k on D: partition. After installing Win 2k, Win
    x64 was not accessible because the 'ntdetect.com' and
    'ntldr' from Win 2k cannot recognize Win x64. I copied the
    Win x64 'ntdetect.com' and 'ntldr' to the root of C: drive,
    replacing the Win 2k versions, and both systems are
    accessible. I merely select which system I want from the
    boot menu.

    So, quit trying to tie your problems to Win x64. Your
    system is messed up, but apparently you induced the
    problems, not any version of Windows!


    dakota02 wrote:
    > I tried that, and it did not work. When I select that line of boot.ini, the
    > screen just goes blank and that is that. Nothing else happens. I have to turn
    > off the machine and turn it back on. With ntbootdd.sys in the root, the other
    > boot.ini selections work, or don't work, depending on the version of ntldr
    > and ntdetect.com. (And, actually, if I recall correctly, it is only the
    > version of ntldr that seems to matter.)
    >
    >
    > "dakota02" wrote:
    >
    >> Interesting that you should mention that. I've been wondering about that for
    >> a while. I read in one of many books that I have that ntbootdd.sys should be
    >> in the root of the system drive. However, there is NO ntbootdd.sys file
    >> anywhere on my system. I don't think there ever was. But, there certainly is
    >> not, now. Of course, that did not prevent win2k from booting as long as I
    >> used the old version of ntldr (and the book says it still needs
    >> ntbootdd.sys), but there is no such file.
    >>
    >> Do I need to copy a file and call it ntbootdd.sys? Perhaps that is the
    >> problem?
    >>
    >> "Bjorn Landemoo" wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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 <> 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" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> 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.aspx/kb/234048/en-us for the most
    >>>>>>> common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>> 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. . .
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>
     
    Theo, Mar 16, 2007
    #16
  17. Re: Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and win2

    Hello,
    Thinking back to Windows 2000, beta days, there were some companies that
    were tyring to modify NTLDR to allow some power management utlities to work
    properly
    Since there was on uniqueness to what they were doing with those power
    management drivers that caused them to make changes to NTLDR so that could
    boot Windows 2000.
    Check what non-ms drivers are installed on the Windows 2000 version.
    Also you may want to check the registry to make sure there isn't any
    corruption in it.
    Make backup copies of the Windows 2000 registry then check the hives

    830570 The Registry Repair Utility download for Windows 2000-based computers
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;830570


    Thanks,
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT]

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
    --------------------
    |>Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:13:37 -0400
    |>From: Theo <>
    |>User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
    |>MIME-Version: 1.0
    |>Subject: Re: Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and
    win2
    |>References: <>
    <>
    <>
    <>
    <>
    <>
    <>
    <>
    <>
    |>In-Reply-To: <>
    |>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
    |>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    |>Message-ID: <eQXFVb$>
    |>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    |>NNTP-Posting-Host: h7.176.140.67.ip.alltel.net 67.140.176.7
    |>Lines: 1
    |>Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl
    |>Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:4747
    |>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    |>
    |>Your problem has absolutely nothing specifically related to
    |>Win x64 not Win 2k. I have set up a system similar to yours
    |>and I can boot between the two systems without any problems.
    |> I specifically installed Win x64 on C: partition first and
    |>the Win 2k on D: partition. After installing Win 2k, Win
    |>x64 was not accessible because the 'ntdetect.com' and
    |>'ntldr' from Win 2k cannot recognize Win x64. I copied the
    |>Win x64 'ntdetect.com' and 'ntldr' to the root of C: drive,
    |>replacing the Win 2k versions, and both systems are
    |>accessible. I merely select which system I want from the
    |>boot menu.
    |>
    |>So, quit trying to tie your problems to Win x64. Your
    |>system is messed up, but apparently you induced the
    |>problems, not any version of Windows!
    |>
    |>
    |>dakota02 wrote:
    |>> I tried that, and it did not work. When I select that line of boot.ini,
    the
    |>> screen just goes blank and that is that. Nothing else happens. I have
    to turn
    |>> off the machine and turn it back on. With ntbootdd.sys in the root, the
    other
    |>> boot.ini selections work, or don't work, depending on the version of
    ntldr
    |>> and ntdetect.com. (And, actually, if I recall correctly, it is only the
    |>> version of ntldr that seems to matter.)
    |>>
    |>>
    |>> "dakota02" wrote:
    |>>
    |>>> Interesting that you should mention that. I've been wondering about
    that for
    |>>> a while. I read in one of many books that I have that ntbootdd.sys
    should be
    |>>> in the root of the system drive. However, there is NO ntbootdd.sys
    file
    |>>> anywhere on my system. I don't think there ever was. But, there
    certainly is
    |>>> not, now. Of course, that did not prevent win2k from booting as long
    as I
    |>>> used the old version of ntldr (and the book says it still needs
    |>>> ntbootdd.sys), but there is no such file.
    |>>>
    |>>> Do I need to copy a file and call it ntbootdd.sys? Perhaps that is the
    |>>> problem?
    |>>>
    |>>> "Bjorn Landemoo" wrote:
    |>>>
    |>>>> 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 <> 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" <> wrote in message
    |>>>>>> news:...
    |>>>>>>> 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.aspx/kb/234048/en-us for the
    most
    |>>>>>>>> common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.
    |>>>>>>>>
    |>>>>>>>> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    |>>>>>>>> news:...
    |>>>>>>>>> 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. . .
    |>>>>>>>>>
    |>>>>>>>>>
    |>>>>>>>>>
    |>>>>>>>>>
    |>>>>>>>>
    |>>>>
    |>
     
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT], Mar 16, 2007
    #17
  18. Re: Does anyone actually have a dual boot with xp x64 pro and win2

    What SCSI ID is your hard disk?

    The row in boot.ini expects that your disk is present as SCSI ID 0.

    If your disk, for example, is SCSI ID 1 you need to change the row to this:

    scsi(0)disk(1)rdisk(0)partition(2)\winnt="Win2000 NTBOOTDD.SYS"

    You can find more information about the ARC path in boot.ini here:

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/102873

    Best regards

    Bjorn

    dakota02 <> wrote:

    >I tried that, and it did not work. When I select that line of boot.ini, the
    >screen just goes blank and that is that. Nothing else happens. I have to turn
    >off the machine and turn it back on. With ntbootdd.sys in the root, the other
    >boot.ini selections work, or don't work, depending on the version of ntldr
    >and ntdetect.com. (And, actually, if I recall correctly, it is only the
    >version of ntldr that seems to matter.)
    >
    >
    >"dakota02" wrote:
    >
    >> Interesting that you should mention that. I've been wondering about that for
    >> a while. I read in one of many books that I have that ntbootdd.sys should be
    >> in the root of the system drive. However, there is NO ntbootdd.sys file
    >> anywhere on my system. I don't think there ever was. But, there certainly is
    >> not, now. Of course, that did not prevent win2k from booting as long as I
    >> used the old version of ntldr (and the book says it still needs
    >> ntbootdd.sys), but there is no such file.
    >>
    >> Do I need to copy a file and call it ntbootdd.sys? Perhaps that is the
    >> problem?
    >>
    >> "Bjorn Landemoo" wrote:
    >>
    >> > 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 <> 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" <> wrote in message
    >> > >> news:...
    >> > >> > 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.aspx/kb/234048/en-us for the most
    >> > >> >> common enumeration. There are a couple of rare exceptions.
    >> > >> >>
    >> > >> >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >> > >> >> news:...
    >> > >> >> > 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. . .
    >> > >> >> >
    >> > >> >> >
    >> > >> >> >
    >> > >> >> >
    >> > >> >>
    >> > >> >>
    >> > >>
    >> >
    >> >
     
    Bjorn Landemoo, Mar 17, 2007
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?UmVnYWwyNjAw?=

    Dual boot with XP Pro and XP Pro x64?

    =?Utf-8?B?UmVnYWwyNjAw?=, Feb 8, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    553
    =?Utf-8?B?UmVnYWwyNjAw?=
    Feb 9, 2006
  2. thing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    866
    thing
    Aug 15, 2004
  3. Pat
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    647
    Colin Barnhorst
    Mar 31, 2008
  4. Hugh Sutherland

    dual boot or not to dual boot

    Hugh Sutherland, Jan 20, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    682
    Mike Easter
    Jan 20, 2010
  5. Hugh Sutherland

    to dual boot or not to dual boot

    Hugh Sutherland, Jan 20, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    472
    thanatoid
    Jan 21, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page