Dual booting help!

[VQ]

I'm on the verge of formatting my computer, it is a controled format and more preventitive then anything, because it's crashing more and more and programs are slowly refusing to work, I'm going to reformat and reinstall Window ME and a recently obtained copy of XP pro, because I want to be able to use maya which I also obtained, I only have 128mb ram atm, but it will change sooner or later, anyway, the main problem atm is, when i install the os's for the dual booting menu from XP to work, which order do I install the os's I've done a search and I've read Chris has done it before, I have a feeling I install ME followed by XP Pro, but I'm not sure whether I'm going to keep ME, should I even keep it, because it uses less ram then XP and going from experience on slower computers at school running 2000 (600mhz systems) which would have 98se or ME running very quickly for me.

Thanks for your help.

[way124]

Install ME first, actually 98SE preferred. Windows XP can be as snappy interface responsiveness wise, you just have to turn off the eye candies that you think is unnecessary. And more RAM.

To me dual booting just adds more complications, IMO not worth the trouble to get a more responsive interface.

[VQ]

windows 98se has a memory leak over 64mb so that is why i prefer ME, plus I ahve used both and had less problems with ME. Thanks for assuring me on that too.

[chris]

You can I believe install XP Pro on a fat32 partition I think, along with your other windows operating system, but it seems pointless.

You can turn off most of the eye candy stuff in XP Pro if you need to.

The other way is to have two HDD's, have one with Windows XP on the master one, and the other has your other operating system.

Then in XP Pro, you have to edit the boot.ini file if I remember correctly. Last time I did anything like that was with the old Windows NT Workstation 4.0 I previously used before XP Pro.

There is the bootcfg command you can use, but it's an old command line style thing and not particularly user friendly.

The other way is to go Start -> Run and then type the following:

notepad x:\boot.ini

(replace x with your driveletter).

You'll then get something like this:


[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WIN
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WIN="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /fastdetect


From distant, vague memory, you could add Windows 98 onto that, if it was on drive D:\ by doing the following:


[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(0)\WIN
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(0)\WIN="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /fastdetect
D:\="Microsoft Windows 98 SE" /fastdetect


The part in the quotation marks is the text description shown on the boot menu.

I recommend 512mb ram if you intend to run XP Pro. I tried it once on a computer with an old 500mhz AMD processor and 512mb RAM, and it ran absolutely fine on that computer. It started fast as well.

These days, RAM is quite cheap, and 512mb should be quite inexpensive.

[VQ]

512mb ram for me is between $125 for a cheap brand and $150 for kingston, and the kingston stuff has gone up $25. I really want more ram, but my motherbaord supports up to 2100 and the stuff I am looking at is 2700/3200, and apparantly I can damage something using it, but I'm not so sure and would assume it just underclocks the ram. Is that right?

I have two 20 gig hdd's but they are paritioned and I'm going to reorder their size and stuff for this install, but because atm I have a lack of ram, I'm going to be using ME. Thanks for that chris, user freindliness or not isn't an issue with me either.

[Y2kGoofball]

Chris I disagree, we are running XP on FAT32.

The main reason was because if XP ever were to crash I could shove a 98 boot disk in, boot to C drive and copy our documents to the A drive. I always found having DOS access also helped, although we're yet to really need a use for dos. I have a little program called NTFS something or other - allows you to search the hard drive as if you were in dos ... still

VQ I'm surprised youve never had a complaint about ME. I used to run it and it worked better then 98SE, but after a while I too found problems like programs slowing then eventually refuse to start, constant crashing etc. I know of a few people who have used it as an alternative to Win XP or 2000 and had similar complaints.

I think you'll find install Win Me first, then XP, as XP is more "easier to setup to your needs". It should ask you did you want to dual boot or something.

In my opinion try out XP first but stick with tried and trusted win me as well (ie dual like you said), then when your more comfortable with XP or are happy its better then previous versions then consider a re format for 100% xp or something, or as suggested pickup a cheap second hand hdd (only has to be a gig, they sell for 2 or 3 bucks) to install XP on as a trial, then you dont upset your main hard drive either.

Just my thoughts

But once youve tried XP youll agree it is far better then Win 98 / ME or even 2000.

As for eye candy etc, my sister runs XP pro ok on a 500 Mhz celeron, 64 meg ram, 4 gig hdd, with the eye candy on, so its not as bad as some people make out.

We used to run it on 566 Celeron, 128 mb ram, 7 gig hdd no problems at all and let "windows configure the best visual config" so it cut down on some things but overall still looked great.

[chris]

I would imagine it should work, the faster RAM.

In my computer, I've got a single 512mb PC2700 RAM slotted into it. I've still got three other slots where I could install more if I needed. I think I can go up to 4gb (not that I'll ever need that much).

As Y2K says, XP Pro is quite an improvement on the older Windows versions. I noticed that it starts dramatically faster than Windows 98 SE for instance.

[way124]

$150 for Kingston is a rip off. :eek: FAT is good choice, but you can use Windows Recovery Console to access NTFS. Or boot from Knoppix. 98 boot disk is still faster of course... but WRC is really powerful.

[VQ]

only recently have I had that problem, but I have had me isntalled ofr over 300 days without a problem until recently, mainly because of various crap that ahs got on the comp, it's the longest amount of time i've had an os installed, normally I reformat every 6 months to prevent stuff mucking up.

[Justin Martin]

I have 98SE on my C: drive and XP Pro on my D: drive. (then a third partition for data) Both are FAT32 partitions. 98SE supposedly needs to be on the C: drive, though I haven't tried it elsewhere. I think ME can run on any drive.

Like has been said before, the easiest way is to do ME first, then install XP Pro and let it automatically detect the ME install. It should ask you if you want to dual boot, which will automatically create a boot manager.

I'd definitely install XP and ME on seperate partitions, I don't know about ME, but 98SE doesn't seem to be very tolerant of other opperating systems. Plus it makes it easier to wipe one drive and start over from scratch without damaging the other opperating system.

On that note though, I found that if I reinstall 98SE, I loose the boot manager because 98SE will overwrite the XP bootlog with the 98SE bootlog that doesn't have the boot manager. Duh! :blush: I wouldn't be supprised if ME would do the same.



I haven't used 98SE much since I upgraded, mainly just for the occasional program that won't run under 98 compatibilty mode. It's not a big deal to set up the dual boot, so it's worth it to have that extra insurance. As for XP, it's okay. There's some things I like about it, some that I don't. I got a extremely cheap copy at a university computer store, so I went ahead and upgraded. I probably wouldn't have paid full retail, not a big enough improvement for me, though I never had the problems with 98SE that most people had.

[Wazza]

ME? =[

We had nothing but problems on that old system. That's why we quickly changed to Win2000, which was a lot more solid.

Now XP, has many great new features as well, and if you don't have too much RAM, simply change some setting settings, such as the ones under Control Panel -> System -> (Advanced Tab), and Performance Settings.. All those flashy fade-ins and outs, and the XP theme, can be taken out, and make a slower PC, run much more efficiently. It then takes the form of an older 98/2000 look again, but still has the advanced features, and more option tabs in most folders, files etc.
I did this to the girlfriends computer, 350Mhz, 256Mb RAM, running XP PRO, and after taking them off, everything runs twice as fast.

I'm still running single boot XP Home.. Does the job well.
With 2 HDDs, a 120Gb, and a 80Gb, 7 partitions, :blush: , recently putting a new install of XP, on the new 120Gb drive. Unfortunately, the drives are almost full. :confused:

[VQ]

I have lots of partitions and still plan to, I'm gonna go off now and format I think even though it is my bday.

[dLyserg]

The 9x operating systems have to be installed on the C: partition. XP is not thus handicapped.

You should partition the drive with at least 3 separate partitions.

One for the C: drive where you will install ME. Allow maybe 2 GB of space there. Of course, this partition will need to be formatted fat32.

Another for the D: drive where you will install XP. Allow 6-10GB for that (at least!). The D: partition really ought to be formatted NTFS for security reasons. Also, you shouldn't use the computer regularly as an account with administrative privileges - this will greatly reduce the risk of your OS files becomming corrupt due to virus/trojan infection.

A third partition would be a common partition (you could format this fat32 for compatibility), and this should receive the bulk of your disk space allocation. Here is where you will install programs, and save data that is common to all of your users (music, games, etc..)

The advantages of this method are that A) should there be a catastrophic failure with the OS it will be a simple matter to re-format that partition and start fresh, B) When you install a program into the common folder you can run it from either OS (You may need to install it again, to the same location, first..) and you won't be wasting space installing things twice, C) Your common files can be accessible from either OS (no need to reboot to view that spreadsheet, etc..) and D) you can still take full advantage of the features of both operating systems.

Currently I've got Win2k, XP and Linux on my system. I've been dual and tri-booting since our Win3.x computer (1996). Let me know if you have any questions about the setup that I mentioned.

Cheers :beer:

[JeffR]

If you install MSDOS (6.22) first, then the order you install the other OS'es won't matter.

If you're starting from scratch (empty hard drive), then install Windows 98/ME first, then install XP. You can install any OS on any partition.

Here is a typical setup I've used in the past:

C: - 2047 MB FAT 16 (DOS 6.22 installed but not used)
D: - Windows ME (fat32)
E: - Windows XP (fat32 or ntfs)
F: - shared / games (fat32)

Install order and what happens (MSDOS 6.22, Windows 98, Windows XP):

Install MDSOS 6.22, FDISK to create C partition, then format and SYS to C:. Copying DOS program to C: is not required. This creates a partition and boot sector.

Install Windows XP, create the remaining partitions during install. XP install copies the boot sector into a small fille called BOOTSECT.DOS.

Backup BOOTSECT.DOS before Windows 98 install (in case you want to re-install Windows 98).

Install Windows 98. If BOOTSECT.DOS is a MSDOS boot sector (references to IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS), Windows 98 will provide a reboot to previous version of DOS in it's menu (if menu is enable), and Windows 98 will not corrupt the XP boot menu. Windows 98 overwrites BOOTSECT.DOS, but you'll still be able to re-boot into previous version of DOS to boot MSDOS 6.22 if wanted. Windows 98 renames the MSDOS boot stuff to *.DOS, but renames it back if you chose to reboot to previous version of DOS. If you boot into DOS, the Windows 98 boot files are renamed to *.W40.

Windows ME dropped the option to reboot into previous version of MSDOS, but if MSDOS 6.22 installed first, it won't overwrite the XP boot menu.

Without MSDOS 6.22, you need to either install XP first, or do a recover with XP to get the boot menu back.

All of the games and programs I have now are running under Windows XP, so now I dual boot 2 copies of XP, one of which is used to back up the other. I have two hard drives, and the second one is used for backup/defrag, and I keep the swap file on the second hard drive.

If you have a large hard drive > 137GB, you're XP cd-rom needs to have SP1 preinstalled on it if you want to start off with full access to all of the hard drive. If you have an early version of XP, you can slipstream SP1 and create a new bootable cd-rom using Nero and some freeware programs. Do a web search for "slipstream XP" to find out more about this.

A typical dual drive - dual XP setup (HD is hard drive, PT is partition):

HD0 / PT0 C: FAT16 partition - only contains boot stuff.
HD0 / PT1 E: FAT32 or NTFS - backup/defrag copy of XP
HD0 / PT2 F: FAT32 or NTFS - main XP
HD0 / PT3: G: FAT32 or NTFS - I put most programs/games here
HD1 / PT0 D: swap file
HD1 / PT1 H: backup of E:
HD1 / PT2 I: backup of F:
HD1 / PT3: J: backup of G:

The drive letters above are what you typically get with one primary and one extended paritition (logical partitions) on each drive.

By booting to the XP on the E: partition, I can reformat I:, copy F: to I:, compare files (I use windiff for this), reformat F:, and copy I: back to F:, compare files, to do a "perfect" defrag of F: and make a backup copy.

With 3 hard drives, and XP pro, you can pair up drives to create a RAID0 or striped volume for some of the partitions, which speeds things up a bit.

With a SATA based mother board, you can have up to 6 devices, like 1 cd/dvd rom, and 4 or 5 hard driives (2 or 4 of the hard drives would be SATA depending on the motherboard). This would allow 2 pairs of striped drives.

[Y2kGoofball]

so much info!

VQ - let us know how you went or what you plan to do (youve got me interested now)

You will find with XP on a lower spec machine it will kill gaming, although its fast for everything else, that was our biggest problem running it on the 566 Celeron. Games like NFS 4 and V8C were ok, but some newer games ran sluggish like NFS HP2 ran fine under 98 but slow as all heck on XP on the same machine! Since building our new PC and allocating the old 566 as my 'gaming' machine ive set it back as Win 98 SE, but I'm considering dual boot as well because I only need win98 to help with some games.

I like what dLyserg said about the partitions, I might do that so I can access games via XP or if their too slow via win 98 ;)

Looks like ive found myself a new task for the weekend :rolleyes:

[Vince Klortho]

For a long time I had nothing but dual booting machines. Me and my partner at work had nearly ten machines between us and we installed things basically the same way on all of them :

1 partition of between 2 and 3 GB for OSs. We put both OSs here, 98SE and 2000 usually, and ONLY OSs went here.
1 partition for apps of pretty good size.
1 partition for our compiler(s). Sometimes this went in with the apps. This requires 2GB for VC6 and MSDN.
1 partition for data.
1 partition of 1 to 2 GB for paging - swap files go here.
and then as many others as we wanted and the disk could hold.

One key point that allowed us to put both OSs on one partition is we rarely used an app in both OSs. This could potentially cause problems. But, as I said, we never had any problems with any of our machines doing this and we had a lot of them.

Regarding RAID - we use these often with our installed systems now days and we NEVER use striped volumes. It defeats our primary purpose for using RAID in the first place and that is improved reliability. Striping volumes cuts the reliability of the system data storage in half. We always use mirrored volumes. Ironically, one of our largest customers currently is a disk drive manufacturing company and we had several discussions with them on this topic and we all agreed that mirrors are the way to go to improve reliability. Performance is not a very high priority in these systems but with SATA drives it is not an issue at all.

[VQ]

I've so far got Linux and ME on the comp, I need linux for the partition software on it mainly, and a back up incase both window's mess up, gonna install Xp once I copy all my files back onto one of the shared partitions.

[dLyserg]

You can install any OS on any partition.


My mistake, I apologize. I was always under the impression that the 9x operating systems wouldn't work correctly if they weren't on the C: partition. Learn something new everyday, I guess :D