Re: Dual Boot with 64-bit installed first?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Tom Ferguson, Mar 14, 2009.

  1. Tom Ferguson

    Tom Ferguson Guest

    OK. I'm mystified. Not for the first time while reading this thread.

    Joe, if you will not follow the instructions given, why do you bother asking
    the questions here?

    All the information is here,
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2005/11/21/76180.aspx
    in the section "Wrong Order".

    Think about it: if the desired install order is from older to newer, you
    must want to end up with the Windows XP 64 files in use. Everything
    follows from that.

    --

    Tom
    MSMVP 1998-2007



    "Joe Befumo" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > More Info . . .
    >
    > I tried changing the Disk(0) parameter to values of 1 and 2, which
    > resulted in the following message:
    >
    > "Windows could not start because of a computer disk hardware
    > configuration problem. Could not read from the selected boot disk.
    > Check boot path and disk hardware."
    >
    > So, I restored the original boot configuration as set up by the
    > windows 32 installation, with the exception of increasing the timeout
    > value to 30, so I can get back to my running system, and swapping
    > which one is default. Looks like this:
    >
    > [boot loader]
    > timeout=30
    > default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS
    > [operating systems]
    > multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows XP Professional
    > x64 Edition" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect
    > signature(4977f7d4)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft
    > Windows XP Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect
    >
    >
    > This recreates the original error message, which is:
    >
    > "Windows could not start because the following file is missing or
    > corrupt
    >
    > <Windows Root>system32\ntoskrnl.exe"
    >
    > I examined the corresponding folder on the disk to which I'm trying to
    > install xp-32, and that file is present. It's also present in the
    > corresponding location on the 64-bit side. So, my conclusion is that
    > the system is looking at the 64-bit version of ntoskrnl, and thinking
    > that it's a corruption of the 32-bit version it expects. Sound
    > reasonable?
    >
    > Ok, coming at this from another angle, is there some command line
    > utility I can use to discover the proper settings for the disk I want
    > to target? (disk manager in the control panel doesn't provide that
    > info.)
    >
    > Thanks again,
    >
    > Joe
    Tom Ferguson, Mar 14, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tom Ferguson

    Tom Ferguson Guest

    Yes, there is a work-around and it does not call for 'flattening the
    systems' (meaning removing the present
    OSs) and re-installing everything. It is explained in
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2005/11/21/76180.aspx
    in the section "Wrong Order".

    This source has been given before in this thread. You are not using this
    method, the one Charlie Russel ' gives in his Blog stating that you "Didn't
    try reinstalling/repair, since the system is booting now, and I'm a bit
    hesitant to do anything that might change that . . .". Perhaps it is time to
    re-evaluate that since now you seem to be considering fresh installs anyway.

    I am sorry that you found my earlier reply rude and condescending. Such was
    not my intention. I did write plainly. That was my intention. I do hope you
    get it all sorted out with the result you want.

    By the way, my comments on the install order had nothing to do with telling
    you what the install order should be. It was to indicate again which files
    you want in use to start up the machine, to indicate _why_ you normally want
    to install 32 bit XP before 64 bit XP.

    Personally, I have had circumstances under which I installed 32 bit after 64
    bit. It is possible. The instructions are in the place indicated.

    In any case, it's your machine. Do as you see fit.
    --

    Tom
    MSMVP 1998-2007



    "Joe Befumo" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Well, I THOUGHT I explained the situation pretty clearly.
    >
    > I KNOW what the proper install order is. I've done it before.
    >
    > I wasn't PLANNING on having to go back to using 32, so I just
    > installed 64.
    >
    > At this poiint, what I WAS asking is weather there is any work-around
    > if you ALREADY have a fairly complex 64-bit system in place and you
    > don 't want to have to wipe everything out and start from scratch.
    >
    > It would APPEAR that the answer is no.
    >
    > It would also appear that the Linux folks don't have an exclusive on
    > rude, condescending replies.
    >
    > Thanks, and I hope this helped clear up some of your confusion.
    >
    > Joe
    >
    > On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:27:37 -0300, "Tom Ferguson"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>OK. I'm mystified. Not for the first time while reading this thread.
    >>
    >>Joe, if you will not follow the instructions given, why do you bother
    >>asking
    >>the questions here?
    >>
    >>All the information is here,
    >>http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2005/11/21/76180.aspx
    >>in the section "Wrong Order".
    >>
    >>Think about it: if the desired install order is from older to newer, you
    >>must want to end up with the Windows XP 64 files in use. Everything
    >>follows from that.
    Tom Ferguson, Mar 15, 2009
    #2
    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?UGV0ZQ==?=

    dual boot with 32 bit installed second

    =?Utf-8?B?UGV0ZQ==?=, Jun 19, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    274
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Jun 20, 2006
  2. Charlie Russel - MVP

    Re: Dual Boot with 64-bit installed first?

    Charlie Russel - MVP, Mar 14, 2009, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    528
    John Barnes
    Mar 15, 2009
  3. R. C. White

    Re: Dual Boot with 64-bit installed first?

    R. C. White, Mar 14, 2009, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    390
    R. C. White
    Mar 14, 2009
  4. Hugh Sutherland

    dual boot or not to dual boot

    Hugh Sutherland, Jan 20, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    432
    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:
    403
    thanatoid
    Jan 21, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page