DeltaX Multibooting

A limitation of OSes with a DOS boot-record (Windows 9x, ME, etc), is that they must boot from the first primary partition of your hard drive (normally your C: drive). Microsoft's NOSes [Network Operating Systems, Windows Advanced Server (NT 3.1), Windows NT 3.5/3.51, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000 and XP] are more flexible. Not being dependant on a DOS boot record, you can install them to whatever partition you'd like. They still keep their boot files on the first primary partition (again, likely C:, often referred to as the 'system partition' ), but will boot the actual NOS directory on another partition (i.e. e:\winnt, referred to as the 'boot partition').

Why?
When attempting to install Microsoft's consumer OS and a business OS on the same system, file system complications become the concerns of the day. You have 3 types of file systems to consider in this Microsoft-centric scenario. FAT16 is the old faithful. Unfortunately, it supports partitions only up to 2 gigs in size for the consumer OS line (4GB under business OSes). FAT32 is Microsoft's extension to the FAT file system, and it became available with an intermedial release of Windows 95. It supports up to 2 Terabyte partitions. It can be used by three of the versions of Windows 95, Windows 9x/ME, and Windows 2000. How can you tell which version of FAT you are using with your home OS? When in My Computer, right-click and choose properties to see the file system type. You can also safely assume that if your consumer OS partition is greater than 2GB in size, you've got FAT32.

A note about NTFS versions. NT 4.00 does use a slightly different version of NTFS than do Windows 2000 and XP.

DrMDJ, Your question is a tall order, but if I miss some of them, I hope someone else can cover me. :)

There is more than one way to install a multiboot system. Are we going to use one or a combination. Understanding hard drives is essential. Things like sectors, partitions, mbr, etc. Booting a computer needs to be understood (boot.ini differences in OSs?) An understanding of multibooting principles is requisite. A knowledge of third party apps is important. This is a very general overview. There is also two ways to multiboot - the Microsoft way and the others. This causes alot of conflicts and can cause problems. Need to know how to deal with it.

And once you get all this under your belt you are ready to make a plan. There is a certain sequence of events that have to be followed exactly or you crash.

I think what you are after as is Train is what does a person have to consider (all the factors that go into your multibooting plan) so the installation will go as smoothly as possible and conclude succesfully.

Any of us that have done any multibooting successfully know how to do it but why did we do it that way? Because someone else said to or " I did it this way for the following reasons."

And I tell you all one thing I have found out. I do not know anywhere near all the whys. I still don't know enough - BUT I am digging into the subject, learning, and "connecting more dots every day".

Good Morning All,

Here is a table of operating systems and parameters for thinking about how to start figuring how to proceed in planning to Multiboot. As you look at it questions will most likely pop into your minds. These question would fall under the heading of what you have to consider. Study it a bit and you might get a feeling of how much this entails.

TABLE 1: OS Support for File Systems and Accessibility Types
OS FAT16 FAT32 NTFS Ext2
DOS and Windows 3.1 R, W, B ---- R*, W*** ----
Win95 OSR1 R, W, B**** ---- R*, W*** R*
Win95 OSR2, 2.1, 2.5 R, W, B**** R, W, B R*, W*** R*
Win98 R, W, B R, W, B R*, W*** R*
NT 4.0 R, W, B R, W** R,W,B ----
Win2K R, W, B R, W, B R,W,B ----
Linux R, W R* R* R,W,B
R = Readable
W = Writeable
B = Bootable

*Not natively supported--requires third-party software

**Systems Internals FAT32 for NT 4.0 provides read capabilities for FAT32 volumes under NT 4.0, and Winternals FAT 32 for NT 4.0 adds write capabilities

***Systems Internals NTFSDOS Tools provides limited write capabilities, and Systems Internals ERD Commander provides full write capabilities

****Win9x has difficulty with NT-created FAT16 partitions larger than 2GB that use a 64KB cluster

XP is not listed in this older table and it can install a file system as well as the operating system.

Lots to consider and think about. And anyone can multiboot if they are willing to learn and try. :) :)

Oops the table did not come out right.

Hi All, As this thread has not generated much participation or apparent interest, I thank all of you that have participated and wish all of you the best. Be well. :)

Well, I was very much looking forward to this thread progressing, but was sitting back to wait while the "trios switch" boot option was explained. Hoping for step by step instructions.

Then perhaps the straight dual boot, using the two hard drives that you spoke of to begin with. Again....... with detailed instructions on how to achieve it.

And finally, perhaps using just one hard drive.

Instead, it veered off somehow....and none of it got explained.

Yes me too, I know nothing of Trios switches, so I've been waiting patiently for an explanation, then eventually we'll get to the multibooting methods that I do know about.

Hi All,

Looks like we will continue with this thread based upon upon various communications I have received and people I have corresponded with.

Between you me and the lampost, this is the hardest thread yet to do. Where to start, differences of opinions, etc. Early on I said as much and it is so, believe me. It would be one thing to write on, say "How I Mutlibooted Every Operating System" and having a thread that is attempting to cover what all of us need to know to multiboot whatever it is we want to multiboot. And to think I said that all in one breath. :D

I have found out one thing from some of the real experts around here and that is just how many different ways to accomplish multibooting.

We started off this thread from a stand point of hardware and using it to multiboot. But, as was pointed out to me with XP, multibooting can be acomplished far easier than before. A question here is XP multibooting for just Windows or other OSs also. Another consideration. Also the third party apps can also make thing simpler.

By the way, don't sell the Trios Switch short as you can have in effect three isolated systems on your computer that can be also expanded. Said that for Supersparks :D :D

And one thing I have been trying to get across are all the considerations you have to think about on whichever multiboot setup you want to have. This is the part that can stop you "dead in your tracks. Something you may not have thought of when you started on one little point. Alot of us have found that out the hardway. And on bigger multiboots, if someone wants to do one, there is trial and error to put up with simply because noone has done it before you to speak of.

Having said that, I think we might oughta pick a multiboot setup and tear into it. This might just be the easiest way to proceed.

So, you the reader do not get off scott free, let's have a question. :D

Should we try a single hard drive dual boot starting with WIN XP or Win 98 (plenty of both systems in use. Did I hear Win 95, ME, 2000, Linux, and so forth)? :) :)

Let's kick off with a Win98 or ME system dual booting with Win2000 or XP (it's not really important which as long as it's a DOS based OS with an NT based one).

Most people will have 9x or ME already installed on their C:\ drive and the day will come, as it did with me in early 2000, that they've seen just one BSOD too many. So they'd like to upgrade to a new shiny, and by all accounts much more reliable NT based OS, but they don't know what it's like, and they don't know if their existing software will run with the new OS. What to do? Dual-booting seems the answer.

Well the good news is that it's very easy to do. All you have to do is to boot up with the W2K or XP CD in the cdrom drive and Setup will take care of things for you. It will allow you to create and format an extra paritition for you to put the new OS on and then install the OS and take care of the dual-boot options. Then when you start the machine you get a screen during the boot process from which you can choose the OS to boot into. Easy peasy lemon squeezy :D :D

Now for the bad news. Everything is going splendidly until one day flaky old 9x or ME decides it won't play anymore and nothing you can do will fix it. So you decide to do a re-install (over-the-top or clean, it makes no difference). You re-install, boot up again and lo-and behold there's no more boot options :eek: :eek: This is because if there is any NT based OS installed the boot sector has to point to a file called Ntldr, while DOS based OS's point to one called Io.sys.

There is a way of fixing that, and we can get into recovering multiboot systems from disaster at a later stage. However, before you embark on the multiboot route you could learn from my mistakes here. Consider investing in imaging softaware (Norton Ghost, PowerQuest DriveImage or Acronis True Image). These programs can save a lot of heartache in these circumstances.

Splendid news!!!!!!
Anxious to see how this goes. Wasn't it jmtjet that had the trios switch? How'd that go?

Daizy, I think jmtjet put it aside for the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by greengoose1
Daizy, I think jmtjet put it aside for the moment.

---

Had to RMA it. Got a bad one.

SuperSparks
Have some questions, maybe you can answer them.
Are you saying I can not install my XP in the same place as my 98SE is? I have lots of room there as Compaq has all there junk on my D: part and that only leaves me with 240MB of room left.
Be new to this booting bit, but have heard of a MBR, will this bother it. I don't like to use the Restore cd as I lose everything on my hard drive when I do.

Hi imitation, Welcome to VirDr. Sounds as though you have only a couple of partitions and you mentioned Compaq. And the Quick Restore CDs.

Now for the questions. If you meant putting another operating system on the C Drive of your hard drive, no you cannot. You will need another dirve to do this.

Please give us the specifications of your computer. The size of your hard drive is one of the more important things. You have to have a hard drive large enough to have the sizes required for the operating systems you want multibooted. In your case looks like two for the moment at least.

And MBR is of course the master boot record which if fouled up or corrupted will keep you from doing anything. No access to anything on your hard drive. :)

imitation, if you're trying to dual boot you need a separate partition for each operation system. So either you'll have to split the partition that 98 is on or clear the Compaq restore partition.

Splitting your 98 partition will require PartitionMagic to do it without losing data.

Clearing the restore partition could be done by burning the files to CD then deleting or a copy and paste into a created folder on your C drive. Personally, when I had a Compaq I just deleted them. All they are is what's on your restore CD.

As GG said, how big is your hard drive and how large are the partitions?

c drive is about 6gb and d is about 2.1. It is a 8.2 gb harddrive if I recollect what is writen on the data paper. It is a older Compaq with a manufactor date of 1998 and a AMD K6-2 380mhz cpu. I was told by the old owner that I could us up to a 30GB harddrive as he had updated the bios to accept that size.

You can divide up your C Drive and make two partions out of it to make three total. Not large by todays standards but big enough to dual boot. I have 15GB and 30GB hard drives on the Compaq Presario 5360 built in 1999. The reason for this for back ups and storage. Divided the 15GB into three partitiond or drives. one of 7.5GB, the other two 3.5GB each. The second hard drive has 4 7.5GB partitions.

Off the subject do you have the Compaq Quick Recovery Restore floppies made in case you have to replace the hard drive in the future. The floppies are the only way to get the proprietary info of Compaq back onto a hard drive. Just a mention on something to check on. :)

Quote:

---

Are you saying I can not install my XP in the same place as my 98SE is?

---

Technically you can do this. With a couple povisions and some upfront work. In fact I have a box sitting next to me now that has a multiboot Win95 and Win NT4 setup (98 and XP can be acheive similarly), with both on the same partition.

In short... If the XP system is going to use the NTFS file system for its boot drive (partition) then you'd be out of luck since the Win98 system couldn't deal with this. But if both systems are using fat16/32 for the boot partition then... What you would have to do though is make some setup/configuration file changes for XP prior to installing it. Primarily these changes would change the default Program Files directory/folder so as not to conflict with that of 98's. You would then just want to make sure that XP did not use the same windows system folder as 98, ie. you want to have the system folder have a different name for both systems other than "Windows". You can do this during the install phase. Now if you had known ahead of time that you wanted this 98/XP dual boot setup you could have done some similar/analagous planning and work pior to and during the install of 98. But that's another story (that doesn't apply to you).

The above is a short, non-detailed, answer. But the bottomline is that in general terms (depending on factors and the work one's willing to do) you can have co-existence of the OSes Imitation asked about (and others, but not just any).

But I have to go back to something I've tried to raise before in this thread. For my money I think before the "mechanical" aspects of acheiving any particular dual/multi-boot setup are dealt with it is worth getting back to the basics of multi-boot. The factors, the considerations, the gotchas (etc) that come in to play (or can) when setting up, when planning for, multi-boot. There are "things" that influence/determine the course that setting of up a multi-boot will or might take, that determine what may or may not be done or acheivable, what can or can't be done, how things can or might need to be done. And these things also may (often will or should) factor in to one's evaluation, and selection of the particular "mechanical" means of handling the multi-boot (trios switches, boot managers, seperate drives, etc, etc).

It's logical that throughout its course this thread would get in to specifics in terms of things like specifically dealing with (say) a win98/XP dual boot (along with other potential combos), or the specifics of doing things with given boot manager or something like a trios switch (etc, etc). But there are a ton of potential individual dual/multi-boot scenarios, and results obtained by, that people might want to (want to try to) acheive. Heck, even if two people both want to, say, setup a win98/xp dual boot, there are different ways to do it, different things one way may provide or not provide that vs. another, different things particular to the individual's case that may/will effect a particular method's viability, different things that the two people are trying to acheive or avoid that make a given suggested method good or bad. So there are (or may be) "variables" at play in what appears on the surface to be the same dual/muli-boot scenario (ie. 98/xp here). And if you go beyond this and expand/change the OSes (or combo's), individual goals, etc then...

Again, its fine (and worthwhile) to deal with specific dual/multi-boot scenarios/cases. But I think there needs to be some broader discussion of the theory and such behind this stuff. Information that can then be applied to specific cases. Information that can be used in evaluating what and how something's being done in a specific case. Information that one can use to apply to their individual (and perhaps different) case/need. And when specfic cases/scenarios/examples are being discussed I think it would be helpfull to go beyond the basics of "do this, then that, then this" and talk about why (or why not) this or that is being done (or not), what your getting and what your not, and so on.

Now maybe I am way off base in all this relative to other's thinking here, the direction and content they see for this thread. If so I apologise. I just think the theory (background) underlying this stuff is important. One can't evaluate a given proposed/discussed setup and you can't can't extrapolate it to your own situation/needs without understanding the theory and underlying info related to things like the boot process, file systems, OS nuances, OS installation nuances, etc, etc.

Again, if I'm out of sink with the majority view here I apologise. And no one should take my comments as spurred on by any given (individual's) post. But if I'm not out of sink then I would take things back to Goose's orginal post/scenario. Aside from whether it is the "mechanically" preferred or easiest way to set the case he put forth I'd suggest it worthwhile to maybe to look at things like(to name a couple): a) What (generically and in terms of some of the things mentioned above like file systems, OS, boot process issues) does this setup give one? What doesn't it give one? b) I think someone mentioned something about "isolation of the operating systems" early on. Well, isolation in terms of what? Why/when does one need to worry about isolation?

Goose's setup is about as basic as it gets, and maybe even one that many people might find too simple. But even his simple example addresses (hits on) some of the issues one must deal with in multi-booting, demonstrates "a" way they can be dealt with, invites questions like "what's this method accomplish" (or not)... We seemed to have gotten off on the tangent of looking at it purely from a mechanical, "ease of use" standpoint. But what about from the standpoint of multi-boot theory/backgound???

Hi All,

DrMDJ. A nice post if I ever saw one. Now excuse me while I digest all that has been said. :D

I am going to look at the two OSs on one partion business the good Dr talked about. I plumb did not know all about that. Opens up what else has to be thought of along with other questions. Am I really sure I want to look into this part? Do I know enough? I always have these little question sessions with myself, but most likely I will come up with some real questions brfore this is over with.

If some of you come up with some questions plaese ask them. Why? It could very possibly some question that the rest of us have not thought of which could help some of us. And as I have said so many many times before there is no such thing as a dumb question around here.

Or maybe you have some good comments to make that would help the rest os us. Why again? So we can all learn faster. And do better with our computers. :) :)

I feel the best way to do it is to have three HDD caddies, with two fitted into your machine.

This means that the master drive can be changed to suit the O/S required and all your data etc is kept on the other.

The data drive would of course have to be Fat32 so that it can be read by 98 and 2000/XP.

Or better still just keep to XP, and save all the headaches:D

Hi imitation, dual-booting aside, I wouldn't even attempt installing WinXP on your machine - it will be horrendously slow. When I first got XP it was on a P3-450 and it was painfully slow. For those specs Windows 2000 would be a much better choice.

Although it's certainly possible to install 2 OS's on the same partition, I think it should be said that Microsoft expressly advise against it and will refuse to support any such installation.

Hi All,

Thanks Philgo with how you do it. Another way I have not tried. :)

Supersparks or anyone, Why wouldn't Microsoft support the configuration of two OSs on one partition? What is the potential conflict? :)

Microsoft are somewhat unhelpful when it comes to explaining why you shouldn't do it:

Quote:

---

NOTE: You should install each operating system on a separate logical drive. If you install multiple operating systems on single drive, you may experience problems when you attempt to run those operating systems.

If you install multiple operating systems on a single drive, Microsoft Internet Explorer may quit and you may receive an error message that is similar to the following error message:

iexplore caused an Invalid Page Fault in module kernel32.dll

---

Here's the full article:

http://support.microsoft.com/default...;EN-US;q217210

My understanding of the problem is that the underlying architecture of the DOS-based OS's and the NT-based OS's is utterly different, and so the application files installed in one will be very different to those installed in another, but they would end up in the same Programs folder unless a great deal of care was taken to install the same app into different folders. I imagine thert's an immense potential for "dll hell" as well.

DrMDJ, thank you for the excellant explanation. That was the type of information I need so I can make halfway good decisions.
Getting tired of reading "do it my way" with out telling me why, etc.
Still a few good ideas here if folks would explain. Like the isolation stuff.

Let us not worry about this being a compaq for much longer. A couple searches showed how to get around that business. Right here in the forums.