Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:42:16 -0600 (GMT+6) From: john <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning you can just install it. 2000 will set up 98 so you can use it. john On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Matt Hanson wrote: Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 05:57:46 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning I just realized that I may not be able to do a new installation of W2K on the 1st primary partition of this 40GB HDD, and have it dual-boot the copy of W98 that's living on the 2nd primary partition that follows it. That copy of W98 thinks it's installed on C:, as Partition Magic hid the 1st partition with W2K on it when I created that 2nd partition and made it active. If I were to make both partitions visable when I re-install W2K, then W98 will find itself on a D: partition. I'm guessing W98 is not going to like that any more than W2K would have liked its image restored and thinned down further down the drive at E: or beyond. Or is W2K's boot manager capable of hiding W2K's partition when W98 is booted and visa versa? Can I leave the W98 partition hidden when I install W2K, and then have W2K's boot manager set things up to boot both OSs as C:? To answer you question about why I hide partitions a Philip, I remembered something in the process of experimenting with Partition Magic tonight. It's something PM does automatically when you already have a primary partition with an OS on the HDD. When you create a new primary partition, PM will hide that new partition by default. If you make it active, PM will hide the existing primary partition with an OS on it by default. Through the years I guess I've just been accepting with what PM was doing automatically. Matt PS: Just caught your last post as I was submitting this one Philip. I see now that W2K >can< create partitions. However it doesn't seem to deal with hiding or unhiding partitions PM plays with, nor rezize and/or move partitions. From what you say about FDISK running from a desktop that fully supports Int13 extensions, it would seem that running FDISK /MBR on a HDD from the Lib that way should work properly. I'm having problems with PM changing the order of drive letters when I insert a primary C: partition between the 1st primary, and the 33GB extended partition that straddles the 8GB boundary with logical D: and E: partitions on it. It keeps lettering the new 2nd partition F:, but I suppose that's not a major issue. It can always be re-mapped in Windows. Wonder if all partitioning software does that. Sounds like I can just install a 2nd copy of W2K as a logical drive without having to do further tweaks. You say you tweaked the registries of each of your 3 Windows OSs to share folders. But that's not necessary, is it? I can just install W2K to a logical drive, and be able to boot W2K1, W98, and W2K2 individually... yes? And then later tweak things to share folders if I get to it. Does what you're saying about multi-booting mean W2K1's boot manager will take over booting all 3 OSs? And does that answer my question about the boot manager above? I'll get a boot menu with each of the 3 OSs including and option to start the installed Recovery Console? Or will the Recovery Console option get skipped until the copy of W2K1 or W2K2 is selected? Big question though is this deal of hiding. The only way can see my present W98 partition working is if it can be booted as C: Is that going to happen? And this: -- In the end, what matters is what has been written in the MBR. No program will ever ask the BIOS for HD size, nor will any operating system; they will just accept the entries in the MBR. I'm not sure if that's true with Partition Magic, is it? Even after the partition tables are set up with partitioning software on a desktop fully supporting int13 extensions, when the drive is pit into the Lib, PM still cannot see all the partitions from Windows or DOS correctly without drive overlay installed. Ironic, as I can boot the Lib from a FD, and run DOS programs on partitions >8GB from the command prompt without problems. That's why using other disk partitioning SW than DOS/Win9x FDISK or partitioning the HD in another PC will very effectively bypass the Libretto's 8 GB HD size barrier. I had to re-read that. You're saying that using partitioning software other than< DOS/Win9x based programs can effectively bypass the Lib's 8GB handicap... yes. Meaning that PM, being DOS/Win9x based, just doesn't hack it... yes? __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 22:26:53 -0800 (PST) From: David Chien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning > Is there no way of installing W98 onto another > partition >after< installing W2K, and then getting W2K > to dual-boot both? I've put in so many hours setting It should be possible. I thought it was something like install w2k first. create another primary bootable partition, make that active, hide all other partitions. Reboot, install win98 into that partition. Run the 2000 emergency boot disk, restore the windows 2k boot loader, modify the boot.ini file (or whatever the w2k file is called) to include the w98 partition, and off you go. Of course, it's made a whole lot easier if you simply use a boot loader like Boot Magic or XOSL (Free). = adorable toshiba libretto The latest news and information for the Toshiba Libretto owner. http://www.silverace.com/libretto/ __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:31:41 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning Matt Hanson wrote: > > Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 05:57:46 -0800 (PST) > From: Matt Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning > > I just realized that I may not be able to do a new installation of W2K on > the 1st primary partition of this 40GB HDD, and have it dual-boot the copy > of W98 that's living on the 2nd primary partition that follows it. That > copy of W98 thinks it's installed on C:, as Partition Magic hid the 1st > partition with W2K on it when I created that 2nd partition and made it > active. No you can't install Windows each on a separate primary (not easily that is). But you can dump the other primary (the one you want W2K on) and install Win2K anew in a logical partition. Or you can install Win2K in a primary partition using NTFS rather than FAT32 (Win98 won't see it then). > If I were to make both partitions visable when I re-install W2K, then W98 > will find itself on a D: partition. I'm guessing W98 is not going to like Nothing wrong with that. The first booted Windows always gets C: as its drive letter. >From my experience the rest goes as follows: - next, all logical partitions get drive letters assigned (D:, E:, ) - the remaining primary partitions get the first free drive letters. So Win98 would get something like F: or G: But that is of no concern, as Win2K is active. Once Win98 boots, its primary partition will be C: again and Win2K's one will be F: or G: > that any more than W2K would have liked its image restored and thinned down > further down the drive at E: or beyond. > > Or is W2K's boot manager capable of hiding W2K's partition when W98 is > booted and visa versa? Can I leave the W98 partition hidden when I install > W2K, and then have W2K's boot manager set things up to boot both OSs as C:? No it's not the boot manager which hides things. It's Logical Disk Manager which assigns drive letters. Once again, it is very different from Win98 drive letter stuff. > To answer you question about why I hide partitions a Philip, I remembered > something in the process of experimenting with Partition Magic tonight. > It's something PM does automatically when you already have a primary > partition with an OS on the HDD. When you create a new primary partition, > PM will hide that new partition by default. If you make it active, PM will > hide the existing primary partition with an OS on it by default. Through > the years I guess I've just been accepting with what PM was doing > automatically. Yes but again, what PM does is good for Win98 but not necessarily so for Win2K. > > Matt > > > PS: Just caught your last post as I was submitting this one Philip. I see > now that W2K >can< create partitions. However it doesn't seem to deal with > hiding or unhiding partitions PM plays with, nor rezize and/or move > partitions. Yes but you do not need it the way PM does. Win2K can hide partitions by simply taking away a drive letter from any partition. Win2K partitions can be hidden from Win98 by using NTFS. > >From what you say about FDISK running from a desktop that fully supports > Int13 extensions, it would seem that running FDISK /MBR on a HDD from the > Lib that way should work properly. Not while it *in* the Lib. It must be in another PC (with a non-crippled BIOS). Remember, the Lib 8 GB barrier is only a concern if ALL THREE of the following conditions are met simultaneously: 1. You want to add/delete partitions (changing bootable/active is no problem) 2. You are doing it with a HD inside a Libretto 3. You are using DOS / Win9x / WinME FDISK for it. If any of these conditions is NOT met, the 8 GB barrier is of NO concern AT ALL. (Save for hibernation space issues, of course. You must always save space for it.) > I'm having problems with PM changing the order of drive letters when I > insert a primary C: partition between the 1st primary, and the 33GB > extended partition that straddles the 8GB boundary with logical D: and E: > partitions on it. It keeps lettering the new 2nd partition F:, but I > suppose that's not a major issue. It can always be re-mapped in Windows. > Wonder if all partitioning software does that. Sounds identical to what I described above. It is the DOS way of drive lettering. > Sounds like I can just install a 2nd copy of W2K as a logical drive without > having to do further tweaks. You say you tweaked the registries of each of Yes. > your 3 Windows OSs to share folders. But that's not necessary, is it? I No. > can just install W2K to a logical drive, and be able to boot W2
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 05:57:46 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning I just realized that I may not be able to do a new installation of W2K on the 1st primary partition of this 40GB HDD, and have it dual-boot the copy of W98 that's living on the 2nd primary partition that follows it. That copy of W98 thinks it's installed on C:, as Partition Magic hid the 1st partition with W2K on it when I created that 2nd partition and made it active. If I were to make both partitions visable when I re-install W2K, then W98 will find itself on a D: partition. I'm guessing W98 is not going to like that any more than W2K would have liked its image restored and thinned down further down the drive at E: or beyond. Or is W2K's boot manager capable of hiding W2K's partition when W98 is booted and visa versa? Can I leave the W98 partition hidden when I install W2K, and then have W2K's boot manager set things up to boot both OSs as C:? To answer you question about why I hide partitions a Philip, I remembered something in the process of experimenting with Partition Magic tonight. It's something PM does automatically when you already have a primary partition with an OS on the HDD. When you create a new primary partition, PM will hide that new partition by default. If you make it active, PM will hide the existing primary partition with an OS on it by default. Through the years I guess I've just been accepting with what PM was doing automatically. Matt PS: Just caught your last post as I was submitting this one Philip. I see now that W2K >can< create partitions. However it doesn't seem to deal with hiding or unhiding partitions PM plays with, nor rezize and/or move partitions. >From what you say about FDISK running from a desktop that fully supports Int13 extensions, it would seem that running FDISK /MBR on a HDD from the Lib that way should work properly. I'm having problems with PM changing the order of drive letters when I insert a primary C: partition between the 1st primary, and the 33GB extended partition that straddles the 8GB boundary with logical D: and E: partitions on it. It keeps lettering the new 2nd partition F:, but I suppose that's not a major issue. It can always be re-mapped in Windows. Wonder if all partitioning software does that. Sounds like I can just install a 2nd copy of W2K as a logical drive without having to do further tweaks. You say you tweaked the registries of each of your 3 Windows OSs to share folders. But that's not necessary, is it? I can just install W2K to a logical drive, and be able to boot W2K1, W98, and W2K2 individually... yes? And then later tweak things to share folders if I get to it. Does what you're saying about multi-booting mean W2K1's boot manager will take over booting all 3 OSs? And does that answer my question about the boot manager above? I'll get a boot menu with each of the 3 OSs including and option to start the installed Recovery Console? Or will the Recovery Console option get skipped until the copy of W2K1 or W2K2 is selected? Big question though is this deal of hiding. The only way can see my present W98 partition working is if it can be booted as C: Is that going to happen? And this: -- > In the end, what matters is what has been written in the MBR. No > program will ever ask the BIOS for HD size, nor will any operating > system; they will just accept the entries in the MBR. I'm not sure if that's true with Partition Magic, is it? Even after the partition tables are set up with partitioning software on a desktop fully supporting int13 extensions, when the drive is pit into the Lib, PM still cannot see all the partitions from Windows or DOS correctly without drive overlay installed. Ironic, as I can boot the Lib from a FD, and run DOS programs on partitions >8GB from the command prompt without problems. > That's why > using other disk partitioning SW than DOS/Win9x FDISK or > partitioning the HD in another PC will very effectively bypass > the Libretto's 8 GB HD size barrier. I had to re-read that. You're saying that using partitioning software >other than< DOS/Win9x based programs can effectively bypass the Lib's 8GB handicap... yes. Meaning that PM, being DOS/Win9x based, just doesn't hack it... yes? __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 13:10:08 +0100
From: Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Matt Hanson wrote:
> start with W98 on drive 1, and do a fresh installation
> of W2K on drive 0.
>
> But I do want to have a thinned down copy of W2K on
> the system too. How did you go about accomplishing
> that one Philip? I don't quite see how you got around
> the conflicts with GUIds written to disk, as well as
> registry conflicts etc. when you set up 2 copies of
> W2K.
I simply installed Win2K on another logical drive. I didn't hesitate
that long, I just thought "let's go for the hell of it".
If you try this too you'll see that it will setup its Documents &
Settings, WINNT and Program Files dir on that logical partition. So it
has its very own settings and registry (in WINNT\System32\Config), and
very own program copies.
I manually edited the registries of all Windows copies on my Lib to be
able to share programs between Windows versions.
This is because I think it's nuts to have two copies of e.g., Matlab on
the same HD (2 X 300 MB, quite a waste of space) and having to update
the settings and prefs for two different copies separately, too. Same
goes for office suites, browsers (Mozilla), virus scanners, firewalls
and other SW.
I really don't know whether 2 Win2K copies share GUIDs or store them in
different places. I suspect they share it.
When I changed partitions outside of Win2K (e.g., in Linux) both Win2K
versions updated their disk info stuff separately (for example they both
assigned drive letters to OS/2 HPFS partitions which I had set to no
drive letter). But that doesn't imply they share GUIDs.
Newer OS/2 versions also store LVM info somewhere on cyl 0 track 0;
until recently their LVM info wiped the Win2K stuff. But I don't use
OS/2 LVM on my Lib, so I can't tell if it wipes the LVM info of just one
Win2K (implying separate copies) of both (implying several Win2Ks shares
one copy).
BTW Linux seems to have some LVM too (at least it recognizes Win2K LVM
info).
I just checked the Volume IDs in both Win2K versions (in the registry,
HKLM\SYSTEM\MountedDevices). The key values for the various partitions
with drive letters (keys \DosDevices\:) are identical in
both Win2Ks, but the volume ID's referring to those key values (looking
like \??\Volume{long_hexadecimal_number}\ ) are clearly different.
H..
...
> > (I'm so used to
> > OS/2's FDISK and Linux cfdisk that I forgot that
> > Win9x FDISK has the 8 GB barrier.)
>
> Is it a limitation of FDISK, or a system's BIOS, or
> both? I've been putting my Lib's 40GB HDD in my
(Just a reiteration, good for those new list members who don't read
archives)
It is a flaw resulting from a combination of a (deliberate? or clumsy?)
limitation in the Lib's BIOS and a limitation in FDISK (MS would call it
a feature).
FDISK (from DOS Win9x) always asks the BIOS how big the HD is. The Lib's
BIOS extended int13 subfunction no. 48h ("report HD size") is crippled
and reports a maximum of 8 GB minus hibernation size. So FDISK, asking
the Lib's BIOS, will get an answer which is never bigger than 8 GB minus
hibernation size.
(All other ext.int13 functions are OK.)
Other disk partitioning SW bypasses the BIOS and asks it the HD itself
(using separate I/O instructions). As the HD itself supposedly doesn't
lie, this other SW can see all of it.
And: other BIOSes (viz. the one in your desktop) probably have a better
implementation of int13 extensions, so FDISK will be able to do a better
job there than in a Libretto.
In the end, what matters is what has been written in the MBR. No program
will ever ask the BIOS for HD size, nor will any operating system; they
will just accept the entries in the MBR.
That's why using other disk partitioning SW than DOS/Win9x FDISK or
partitioning the HD in another PC will very effectively bypass the
Libretto's 8 GB HD size barrier.
:.
> desktop to partition after the 8GB boundry with PM.
> If I booted the drive on the desktop from
> a W98 boot floppy and ran FDISK /MBR from the floppy,
> would FDISK still not be able to see the entire drive,
> and go ahead and create a corrupted MBR?
See above: I think FDISK running on another PC equipped with a
non-crippled BIOS will see all of your HD.
...
>
> > Yes but Win2K's disk management combines EZ-drive +
> > (most of) PM. So
>
> I can that see by browsing the menus in W2K's "Disk
> Managment". Guess it doesn't create partitions tho'.
Oh yes it can. Just browse the options a bit more scrutinously.
:
:
:
(Hint: right-click on an empty part of the HD layout image below in
Logical Disk Manager)
> >
> >> Is there no way of installing W98 ont
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:33:08 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning Sounds like the best way to go at this point is to start with W98 on drive 1, and do a fresh installation of W2K on drive 0. But I do want to have a thinned down copy of W2K on the system too. How did you go about accomplishing that one Philip? I don't quite see how you got around the conflicts with GUIds written to disk, as well as registry conflicts etc. when you set up 2 copies of W2K. I guess that's what I need to know before going further. >> I'm guessing that you run that from a command prompt >> from within W2K, right? If I booted the system >> >> from a > No! you should do that from a pure booted-into-DOS > prompt - according to Microsoft's Knowledge base, > that is. But! you can also do it from a Win2K > Recovery Console, it may be something like FIXMBR > or so. Perhaps a better option because it won't > wipe the >8GB partitions. Yes... From W2K's onlone Help: - Fixboot Writes a new partition boot sector onto the system partition. Fixmbr Repairs the master boot record of the partition boot sector. - With the warning: - If an invalid or nonstandard partition table signature is detected, you will be prompted whether you want to continue. If you are not having problems accessing your drives, you should not continue. Writing a new master boot record to your system partition could damage your partition tables and cause your partitions to become inaccessible. - > (I'm so used to > OS/2's FDISK and Linux cfdisk that I forgot that > Win9x FDISK has the 8 GB barrier.) Is it a limitation of FDISK, or a system's BIOS, or both? I've been putting my Lib's 40GB HDD in my desktop to partition after the 8GB boundry with PM. If I booted the drive on the desktop from a W98 boot floppy and ran FDISK /MBR from the floppy, would FDISK still not be able to see the entire drive, and go ahead and create a corrupted MBR? > >> ..if you want to do >> any partitioning with Partition Magic at all from >> within Windows on a >8GB HDD, you >have< to install >> EZ-Drive. Otherwise the PM partition GUI will run >> right off the right side of the screen, and I assume >> PM won't partition correctly. > Yes but Win2K's disk management combines EZ-drive + > (most of) PM. So I can that see by browsing the menus in W2K's "Disk Managment". Guess it doesn't create partitions tho'. > >> Is there no way of installing W98 onto another >> partition >after< installing W2K, and then getting >> W2K to dual-boot both? I've put in so many hours >> setting >(Didn't you say it's a hobby?) Heh... Yeah... But at all to many hair raising points it seems one God(s) has(have) plagued me with. 8-0 > Must be possible. Should be something like this: > - Use bootpart (www.winimage.com) to save the Win2K >boot sector from C: > - Install Win98 on another partition then where >you've put Win2K > - Restore boot sector on C: > - Add a stanza to boot.ini for Win98 (check in your >current boot.iniwhat it looks like) > > The vital thing is to save the Win2K boot sector. Hmmm... > ... >> Or if I have to reinstall W2K, how about restoring a >> W98 image to drive 1, and then do a fresh install of >> W2K on drive 0? > That would be the easiest. Win2K will fix the boot > menu for you while installing. Okay... Ther main question now is how to go about this, and be able to have a 2nd thinnned down copy of W2K co-exist with the one on drive 0? I'll brace myself for your reply on that one. ;-P Matt __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:47:59 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning Matt Hanson wrote: ... > (On boot managers:) > > Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote > > ... > > But: why do you hide primary partitions? On my ... > But if WinNT was doing what you describe W2K as doing, > it may have been useless. Hmm... I don't know NT, but its disk management may be similar to Win2K. If so, there's your explanation. > > Indeed, two Windows versions (W2K > > full & W98) share _all_ programs in C:\Programs > > (renamed from Program Files), incl. IE, virus > > scanners and Office suites, even the swap file. > > I read that process on your website, but thought I'd > go the route I had in the past. Guess that was the > beginning of my present problems. I agree this sort of hacking is not for the weak-of-heart. > > As I mentioned before, W2K needs to have its boot > > drive letter match the enumerated number of its > > boot partition, both in C:\boot.ini but also in > > the registry and in the volume GUIDs on cyl. 0 > > (beyond the MBR). The latter ones can be fixed > > (reinitialized) by running FDISK /MBR from a plain > > DOS prompt. Afterward, once booted in Win2K you > > will need to run Disk Manager to fix all drive > > letters. I strongly suggest to run FDISK/MBR, > > otherwise you run the risk that Win2K simply can't > > login, or perhaps even can't boot. Perhaps on a Libretto this (FDISK /MBR from DOS) is not such a good idea after all > Okay... but I'm still afraid I'll loose my logical > drives >8GB if I run that booted from a floppy. > > I'm guessing that you run that from a command prompt > from within W2K, right? If I booted the system from a No! you should do that from a pure booted-into-DOS prompt - according to Microsoft's Knowledge base, that is. But! you can also do it from a Win2K Recovery Console, it may be something like FIXMBR or so. Perhaps a better option because it won't wipe the >8GB partitions. (I'm so used to OS/2's FDISK and Linux cfdisk that I forgot that Win9x FDISK has the 8 GB barrier.) > FD, and ran it from the A:\ prompt, I'd guess that the > Libretto's BIOS limitation would result in the > partition data >8GB being totally wiped out. Yes, sorry, might very well be true. > > > Why is that? > > As far as boot.ini is involved: > > --- > > If your image was from the very first primary > > partition on your HD, in boot.ini the relevant > > entry will look like > multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition > > (0)\WINNT or so. But if the very first primary on > > your new layout was for another W2K or Win98, and > > the non-hidden primary you want > > to boot from occupies slot #2or #3 in the MBR, it > > should look like: > > multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT or > > multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINNT. > > I've just deleted the 2 partitions I had for W2K and > W98, created new ones in their place, and restored W2K > & W98 images to them respectively. These are > approximations: > > Drive 0: 3GB FAT32 Primary [W2000] > Drive 1: 2.5GB FAT32 [Hidden] Primary [W98] > Drive 2: 2.5GB FAT32 Logical [Data] > Drive 3: 70MB FAT32 Logical [Libretto hibernation] > Drive 4: 30GB FAT32 Logical [Data] > > I see W2K's Disk Manager has indeed found the W98 > partition as you pointed out, so I guess that explains > why the entry in boot.ini now appears like the 2nd > example you gave above: > >multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT > > > As far as volume identifiers (GUIDs) are involved: > > -- > > Win2K puts info about all (yes ALL) partitions on > > your hard disk*S* +all removable media HW ever seen > > on your PC on HD # 1 cyl. 0 track 0, behind the MBR > > itself. > > I've noticed that. It creates a folder named "System > Volume Information" on every drive installed to the > system, as WXP does. After I lost my 30GB >8GB data > partition when PM froze converting the partition to a > logical one, I had to put the drive in the WXP desktop > to copy my MP3s back to a newly created >8GB > partition. I was wondering if the "System Volume > Information" folder it created may have made problems > when I put the drive back in the 110 and booted W2K. Sorry I wouldn't know. > > If something or > > someone pokes around in this database w/o Win2K's > > consent, or if Win2K finds that the database &
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:30:04 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning Philip, Thank you for your >very< informative explanation of how Windows 2000 deals with partitions. It explains a good deal of the problems I've been experiencing trying to get W2K and W98 boot booting on my 100. (On boot managers:) > Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote > > If you think this is a bit overdone, you are right. > My excuse is that the Lib is a hobby object rather > than production machine. Nevertheless in the next > weeks months I'm gonna clean up and simplify things. As you may be able to tell, computers in general are a hobby for me. I know so little about the beasts the thought at working with troubleshooting and repairing them sounds like the nightmare of nightmares to me! 8-0 > But: why do you hide primary partitions? On my > Lib all Windows versions live happily next to > each other. I had a problem years back with adding WinNT to a system set up with Win98. If what you describe about W2K and partitions applied to WinNT back then, then that may explain the partition problems I had back then. After installing WinNT, W98 wouldn't boot properly as it complained about a couple of partitions that weren't there. After the 'best minds' I could find on the problem told me: "FDISK /MBR", and if that didn't work, reinstall everything... I found my own work-around. I just created 2 tiny dummy partitions, and W98 was happy. So I guess I've just been paranoid about having one version of Windows seeing another ever since then. But if WinNT was doing what you describe W2K as doing, it may have been useless. > Indeed, two Windows versions (W2K > full & W98) share _all_ programs in C:\Programs > (renamed from Program Files), incl. IE, virus > scanners and Office suites, even the swap file. I read that process on your website, but thought I'd go the route I had in the past. Guess that was the beginning of my present problems. > As I mentioned before, W2K needs to have its boot > drive letter match the enumerated number of its > boot partition, both in C:\boot.ini but also in > the registry and in the volume GUIDs on cyl. 0 > (beyond the MBR). The latter ones can be fixed > (reinitialized) by running FDISK /MBR from a plain > DOS prompt. Afterward, once booted in Win2K you > will need to run Disk Manager to fix all drive > letters. I strongly suggest to run FDISK/MBR, > otherwise you run the risk that Win2K simply can't > login, or perhaps even can't boot. Okay... but I'm still afraid I'll loose my logical drives >8GB if I run that booted from a floppy. I'm guessing that you run that from a command prompt from within W2K, right? If I booted the system from a FD, and ran it from the A:\ prompt, I'd guess that the Libretto's BIOS limitation would result in the partition data >8GB being totally wiped out. > Why is that? > As far as boot.ini is involved: > --- > If your image was from the very first primary > partition on your HD, in boot.ini the relevant > entry will look like multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition > (0)\WINNT or so. But if the very first primary on > your new layout was for another W2K or Win98, and > the non-hidden primary you want > to boot from occupies slot #2or #3 in the MBR, it > should look like: > multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT or > multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINNT. I've just deleted the 2 partitions I had for W2K and W98, created new ones in their place, and restored W2K & W98 images to them respectively. These are approximations: Drive 0: 3GB FAT32 Primary [W2000] Drive 1: 2.5GB FAT32 [Hidden] Primary [W98] Drive 2: 2.5GB FAT32 Logical [Data] Drive 3: 70MB FAT32 Logical [Libretto hibernation] Drive 4: 30GB FAT32 Logical [Data] I see W2K's Disk Manager has indeed found the W98 partition as you pointed out, so I guess that explains why the entry in boot.ini now appears like the 2nd example you gave above: multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT > As far as volume identifiers (GUIDs) are involved: > -- > Win2K puts info about all (yes ALL) partitions on > your hard disk*S* +all removable media HW ever seen > on your PC on HD # 1 cyl. 0 track 0, behind the MBR > itself. I've noticed that. It creates a folder named "System Volume Information" on every drive installed to the system, as WXP does. After I lost my 30GB >8GB data partition when PM froze converting the partition to a logical one, I had to put the drive in the WXP desktop to copy my MP3s back to a newly created >8GB partition. I was wonderin
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:23:56 -0800 (PST) From: David Chien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning > I think you've posted that before, haven't you David? > What are you using for a boot loader? I was PQ's boot program. But that doesn't work with EZ-Drive last I checked years ago when I installed everything on my Libretto, and I didn't want to bother with XOSL for just two OSs, so didn't bother installing anything else. = adorable toshiba libretto The latest news and information for the Toshiba Libretto owner. http://www.silverace.com/libretto/ __ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:53:12 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning Hey Philip... I'm going to have to save this, and go offline and digest it all. I've been having more problems of all sorts in the past few days, and some may indeed be caused by my hiding the W2K primary partition, creating another primary partition after it and installing W98, and then using Partition Magic to set each active and hide the other in order to boot eacj OS. The reason I'm using PM to set the active partition and hide the other to boot each OS is, 1. I had done it successfully long ago with Windows OSs before W2K and WXP came along. And 2. Because I wasn't able to get either BootMagic or PQBoot to function properly. I've had a number of problems switching OSs using these methods. Particulary with W2K complaining booting into the desktop that the "User Interface DLL failed to load msgina.dll" Most of the times rebooting fixes the problem. But I lost the entire partition at one point with that one of the likely culprits. Mmore later. Matt --- Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Matt Hanson wrote: > . > > Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What are you using as a boot manager Philip... > > something in W2000? > > OS/2 boot manager goes first, allowing me to select > Win2K's boot > manager, various OS/2 versions and (currently) two > Linux boot managers > (lilo). > > Then, Win2K's boot manager allows Win2K full install > on C:, Win98 on E:, > Win2K w/o IE / Outlook / Netmeeting / etc, from G:, > and a Win2K recovery > console. > > The two lilo bootmanagers are for Mandrake 9.2 and > VectorLinux 4.3. Both > include the stock kernels plus kernels patched for > the PCMCIA floppy and > one for NETBEUI support. > > All in all I got three (four) boot managers, for > (...counting) 9 > operating systems. > > If you think this is a bit overdone, you are right. > My excuse is that > the Lib is a hobby object rather than production > machine. > Nevertheless in the next weeks/ months I'm gonna > clean up and simplify > things. > > > > As for a restore, I doubt whether you can simply > > restore a Win2K > > > from one partition to another one. It is not > quite > > enough that the > > > drive letters are the same (as the registry is __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:31:35 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning Matt Hanson wrote: . > Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What are you using as a boot manager Philip... > something in W2000? OS/2 boot manager goes first, allowing me to select Win2K's boot manager, various OS/2 versions and (currently) two Linux boot managers (lilo). Then, Win2K's boot manager allows Win2K full install on C:, Win98 on E:, Win2K w/o IE / Outlook / Netmeeting / etc, from G:, and a Win2K recovery console. The two lilo bootmanagers are for Mandrake 9.2 and VectorLinux 4.3. Both include the stock kernels plus kernels patched for the PCMCIA floppy and one for NETBEUI support. All in all I got three (four) boot managers, for (...counting) 9 operating systems. If you think this is a bit overdone, you are right. My excuse is that the Lib is a hobby object rather than production machine. Nevertheless in the next weeks/ months I'm gonna clean up and simplify things. > > As for a restore, I doubt whether you can simply > restore a Win2K > > from one partition to another one. It is not quite > enough that the > > drive letters are the same (as the registry is > pervaded by it), but > > you must also restore its boot manager + boot files > on C:, > > irrespective of where Win2K is going to end up. The > entries in > > c:\boot.ini are not drive letters but refer to > partition > > enumeration, and must match the physical partition > layout. > > Okay... so tell me if you think this will work: > > Drive 0: 3GB FAT32 Primary [W2000] > Drive 1: 1.5GB FAT32 [Hidden] Primary [W2000] > Drive 2: 1GB FAT32 [Hidden] Primary [W98] > Drive 3: 2.5GB FAT32 Logical [Data] > Drive 4: 70MB FAT32 Logical [Libretto hibernation] > Drive 5: 30GB FAT32 Logical [Data] I can't tell from this distance :-) It looks OK, although I still think you wil encounter some problems. But: why do you hide primary partitions? On my Lib all Windows versions live happily next to each other. Indeed, two Windows versions (W2K full & W98) share _all_ programs in C:\Programs (renamed from Program Files), incl. IE, virus scanners and Office suites, even the swap file. > If I can get BootMagic to install on the existing 1st > FAT32 W2000 partition, it should hide the two > partitions following it that have bootable OSs. When > I 1st installed 2000, I made an image of that 1st > partition when the drive was set up like this: > > Drive 0: 3GB FAT32 Primary [W2000] > Drive 1: 2.5GB FAT32 Primary [Data] > Drive 2: 70MB FAT32 Primary [Libretto hibernation] > Drive 3: 30GB FAT32 Primary [Data] > > I would think that if I restore the W2000 image to > Drive 1 as in the 1st example of partitions above, and > have BootMagic hide Drive 0 and drive 2 when running > the restored image from Drive 1, I would think the > restored copy of W2000 shouldn't have any problems. I never fooled around with PM, but anyway, I fear your proposed scheme won't work. Won't work with restored Win2K's, that is. Chances are it will work only if you *install* Win2K anew on each partition. First of all, you simply do not need PM at all, and for that matter you do not need EZ-drive either. In fact these will make it only more difficult. Second, I suspect your lay-out will have some problems, in any case minor ones, perhaps big ones, because drive letters in Win2K work very very differently from the old stuff in Win9x/ME and DOS. As I mentioned before, W2K needs to have its boot drive letter match the enumerated number of its boot partition, both in C:\boot.ini but also in the registry and in the volume GUIDs on cyl. 0 (beyond the MBR). The latter ones can be fixed (reinitialized) by running FDISK /MBR from a plain DOS prompt. Afterward, once booted in Win2K you will need to run Disk Manager to fix all drive letters. I strongly suggest to run FDISK /MBR, otherwise you run the risk that Win2K simply can't login, or perhaps even can't boot. Why is that? As far as boot.ini is involved: --- If your image was from the very first primary partition on you HD, in boot.ini the relevant entry will look like multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(0)\WINNT or so. But if the very first primary on your new layout was for another W2K or Win98, and the non-hidden primary you want to boot from occupies slot #2 or #3 in the MBR, it should look like multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT or multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINNT. If you look in the registry HKLM\SYSTEM\MountedDevices you will see a lot of keys for all partitions (also the partitions on removable media like CD-ROM and network drives). Below are the keys for your drive letters, and the key data for each dri
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:48:25 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning Well, I've ended up with W2000 on the 1st primary partition, W98 on a 1GB primary partition after it, and the remainder of the drive space on logical drives. I had to install EZ-Drive in order to get Partition Magic and PTBoot to even think about installing. I thought PTBoot would be a more direct, simple way of going over BootMagic. But it's being finicky. Ironcially, they wouldn't install without EZ-Drive, but PTBoot doesn't see the drives correctly without EZ-Drive removed! It sees the W98 primary drive as well as all logical drives as being formatted 'EZ-Drive', and not 'FAT32' until I uninstall EZ-Drive. But now I discover that many of the 20GB worth of MP3s I had to restore from backed up files last week are corrupted. After Partition Magic crashed on the Lib converting the >8GB primary partition to a logical one last week, I had to put the HDD in the desktop, create a >8GB logical partition there, and copy back my MP3s. But I noticed that some MP3s didn't play, so I ran Scandisk on the drive and discovered that a huge number of MP3s were damaged copying them over. With so many MP3s, it was easier to just delete them all, put the HDD in the desktop again, and copy them all over again rather than hunting for the damaged files individually. But still, the process resulted in a large number of corrupted MP3s. I thought maybe XP on the desktop may have been involved, as it wants to write partition info to each new HDD it discovers when it boots. So I repeated the process, only booting the desktop to W98 instead, and copying the MP3s from there. But the process still resulted in a large number of corrupted files. So I'm now in the process of copying the MP3s over to the Libretto via a network connection in small groups, and running Scandisk on the Libretto to confirm they're not corrupted. This is taking forever at 500KB/sec. Wish I knew what the problem was when copying them in the desktop directly. Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > All windows versions I know of can run perfectly from any logical > partition. But... they all need to *boot* from a primary partition. > And that's where you must look out - Win9x/ME can't boot from a > primary NTFS partition, it must a FAT type -something to keep in > mind if multibooting W98 & W2K. (BTW such a primary partion can be > very small, 7.8 MB (i.e. just one cylinder) should do to keep all > boot files for Win2K + Win9x.) I have Win2K on a primary (+ another > IE-free on a logical >8GB) and Win98 on a logical <8GB. What are you using as a boot manager Philip... something in W2000? > As for a restore, I doubt whether you can simply restore a Win2K > from one partition to another one. It is not quite enough that the > drive letters are the same (as the registry is pervaded by it), but > you must also restore its boot manager + boot files on C:, > irrespective of where Win2K is going to end up. The entries in > c:\boot.ini are not drive letters but refer to partition > enumeration, and must match the physical partition layout. Okay... so tell me if you think this will work: Drive 0: 3GB FAT32 Primary [W2000] Drive 1: 1.5GB FAT32 [Hidden] Primary [W2000] Drive 2: 1GB FAT32 [Hidden] Primary [W98] Drive 3: 2.5GB FAT32 Logical [Data] Drive 4: 70MB FAT32 Logical [Libretto hibernation] Drive 5: 30GB FAT32 Logical [Data] If I can get BootMagic to install on the existing 1st FAT32 W2000 partition, it should hide the two partitions following it that have bootable OSs. When I 1st installed 2000, I made an image of that 1st partition when the drive was set up like this: Drive 0: 3GB FAT32 Primary [W2000] Drive 1: 2.5GB FAT32 Primary [Data] Drive 2: 70MB FAT32 Primary [Libretto hibernation] Drive 3: 30GB FAT32 Primary [Data] I would think that if I restore the W2000 image to Drive 1 as in the 1st example of partitions above, and have BootMagic hide Drive 0 and drive 2 when running the restored image from Drive 1, I would think the restored copy of W2000 shouldn't have any problems. > In addition, Win2K uses Logical Volume Management, which is an > abstraction of Win9x's partitions and drive letters, and a > restored Win2K might complain bitterly about missing drive letters, > missing paging files, and GUIDs (=volume indicators which are on > cyl. 0 track 0 somewhere in an undocumented place beyond the MBR). > You also run the risk of seeing it log in and log out immediately > again, a consequence of Win2K not being able to find userinit.exe, > which in turn is a consequence of not finding its mount points. I'd think the approach I suggested above would get around those problems... no? > Mayb
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:23:22 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Drouillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning Normally Win98 will run on any partition except that io.sys, msdos.sys, autoexec.bat, config.sys, etc. must be on first partition of first hard drive. If Win2k is installed then boot.ini is used to select which OS to run. If Win98 is selected then msdos.sys tells it where to look for the rest of the OS. Not sure if Win2k bootloader will allow you to put entire Win98 on a logical partition but it should allow you to have multiple installs of Win2k on different partitions (also selected on boot from the options in boot.ini). Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:46:56 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Question on W2000 & partitioning I want to create a new partition and restore a W2000 image to it in order to test making it run faster. Will W2000 run from a logical/extended partition? Or must it be run from a primary partition? Win98 will run from a logical/extended partition, right? I need to run that to support this TDK sound card, and play MP3s from another partition. Thx, Matt __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:02:40 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning Matt Hanson wrote: > > Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:46:56 -0800 (PST) > From: Matt Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Question on W2000 & partitioning > > I want to create a new partition and restore a W2000 > image to it in order to test making it run faster. > Will W2000 run from a logical/extended partition? Or > must it be run from a primary partition? All windows versions I know of can run perfectly from any logical partition. But... they all need to *boot* from a primary partition. And that's where you must look out - Win9x/ME can't boot from a primary NTFS partition, it must a FAT type -somethingto keep in mind if multibooting W98 & W2K. (BTW such a primary partion can be very small, 7.8 MB (i.e. just one cylinder) should do to keep all boot files for Win2K + Win9x.) I have Win2K on a primary (+ another IE-free on a logical >8GB) and Win98 on a logical <8GB. XOSL claims Win98 can be run *and* booted from a logical partition, I've tried a number of times on my desktop but never managed to get it together. YMMV. I doubt if Win2K's disk manager can be fooled into this. As for a restore, I doubt whether you can simply restore a Win2K from one partition to another one. It is not quite enough that the drive letters are the same (as the registry is pervaded by it), but you must also restore its boot manager + boot files on C:, irrespective of where Win2K is going to end up. The entries in c:\boot.ini are not drive letters but refer to partition enumeration, and must match the physical partition layout. In addition, Win2K uses Logical Volume Management, which is an abstraction of Win9x's partitions and drive letters, and a restored Win2K might complain bitterly about missing drive letters, missing paging files, and GUIDs (=volume indicators which are on cyl. 0 track 0 somewhere in an undocumented place beyond the MBR). You also run the risk of seeing it log in and log out immediately again, a consequence of Win2K not being able to find userinit.exe, which in turn is a consequence of not finding its mount points. Maybe you are lucky, you can try to restore to a partition with the same drive letter and then do a FDSISK/ MBR from DOS (yes DOS) - this will reinit the LVM info (don't forget the boot stuff on c:\). To summarize: just give it a try, but if it proves to get even just a tiny little bit complicated, forget it. Philip
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 01:47:18 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I believe you have it reversed - W2K will run from a > logical partition, W98 > won't. Hmm... I just read somewhere where someone was running Win98 on a logical drive. Checking Google, I guess no Windows OS is supposed to be able to run on a logical drive. I guess that's what boot managers like lilo and Boot Magic get around. > But any combination can be accommodated with > Boot Magic, or some other > boot manager. I run W2K on the C:\ partition and > W98se on the D:\ partition > on a Sony laptop (for reasons best left unexplained) > using Boot Magic with no problem. I guess it's all in the boot manager. Wonder what other boot mamagers people are using. I find Boot Magic together with WinXp frustrating the way partitions on a 2nd drive get re-lettered and set hidden, active. Guess it's just another matter of learning how the beasts work. --- David Chien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, as far as I've read, it appears that > only XOSL (free) supports all > combinations as well as the use of a disk manager > such as EZ_Drive in addition > to these other OSs (see faq or docs on the XOSL > website). I don't know the > specifics of whether the latest Boot Magic and other > pay for programs will work > with EZ-DRive installed, but certainly a few years > ago when I looked into this, > only XOSL would have the functionality to work with > EZ-Drive. And since it is > a moderately complex setup, I simply went back to > switching boot partitions > from DOS command line to run pqboot (partition > magic's DOS boot partition > switcher). > > Those with Linux know-how may have ideas as to how > to get the Linux boot > selector to work with EZ-Drive systems. I think you've posted that before, haven't you David? What are you using for a boot loader? I was considering installing PQBoot on all my Windows partitions. It seems it's more basic and fingers less than PQ Magic. Though I know some people have figured out how to get Linux ilo (referred to above?) to run in Windows. Matt __ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:36:44 -0800 (PST) From: David Chien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning > I believe you have it reversed - W2K will run from a logical partition, W98 > won't. But any combination can be accommodated with Boot Magic, or some > other > boot manager. This point only important for those using EZ-Drive or a disk manager: Actually, as far as I've read, it appears that only XOSL (free) supports all combinations as well as the use of a disk manager such as EZ_Drive in addition to these other OSs (see faq or docs on the XOSL website). I don't know the specifics of whether the latest Boot Magic and other pay for programs will work with EZ-DRive installed, but certainly a few years ago when I looked into this, only XOSL would have the functionality to work with EZ-Drive. And since it is a moderately complex setup, I simply went back to switching boot partitions from DOS command line to run pqboot (partition magic's DOS boot partition switcher). Those with Linux know-how may have ideas as to how to get the Linux boot selector to work with EZ-Drive systems. = adorable toshiba libretto The latest news and information for the Toshiba Libretto owner. http://www.silverace.com/libretto/ __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com
Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 23:00:28 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning In a message dated 11/23/2004 6:48:40 PM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I want to create a new partition and restore a W2000 > image to it in order to test making it run faster. > Will W2000 run from a logical/extended partition? Or > must it be run from a primary partition? > > Win98 will run from a logical/extended partition, > right? I need to run that to support this TDK sound > card, and play MP3s from another partition. > > Thx, > > Matt > I believe you have it reversed - W2K will run from a logical partition, W98 won't. But any combination can be accommodated with Boot Magic, or some other boot manager. I run W2K on the C:\ partition and W98se on the D:\ partition on a Sony laptop (for reasons best left unexplained) using Boot Magic with no problem. Lee
