Dual boot question - sorry about that but...?

[Piccolo22]

Hi All

I have done the search of the forums but would welcome some up to date feedback on the the following scenario.

I want to set up a dual boot with Win98se (currently in use) and Win2000 Pro.

Now my initial step was going to be to get new bigger HDD to replace my current multi partitioned 13.5GB and using PM and Drive Image make an exact copy but leaving a free partition for the W2K install.

But there seem to be 2 schools of thought here - 1st is to do as above i.e. both OSs on same physical drive but separate partitions. 2nd is to use 2 individual HDDs.

I like the elegance of the 2nd method because it would make migrating away from Win98se very simple when needed. But in my case need to think about my drive lettering and current build! Also, because some data that I want W2K to access could be on the Win98 physical drive what file structure for the W2K is best - FAT32 or NTFS

So, what is the up to date consensus and if method 2, is best is there a guide as to how to get this trouble free (???) as most guides appear to concentrate on single physical drive methods especially bearing in mind I will have PM and Drive Image. And can this method use a normal (i.e.no floppies or other non-HDD media) boot loader like BM?

I believe there is a method using PM where each HDD can "think" it is the C drive i.e. only boot drive. This sounds like a good idea especially if it means I do not have worry about drive letter allocation screwing up my program partitions on the Win98 drive. But if I then keep all data file on another physical drive that both OSs can access that would also suit me (I think).

Many thanks in advance of your feedback on this. Apologies for being a little longwinded!

[Bovon]

Dual boot requires that both OS's be on the same drive (same drive...different partition) or, Win98 be loaded first on the C: drive and the new (Win2K?) be loaded by way of the 1st. OS...Win98. on the second drive or D: partition

When dual booting, some files are copied (created) in the root of the first OS...most often...Win9x.

If using 2 different drives, one must be a master (with the main OS installed) and the second HD be attached as a slave to the primary as the slave.

They must be attached when the second (OS is installed).

[Piccolo22]

Thanks Bovon

Sounds like the 2 drive method is not as clean as it sounds - typical computers what sounds simple isn't!

Of the various guides out there, can you suggest one as being the best step by step "best practice method" one?

TIA

[Ol'Tunzafun]

It is a little nicer to have the OSes on two different drives but you could go ahead and install W2k on the same drive if you have some free space and you could move it later with PM or Drive Copy.
When you are in Win 98, just put your W2K disk in and choose the clean install. You will soon get to a point where you will be shown 3 buttons. Choose the ADVANCED button and check "Let me choose the destination drive" so that it doesn't install over 98.
If you are going to be moving files between the two OSes then you shoud choose FAT32 so that all your files can be accessed from either side. You can always create another small partition and format it NTFS for securing files with passwords if that is a concern.
W2K will install and automatically create a boot menu so you can choose your OS at Startup. That other business of hiding the two C partitions from each other using Boot Magic or XOSL is a distant second choice usually reserved for those who are faced with installing 9x over NT or installing two versions of 9x. In your situation, this option should not be considered.

[Piccolo22]

Thanks all for the feedback and advice.

I recall that with W2K you can setup the PC as Standard PC HAL or ? (cannot remember the other HAL) at the time of install - what is best in a dual boot?



PS I did start another thread just to ask about the FAT32 and NTFS aspects

http://www.sysopt.com/forum/showthre...81#post1024481

Any specific advice very welcome please?

[Ol'Tunzafun]

It should autodetect the optimum HAL. I wouldn't concern myself with that unless you have shutdown problems immediately after installing. What kind of a board are we installing this on? Is the BIOS up to date?

[Piccolo22]

Hi

It is the Gigabyte GA-8IEXP v1.2a Intel 845E chipset

The manual refers to Win2000 and all appropriate board drivers are available for W2K.



PS In respect of the choice of FAT32 or NTFS. If I installed W2K on NTFS and any programs on an NTFS partition (not forgeting a partition just for the page file) but when using say a graphics program (e.g. Photoshop) can I save the created files to a FAT32 partition as appropriate so that I can then access it from either OS. This FAT32 partition is likely to be on another physical drive used for archiving image files (already in use under Win98se).

In the interests of possibly moving entirely onto W2K and bearing in mind the above I am considering the second HDD option and making that completely NTFS (i.e. all partitions NTFS). And because of the IDE connections in use now, the second OS drive will be slave to the current master with C:\ Win98se on it.

One last question? - if I decide to "drop" Win98se is there an advised way of making the W2K drive master and getting it to boot without the dual boot "boot loader"?

TIA

[Ol'Tunzafun]

when using say a graphics program (e.g. Photoshop) can I save the created files to a FAT32 partition as appropriate so that I can then access it from either OS.

Yes

One last question? - if I decide to "drop" Win98se is there an advised way of making the W2K drive master and getting it to boot without the dual boot "boot loader"?

I don't know of any way to do that. If you delete the first (9x) OS, and try to run a Repair install, Setup will not be able to find the W2K installation.
I recently pulled 98SE out from under W2K, zapped the drive and replaced it with WinMe without a hitch so maybe you could pull 98 out and replace it with a second instance of W2K. A repair install of the old W2K should repair the boot menu. You could eventually migrate over to the new installation and then zap the old one. It worked fine with WinMe but I've not tried it with a second instance of W2K so I can't guarantee the outcome. My advice would be to leave 98 in there as a backup. If your data is on another drive 98 is not going to be taking up that much room.
One of the advantages of a dual boot is in troubleshooting. For example, if your modem works in 98 but not W2K, then you know right away that it is not a hardware problem. You can still get on line with 98 and download the driver you need for W2K. It's worth the modest amount of space it takes up.
Operating systems are starting to look quite small on today's hard drives.

[Piccolo22]

Hi Ol'Tunzafun

Very much appreciate the qualified feedback.

I very much think that I will go with the second HDD method (on IDE1 as master & slave config) and make that entirely (all partitions) NTFS - it is my understanding that W2K is a far more stable OS with that file structure.

I will then be able to slowly migrate my programs over to that OS and as you rightly suggest leave Win98se in place as a "back up". I agree absolutley that the size of current hard drives makes that no great hardship.

On the subject of "back up" once all sorted using PM and Drive Image as needed. I will have to use DI to make "images" of the various partitions in case of crashes - at least that way I can be sure of restoring the system quickly if required.

I am sure this answer is in the PM DI info but if installed on the Win98se "system" (or vice versa) can DI see the W2K NTFS (or the FAT32 as appropriate) partitions for making those images in readiness for copying or is it best to install PM and DI under both OSs?

Thanks once again for helping me with thinking the process through.

[Ol'Tunzafun]

NTFS - it is my understanding that W2K is a far more stable OS with that file structure.

The jury is still out on that one.

I am sure this answer is in the PM DI info but if installed on the Win98se "system" (or vice versa) can DI see the W2K NTFS (or the FAT32 as appropriate) partitions for making those images in readiness for copying or is it best to install PM and DI under both OSs?

I haven't used DI but PM, Drive Copy and Ghost offer the option of making boot disks which, I have found is the simplest and safest way to use these utilities. PM can read either way but has to be installed on a local drive - not a network drive. Also, it cannot read Dynamic disks so stick with Basic if you are offered that option.

[Piccolo22]

Hi Ol'Tunzafun

The more I think about this I am coming to this conclusion:-

1) Because I will be going for the second HDD method I do not need Partition Magic. I can use the HDD manfacturers disk utility (previously used IBM, WD and Maxtor - all I believe based on the same core structure) to partition the drive & I hope my memory is correct it allows you to select the file structure - I definately recall choosing FAT32 but can not recall whether I saw NTFS offered, if it is, then I "just" have to decide if FAT32 or NTFS is best. Bearing in mind your ref to the jury being out on the stability issue BUT NTFS does allow file sizes greater than 4GB, important in Digital video.

PS to the above:-
FAT32 looks like my best option because I have a secondary drive in use at the moment for data and such like (actually 3 on board, the 3rd is a single extended partition) and this drive has a logical (bootable partition) therefore it is the "D" drive. If I make this NTFS in its new role I believe Win98se will not see it & that will screw up the No1 HDD's lettering sequence and have a major effect on my applications running on their own partition(s).

So, can you make the W2K OS partition FAT32 and all the rest of the partitions on the same physical drive NTFS i.e. apps and file storage areas? Or is that just asking for problems? Just sounds like a good idea because that will hide them from Win98se!

2) Get Norton Ghost (there seems to be greater consensus that Ghost is the best choice over DI or DC) to make images of each OS and any (all) application partitions. So that recovery is available quickly if required, such as to a new HDD prepared as described above. As Ghost will write to DVD+R/RW's that is better than DI only supporting CD buners.

3) Get a good backup software (I know - I admit I do not do this regularly or often enough). I am using HandyBackup on my company Laptop for VPN database synchronisation and so far this has been bullet proof. It has various options including "newer file incremental" based on an indexing facility & though it does not support DVD burning it looks very good.

The above "conclusion" is based on my understanding that I do not need the power that PM gives, because at this time I have no need to re-structure partition sizes or file types. Possibly once I have the dual boot system running sweetly there might be a need to have such a tool.

If you can comment on my thinking that would be very welcome.

[Ol'Tunzafun]

So, can you make the W2K OS partition FAT32 and all the rest of the partitions on the same physical drive NTFS i.e. apps and file storage areas? Or is that just asking for problems? Just sounds like a good idea because that will hide them from Win98se!

No problem at all doing that. Having both operating systems on FAT32 and having a separate drive or partition formatted NTFS for your large files is the way to go.

I hope my memory is correct it allows you to select the file structure

I don't use those utilites so I really couldn't tell you whether they will do that or not but it really doesn't matter because W2K will offer to create it's own partition and format it with the file system of you choice. Furthermore, the option to covert from FAT32 to NTFS can be exercised at anytime after installation by going to Start > Run and typing in convert E: /fs:ntfs
(assuming E is the drive that you want to convert. It is, of course, recommended that you backup your data before converting.
The safest way is to plan ahead on these matters but we do have options.

If I make this NTFS in its new role I believe Win98se will not see it & that will screw up the No1 HDD's lettering sequence and have a major effect on my applications running on their own partition(s).

I doesn't matter to either operating system if your drives have different letters. If it helps you to remember which is which, you can name them. This is something that PM can straighten out for you if you feel it necessary.

[Piccolo22]

Hi Ol'Tunzafun

Waiting to get my W2K CD and new HDD etc.

Can you help clarify this aspect.

When you dual boot from a single multi partitioned HDD the W2K (in this instance) gets installed onto one of the extended partitions i.e not a logical bootabale partition. It is the boot loader (.ini?) on the Win98se partition that allows the selection of the OS at boot up.

If you use a secondary HDD (i.e. separate physical drive) this can be partitioned as bootabale (first partition logical) and rest extended OR as extended (non bootable) only (my data storage HDD is like this and is the last lettered disk in the "list").

Now, in my situation I need to keep my drive letters allocated on the first HDD (C: drive onwards) and therefore need to keep the second HDD with a logical partition.

So, the point I need some clarification on is:- when installing W2K for dual boot will it only work if I "place" it on an extended partition or can I go for the logical partition on the second HDD. My impression is that it should not matter because in the BIOS I can select the "First Boot Device" as the HDD0 (first drive) and that will then launch the boot loader in the Win98se drive.

Indeed, what would happen if I set the BIOS to boot off the HDD1 (second drive) - would W2K boot? Or does it rely on the boot loader everytime?

I hope my ramblings are clear and that you can help clear up this potential problem before I have a problem.

[The Lodge]

My understanding and experience is that Win 2000 doesn't like multiple versions of it self.

[Ol'Tunzafun]

On a regular harddrive, you can create up to four primary partitions per disk, or you can create up to three primary partitions and one extended partition. Within the extended partition, you can create unlimited logical drives.
W2K really doesn't care if it is installed to a primary partition or to a logical partition within an extended partition as long as it is being installed as the second OS in a dual boot situation with Win9x. It would be possible to partition the whole new disk as an extended partition or even leave it blank, and W2K would still install to it. It carves out what it needs.

It is the boot loader (.ini?) on the Win98se partition that allows the selection of the OS at boot up.

Right.
It doesn't much matter how you configure it, Win 98 will make W2k the D: drive. The rest of your drive letters will be bumped up. If all of your programs are installed on C:, it shouldn't be much of a problem. There may be the odd dialog box pop up that will require being pointed to the new location of the CD drive. I have never concerned myself much with this problem because I run Norton System Works and the WinDoctor utility likes to sort these things out. (NSW PRo, by the way, includes Ghost.)
Boot from HDD0. That's where the boot files are.