Dual Boot Possibility

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Does XP support a dual boot mode?

Looking to do this on a development box with different O/S's on it such as
Win2003 server and Windows 2000 server.
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Hi,

As much as any version of Windows does. Frankly, that ain't much.
Multi-booting various Win environments is best done with a boot manager.

Boot Managers and Partitioning programs:

BootIT NG www.terabyteunlimited.com
Partition Magic www.powerquest.com/partitionmagic
Partition Commander http://www.v-com.com/product/pc_ind.html
Ranish Partition Manager http://www.ranish.com/part/

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"Jack Snow" <mrbrew5510@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:A1ITc.1490$5b4.414694@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> Does XP support a dual boot mode?
>
> Looking to do this on a development box with different O/S's on it such as
> Win2003 server and Windows 2000 server.
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

>> Does XP support a dual boot mode?
Looking to do this on a development box with different O/S's on it such as
Win2003 server and Windows 2000 server.

Jack:

Yes.
NT based op systems support dual/multi booting natively.

I run Win2k Pro, XP Pro, Win2k3 server, SBS2k3 with ISA on a single
computer.

Some thoughts:
Install the op systems in order of release by MS (oldest first).

After each install, copy the following files into their own folder:
ntldr
ntdetect.com
Generally, later released op systems tend to have their own version of these
files, and will not boot with an earlier version (blank, black screen).
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

>> Multi-booting various Win environments is best done with a boot manager.

Rick:

I multi-boot 9 op systems (Win9x thru Win2k3 server) on a multihomed box
(one op system uses ISA) with two hard disks using the multi boot function
included with all NT based op systems. I have used the NT based system for
years, and I have never had a problem.

Have you had problems with the NT based setup?

TIA
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Hi,

It's not a matter of trouble setting up, it can be if done properly, and it
can be maintained infinitely. It's a matter of configurability and ease of
use, and Windows is notorious for liking to think it's the only operating
system on the drive. If someone is going to multiboot several systems as a
regular thing, then a boot manager is the way to go. Using the native Win
functions is fine as a temporary thing, or for the classic dual-boot (and
most of the time people discover that they primarily only use one anyways,
they just had a hard time letting go of an older operating system).

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"CZ" <CZ@no99spam.com> wrote in message
news:%233lCxbtgEHA.396@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> Multi-booting various Win environments is best done with a boot manager.
>
> Rick:
>
> I multi-boot 9 op systems (Win9x thru Win2k3 server) on a multihomed box
> (one op system uses ISA) with two hard disks using the multi boot function
> included with all NT based op systems. I have used the NT based system
> for years, and I have never had a problem.
>
> Have you had problems with the NT based setup?
>
> TIA
>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

CZ wrote:
> I multi-boot 9 op systems (Win9x thru Win2k3 server) on a multihomed box
> (one op system uses ISA) with two hard disks using the multi boot function
> included with all NT based op systems. I have used the NT based system
> for years, and I have never had a problem.
> Have you had problems with the NT based setup?

Rick wrote:
It's not a matter of trouble setting up, it can be if done properly, and it
can be maintained infinitely. It's a matter of configurability and ease of
use, and Windows is notorious for liking to think it's the only operating
system on the drive. If someone is going to multiboot several systems as a
regular thing, then a boot manager is the way to go. Using the native Win
functions is fine as a temporary thing, or for the classic dual-boot (and
most of the time people discover that they primarily only use one anyways,
they just had a hard time letting go of an older operating system).

Rick:

This computer has been muti-boot (more than two op systems) for about 6
years (it currently does 9 op systems).
One portable has been dual booting for about three years, another for about
four years.
All are using MS's native NT based dual/multi boot system.

On my computer with 9 op systems, I periodically reformat and reinstall one
or more of the op systems for various reasons. This computer is used for
learning and testing (and is my main computer). To me it is very important
to only have a MS environment to avoid other vendor system level issues. If
I need to resize a vol, I use PM v7.01.

I have never had a problem with this setup, and cannot understand how any
other boot mgr could be easier to setup or use.

I am curious, what is your experience with the NT based system? What op
systems? What problems did you have? How long did you run it?

TIA
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

BS.

I still set up most of my systems dual boot, 98SE on C:, XP on D: and
all data for both operating systems on E:.

And it works just wonderfully with the default Microsoft setup (install
98 first, then XP). Some of the systems have the recovery console
installed on the hard drive, which is effectively a 3rd OS, still with
the MS basic multi-boot software.

For more than 2 OS', it's better to use a boot manager, but for 2 OS',
and certainly 2 MS OS', the standard MS software works fine.


Rick "Nutcase" Rogers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's not a matter of trouble setting up, it can be if done properly, and it
> can be maintained infinitely. It's a matter of configurability and ease of
> use, and Windows is notorious for liking to think it's the only operating
> system on the drive. If someone is going to multiboot several systems as a
> regular thing, then a boot manager is the way to go. Using the native Win
> functions is fine as a temporary thing, or for the classic dual-boot (and
> most of the time people discover that they primarily only use one anyways,
> they just had a hard time letting go of an older operating system).
>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

>> For more than 2 OS', it's better to use a boot manager, but for 2 OS',
and certainly 2 MS OS', the standard MS software works fine.

Barry:

Why?
I current run 9 op systems on this computer via two hard disks using MS's
native NT based multi-boot system.

TIA
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

>> For more than 2 OS', it's better to use a boot manager, but for 2 OS',
and certainly 2 MS OS', the standard MS software works fine.

Barry:

Why?
I current run 9 op systems on this computer via two hard disks using MS's
native NT based multi-boot system.

TIA
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Reread what I wrote:

"Using the native Win functions is fine as a temporary thing, or for the
classic dual-boot"

Which agrees with what you wrote - or are you writing BS as well?

Now look at what the original poster wrote: He/She wants "a development box
with different O/S's on it such as
Win2003 server and Windows 2000 server". This implies several things: 1)
They are going to be using SEVERAL different OS's on it simultaneously. 2)
It's a DEVELOPEMENT box. Where I come from that means constant changes,
reformatting, testing, etc., meaning this is not going to be a fixed setup.
3) "such as" implies they are going to be TESTing several different OS's,
not two or three, but several, and possibly making frequent changes to both
the OS's and the system configuration.

I stand by my original response: What this particular person is looking for
is best addressed by using a boot manager. In addition to the flexibility,
most boot managers can be used to isolate the partitions visible by each
installation, thereby keeping one system from affecting or interfering with
another.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:412009DA.2020104@neo.rr.com...
> BS.
>
> I still set up most of my systems dual boot, 98SE on C:, XP on D: and all
> data for both operating systems on E:.
>
> And it works just wonderfully with the default Microsoft setup (install 98
> first, then XP). Some of the systems have the recovery console installed
> on the hard drive, which is effectively a 3rd OS, still with the MS basic
> multi-boot software.
>
> For more than 2 OS', it's better to use a boot manager, but for 2 OS', and
> certainly 2 MS OS', the standard MS software works fine.
>
>
> Rick "Nutcase" Rogers wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It's not a matter of trouble setting up, it can be if done properly, and
>> it can be maintained infinitely. It's a matter of configurability and
>> ease of use, and Windows is notorious for liking to think it's the only
>> operating system on the drive. If someone is going to multiboot several
>> systems as a regular thing, then a boot manager is the way to go. Using
>> the native Win functions is fine as a temporary thing, or for the classic
>> dual-boot (and most of the time people discover that they primarily only
>> use one anyways, they just had a hard time letting go of an older
>> operating system).
>>
>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

"CZ" <CZ@no99spam.com> wrote in message
news:%23$GI%23M0gEHA.1344@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> >> For more than 2 OS', it's better to use a boot manager, but for 2 OS',
> and certainly 2 MS OS', the standard MS software works fine.
>
> Barry:
>
> Why?
> I current run 9 op systems on this computer via two hard disks using MS's
> native NT based multi-boot system.
>

Presumably you don't run more than one 9x version.

btw I use Boot Magic. In fact, I use Boot Magic to get to the NT boot
loader, LILO/Grub and the Caldera boot loader. Or go straight to MS-DOS/9x.
If it were possible - and it isn't - to boot it all just using the NT
loader, well, I've seen plenty of times *NTLDR is missing* -type errors that
would make all OSes unbootable without corrective work. I've never known
Boot Magic to fail to boot.


Shane
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

>> Presumably you don't run more than one 9x version.

Shane:

Good point. I only run one Win9x op system among the 9 op systems. All of
the others are NT based.
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

"CZ" <CZ@no99spam.com> wrote in message
news:OzvokY0gEHA.2492@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> >> Presumably you don't run more than one 9x version.
>
> Shane:
>
> Good point. I only run one Win9x op system among the 9 op systems. All
of
> the others are NT based.
>
>

Of course, while many might wonder why anyone would run 8 NT-based systems
(though I understand, really I do <g>), there's undoubtedly less and less
point in running more than one 9x, so I guess that particular argument is
more-or-less redundant now.

Shane
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Hi,

I have, over the years, run a mix of NT (NT4 to XP) and 9x (all of 'em)
kernels, as well as several of the 'nix ones (Solaris, Mandrake, RedHat
among others). As was pointed out elsewhere in the thread, 9x kernels are
the biggest problem in a multi-boot environment with ntldr. If you run any
linux systems, the NT bootloader is useless. The 9x kernels do not mix well,
and are best kept to themselves (you do recall dll hell?), and all Win OS's
have a nasty habit of overwriting the existing bootloader during setup.

I understand the importance of a "clean environment", which is why I
generally recommend the first one I listed (BootIT NG). This one installs to
its own small partition, and works totally outside of the influence of any
operating system (unlike anything from PowerQuest). Once you choose an OS to
boot, it's on its own and acts just like a normal, single-OS machine. In a
testing environment, particularly in alpha/beta tests, this makes life
easier as a base install can be copied to multiple partitions and reused
repeatedly. Just create a quick boot entry for it (only takes a second). If
it munges up, wipe it and copy over fresh. No reinstalling and repairing
ntldr.

As I've stated earlier, there is nothing wrong with using the native
bootloader, but for a testing and developement machine there are better
ways. Going back to the original question and my response in this thread
(which is what has prompted all this discussion), this is an instance where
a boot manager will likely be of benefit, which is why I recommended it. You
can plug along and do things the hard way, but why when you don't need to?
In testing, you don't want to spend all of your time setting up the test
environment, you want to get to the meat of it.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"CZ" <CZ@no99spam.com> wrote in message
news:%23Xeu9M0gEHA.1344@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> CZ wrote:
>> I multi-boot 9 op systems (Win9x thru Win2k3 server) on a multihomed box
>> (one op system uses ISA) with two hard disks using the multi boot
>> function included with all NT based op systems. I have used the NT based
>> system for years, and I have never had a problem.
>> Have you had problems with the NT based setup?
>
> Rick wrote:
> It's not a matter of trouble setting up, it can be if done properly, and
> it
> can be maintained infinitely. It's a matter of configurability and ease of
> use, and Windows is notorious for liking to think it's the only operating
> system on the drive. If someone is going to multiboot several systems as a
> regular thing, then a boot manager is the way to go. Using the native Win
> functions is fine as a temporary thing, or for the classic dual-boot (and
> most of the time people discover that they primarily only use one anyways,
> they just had a hard time letting go of an older operating system).
>
> Rick:
>
> This computer has been muti-boot (more than two op systems) for about 6
> years (it currently does 9 op systems).
> One portable has been dual booting for about three years, another for
> about four years.
> All are using MS's native NT based dual/multi boot system.
>
> On my computer with 9 op systems, I periodically reformat and reinstall
> one or more of the op systems for various reasons. This computer is used
> for learning and testing (and is my main computer). To me it is very
> important to only have a MS environment to avoid other vendor system level
> issues. If I need to resize a vol, I use PM v7.01.
>
> I have never had a problem with this setup, and cannot understand how any
> other boot mgr could be easier to setup or use.
>
> I am curious, what is your experience with the NT based system? What op
> systems? What problems did you have? How long did you run it?
>
> TIA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Rick:

Good post.
As a summary of our comments:

1) If you are multi-booting other than MS's NT based op systems, a third
party boot mgr can be a requirement.

However if you are multi-booting among NTWS, NT Server, Win 2k Pro, Win 2k
Server, SBS2k, XP Home, XP Pro, Win2k3 Server, and SBS2k3, the MS native NT
based bootloader is usable (which is what I use).
Note that I use Ghost to create an image of a vol to have a fresh install
for new testing/reviewing without reinstalling, and PartitionMagic to resize
vols as necessary. Also, I always create C: as FAT16 for easy access to the
NT bootloader files (and NT 4.0 require this).
I have never had a problem with this scenario, and this computer runs 8 NT
based op systems and one Win9x op system.

2) Each generation of NT based op systems has its own version of the NT
bootloader files. Generally, a later generation NT op system will not work
with an earlier generation's NT bootloader files.

After each op system install, I place a copy of that op system's bootloader
files in a folder named for that op system.
Since C: is FAT16, I can always replace the bootloader files if necessary.
The files that I copy are:
boot.ini
bootsect.dos
ntldr
ntdetect.com
ntbootdd.sys (for SCSI)

Rick wrote:
I have, over the years, run a mix of NT (NT4 to XP) and 9x (all of 'em)
kernels, as well as several of the 'nix ones (Solaris, Mandrake, RedHat
among others). As was pointed out elsewhere in the thread, 9x kernels are
the biggest problem in a multi-boot environment with ntldr. If you run any
linux systems, the NT bootloader is useless. The 9x kernels do not mix well,
and are best kept to themselves (you do recall dll hell?), and all Win OS's
have a nasty habit of overwriting the existing bootloader during setup.

I understand the importance of a "clean environment", which is why I
generally recommend the first one I listed (BootIT NG). This one installs to
its own small partition, and works totally outside of the influence of any
operating system (unlike anything from PowerQuest). Once you choose an OS to
boot, it's on its own and acts just like a normal, single-OS machine. In a
testing environment, particularly in alpha/beta tests, this makes life
easier as a base install can be copied to multiple partitions and reused
repeatedly. Just create a quick boot entry for it (only takes a second). If
it munges up, wipe it and copy over fresh. No reinstalling and repairing
ntldr.

As I've stated earlier, there is nothing wrong with using the native
bootloader, but for a testing and developement machine there are better
ways. Going back to the original question and my response in this thread
(which is what has prompted all this discussion), this is an instance where
a boot manager will likely be of benefit, which is why I recommended it. You
can plug along and do things the hard way, but why when you don't need to?
In testing, you don't want to spend all of your time setting up the test
environment, you want to get to the meat of it.
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Dear Barry,

I also intended to do what you have done, but encountered a problem.
I have partitioned my HDD with XP and formatted in FAT32, with each
partition size 3.2GB. Last time when I try to install Win98, it can install
successfully but cannot perform first startup (hanged at the startup screen).
I just wonder if I need to partition my HDD with Win98? Or should the
partition size be reduced?

Scott


"Barry Watzman" wrote:

> BS.
>
> I still set up most of my systems dual boot, 98SE on C:, XP on D: and
> all data for both operating systems on E:.
>
> And it works just wonderfully with the default Microsoft setup (install
> 98 first, then XP). Some of the systems have the recovery console
> installed on the hard drive, which is effectively a 3rd OS, still with
> the MS basic multi-boot software.
>
> For more than 2 OS', it's better to use a boot manager, but for 2 OS',
> and certainly 2 MS OS', the standard MS software works fine.
>
>
> Rick "Nutcase" Rogers wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It's not a matter of trouble setting up, it can be if done properly, and it
> > can be maintained infinitely. It's a matter of configurability and ease of
> > use, and Windows is notorious for liking to think it's the only operating
> > system on the drive. If someone is going to multiboot several systems as a
> > regular thing, then a boot manager is the way to go. Using the native Win
> > functions is fine as a temporary thing, or for the classic dual-boot (and
> > most of the time people discover that they primarily only use one anyways,
> > they just had a hard time letting go of an older operating system).
> >
>
>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Hi, Scott.

See the message to you that I just posted in the m.p.windows.file_system NG.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
rc@corridor.net
Microsoft Windows MVP

"Scott" <Scott@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3A6C439E-B4E4-4F54-BFDB-65107908A6C7@microsoft.com...
> Dear Barry,
>
> I also intended to do what you have done, but encountered a problem.
> I have partitioned my HDD with XP and formatted in FAT32, with each
> partition size 3.2GB. Last time when I try to install Win98, it can
> install
> successfully but cannot perform first startup (hanged at the startup
> screen).
> I just wonder if I need to partition my HDD with Win98? Or should the
> partition size be reduced?
>
> Scott
>
>
> "Barry Watzman" wrote:
>
>> BS.
>>
>> I still set up most of my systems dual boot, 98SE on C:, XP on D: and
>> all data for both operating systems on E:.
>>
>> And it works just wonderfully with the default Microsoft setup (install
>> 98 first, then XP). Some of the systems have the recovery console
>> installed on the hard drive, which is effectively a 3rd OS, still with
>> the MS basic multi-boot software.
>>
>> For more than 2 OS', it's better to use a boot manager, but for 2 OS',
>> and certainly 2 MS OS', the standard MS software works fine.
>>
>>
>> Rick "Nutcase" Rogers wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > It's not a matter of trouble setting up, it can be if done properly,
>> > and it
>> > can be maintained infinitely. It's a matter of configurability and ease
>> > of
>> > use, and Windows is notorious for liking to think it's the only
>> > operating
>> > system on the drive. If someone is going to multiboot several systems
>> > as a
>> > regular thing, then a boot manager is the way to go. Using the native
>> > Win
>> > functions is fine as a temporary thing, or for the classic dual-boot
>> > (and
>> > most of the time people discover that they primarily only use one
>> > anyways,
>> > they just had a hard time letting go of an older operating system).
>> >
>>
>>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom