98 and xp dual booting, and many visible primary partitions

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage, alt.computer, alt.computers (More info?)

I have read that to have 98 and xp dual booting - or any version of
windows - you install the old then the new. I've also heard of there
being problems with having multiple visible primary partitions.

I currently have XP on an NTFS partition. As an experiment, I tried
installing 98 without first removing XP. It worked. It detected an
NTFS partition, created a new primary FAT32 partition, formatted it,
installed Win 98 on it, and made it active.

So I have 2 visible primary partitions. I choosse which to boot from by
making it active - which can be done through PMagic or Fdisk and maybe
Diskpart.exe in XP

Since that all worked. I tried creating another visible primary
partition - this time in partition magic (with nothing on it), that
worked fine. So now I have 3 primary partitions.

So isn't it strange, that I have had no problems whatsoever with that
method, and yet everybody says to never install 98 after XP.

I'm sure I used to have to make primary partitions hidden, but here
strangely, I seem to be able to have many visible primary partitions.
WHat's the point of making primary partitions hidden if even Win 98SE
can handle it?!

And why all the fuss about having to install the old then the new - 98
then XP?
If I am going against the grain, howcome no damage is being done?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.computer (More info?)

<jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1104348759.885792.236490@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I have read that to have 98 and xp dual booting - or any version of
> windows - you install the old then the new. I've also heard of there
> being problems with having multiple visible primary partitions.
>
Only if there is more than one FAT primary and you boot Win 98. Apparently ME
has no problems.

> I currently have XP on an NTFS partition. As an experiment, I tried
> installing 98 without first removing XP. It worked. It detected an
> NTFS partition, created a new primary FAT32 partition, formatted it,
> installed Win 98 on it, and made it active.
>
> So I have 2 visible primary partitions. I choosse which to boot from by
> making it active - which can be done through PMagic or Fdisk and maybe
> Diskpart.exe in XP
>
MBRwiz runs under XP and is faster than diskpart: mbr.bigr.net

> Since that all worked. I tried creating another visible primary
> partition - this time in partition magic (with nothing on it), that
> worked fine. So now I have 3 primary partitions.
>
Is new one NTFS or FAT32?

> So isn't it strange, that I have had no problems whatsoever with that
> method, and yet everybody says to never install 98 after XP.
>
> I'm sure I used to have to make primary partitions hidden, but here
> strangely, I seem to be able to have many visible primary partitions.
> WHat's the point of making primary partitions hidden if even Win 98SE
> can handle it?!
>
I always saw problems with Win 95/98 and multiple primaries, but that was years
ago. Maybe they fixed it in SE.

> And why all the fuss about having to install the old then the new - 98
> then XP?
> If I am going against the grain, howcome no damage is being done?
>
You only need to do it this way if you want ntldr's to multiboot. Boot managers
are much more flexible.

I always install Win 2K/XP by creating an active NTFS partition, then boot the
CD. This way it installs to C:

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage, alt.computer (More info?)

Eric Gisin wrote:
> <jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1104348759.885792.236490@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > I have read that to have 98 and xp dual booting - or any version of
> > windows - you install the old then the new. I've also heard of
there
> > being problems with having multiple visible primary partitions.
> >
> Only if there is more than one FAT primary and you boot Win 98.
Apparently ME
> has no problems.

I tried that with win 98 SE. no problems.

> > I currently have XP on an NTFS partition. As an experiment, I
tried
> > installing 98 without first removing XP. It worked. It detected an
> > NTFS partition, created a new primary FAT32 partition, formatted
it,
> > installed Win 98 on it, and made it active.
> >
> > So I have 2 visible primary partitions. I choosse which to boot
from by
> > making it active - which can be done through PMagic or Fdisk and
maybe
> > Diskpart.exe in XP
> >
> MBRwiz runs under XP and is faster than diskpart: mbr.bigr.net
>
> > Since that all worked. I tried creating another visible primary
> > partition - this time in partition magic (with nothing on it), that
> > worked fine. So now I have 3 primary partitions.
> >
> Is new one NTFS or FAT32?
FAT32 So it's interesting that there are no problems.

<snip>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

The only real problems I've had in the past regarding 95/98 operating
systems with more that one FAT/FAT32 visible primary partition is when the
other contains a similar operating system like 95/98. During this stage of
my computer use, I've used a few different boot managers to automatically
hide these. Since then, I've continued to use a boot manager of some sort
to date.

None of what you said is indicating this situation.
<jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1104348759.885792.236490@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I have read that to have 98 and xp dual booting - or any version of
> windows - you install the old then the new. I've also heard of there
> being problems with having multiple visible primary partitions.
>
> I currently have XP on an NTFS partition. As an experiment, I tried
> installing 98 without first removing XP. It worked. It detected an
> NTFS partition, created a new primary FAT32 partition, formatted it,
> installed Win 98 on it, and made it active.
>
> So I have 2 visible primary partitions. I choosse which to boot from by
> making it active - which can be done through PMagic or Fdisk and maybe
> Diskpart.exe in XP
>
> Since that all worked. I tried creating another visible primary
> partition - this time in partition magic (with nothing on it), that
> worked fine. So now I have 3 primary partitions.
>
> So isn't it strange, that I have had no problems whatsoever with that
> method, and yet everybody says to never install 98 after XP.
>
> I'm sure I used to have to make primary partitions hidden, but here
> strangely, I seem to be able to have many visible primary partitions.
> WHat's the point of making primary partitions hidden if even Win 98SE
> can handle it?!
>
> And why all the fuss about having to install the old then the new - 98
> then XP?
> If I am going against the grain, howcome no damage is being done?
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.computer,alt.computers (More info?)

On 29 Dec 2004 11:32:39 -0800, jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>I have read that to have 98 and xp dual booting - or any version of
>windows - you install the old then the new. I've also heard of there
>being problems with having multiple visible primary partitions.
>
>I currently have XP on an NTFS partition. As an experiment, I tried
>installing 98 without first removing XP. It worked. It detected an
>NTFS partition, created a new primary FAT32 partition, formatted it,
>installed Win 98 on it, and made it active.
>
>So I have 2 visible primary partitions. I choosse which to boot from by
>making it active - which can be done through PMagic or Fdisk and maybe
>Diskpart.exe in XP
>
>Since that all worked. I tried creating another visible primary
>partition - this time in partition magic (with nothing on it), that
>worked fine. So now I have 3 primary partitions.
>
>So isn't it strange, that I have had no problems whatsoever with that
>method, and yet everybody says to never install 98 after XP.

The main reason is by doing it the recommended way XP will detect
earlier versions of Win and DOS and install it's own boot manager
allowing you to choose which OS to boot from a simple startup. There
are other ways including the way you have discovered but for
simplicities sake and no frigging around with partition manages the
old first routine is the most straight forward to the uninitiated. I
personally use OS Loader 2000 which copes with multiple partitions and
OS's

>
>I'm sure I used to have to make primary partitions hidden, but here
>strangely, I seem to be able to have many visible primary partitions.
>WHat's the point of making primary partitions hidden if even Win 98SE
>can handle it?!
>
>And why all the fuss about having to install the old then the new - 98
>then XP?

No fuss it just is one of the more straight forward ways of achieving
the desired results especially if you are doing a completely fresh
install of all OS's

>If I am going against the grain, howcome no damage is being done?

No damage should be done so long as the user has a clear idea what is
going on.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.computer,alt.computers (More info?)

I believe that 98 must put the system on the c:drive (or puts it there by
default), and all files point to there in 98, during install of xp you can
partition or put it anywhwere on the fly. That was my understanding. I am
also interested why this happened.
<jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1104348759.885792.236490@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I have read that to have 98 and xp dual booting - or any version of
> windows - you install the old then the new. I've also heard of there
> being problems with having multiple visible primary partitions.
>
> I currently have XP on an NTFS partition. As an experiment, I tried
> installing 98 without first removing XP. It worked. It detected an
> NTFS partition, created a new primary FAT32 partition, formatted it,
> installed Win 98 on it, and made it active.
>
> So I have 2 visible primary partitions. I choosse which to boot from by
> making it active - which can be done through PMagic or Fdisk and maybe
> Diskpart.exe in XP
>
> Since that all worked. I tried creating another visible primary
> partition - this time in partition magic (with nothing on it), that
> worked fine. So now I have 3 primary partitions.
>
> So isn't it strange, that I have had no problems whatsoever with that
> method, and yet everybody says to never install 98 after XP.
>
> I'm sure I used to have to make primary partitions hidden, but here
> strangely, I seem to be able to have many visible primary partitions.
> WHat's the point of making primary partitions hidden if even Win 98SE
> can handle it?!
>
> And why all the fuss about having to install the old then the new - 98
> then XP?
> If I am going against the grain, howcome no damage is being done?
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.computer,alt.computers (More info?)

"Randy Beck" <rcbeck26@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:SlgId.11877$Vj3.7834@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com
> I believe that 98 must put the system on the c: drive

Then explain this (msdos.sys) :

[Paths]
WinDir=D:\WIN98FE
WinBootDir=C:\WIN98FE
HostWinBootDrv=C


> (or puts it there by default),

> and all files point to there in 98,

Nope.

> during install of xp you can partition or put it anywhwere on the fly.

> That was my understanding.

Perhaps you should change it then.

> I am also interested why this happened.

Why what happened?

> <jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:1104348759.885792.236490@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > I have read that to have 98 and xp dual booting - or any version of
> > windows - you install the old then the new. I've also heard of there
> > being problems with having multiple visible primary partitions.
> >
> > I currently have XP on an NTFS partition. As an experiment, I tried
> > installing 98 without first removing XP. It worked. It detected an
> > NTFS partition, created a new primary FAT32 partition, formatted it,
> > installed Win 98 on it, and made it active.
> >
> > So I have 2 visible primary partitions. I choosse which to boot from by
> > making it active - which can be done through PMagic or Fdisk and maybe
> > Diskpart.exe in XP
> >
> > Since that all worked. I tried creating another visible primary
> > partition - this time in partition magic (with nothing on it), that
> > worked fine. So now I have 3 primary partitions.
> >
> > So isn't it strange, that I have had no problems whatsoever with that
> > method, and yet everybody says to never install 98 after XP.
> >
> > I'm sure I used to have to make primary partitions hidden, but here
> > strangely, I seem to be able to have many visible primary partitions.
> > WHat's the point of making primary partitions hidden if even Win 98SE
> > can handle it?!
> >
> > And why all the fuss about having to install the old then the new - 98
> > then XP?
> > If I am going against the grain, howcome no damage is being done?