Dual boot Win XP and Win 98SE, is possible?
JohnValJohn
the best program to use to set this up. Partition Magic?(which version?).
Thanks, John
David Candy
Done.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Candy
www.mvps.org/serenitymacros
http://www.winsite.com/bin/Info?500000002364 or http://www.simtel.com/pub/pd/18669.html
Please don't Reply To All - It gets confusing.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"JohnValJohn" <jbc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:EN4D8.2701$Nt3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Daniel Martinez
your HDD but there is, supposedly, an order requirement. I plan on doing this
myself so I'll have to ask around. PartitionMagic 7 is good. For XP NTFS,
create an NTFS partition and when you install, have XP format the partition
again. "Hide" the Win98 partition so XP can't see it.
Daniel.
Richard G. Harper
Windows 98 and Windows XP. In fact, if you have an available partition or
drive to install it on, you don't need any third-party tools at all. For
example, if you have a C: partition with Windows currently installed and a
D: partition with downloaded files and documents, you'd only need to move
all the files you want to save from D: to C: before you begin.
If you don't have an available drive or partition, you'll need a third-party
partitioning tool that can resize partitions without destroying the existing
data.
I strongly recommend that you have an Emergency Boot Diskette handy and that
you test it prior to starting the XP install. In the unlikely event
something goes wrong during the install you'll need it to remove the XP
setup boot files.
When you do have two partitions available, put in the Windows XP cd and
select the option to install Windows. When it asks if you want to upgrade
your existing copy of Windows, instead select the option to install a new
copy of Windows XP. You should then see a screen where you can select
various options - click the Advanced button and select the option to let you
choose the installation partition during Setup. Setup will copy some files
to the hard drive and then your system will restart.
Once Setup restarts you'll soon be given the chance to select where you want
Windows XP to be installed. Pick the partition that you emptied, or the
free space you created when you shrank your existing drive, as the partition
to install Windows XP onto. Select the type of format you want - I
recommend NTFS - and then sit back as Windows formats the drive and
completes the installation process.
When Windows XP setup is done, it will install a dual-boot control that will
allow you to select between Windows XP and your prior version of Windows
every time you restart your system.
--
Richard G. Harper (MVP MPS-D) rgha...@email.com
* PLEASE post all messages and replies to the newsgroup so all may
* benefit from the discussion. Private mail is usually not replied to.
Help US help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
"Daniel Martinez" <What...@WhatEver.COM> wrote in message
news:3CDCDC81...@WhatEver.COM...
Nutcase
Just to add a bit to what has been said....
- To create a native dual-boot without third party help, make sure that the primary (boot) partition is FAT/FAT32. The WinXP system partition can be NTFS if desired (I agree with Mr. Harper on that one).
- Best to have at least three partitions - one for each OS, and one for shared applications. Simply install each application to the same folder on each OS. Remember that Win98 can't read or see NTFS, so if you use that for WinXP, you won't be able to see anything on the WinXP system partition from Win98 - but you will be able to see Win98 from WinXP.
- If you use Partition Magic, then you will need version 7 to work with WinXP. If you are even fairly computer literate, I would recommend instead BootIT NG - all the tricks, half the price. www.bootitng.com
- Check your system specs against the minimums for WinXP before you spend the money (and you can use an upgrade disk rather that a full version). I would suggest that you should not just meet, but exceed the requirements for full performance.
System Requirements for Windows XP Operating Systems [Q314865]
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q314865
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers aka "Nutcase" MS-MVP - Win9x
Associate Expert - Windows XP
Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Please reply only to newsgroup...
"JohnValJohn" <jbc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:EN4D8.2701$Nt3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Rob
XP has a boot loaded built-in,,,, just install 98 and then XP
or
If you install 98 second, afterwards just run the XP cd and
select repair. Same for Win2000.....
--
Rob
Supporting Member, Cascade Bicycle Club
P.O. Box 15165 Seattle, WA. 98115-0165
206-522-3222 and 24 hr hotline 206-522-BIKE
http://www.cascade.org
"Nutcase" <ri...@mvps.org> wrote in message news:O7#VQrN#BHA.2108@tkmsftngp04...
cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com
wrote:
>Install 98, install XP.
>Done.
And possibly "Roasted" too :-)
(hint; both OSs will use same "\Program Files")
For best results, do exactly the above, but choose to install either
Win98 or WinXP on a volume other than C: - prolly easier to install
Win98 off C:, as XP lacks any sort of UI installation control; else
you'd have to WINNT /? for syntax and RTFM "response files".
Note that when an MS OS is installed off C: in this way, some of the
initial boot files remain on C:\ (typically anything that was in root,
i.e. that has to be accessed before Win9x Winboot.ini or MSDOS.SYS
[paths] is read, or the NT equivalent).
Not sure if a WinME installed on (say) D: will use that volume or C:
for the \_RESTORE subtree. In WinME, each volume has a \_Restore with
a one-byte file in it to track the expected drive letter, but
C:\_RESTORE contains the actual data backed up from all volumes -
which is why SR has so much more performance impact on multi-volume
systems in WinME than it does in XP.
The other possible way would be by changing which HD boots via CMOS
setup. Sometimes this will be set as IDE0, IDE1, IDE2 etc. or (more
ambiguously - physical HD or volume?) C, D, E etc. I've not played
with this, and have no idea which HD or volume becomes "C:" under such
circumstances, or whether IO.sys, Win9x PnP and NT will ever see the
same things from the same perspective.
My instinct is to run away... "Be afeared, be very affeared"
OTOH, if what you want is not Win9x but DOS mode as your dual boot,
that's as easy as pie. When starting from scratch, use Format C: /S
from the appropriate-version boot diskette before installing XP and it
will preserve that raw DOS mode as "Microsoft Windows" (whch you cn
cosmetic to, say, "Maintenance DOS Mode" in Boot.ini).
Thereafter you can copy in whatever DOS mode files (IO.sys etc.) you
wish, from any file-system-compatible Win9x, and it will still work.
For all but Win95 original or SP1, that can be FAT32, else FAT16 (for
any sort of Win9x/DOS Mode dual boot, C: cannot be NTFS)
>---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Geeks aren't into in politics because government
doesn't double efficiency and speed every 18 months
>---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
JohnValJohn
and there is a program to be installed that will only run on Win 98se, not
Win XP. Since all the suggestions assume Win XP is the second OS to be
installed, how does this change things?
John
"Richard G. Harper" <rgha...@email.com> wrote in message
news:eRKMnaN#BHA.1680@tkmsftngp04...
Rob
run your XP cd and select REPAIR which will install
the boot loader. If you only have one drive/partition
you will need a 3rd party utility to make another
partition bootable with FAT32.
After setup is complete - run XP setup from
CD and select repair.
This shows correct order, however you can get around this
by running repair.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q217210
How to Multiple Boot Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows NT, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Me, and MS-DOS
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/administration/management/mltiboot.asp
Multibooting with Windows 2000 and Windows XP
3rd Party boot managers :
http://www.v-com.com/product/sc7_ind.html
System Commander 7 - the best there is.....
http://www.powerquest.com/partitionmagic/
Partition Magic - more limited than System Commander 7
http://symon.da.ru/
Multi-boot boot manager for PC for many OS.
http://www.aefdisk.com/
FDISK replacement all OS/MRBOOT - Boot Manager
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/
Boot Manager BootIt and PDISK size and remove LINUX
Dual-Boot - Multi-Boot
http://www.users.intercom.com/~ranish/part/
Ranish - FreeWare
http://www.penguin.cz/~mhi/mbtmgr/
MattSoft - Boot Manager - Multi-Boot - FreeWare
http://www.xosl.org/
Extended Operating System Loader - XOSL - Boot Manager - FreeWar
--
Rob
Supporting Member, Cascade Bicycle Club
P.O. Box 15165 Seattle, WA. 98115-0165
206-522-3222 and 24 hr hotline 206-522-BIKE
http://www.cascade.org
"JohnValJohn" <jbc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:YceD8.465$X%5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com
wrote:
>Assuming you have a second drive, install 98 and the
>run your XP cd and select REPAIR which will install
>the boot loader. If you only have one drive/partition
>you will need a 3rd party utility to make another
>partition bootable with FAT32.
Depends on whether XP's installed on an NTFS C:; if it is, then yes,
you are hosed - you'd have to resort to multiple primary partitions as
managed by a 3rd-party utility that costs money, and you'd have to
hope that these will resize your existing one-big-C: partition without
dropping the ball in order to make space.
Well, the last is something you'd have to do anyway, as Win9x and NT
in the same volume isn't going to be clean or safe.
But if C: is already FATxx, then you don't need multiple primary
partitions as long as Win9x locates "Program Files" as well as its OS
subtree on a logical volume when you install it there. You'd then use
NT's "repair" tools (after booting the Resource Console from CD) to
restore the NT-appropriate primary boot record, which would then load
NTLDR instead of IO.sys on boot. NTLDR then presents you with a
"which OS?" menu according to Boot.ini and you can run either OS.
cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com
>In article <3cdd4ab9...@news.iafrica.com>, cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com wrote:
>>On Sat, 11 May 2002 18:48:41 +1000, "David Candy" <dav...@sia.net.au>
I'll sieze upon the one and only bit I understand :-)
>CMD.EXE shortcut becomes a PIF
That surprisees me, given that CMD.EXE is a Win32PE. FWIW, in Win9x
the logic appears to be as follows:
.bat gets .pif
.com gets .pif
.exe gets .lnk if internally Win32PE, else it gets .pif
For this reason, a shortcut to Symantec's FixKlez.com will be a .pif,
even though FixKlez.com is in fact a 160k Win32PE
You can force a .pif for any Win32PE by creating a .pif in the usual
way and then changing the target to the Win32PE .exe - but try as I
might, I can't find a useful reason to do this :-)
>Now the oddness.. THIS time, when I made a shortcut from CMD.EXE, it
>made a .LNK (a normal Windows executable shortcut), not a PIF, and
>refuses to make a PIF at all. The .LNK works fine (less herky-jerky
>cursor in the DOS box, too) but then I noticed it had tacked on the
>path and some envars from WinME's c:\config.sys and c:\autoexec.bat!!
First part I can understand, second's a mystery...
>I begin to see why installing XP as an UPGRADE was so deadly, but
>not to everyone who tried it -- the installer has some seriously weird
>and inconsistent behaviour.
Beware of sware that thinks it's intelligent - more often than not,
it's just insanely broken.
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Error Messages Are Your Friends
cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com
>OTOH, when looking thru various system files with QuickView Plus, QVP
>reported that some are 16bit DOS executables (don't recall which ones
>offhand) -- and QVP is usually right. On property/hex-viewing their
>innards, they appear to be console or background processes of some
>sort. Makes you wonder if it's really all as 32bit in there as M$ claims.
Prolly doesn't matter. A magnum may be more powerful than a
fly-swatter, but that doesn't make it the best tool to kill mosquitoes
in a jumbo jet. Sometimes 16-bit code - especially tightly-written
assembler that has been thoroughly tested - is better, even given
whatever overhead there may be in thunking etc.
>>You can force a .pif for any Win32PE by creating a .pif in the usual
>>way and then changing the target to the Win32PE .exe - but try as I...
>That's what I did, while recreating what I could of the original setup
>so I could examine the differences.
>>...might, I can't find a useful reason to do this :-)
>Because PIF gives you better control over various configuration
>trivia, if it's for any sort of console or DOS-box app. Otherwise,
>yeah, why bother? :)
You can't use a .lnk to launch a DOS app AFAIK, but you can - through
the subtrafuge above - use a .pif to launch a Windows app. But I
suspect the .pif-specific Properties will either not apply, or apply
only to the Command.com instance (or similar) that shells it.
>Oddness: CMD.EXE does not respect ALT-F4. It only knows to close if
>you click the X or type EXIT.
OK. I think Alt-F4 is a gui not a command line tradition - the
equivalent command-line tradition was Ctl-C in the DOS days.
>>First part I can understand, second's a mystery...
>Yeah. On looking at CMD.EXE, it really should only make a .LNK, not a
>PIF regardless... but as to the latter, WTF??!
WTF indeed. MS programmers move in mysterious ways, especially when
stoned (or just shouted at loudly by management) :-)
>>Beware of sware that thinks it's intelligent - more often than not,
>>it's just insanely broken.
>That's absolutely been my experience!!!
Me2 :-)
>---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Geeks aren't into in politics because government
doesn't double efficiency and speed every 18 months
>---------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com
>In article <3ce01597....@news.iafrica.com>, cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com wrote:
>>On Mon, 13 May 2002 15:41:45 GMT, askme...@earthlink.net (Rez)
>True enough. I certainly still use enough ancient DOS utils that
>simply do the job more cleanly than the newer replacements!
Was thinking more in terms of integrated Windows system code; system
dll, that sort of thing. For example, if I had mature, solid,
tightly-coded 16-bit code that operated on small data that didn't need
addresses/values over 16 bits, and this code was run as a biggish lump
so that the overhead of thunking in and out wasn't a biggie, I'd keep.
>>the subtrafuge above - use a .pif to launch a Windows app. But I
>>suspect the .pif-specific Properties will either not apply, or apply
>>only to the Command.com instance (or similar) that shells it.
>Seems to vary, depending on whether you're shouting at a Winders body
>part or something independent.
How does mileage vary, between:
1) Things that are and look like Windows bits, e.g. Notepad.exe
2) Things that are and look like DOS bits, e.g. Attrib.exe
3) Things that are Windows bits but look DOS, e.g. WinSet.exe
Partoicularly interested in (3) as I expect these to work like (1),
not (2). Examples; ping.exe, ftp.exe, winset.exe, start.exe
>>>Oddness: CMD.EXE does not respect ALT-F4. It only knows to close if
>>>you click the X or type EXIT.
>>OK. I think Alt-F4 is a gui not a command line tradition - the
>>equivalent command-line tradition was Ctl-C in the DOS days.
>But you'd think the DOS box sitting in the middle of the GUI would do
>what the GUI says to!
y-e-s-s... unless suppressed in eth .pif, DOS apps do AFAIK respect
Alt-F4, but how they respond depend on how the .pif is set
>From what I've seen, when Windows has troubles, it really isn't so
>much a lousy-programming problem, but rather a half-baked-whatever
>problem. Frex... I've seen plenty of evidence that WinME as released
>is actually a *debug* build, not a clean build!! likely a matter of
>"This project is OVER, we said so, ship it NOW!" and since it ran as
>good as needful, no one spent the couple hours to recompile it.
Most problems IMHO are design stupidities, or the breaking of simple,
well-known programming principles (data sanity-checking, storing
instance data in limited global storage, modular design).
As for debugging asserts, could be just one .dll that shipped with a
driver, or a library that came in as part of an app that used it, or a
critical (read; rushed) update, or slipstreamed with some betaware.
>(who was amazed to see WinME cough up an error referencing and
>*quoting* a source line from somefile.h)
Once, in Win95, I managed to get to a pure IO.sys prompt...
- Prompt was just C>
- Path was: No Path
- Version info was IO.sys and MS-DOS versions (no "Windows")
Been trying to provoke that ever since :-)
cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com
>In article <3ce258bc...@news.iafrica.com>, cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com wrote:
>Winset.exe? Don't have one on the Win95 box.
It's on the CD somewhere, and very useful too. I've posted before
about exactly what it does (deja to read, or play to test) but
basically it sets environment variables for the global environment,
from which new DOS sessions are launched.
>>y-e-s-s... unless suppressed in eth .pif, DOS apps do AFAIK respect
>>Alt-F4, but how they respond depend on how the .pif is set
>True, but what setting affects this?
The Misc tab lets you suppress system interpretation of keys such as
Alt-F4 (useful when the app uses them internally).
Then the behaviour may vary on whether it's set to Warn on exit, and
whether it is running or Finished (which in turn depends on something
NT sadly lacks - a "Close on Exit" checkbox)
cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com
>In article <3ce71ebb...@news.iafrica.com>, cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com wrote:
>>On Sat, 18 May 2002 16:09:28 GMT, askme...@earthlink.net (Rez)
>>>In article <whocares> cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com wrote:
>>>Winset.exe? Don't have one on the Win95 box.
>>It's on the CD somewhere, and very useful too.
>Ah, that sounds useful. Doesn't sound like it could break anything.
Correct. The breakage (if any) comes from an inadequate understanding
of its scope... i.e. that although it's nominally "global", it does
not affect the DOS window session you are in (so you need to use Set
as well, if needing the changes to apply to what you are going to do
next), not does it apply to other DOS window sessions that are already
running (no Set facilities will - use semaphore files)
>>The Misc tab lets you suppress system interpretation of keys such as
>>Alt-F4 (useful when the app uses them internally).
>Oh, that part. I always leave that how it comes up
Once in a blue moon I have to UNcheck a key if that key is used within
the program itself, e.g. a game that uses Ctl-Esc to exit itself, etc.
>I do set Close On Exit. Tho have noticed odd occasions where it's
>ignored. Um... don't remember if XP has that or not.
XP doesn't - or rather, it always closes the window when the program
finishes - and the difference is a real pain in the ass. If you bring
in a .pif created in Win9x and use that, then the "close on exit"
checkbox is preserved and works, but newly-created .pif if XP are
different, with less control offered.
If you do use Win9x .pif in XP, be prepared for these to auto-bork
themselves; e.g. you may see spurious characters obliterating the
first free characters in the title bar text field.
This does not inspire confidence.
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Never turn your back on an installer program