7tools Partition Manager 2005 problem

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

Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools Partition
Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.

In Windows XP:

.... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive Windows partition,
making the copy partition 2

.... install some programs in partition 1

.... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2

.... registry information from partition 1 shows up in partition
2, the newly installed programs from partition 1 show up in
partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig Startup
tab

Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows XP puts
registry information somewhere on the disk that disk managers
cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred throughout
the drive? Could it have something to do with the system
folders labeled "System Volume Information"?

I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools Partition Manager
2005, I guess Ghost is next?

Should I make the Windows partition backup copies to another
physical disk? Only one per disk?

Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.
56 answers Last reply
More about 7tools partition manager 2005 problem
  1. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools Partition
    > Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.
    >
    > In Windows XP:
    >
    > ... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive Windows partition,
    > making the copy partition 2
    >
    > ... install some programs in partition 1
    >
    > ... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2
    >
    > ... registry information from partition 1 shows up in partition
    > 2, the newly installed programs from partition 1 show up in
    > partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig Startup
    > tab
    >
    > Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows XP puts
    > registry information somewhere on the disk that disk managers
    > cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred throughout
    > the drive? Could it have something to do with the system
    > folders labeled "System Volume Information"?
    >
    > I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools Partition Manager
    > 2005, I guess Ghost is next?
    >
    > Should I make the Windows partition backup copies to another
    > physical disk? Only one per disk?
    >
    > Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.

    But what is your objective? What are you trying to achieve?
  2. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    I wrote:

    > In Windows XP:
    > ... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive Windows partition,
    > making the copy partition 2
    > ... install some programs in partition 1
    > ... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2
    > ... registry information from partition 1 shows up in partition
    > 2, the newly installed programs from partition 1 show up in
    > partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig Startup
    > tab

    Reading the article referenced in someone elses earlier thread.

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/learnmore/multiboot.mspx

    Could my problems be resolved by switching away from NTFS and back
    to FAT32?

    Maybe I will try Ghost first, then try changing the file system.
    A solution is necessary.

    Thanks for any suggestions.


    >
    >
    >
    > Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows XP puts
    > registry information somewhere on the disk that disk managers
    > cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred throughout
    > the drive? Could it have something to do with the system
    > folders labeled "System Volume Information"?
    ....
  3. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote:

    >> Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools Partition
    >> Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.
    >>
    >> In Windows XP:
    >>
    >> ... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive Windows partition,
    >> making the copy partition 2
    >>
    >> ... install some programs in partition 1
    >>
    >> ... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2
    >>
    >> ... registry information from partition 1 shows up in partition
    >> 2, the newly installed programs from partition 1 show up in
    >> partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig Startup
    >> tab
    >>
    >> Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows XP puts
    >> registry information somewhere on the disk that disk managers
    >> cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred throughout
    >> the drive? Could it have something to do with the system
    >> folders labeled "System Volume Information"?
    >>
    >> I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools Partition Manager
    >> 2005, I guess Ghost is next?
    >>
    >> Should I make the Windows partition backup copies to another
    >> physical disk? Only one per disk?
    >>
    >> Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.
    >
    > But what is your objective? What are you trying to achieve?

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

    On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:01:38 GMT, John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid>
    wrote:

    >Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools Partition
    >Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.
    >
    >In Windows XP:
    >
    >... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive Windows partition,
    >making the copy partition 2
    >
    >... install some programs in partition 1
    >
    >... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2
    >
    >... registry information from partition 1 shows up in partition
    >2, the newly installed programs from partition 1 show up in
    >partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig Startup
    >tab
    >
    >Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows XP puts
    >registry information somewhere on the disk that disk managers
    >cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred throughout
    >the drive? Could it have something to do with the system
    >folders labeled "System Volume Information"?
    >
    >I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools Partition Manager
    >2005, I guess Ghost is next?
    >
    >Should I make the Windows partition backup copies to another
    >physical disk? Only one per disk?
    >
    >Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.
    >
    It doesn't sound right. The registry is just a bunch of files,
    they're treated the same by partition managers.
    Verify that you actually are booting the second partition.
    Use diskmgmt.msc from the run box to view
    the partition info.

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

    "John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns964E62516D520wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    > "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote:
    >
    >>> Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools Partition
    >>> Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.
    >>>
    >>> In Windows XP:
    >>>
    >>> ... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive Windows partition,
    >>> making the copy partition 2
    >>>
    >>> ... install some programs in partition 1
    >>>
    >>> ... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2
    >>>
    >>> ... registry information from partition 1 shows up in partition
    >>> 2, the newly installed programs from partition 1 show up in
    >>> partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig Startup
    >>> tab
    >>>
    >>> Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows XP puts
    >>> registry information somewhere on the disk that disk managers
    >>> cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred throughout
    >>> the drive? Could it have something to do with the system
    >>> folders labeled "System Volume Information"?
    >>>
    >>> I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools Partition Manager
    >>> 2005, I guess Ghost is next?
    >>>
    >>> Should I make the Windows partition backup copies to another
    >>> physical disk? Only one per disk?
    >>>
    >>> Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.
    >>
    >> But what is your objective? What are you trying to achieve?
    >
    > What?

    Why are you making a copy of the XP system partition ?
  6. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns964E3D5475535wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...

    > Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools
    > Partition Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.

    > In Windows XP:

    > ... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive
    > Windows partition, making the copy partition 2

    > ... install some programs in partition 1

    > ... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2

    > ... registry information from partition 1 shows up in partition 2,
    > the newly installed programs from partition 1 show up in partition
    > 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig Startup tab

    > Anybody know why that is happening?

    Presumably the usual problem with cloning an XP system
    partition and allowing the clone and original to be visible
    to XP on the first boot after the clone has been made.

    You'll find that while it appears that you have
    booted the clone, in practice you havent and
    are still using the original most of the time.

    > Apparently Windows XP puts registry information somewhere
    > on the disk that disk managers cannot correctly copy?
    > That information is sharred throughout the drive?

    Nope, and the evidence that that isnt the case
    is that if you ensure that XP cant see both the
    original and the clone on the first boot after the
    clone has been made, you dont get that effect.

    > Could it have something to do with the system
    > folders labeled "System Volume Information"?

    Nope, just the visibility of both copys to XP on
    the first boot after the clone has been made.

    > I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools
    > Partition Manager 2005, I guess Ghost is next?

    > Should I make the Windows partition
    > backup copies to another physical disk?

    Doesnt help, in fact that situatioin is even worse,
    if the original and the clone are visible to XP
    during the first boot of the clone after the clone
    has been made, you'll find that if you physically
    unplug the original drive, you cant even boot the
    other drive, even tho you could with them both
    plugged in. Thats because the boot of the clone
    uses files from both copys for the boot if you
    allow both to be visible to XP on the first boot
    after the clone has been made.

    > Only one per disk?

    Ditto.

    > Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.

    It still is, just ensure that XP cant see the original and the
    clone during the first boot after the clone has been made.
    You can then boot either copy and not get any interaction
    effect with changes made to either copy.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns964E4F1A8D1B1wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    > I wrote

    >> In Windows XP:
    >> ... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive Windows partition,
    >> making the copy partition 2
    >> ... install some programs in partition 1
    >> ... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2
    >> ... registry information from partition 1 shows up in partition 2,
    >> the newly installed programs from partition 1 show up in partition
    >> 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig Startup tab

    > Reading the article referenced in someone elses earlier thread.

    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/learnmore/multiboot.mspx

    > Could my problems be resolved by switching
    > away from NTFS and back to FAT32?

    Nope. FAT32 is only relevant for OSs which
    dont support NTFS like Win98 and ME.

    > Maybe I will try Ghost first, then try changing the file system.

    Wont help.

    > A solution is necessary.

    Just ensure that XP cant see both the original and the clone
    on the first boot after creating the clone. If they are on separate
    physical disks, just unplug the drive which has the original copy
    of XP on it for the first boot of the clone and if they are on the
    same physical drive in separate partitions, just hide the first
    partition that has the original install of XP on it for the first
    boot of the cloned XP install, using a partition manager.

    > Thanks for any suggestions.

    >> Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows XP puts
    >> registry information somewhere on the disk that disk managers
    >> cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred throughout
    >> the drive? Could it have something to do with the system
    >> folders labeled "System Volume Information"?
    > ...
  8. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > Why are you making a copy of the XP system partition ?

    Because doing so is extremely useful, for incremental installation
    backups and troubleshooting. It's the main function of my disk
    manager (PartitionMagic, Partition Manager, whatever). Can't live
    without them.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message

    >> Could my problems be resolved by switching
    >> away from NTFS and back to FAT32?
    >
    > Nope. FAT32 is only relevant for OSs which
    > dont support NTFS like Win98 and ME.

    Is that code for "NTFS is better than FAT32"? It sounds
    oversimple.


    >
    >
    >
    > Path: newssvr33.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm06.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
    > From: "Rod Speed" <rod_speed yahoo.com>
    > Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
    > Subject: Re: 7tools Partition Manager 2005 problem
    > Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 03:58:17 +1000
    > Lines: 48
    > Message-ID: <3e1phrFoshqU1 individual.net>
    > References: <Xns964E3D5475535wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <Xns964E4F1A8D1B1wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
    > X-Trace: individual.net 2il6j5D9skbkgEUqmW4okgfqeQpBYzu4DFrbKY2sp25ETQV6M=
    > X-Priority: 3
    > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
    > X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
    > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
    > Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:349830
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns964EE9BDE83A7wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

    >> Why are you making a copy of the XP system partition ?

    > Because doing so is extremely useful, for
    > incremental installation backups and troubleshooting.

    Its better to use images for that, not copying the partition.

    That allows you to keep more than one image file
    because the image is quite a bit smaller than a copy
    which copys the free space as well as the used space.

    > It's the main function of my disk manager (PartitionMagic,
    > Partition Manager, whatever). Can't live without them.

    You can, actually, use an imager instead.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    >> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

    >>> Why are you making a copy of the XP system partition ?
    >
    >> Because doing so is extremely useful, for
    >> incremental installation backups and troubleshooting.
    >
    > Its better to use images for that, not copying the partition.
    > That allows you to keep more than one image file
    > because the image is quite a bit smaller than a copy
    > which copys the free space as well as the used space.

    Saving disk space might help, but (at least here) troubleshooting
    would be easier being able to boot to a backup copy.

    >> It's the main function of my disk manager (PartitionMagic,
    >> Partition Manager, whatever). Can't live without them.
    >
    > You can, actually, use an imager instead.

    I guess you mean like Ghost.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns964F6F67A9DEwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

    >>>> Why are you making a copy of the XP system partition ?

    >>> Because doing so is extremely useful, for
    >>> incremental installation backups and troubleshooting.

    >> Its better to use images for that, not copying the partition.
    >> That allows you to keep more than one image file
    >> because the image is quite a bit smaller than a copy
    >> which copys the free space as well as the used space.

    > Saving disk space might help, but (at least here) troubleshooting
    > would be easier being able to boot to a backup copy.

    Maybe, if you need to swap between the two installs. I dont
    find that I do that much at all, basically I image the OS and
    apps partition before installing anything except trivial stuff,
    so I can just restore the image if the install goes pear
    shaped and thats usually obvious quite soon into the install.

    >>> It's the main function of my disk manager (PartitionMagic,
    >>> Partition Manager, whatever). Can't live without them.

    >> You can, actually, use an imager instead.

    > I guess you mean like Ghost.

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

    John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns964F5C773BA6Fwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote

    >>> Reading the article referenced in someone elses earlier thread.

    >>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/learnmore/multiboot.mspx

    >>> Could my problems be resolved by switching
    >>> away from NTFS and back to FAT32?

    >> Nope. FAT32 is only relevant for OSs which
    >> dont support NTFS like Win98 and ME.

    > Is that code for "NTFS is better than FAT32"?

    Nope, just recognising the basics, that Win9x and ME cant see
    the contents of NTFS formatted partitons and so if you setting
    up a dual boot system, thats an important consideration.

    > It sounds oversimple.

    It might if that was what was being said. It isnt.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    I wrote:

    > Could my problems be resolved by switching away from NTFS and back
    > to FAT32?

    Switching back to FAT32 appears to solve the PartitionMagic
    "cannot lock drive" problem when operating in pre-Windows XP mode.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message

    >> In Windows XP: ... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive
    >> Windows partition, making the copy partition 2 ... install some
    >> programs in partition 1 ... hide partition 1 and switch to
    >> partition 2 ... registry information from partition 1 shows up
    >> in partition 2, the newly installed programs from partition 1
    >> show up in partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig
    >> Startup tab Anybody know why that is happening?

    > Presumably the usual problem with cloning an XP system partition
    > and allowing the clone and original to be visible to XP on the
    > first boot after the clone has been made.

    Tried that, didn't last. Here, apparently the problem has to do
    with deleting the contents of BOOT.INI.

    Using FAT32, after deleting the contents of BOOT.INI, the system
    didn't hang when switching from the original to the copy of
    Windows XP (just an observation, not promoting FAT32), but
    registry information started to leak again.

    I delete the contents of BOOT.INI so the Windows XP startup menu
    doesn't show.

    Anybody know how to get Windows XP to automatically follow the
    boot manager choice?
  16. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    >> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote

    >>>> Reading the article referenced in someone elses earlier thread.
    >
    >>>>
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/learnmore/multiboot.m
    spx
    >
    >>>> Could my problems be resolved by switching
    >>>> away from NTFS and back to FAT32?
    >
    >>> Nope. FAT32 is only relevant for OSs which
    >>> dont support NTFS like Win98 and ME.
    >
    >> Is that code for "NTFS is better than FAT32"?
    >
    > Nope, just recognising the basics, that Win9x and ME cant see
    > the contents of NTFS formatted partitons and so if you setting
    > up a dual boot system, thats an important consideration.

    I thought your reply had something to do with my problem, which
    doesn't have anything to do with Win9x and ME.


    >> It sounds oversimple.
    >
    > It might if that was what was being said. It isnt.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >
    > John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Xns964F6F67A9DEwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    >> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >
    >>>>> Why are you making a copy of the XP system partition ?
    >
    >>>> Because doing so is extremely useful, for
    >>>> incremental installation backups and troubleshooting.
    >
    >>> Its better to use images for that, not copying the partition.
    >>> That allows you to keep more than one image file
    >>> because the image is quite a bit smaller than a copy
    >>> which copys the free space as well as the used space.
    >
    >> Saving disk space might help, but (at least here) troubleshooting
    >> would be easier being able to boot to a backup copy.
    >
    > Maybe, if you need to swap between the two installs.

    Absolutely, I need to swap between the two installs.

    > I dont
    > find that I do that much at all,

    When you do, you unpack and image?

    > basically I image the OS and
    > apps partition before installing anything except trivial stuff,
    > so I can just restore the image if the install goes pear
    > shaped and thats usually obvious quite soon into the install.

    I get more use out of it than that.


    >>>> It's the main function of my disk manager (PartitionMagic,
    >>>> Partition Manager, whatever). Can't live without them.
    >
    >>> You can, actually, use an imager instead.
    >
    >> I guess you mean like Ghost.
    >
    > Yep.
    >
    >
  18. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

    > On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:01:38 GMT, John Doe
    <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools Partition
    >>Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.
    >>
    >>In Windows XP:
    >>
    >>... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive Windows partition,
    >>making the copy partition 2
    >>
    >>... install some programs in partition 1
    >>
    >>... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2
    >>
    >>... registry information from partition 1 shows up in partition
    >>2, the newly installed programs from partition 1 show up in
    >>partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig Startup
    >>tab
    >>
    >>Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows XP puts
    >>registry information somewhere on the disk that disk managers
    >>cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred throughout
    >>the drive? Could it have something to do with the system
    >>folders labeled "System Volume Information"?
    >>
    >>I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools Partition Manager
    >>2005, I guess Ghost is next?
    >>
    >>Should I make the Windows partition backup copies to another
    >>physical disk? Only one per disk?
    >>
    >>Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.
    >>
    > It doesn't sound right. The registry is just a bunch of files,
    > they're treated the same by partition managers.
    > Verify that you actually are booting the second partition.
    > Use diskmgmt.msc from the run box to view
    > the partition info.

    I know how to use Windows XP disk management. The programs do not
    exist in the other installation but the registry information exists.
    Apparently, somehow the Registry gets corrupted. I'm not suggesting
    that partition managers do the corrupting, apparently Windows
    changes the registry information in the other installation.

    The problem is easy enough to reproduce, given the time. This last
    effort, among other things I did this:

    .... everything below was done from my PartitionMagic 8 boot CD,
    including switching from one partition to the other, making sure
    that one or the other partition was hidden and inactive before
    booting to the active partition

    .... reinstalled Windows XP on a FAT32 partition

    .... made a copy

    .... install a program in the original Windows XP

    .... switched to the copy, there was no registry information of the
    newly installed program

    .... repeated that in the copy to see if program information would
    show up in the original, it didn't, all was fine

    .... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the original and switched to
    the copy

    .... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the copy

    .... the registry information began to leak

    Deleting the contents of BOOT.INI caused the malfunction. Maybe
    Windows XP depends on BOOT.INI information to somehow point to the
    registry files. I guess when BOOT.INI is empty, Windows XP uses a
    default location.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns96505C2A591C0wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote

    >>>>> Reading the article referenced in someone elses earlier thread.

    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/learnmore/multiboot.mspx

    >>>>> Could my problems be resolved by switching
    >>>>> away from NTFS and back to FAT32?

    >>>> Nope. FAT32 is only relevant for OSs which
    >>>> dont support NTFS like Win98 and ME.

    >>> Is that code for "NTFS is better than FAT32"?

    >> Nope, just recognising the basics, that Win9x and ME cant see
    >> the contents of NTFS formatted partitons and so if you setting
    >> up a dual boot system, thats an important consideration.

    > I thought your reply had something to do with my problem,
    > which doesn't have anything to do with Win9x and ME.

    Nope, I was commenting on why that
    article you cited mentions FAT32 format.

    >>> It sounds oversimple.

    >> It might if that was what was being said. It isnt.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >
    > John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Xns96505C2A591C0wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    >> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >
    >>>>>> Reading the article referenced in someone elses earlier
    thread.
    >
    >>
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/learnmore/multiboot.m
    spx
    >
    >>>>>> Could my problems be resolved by switching
    >>>>>> away from NTFS and back to FAT32?
    >
    >>>>> Nope. FAT32 is only relevant for OSs which
    >>>>> dont support NTFS like Win98 and ME.
    >
    >>>> Is that code for "NTFS is better than FAT32"?
    >
    >>> Nope, just recognising the basics, that Win9x and ME cant see
    >>> the contents of NTFS formatted partitons and so if you setting
    >>> up a dual boot system, thats an important consideration.
    >
    >> I thought your reply had something to do with my problem,
    >> which doesn't have anything to do with Win9x and ME.
    >
    > Nope, I was commenting on why that
    > article you cited mentions FAT32 format.

    That article cited by someone else in this group says that FAT32 is
    not only for Windows 9x, but also important for windows NT.


    >
    >>>> It sounds oversimple.
    >
    >>> It might if that was what was being said. It isnt.
    >
    >
  21. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns9650491FAFC10wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    > I wrote:

    >> Could my problems be resolved by switching
    >> away from NTFS and back to FAT32?

    > Switching back to FAT32 appears to solve the PartitionMagic
    > "cannot lock drive" problem when operating in pre-Windows XP mode.

    What exactly is 'pre-Windows XP mode' ?

    And this is the first mention of any "cannot lock drive"
    problem in this thread, you previously only mentioned a
    problem with changes to one copy of XP affecting the other.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >
    > John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9650491FAFC10wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    >> I wrote:
    >
    >>> Could my problems be resolved by switching away from NTFS and
    >>> back to FAT32?
    >
    >> Switching back to FAT32 appears to solve the PartitionMagic
    >> "cannot lock drive" problem when operating in pre-Windows XP
    >> mode.
    >
    > What exactly is 'pre-Windows XP mode' ?

    It's the mode certain programs jump into two Finnish operations,
    after a reboot, before the desktop.

    > And this is the first mention of any "cannot lock drive" problem
    > in this thread, you previously only mentioned a problem with
    > changes to one copy of XP affecting the other.

    That's true.
  23. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns96504C10CE14Awisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message

    >>> In Windows XP: ... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive
    >>> Windows partition, making the copy partition 2 ... install some
    >>> programs in partition 1 ... hide partition 1 and switch to
    >>> partition 2 ... registry information from partition 1 shows up
    >>> in partition 2, the newly installed programs from partition 1
    >>> show up in partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig
    >>> Startup tab Anybody know why that is happening?

    >> Presumably the usual problem with cloning an XP system
    >> partition and allowing the clone and original to be visible
    >> to XP on the first boot after the clone has been made.

    > Tried that, didn't last. Here, apparently the problem
    > has to do with deleting the contents of BOOT.INI.

    Thats the problem I was talking about, allowing XP to see
    both copys of XP on the first boot of the clone after the
    clone has been made sees XP stuff up the contents of
    BOOT.INI and you can fix that by manually editing BOOT.INI

    > Using FAT32, after deleting the contents of BOOT.INI, the
    > system didn't hang when switching from the original to the
    > copy of Windows XP (just an observation, not promoting
    > FAT32), but registry information started to leak again.

    Yes, more than just BOOT.INI is affected by
    allowing XP to see both copys of XP on the first
    boot of the clone after the clone has been made.

    > I delete the contents of BOOT.INI so the
    > Windows XP startup menu doesn't show.

    > Anybody know how to get Windows XP to
    > automatically follow the boot manager choice?

    Just edit boot.ini so you get the same detail in there
    as you have in the boot manager choice. The format
    is a tad cryptic, but its not as bad as it looks.

    Thats not going to help with the alleged 'registry info leak' tho,
    the fix for that is to clone the copy of XP again and then ensure
    that XP cant see both copys during the first boot of the clone
    of XP. Best by hiding the original XP partition with a boot
    manager if they are both on one drive. Best by unplugging
    the original drive if they are on different drives.

    Still nothing to do with the format of the drive, FAT32 or NTFS.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >
    > John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Xns96504C10CE14Awisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    >> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    >
    >>>> In Windows XP: ... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive
    >>>> Windows partition, making the copy partition 2 ... install some
    >>>> programs in partition 1 ... hide partition 1 and switch to
    >>>> partition 2 ... registry information from partition 1 shows up
    >>>> in partition 2, the newly installed programs from partition 1
    >>>> show up in partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig
    >>>> Startup tab Anybody know why that is happening?
    >
    >>> Presumably the usual problem with cloning an XP system
    >>> partition and allowing the clone and original to be visible
    >>> to XP on the first boot after the clone has been made.
    >
    >> Tried that, didn't last. Here, apparently the problem
    >> has to do with deleting the contents of BOOT.INI.
    >
    > Thats the problem I was talking about, allowing XP to see
    > both copys of XP on the first boot of the clone after the
    > clone has been made

    Keeping Windows XP from seeing both copies on the first boot of the
    clone after the clone has been made didn't do anything for me.

    > sees XP stuff up the contents of BOOT.INI and you can fix that by
    manually editing BOOT.INI

    I don't think that's related to the Registry corruption problem.

    >> Using FAT32, after deleting the contents of BOOT.INI, the
    >> system didn't hang when switching from the original to the
    >> copy of Windows XP (just an observation, not promoting
    >> FAT32), but registry information started to leak again.
    >
    > Yes, more than just BOOT.INI is affected by
    > allowing XP to see both copys of XP on the first
    > boot of the clone after the clone has been made.

    Like the Registry? In any case, I have made sure that Windows XP did
    not see the other copy at any time. The Registry information still
    leaked.

    >> I delete the contents of BOOT.INI so the
    >> Windows XP startup menu doesn't show.
    >
    >> Anybody know how to get Windows XP to
    >> automatically follow the boot manager choice?
    >
    > Just edit boot.ini so you get the same detail in there
    > as you have in the boot manager choice. The format
    > is a tad cryptic, but its not as bad as it looks.

    That doesn't work either. The BOOT.INI file is not cryptic to me.
    But, as far as I know, it's not programmable either. Yes, I know it
    can be edited.

    > Thats not going to help with the alleged 'registry info leak' tho,

    I have been making copies of the operating-system partition for
    backup and troubleshooting since before PartitionMagic 4 was
    published. The registry information leaks somehow. It is a problem I
    can easily reproduce.

    Your suggestion of ensuring that Windows XP cannot see the copy on
    the first boot of the copy simply does not work.

    > the fix for that is to clone the copy of XP again and then ensure
    > that XP cant see both copys during the first boot of the clone
    > of XP.

    You have said that a dozen times in excitefull replies scattered
    throughout this thread. What you're saying is easy to understand
    after the first or second iteration, but it just doesn't work.


    Best by hiding the original XP partition with a boot
    > manager if they are both on one drive. Best by unplugging
    > the original drive if they are on different drives.
    >
    > Still nothing to do with the format of the drive, FAT32 or NTFS.
    >
    >
  25. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns96509054411ADwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    >> news:Xns96505C2A591C0wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    >>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>
    >>>>>>> Reading the article referenced in someone elses earlier
    > thread.
    >>
    >>>
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/learnmore/multiboot.m
    > spx
    >>
    >>>>>>> Could my problems be resolved by switching
    >>>>>>> away from NTFS and back to FAT32?
    >>
    >>>>>> Nope. FAT32 is only relevant for OSs which
    >>>>>> dont support NTFS like Win98 and ME.
    >>
    >>>>> Is that code for "NTFS is better than FAT32"?
    >>
    >>>> Nope, just recognising the basics, that Win9x and ME cant see
    >>>> the contents of NTFS formatted partitons and so if you setting
    >>>> up a dual boot system, thats an important consideration.
    >>
    >>> I thought your reply had something to do with my problem,
    >>> which doesn't have anything to do with Win9x and ME.
    >>
    >> Nope, I was commenting on why that
    >> article you cited mentions FAT32 format.

    > That article cited by someone else in this group says that FAT32
    > is not only for Windows 9x, but also important for windows NT.

    That particular MS article says nothing like that.

    And you arent running NT anyway even if he is right.

    >>>>> It sounds oversimple.
    >>
    >>>> It might if that was what was being said. It isnt.
  26. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >
    > "John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Xns96509054411ADwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    >> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    >>> news:Xns96505C2A591C0wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    >>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>>>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>>
    >>>>>>>> Reading the article referenced in someone elses earlier
    >> thread.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/learnmore/multiboot.m
    >> spx
    >>>
    >>>>>>>> Could my problems be resolved by switching
    >>>>>>>> away from NTFS and back to FAT32?
    >>>
    >>>>>>> Nope. FAT32 is only relevant for OSs which
    >>>>>>> dont support NTFS like Win98 and ME.
    >>>
    >>>>>> Is that code for "NTFS is better than FAT32"?
    >>>
    >>>>> Nope, just recognising the basics, that Win9x and ME cant see
    >>>>> the contents of NTFS formatted partitons and so if you setting
    >>>>> up a dual boot system, thats an important consideration.
    >>>
    >>>> I thought your reply had something to do with my problem,
    >>>> which doesn't have anything to do with Win9x and ME.
    >>>
    >>> Nope, I was commenting on why that
    >>> article you cited mentions FAT32 format.
    >
    >> That article cited by someone else in this group says that FAT32
    >> is not only for Windows 9x, but also important for windows NT.
    >
    > That particular MS article says nothing like that.

    It most certainly does.

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/learnmore/nt4xp.mspx

    "However, using NTFS as the only file system on a computer that
    contains both Windows XP and Windows NT is not recommended. On these
    computers, a FAT partition containing the Windows NT 4.0 operating
    system ensures that when started with Windows NT 4.0, the computer
    will have access to needed files. In addition, if Windows NT is not
    installed on the system partition, which is almost always the first
    partition on the disk, the system partition should also be formatted
    with FAT."


    >
    > And you arent running NT anyway even if he is right.
    >
    >>>>>> It sounds oversimple.
    >>>
    >>>>> It might if that was what was being said. It isnt.
    >
    >
  27. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns9650917CE2CD1wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

    >>>>>> Why are you making a copy of the XP system partition ?

    >>>>> Because doing so is extremely useful, for
    >>>>> incremental installation backups and troubleshooting.

    >>>> Its better to use images for that, not copying the partition.
    >>>> That allows you to keep more than one image file
    >>>> because the image is quite a bit smaller than a copy
    >>>> which copys the free space as well as the used space.

    >>> Saving disk space might help, but (at least here) troubleshooting
    >>> would be easier being able to boot to a backup copy.

    >> Maybe, if you need to swap between the two installs.

    > Absolutely, I need to swap between the two installs.

    Why ?

    >> I dont find that I do that much at all,

    > When you do, you unpack and image?

    Yep.

    >> basically I image the OS and apps partition before
    >> installing anything except trivial stuff, so I can just
    >> restore the image if the install goes pear shaped
    >> and thats usually obvious quite soon into the install.

    > I get more use out of it than that.

    So do I, that was just the main use.

    The only situation I can think of where there is much point
    in swapping between two XP installs much is when you
    want to pin down exactly how something has made one
    of the XPs go pear shaped, checking details in one and
    the other to see where its got screwed etc.

    >>>>> It's the main function of my disk manager (PartitionMagic,
    >>>>> Partition Manager, whatever). Can't live without them.

    >>>> You can, actually, use an imager instead.

    >>> I guess you mean like Ghost.

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

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >
    > John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9650917CE2CD1wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    >> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >
    >>>>>>> Why are you making a copy of the XP system partition ?
    >
    >>>>>> Because doing so is extremely useful, for
    >>>>>> incremental installation backups and troubleshooting.
    >
    >>>>> Its better to use images for that, not copying the partition.
    >>>>> That allows you to keep more than one image file
    >>>>> because the image is quite a bit smaller than a copy
    >>>>> which copys the free space as well as the used space.
    >
    >>>> Saving disk space might help, but (at least here)
    troubleshooting
    >>>> would be easier being able to boot to a backup copy.
    >
    >>> Maybe, if you need to swap between the two installs.
    >
    >> Absolutely, I need to swap between the two installs.
    >
    > Why ?

    Because.

    >>> I dont find that I do that much at all,
    >
    >> When you do, you unpack and image?
    >
    > Yep.
    >
    >>> basically I image the OS and apps partition before
    >>> installing anything except trivial stuff, so I can just
    >>> restore the image if the install goes pear shaped
    >>> and thats usually obvious quite soon into the install.
    >
    >> I get more use out of it than that.
    >
    > So do I, that was just the main use.
    >
    > The only situation I can think of where there is much point
    > in swapping between two XP installs much is when you
    > want to pin down exactly how something has made one
    > of the XPs go pear shaped, checking details in one and
    > the other to see where its got screwed etc.

    I've never booted to more than one operating system on a regular
    basis, but the copy is useful for troubleshooting.


    >>>>>> It's the main function of my disk manager (PartitionMagic,
    >>>>>> Partition Manager, whatever). Can't live without them.
    >
    >>>>> You can, actually, use an imager instead.
    >
    >>>> I guess you mean like Ghost.
    >
    >>> Yep.
    >
    >
    >
  29. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns9650942421945wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message

    >>>>> In Windows XP: ... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive
    >>>>> Windows partition, making the copy partition 2 ... install some
    >>>>> programs in partition 1 ... hide partition 1 and switch to
    >>>>> partition 2 ... registry information from partition 1 shows up
    >>>>> in partition 2, the newly installed programs from partition 1
    >>>>> show up in partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig
    >>>>> Startup tab Anybody know why that is happening?

    >>>> Presumably the usual problem with cloning an XP system
    >>>> partition and allowing the clone and original to be visible
    >>>> to XP on the first boot after the clone has been made.

    >>> Tried that, didn't last. Here, apparently the problem
    >>> has to do with deleting the contents of BOOT.INI.

    >> Thats the problem I was talking about, allowing XP to see
    >> both copys of XP on the first boot of the clone after the
    >> clone has been made

    > Keeping Windows XP from seeing both copies on the first boot of
    > the clone after the clone has been made didn't do anything for me.

    Yeah, must admit that I havent actually tried it with two partitons
    on the one drive. And its never been that clear how you are making
    the copy either, clearly the boot.ini will be way out if its just
    copied intact when the XP is in a different partition to the one
    that it was created for.

    >> sees XP stuff up the contents of BOOT.INI and you can fix that by
    > manually editing BOOT.INI

    > I don't think that's related to the Registry corruption problem.

    Bet it is. And it aint corruption, you are getting a bleed from
    the XP install you THINK you are running into the the registry
    of the XP install you are ACTUALLY running.

    You're just getting confused about which one you are actually
    running. And it isnt that easy to guarantee that with the two
    copys of XP in different partitions on the one physical drive.

    When they are on separate drives, you can always physically
    disconnect the drive you dont want boot off and then you will be
    completely sure which particular copy you are actually booting.

    Bet you dont get a bleed in that particular situation.

    >>> Using FAT32, after deleting the contents of BOOT.INI, the
    >>> system didn't hang when switching from the original to the
    >>> copy of Windows XP (just an observation, not promoting
    >>> FAT32), but registry information started to leak again.

    >> Yes, more than just BOOT.INI is affected by
    >> allowing XP to see both copys of XP on the first
    >> boot of the clone after the clone has been made.

    > Like the Registry? In any case, I have made sure that
    > Windows XP did not see the other copy at any time.

    How ? The XP boot is more complicated than it superfically looks.

    The only real way to be completely sure that you
    arent using any of the partition you dont want to
    use is to image it and write zeros thru that partition
    to ensure that XP cant decide that there is any
    part of XP in that partition. I bet if you do it that
    way there wont be any leak and in fact you will find
    that you cant actually boot the copy at all, because
    the bits of the original it uses aint there anymore.

    > The Registry information still leaked.

    >>> I delete the contents of BOOT.INI so the
    >>> Windows XP startup menu doesn't show.

    >>> Anybody know how to get Windows XP to
    >>> automatically follow the boot manager choice?

    >> Just edit boot.ini so you get the same detail in there
    >> as you have in the boot manager choice. The format
    >> is a tad cryptic, but its not as bad as it looks.

    > That doesn't work either.

    It does if you do the copy properly and do
    the other very early XP boot phase stuff too.

    Its perfectly feasible to have two installs of XP selectable in
    a boot menu and to not have any registry bleed between them.

    > The BOOT.INI file is not cryptic to me.

    Maybe its not as clear as you assume it is.

    > But, as far as I know, it's not programmable either.

    Corse it is.

    > Yes, I know it can be edited.

    And you can see the editing working if you do it right.

    >> Thats not going to help with the alleged 'registry info leak' tho,

    > I have been making copies of the operating-system
    > partition for backup and troubleshooting since before
    > PartitionMagic 4 was published.

    The problem is that the NT/2K/XP family have a
    more complex boot than the Win9x and ME family do.

    That can and does bite countless in the arse.

    > The registry information leaks somehow.
    > It is a problem I can easily reproduce.

    Yep, and so can the failure to boot the
    copy when the original is removed too.

    > Your suggestion of ensuring that Windows XP cannot see
    > the copy on the first boot of the copy simply does not work.

    It does with physical drives. You can find quite a few saying
    that doing the copy properly on the first boot has worked for
    them after I have suggested that using groups.google

    >> the fix for that is to clone the copy of XP again
    >> and then ensure that XP cant see both copys
    >> during the first boot of the clone of XP.

    > You have said that a dozen times in excitefull replies

    Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

    > scattered throughout this thread. What you're saying is easy to
    > understand after the first or second iteration, but it just doesn't work.

    It does with separate physical drives, as
    even you can check using groups.google.

    You must not be hiding the original partition effectively enough.

    And thats easy to prove by actually erasing the original
    partition. Bet you will find that the copy wont boot anymore
    and thats the proof that you arent actually booting JUST
    the copy, you're actually using whats in the original too.

    AND it must be doable, because its perfectly feasible to
    have two bootable copys of XP on a single hard drive
    and that MS article tells you one way of achieving that.

    >> Best by hiding the original XP partition with a boot
    >> manager if they are both on one drive. Best by unplugging
    >> the original drive if they are on different drives.
    >>
    >> Still nothing to do with the format of the drive, FAT32 or NTFS.
    >>
    >>
    >
  30. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    >> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

    >>> the fix for that is to clone the copy of XP again
    >>> and then ensure that XP cant see both copys
    >>> during the first boot of the clone of XP.
    >
    >> You have said that a dozen times in excitefull replies
    >
    > Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

    Message-ID: <3e1phrFoshqU1@individual.net>
    "on the first boot after creating the clone"
    "for the first boot of the clone"
    "for the first boot of the cloned XP"

    Message-ID: <3e1p9hFp6t6U1@individual.net>
    "on the first boot after the clone"
    "on the first boot after the clone"
    "on the first boot after the clone"
    "during the first boot of the clone"
    "on the first boot after the clone"
    "during the first boot after the clone"

    Message-ID: <3e704cF1gfbbU1@individual.net>
    "on the first boot of the clone"
    "on the first boot of the clone"
    "during the first boot of the clone"


    >
    >
    >
    > Path: newssvr33.news.prodigy.com!newssvr19.news.prodigy.com!newscon03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
    > From: "Rod Speed" <rod_speed yahoo.com>
    > Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
    > Subject: Re: 7tools Partition Manager 2005 problem
    > Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 06:24:17 +1000
    > Lines: 169
    > Message-ID: <3e7arkF1i8l5U1 individual.net>
    > References: <Xns964E3D5475535wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e1p9hFp6t6U1@individual.net> <Xns96504C10CE14Awisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e704cF1gfbbU1@individual.net> <Xns9650942421945wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
    > X-Trace: individual.net RquxZRdkdMmg8Z2PqqDcYQ08tfb+h4/xQTGi7mK8ULiDdUTAo=
    > X-Priority: 3
    > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
    > X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
    > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
    > Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:349908
    >
    >
  31. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns96509C6BC9035wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    >> news:Xns9650917CE2CD1wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    >>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>
    >>>>>>>> Why are you making a copy of the XP system partition ?
    >>
    >>>>>>> Because doing so is extremely useful, for
    >>>>>>> incremental installation backups and troubleshooting.
    >>
    >>>>>> Its better to use images for that, not copying the partition.
    >>>>>> That allows you to keep more than one image file
    >>>>>> because the image is quite a bit smaller than a copy
    >>>>>> which copys the free space as well as the used space.
    >>
    >>>>> Saving disk space might help, but (at least here)
    > troubleshooting
    >>>>> would be easier being able to boot to a backup copy.
    >>
    >>>> Maybe, if you need to swap between the two installs.
    >>
    >>> Absolutely, I need to swap between the two installs.
    >>
    >> Why ?

    > Because.

    How juvenile.

    >>>> I dont find that I do that much at all,
    >>
    >>> When you do, you unpack and image?
    >>
    >> Yep.
    >>
    >>>> basically I image the OS and apps partition before
    >>>> installing anything except trivial stuff, so I can just
    >>>> restore the image if the install goes pear shaped
    >>>> and thats usually obvious quite soon into the install.
    >>
    >>> I get more use out of it than that.
    >>
    >> So do I, that was just the main use.
    >>
    >> The only situation I can think of where there is much point
    >> in swapping between two XP installs much is when you
    >> want to pin down exactly how something has made one
    >> of the XPs go pear shaped, checking details in one and
    >> the other to see where its got screwed etc.

    > I've never booted to more than one operating system on
    > a regular basis, but the copy is useful for troubleshooting.

    Easy to claim.


    >>>>>>> It's the main function of my disk manager (PartitionMagic,
    >>>>>>> Partition Manager, whatever). Can't live without them.
    >>
    >>>>>> You can, actually, use an imager instead.
    >>
    >>>>> I guess you mean like Ghost.
    >>
    >>>> Yep.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
  32. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    Troll

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > Path: newssvr17.news.prodigy.com!newscon07.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
    > From: "Rod Speed" <rod_speed yahoo.com>
    > Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
    > Subject: Re: 7tools Partition Manager 2005 problem
    > Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 06:27:56 +1000
    > Lines: 79
    > Message-ID: <3e7b2fF1jejkU1 individual.net>
    > References: <Xns964E3D5475535wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <hlKee.22799$3U.1145884@news20.bellglobal.com> <Xns964E62516D520wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e1ot2Fp03lU1@individual.net> <Xns964EE9BDE83A7wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e2vgbFv0i2U1@individual.net> <Xns964F6F67A9DEwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e345bFvha8U1@individual.net> <Xns9650917CE2CD1wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e79q7F1isa1U1@individual.net> <Xns96509C6BC9035wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
    > X-Trace: individual.net YT0fATg028pdn/5RSNEMvwtQbVeQ0kknHSCe0Ws0Zu6NbOL14=
    > X-Priority: 3
    > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
    > X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
    > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
    > Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:349909
    >
    >
    > "John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Xns96509C6BC9035wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    >> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    >>> news:Xns9650917CE2CD1wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    >>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>>>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>>
    >>>>>>>>> Why are you making a copy of the XP system partition ?
    >>>
    >>>>>>>> Because doing so is extremely useful, for
    >>>>>>>> incremental installation backups and troubleshooting.
    >>>
    >>>>>>> Its better to use images for that, not copying the partition.
    >>>>>>> That allows you to keep more than one image file
    >>>>>>> because the image is quite a bit smaller than a copy
    >>>>>>> which copys the free space as well as the used space.
    >>>
    >>>>>> Saving disk space might help, but (at least here)
    >> troubleshooting
    >>>>>> would be easier being able to boot to a backup copy.
    >>>
    >>>>> Maybe, if you need to swap between the two installs.
    >>>
    >>>> Absolutely, I need to swap between the two installs.
    >>>
    >>> Why ?
    >
    >> Because.
    >
    > How juvenile.
    >
    >>>>> I dont find that I do that much at all,
    >>>
    >>>> When you do, you unpack and image?
    >>>
    >>> Yep.
    >>>
    >>>>> basically I image the OS and apps partition before
    >>>>> installing anything except trivial stuff, so I can just
    >>>>> restore the image if the install goes pear shaped
    >>>>> and thats usually obvious quite soon into the install.
    >>>
    >>>> I get more use out of it than that.
    >>>
    >>> So do I, that was just the main use.
    >>>
    >>> The only situation I can think of where there is much point
    >>> in swapping between two XP installs much is when you
    >>> want to pin down exactly how something has made one
    >>> of the XPs go pear shaped, checking details in one and
    >>> the other to see where its got screwed etc.
    >
    >> I've never booted to more than one operating system on
    >> a regular basis, but the copy is useful for troubleshooting.
    >
    > Easy to claim.
    >
    >
    >>>>>>>> It's the main function of my disk manager (PartitionMagic,
    >>>>>>>> Partition Manager, whatever). Can't live without them.
    >>>
    >>>>>>> You can, actually, use an imager instead.
    >>>
    >>>>>> I guess you mean like Ghost.
    >>>
    >>>>> Yep.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >
  33. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns96509A393F6A7wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    > da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:01:38 GMT, John Doe
    > <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools Partition
    >>>Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.
    >>>
    >>>In Windows XP:
    >>>
    >>>... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive Windows partition,
    >>>making the copy partition 2
    >>>
    >>>... install some programs in partition 1
    >>>
    >>>... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2
    >>>
    >>>... registry information from partition 1 shows up in partition
    >>>2, the newly installed programs from partition 1 show up in
    >>>partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig Startup
    >>>tab
    >>>
    >>>Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows XP puts
    >>>registry information somewhere on the disk that disk managers
    >>>cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred throughout
    >>>the drive? Could it have something to do with the system
    >>>folders labeled "System Volume Information"?
    >>>
    >>>I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools Partition Manager
    >>>2005, I guess Ghost is next?
    >>>
    >>>Should I make the Windows partition backup copies to another
    >>>physical disk? Only one per disk?
    >>>
    >>>Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.
    >>>
    >> It doesn't sound right. The registry is just a bunch of files,
    >> they're treated the same by partition managers.
    >> Verify that you actually are booting the second partition.
    >> Use diskmgmt.msc from the run box to view
    >> the partition info.
    >
    > I know how to use Windows XP disk management. The programs do not
    > exist in the other installation but the registry information exists.
    > Apparently, somehow the Registry gets corrupted. I'm not suggesting
    > that partition managers do the corrupting, apparently Windows
    > changes the registry information in the other installation.
    >
    > The problem is easy enough to reproduce, given the time. This last
    > effort, among other things I did this:
    >
    > ... everything below was done from my PartitionMagic 8 boot CD,
    > including switching from one partition to the other, making sure
    > that one or the other partition was hidden and inactive before
    > booting to the active partition
    >
    > ... reinstalled Windows XP on a FAT32 partition
    >
    > ... made a copy
    >
    > ... install a program in the original Windows XP
    >
    > ... switched to the copy, there was no registry information of the
    > newly installed program
    >
    > ... repeated that in the copy to see if program information would
    > show up in the original, it didn't, all was fine

    So why did you originally see any registry bleed at all ?

    I bet that if you erase the original partition, the copy wont boot.
    Because the boot of the copy is using stuff in the original partition.

    And the boot.ini in the copy has wrong data in it.

    How are you specifying which partition to boot ?

    > ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the original and switched to
    > the copy
    >
    > ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the copy
    >
    > ... the registry information began to leak
    >
    > Deleting the contents of BOOT.INI caused the malfunction. Maybe
    > Windows XP depends on BOOT.INI information to somehow point to the
    > registry files. I guess when BOOT.INI is empty, Windows XP uses a
    > default location.

    I bet its not actually booting just the copy when you think you
    are booting the copy and the proof is to erase the original.
    Bet the copy wont boot anymore. With the copy boot.ini unmolested.

    The result you are getting with empty boot.ini files is likely just an artifact.
  34. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > "John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Xns96509A393F6A7wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    >> da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:01:38 GMT, John Doe
    >> <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools Partition
    >>>>Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.
    >>>>
    >>>>In Windows XP:
    >>>>
    >>>>... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive Windows
    >>>>partition, making the copy partition 2
    >>>>
    >>>>... install some programs in partition 1
    >>>>
    >>>>... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2
    >>>>
    >>>>... registry information from partition 1 shows up in
    >>>>partition 2, the newly installed programs from partition 1
    >>>>show up in partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in
    >>>>MSconfig Startup tab
    >>>>
    >>>>Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows XP puts
    >>>>registry information somewhere on the disk that disk managers
    >>>>cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred throughout
    >>>>the drive? Could it have something to do with the system
    >>>>folders labeled "System Volume Information"?
    >>>>
    >>>>I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools Partition
    >>>>Manager 2005, I guess Ghost is next?
    >>>>
    >>>>Should I make the Windows partition backup copies to another
    >>>>physical disk? Only one per disk?
    >>>>
    >>>>Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.
    >>>>
    >>> It doesn't sound right. The registry is just a bunch of
    >>> files, they're treated the same by partition managers.
    >>> Verify that you actually are booting the second partition.
    >>> Use diskmgmt.msc from the run box to view
    >>> the partition info.
    >>
    >> I know how to use Windows XP disk management. The programs do
    >> not exist in the other installation but the registry
    >> information exists. Apparently, somehow the Registry gets
    >> corrupted. I'm not suggesting that partition managers do the
    >> corrupting, apparently Windows changes the registry information
    >> in the other installation.
    >>
    >> The problem is easy enough to reproduce, given the time. This
    >> last effort, among other things I did this:
    >>
    >> ... everything below was done from my PartitionMagic 8 boot CD,
    >> including switching from one partition to the other, making
    >> sure that one or the other partition was hidden and inactive
    >> before booting to the active partition
    >>
    >> ... reinstalled Windows XP on a FAT32 partition
    >>
    >> ... made a copy
    >>
    >> ... install a program in the original Windows XP
    >>
    >> ... switched to the copy, there was no registry information of
    >> the newly installed program
    >>
    >> ... repeated that in the copy to see if program information
    >> would show up in the original, it didn't, all was fine
    >
    > So why did you originally see any registry bleed at all ?
    >
    > I bet that if you erase the original partition, the copy wont
    > boot. Because the boot of the copy is using stuff in the
    > original partition.

    In the post you are replying to, that is more or less what I said.
    But it's only using the registry information, definitely not
    accessing program files.

    > And the boot.ini in the copy has wrong data in it.

    Actually, Windows XP enters correct information. As I explained,
    Windows XP probably defaults to the wrong registry location for
    reading and writing if the BOOT.INI contents are deleted.

    > How are you specifying which partition to boot ?

    The boot managers that come with PartitionMagic and Partition
    Manager.

    >> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the original and
    >> switched to the copy
    >>
    >> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the copy
    >>
    >> ... the registry information began to leak
    >>
    >> Deleting the contents of BOOT.INI caused the malfunction. Maybe
    >> Windows XP depends on BOOT.INI information to somehow point to
    >> the registry files. I guess when BOOT.INI is empty, Windows XP
    >> uses a default location.
    >
    > I bet its not actually booting just the copy when you think you
    > are booting the copy and the proof is to erase the original.
    > Bet the copy wont boot anymore. With the copy boot.ini
    > unmolested.

    It will if I choose the second copy in the Windows XP boot menu.

    > The result you are getting with empty boot.ini files is likely
    > just an artifact.

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

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:3e7bigF1intrU1@individual.net...
    >
    > "John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Xns96509A393F6A7wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    >> da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 06 May 2005 11:01:38 GMT, John Doe
    >> <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools Partition
    >>>>Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.
    >>>>
    >>>>In Windows XP:
    >>>>
    >>>>... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive Windows partition,
    >>>>making the copy partition 2
    >>>>
    >>>>... install some programs in partition 1
    >>>>
    >>>>... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2
    >>>>
    >>>>... registry information from partition 1 shows up in partition
    >>>>2, the newly installed programs from partition 1 show up in
    >>>>partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig Startup
    >>>>tab
    >>>>
    >>>>Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows XP puts
    >>>>registry information somewhere on the disk that disk managers
    >>>>cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred throughout
    >>>>the drive? Could it have something to do with the system
    >>>>folders labeled "System Volume Information"?
    >>>>
    >>>>I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools Partition Manager
    >>>>2005, I guess Ghost is next?
    >>>>
    >>>>Should I make the Windows partition backup copies to another
    >>>>physical disk? Only one per disk?
    >>>>
    >>>>Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.
    >>>>
    >>> It doesn't sound right. The registry is just a bunch of files,
    >>> they're treated the same by partition managers.
    >>> Verify that you actually are booting the second partition.
    >>> Use diskmgmt.msc from the run box to view
    >>> the partition info.
    >>
    >> I know how to use Windows XP disk management. The programs do not
    >> exist in the other installation but the registry information exists.
    >> Apparently, somehow the Registry gets corrupted. I'm not suggesting
    >> that partition managers do the corrupting, apparently Windows
    >> changes the registry information in the other installation.
    >>
    >> The problem is easy enough to reproduce, given the time. This last
    >> effort, among other things I did this:
    >>
    >> ... everything below was done from my PartitionMagic 8 boot CD,
    >> including switching from one partition to the other, making sure
    >> that one or the other partition was hidden and inactive before
    >> booting to the active partition
    >>
    >> ... reinstalled Windows XP on a FAT32 partition
    >>
    >> ... made a copy
    >>
    >> ... install a program in the original Windows XP
    >>
    >> ... switched to the copy, there was no registry information of the
    >> newly installed program
    >>
    >> ... repeated that in the copy to see if program information would
    >> show up in the original, it didn't, all was fine
    >
    > So why did you originally see any registry bleed at all ?
    >
    > I bet that if you erase the original partition, the copy wont boot.
    > Because the boot of the copy is using stuff in the original partition.
    >
    > And the boot.ini in the copy has wrong data in it.
    >
    > How are you specifying which partition to boot ?
    >
    >> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the original and switched to
    >> the copy

    >> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the copy

    >> ... the registry information began to leak

    Why are you deleting the contents of boot.ini and not editing
    the boot.ini to have the correct entrys in it for the two XP installs ?

    >> Deleting the contents of BOOT.INI caused the malfunction. Maybe
    >> Windows XP depends on BOOT.INI information to somehow point to the
    >> registry files. I guess when BOOT.INI is empty, Windows XP uses a
    >> default location.
    >
    > I bet its not actually booting just the copy when you think you
    > are booting the copy and the proof is to erase the original.
    > Bet the copy wont boot anymore. With the copy boot.ini unmolested.
    >
    > The result you are getting with empty boot.ini files is likely just an
    > artifact.
    >
  36. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns9650A82FBC2ECwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...

    > Troll

    Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of your
    predicament better than that pathetic effort, child.
  37. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns9650A4F17A34Bwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

    >>>> the fix for that is to clone the copy of XP again
    >>>> and then ensure that XP cant see both copys
    >>>> during the first boot of the clone of XP.

    >>> You have said that a dozen times in excitefull replies

    >> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

    <reams of quoting flushed where it belongs>

    I didnt say I didnt say it a dozen times, just that it wasnt anything
    even remotely resembling anything like 'excitefull replies', child.
  38. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9650A4F17A34Bwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    >> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >
    >>>>> the fix for that is to clone the copy of XP again
    >>>>> and then ensure that XP cant see both copys
    >>>>> during the first boot of the clone of XP.
    >
    >>>> You have said that a dozen times in excitefull replies
    >
    >>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

    >> Message-ID: <3e1phrFoshqU1@individual.net>
    >> "on the first boot after creating the clone"
    >> "for the first boot of the clone"
    >> "for the first boot of the cloned XP"
    >>
    >> Message-ID: <3e1p9hFp6t6U1@individual.net>
    >> "on the first boot after the clone"
    >> "on the first boot after the clone"
    >> "on the first boot after the clone"
    >> "during the first boot of the clone"
    >> "on the first boot after the clone"
    >> "during the first boot after the clone"
    >>
    >> Message-ID: <3e704cF1gfbbU1@individual.net>
    >> "on the first boot of the clone"
    >> "on the first boot of the clone"
    >> "during the first boot of the clone"

    > I didnt say I didnt say it a dozen times, just that it wasnt
    > anything even remotely resembling anything like 'excitefull
    > replies', child.

    You are just a big ego, tough guy wanna-be, big mouth in cyberspace.
  39. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns9650AC085D043wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>> da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote

    >>>>> Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools
    >>>>> Partition Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.

    >>>>> In Windows XP:

    >>>>> ... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive
    >>>>> Windows partition, making the copy partition 2

    >>>>>... install some programs in partition 1

    >>>>>... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2

    >>>>> ... registry information from partition 1 shows up
    >>>>> in partition 2, the newly installed programs from
    >>>>> partition 1 show up in partition 2's Add or Remove
    >>>>> Programs and in MSconfig Startup tab

    >>>>> Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows
    >>>>> XP puts registry information somewhere on the disk that disk
    >>>>> managers cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred
    >>>>> throughout the drive? Could it have something to do with the
    >>>>> system folders labeled "System Volume Information"?

    >>>>> I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools
    >>>>> Partition Manager 2005, I guess Ghost is next?

    >>>>> Should I make the Windows partition backup copies
    >>>>> to another physical disk? Only one per disk?

    >>>>> Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.

    >>>> It doesn't sound right. The registry is just a bunch of files,
    >>>> they're treated the same by partition managers. Verify
    >>>> that you actually are booting the second partition. Use
    >>>> diskmgmt.msc from the run box to view the partition info.

    >>> I know how to use Windows XP disk management.
    >>> The programs do not exist in the other installation but
    >>> the registry information exists. Apparently, somehow
    >>> the Registry gets corrupted. I'm not suggesting that
    >>> partition managers do the corrupting, apparently Windows
    >>> changes the registry information in the other installation.

    >>> The problem is easy enough to reproduce, given the
    >>> time. This last effort, among other things I did this:

    >>> ... everything below was done from my PartitionMagic 8
    >>> boot CD, including switching from one partition to the other,
    >>> making sure that one or the other partition was hidden
    >>> and inactive before booting to the active partition

    >>> ... reinstalled Windows XP on a FAT32 partition

    >>> ... made a copy

    >>> ... install a program in the original Windows XP

    >>> ... switched to the copy, there was no registry
    >>> information of the newly installed program

    >>> ... repeated that in the copy to see if program information
    >>> would show up in the original, it didn't, all was fine

    >> So why did you originally see any registry bleed at all ?

    Why didnt you answer this ?

    >> I bet that if you erase the original partition, the copy wont boot.
    >> Because the boot of the copy is using stuff in the original partition.

    > In the post you are replying to, that is more or less what I said.

    No it isnt. You say nothing about failing to boot.

    > But it's only using the registry information,
    > definitely not accessing program files.

    And as was pointed out to you by da_test, the registry is
    just files in partitions, nothing special about the registry there.

    >> And the boot.ini in the copy has wrong data in it.

    > Actually, Windows XP enters correct information.

    When you boot the copy, it corrects the contents of boot.ini ?

    > As I explained, Windows XP probably defaults to the wrong registry
    > location for reading and writing if the BOOT.INI contents are deleted.

    Why are you deleting the contents of boot.ini at all if the boot.ini
    contents are corrected automatically by XP when you boot the copy ?

    >> How are you specifying which partition to boot ?

    > The boot managers that come with PartitionMagic and Partition Manager.

    >>> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in
    >>> the original and switched to the copy

    >>> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the copy

    >>> ... the registry information began to leak

    >>> Deleting the contents of BOOT.INI caused the malfunction.
    >>> Maybe Windows XP depends on BOOT.INI information to
    >>> somehow point to the registry files. I guess when BOOT.INI
    >>> is empty, Windows XP uses a default location.

    >> I bet its not actually booting just the copy when you think you
    >> are booting the copy and the proof is to erase the original.
    >> Bet the copy wont boot anymore. With the copy boot.ini
    >> unmolested.

    > It will if I choose the second copy in the Windows XP boot menu.

    Dont believe it. If you didnt get any registry bleed initially,
    with the boot.ini file unmolested by you, why did you molest it ?

    >> The result you are getting with empty boot.ini files is likely just an
    >> artifact.

    > Nope.

    You have no basis for saying that. Bet you will find
    that the copy wont actually boot if you erase the
    original partition, with the boot.ini file unmolested.
  40. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    I carefully laid out the process, anyone who has a computer and
    some skill can verify my conclusions. You've got lots of theories,
    if you can work the keyboard for anything except posting to
    Usenet, go for it.

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > Path: newssvr33.news.prodigy.com!newssvr19.news.prodigy.com!newscon03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
    > From: "Rod Speed" <rod_speed yahoo.com>
    > Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
    > Subject: Re: 7tools Partition Manager 2005 problem
    > Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 08:17:35 +1000
    > Lines: 136
    > Message-ID: <3e7hg2F1koa4U1 individual.net>
    > References: <Xns964E3D5475535wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <67fo7195p7eaek1ip4m48d5j6402bfsq86@4ax.com> <Xns96509A393F6A7wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e7bigF1intrU1@individual.net> <Xns9650AC085D043wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
    > X-Trace: individual.net kYyR10U72SmPxERgL9FxagE0iVSFywUmfujySh1g890hIjso4=
    > X-Priority: 3
    > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
    > X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
    > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
    > Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:349921
    >
    >
    > John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9650AC085D043wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...
    >> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>>> da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >
    >>>>>> Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools
    >>>>>> Partition Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.
    >
    >>>>>> In Windows XP:
    >
    >>>>>> ... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive
    >>>>>> Windows partition, making the copy partition 2
    >
    >>>>>>... install some programs in partition 1
    >
    >>>>>>... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2
    >
    >>>>>> ... registry information from partition 1 shows up
    >>>>>> in partition 2, the newly installed programs from
    >>>>>> partition 1 show up in partition 2's Add or Remove
    >>>>>> Programs and in MSconfig Startup tab
    >
    >>>>>> Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows
    >>>>>> XP puts registry information somewhere on the disk that disk
    >>>>>> managers cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred
    >>>>>> throughout the drive? Could it have something to do with the
    >>>>>> system folders labeled "System Volume Information"?
    >
    >>>>>> I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools
    >>>>>> Partition Manager 2005, I guess Ghost is next?
    >
    >>>>>> Should I make the Windows partition backup copies
    >>>>>> to another physical disk? Only one per disk?
    >
    >>>>>> Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.
    >
    >>>>> It doesn't sound right. The registry is just a bunch of files,
    >>>>> they're treated the same by partition managers. Verify
    >>>>> that you actually are booting the second partition. Use
    >>>>> diskmgmt.msc from the run box to view the partition info.
    >
    >>>> I know how to use Windows XP disk management.
    >>>> The programs do not exist in the other installation but
    >>>> the registry information exists. Apparently, somehow
    >>>> the Registry gets corrupted. I'm not suggesting that
    >>>> partition managers do the corrupting, apparently Windows
    >>>> changes the registry information in the other installation.
    >
    >>>> The problem is easy enough to reproduce, given the
    >>>> time. This last effort, among other things I did this:
    >
    >>>> ... everything below was done from my PartitionMagic 8
    >>>> boot CD, including switching from one partition to the other,
    >>>> making sure that one or the other partition was hidden
    >>>> and inactive before booting to the active partition
    >
    >>>> ... reinstalled Windows XP on a FAT32 partition
    >
    >>>> ... made a copy
    >
    >>>> ... install a program in the original Windows XP
    >
    >>>> ... switched to the copy, there was no registry
    >>>> information of the newly installed program
    >
    >>>> ... repeated that in the copy to see if program information
    >>>> would show up in the original, it didn't, all was fine
    >
    >>> So why did you originally see any registry bleed at all ?
    >
    > Why didnt you answer this ?
    >
    >>> I bet that if you erase the original partition, the copy wont boot.
    >>> Because the boot of the copy is using stuff in the original partition.
    >
    >> In the post you are replying to, that is more or less what I said.
    >
    > No it isnt. You say nothing about failing to boot.
    >
    >> But it's only using the registry information,
    >> definitely not accessing program files.
    >
    > And as was pointed out to you by da_test, the registry is
    > just files in partitions, nothing special about the registry there.
    >
    >>> And the boot.ini in the copy has wrong data in it.
    >
    >> Actually, Windows XP enters correct information.
    >
    > When you boot the copy, it corrects the contents of boot.ini ?
    >
    >> As I explained, Windows XP probably defaults to the wrong registry
    >> location for reading and writing if the BOOT.INI contents are deleted.
    >
    > Why are you deleting the contents of boot.ini at all if the boot.ini
    > contents are corrected automatically by XP when you boot the copy ?
    >
    >>> How are you specifying which partition to boot ?
    >
    >> The boot managers that come with PartitionMagic and Partition Manager.
    >
    >>>> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in
    >>>> the original and switched to the copy
    >
    >>>> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the copy
    >
    >>>> ... the registry information began to leak
    >
    >>>> Deleting the contents of BOOT.INI caused the malfunction.
    >>>> Maybe Windows XP depends on BOOT.INI information to
    >>>> somehow point to the registry files. I guess when BOOT.INI
    >>>> is empty, Windows XP uses a default location.
    >
    >>> I bet its not actually booting just the copy when you think you
    >>> are booting the copy and the proof is to erase the original.
    >>> Bet the copy wont boot anymore. With the copy boot.ini
    >>> unmolested.
    >
    >> It will if I choose the second copy in the Windows XP boot menu.
    >
    > Dont believe it. If you didnt get any registry bleed initially,
    > with the boot.ini file unmolested by you, why did you molest it ?
    >
    >>> The result you are getting with empty boot.ini files is likely just an
    >>> artifact.
    >
    >> Nope.
    >
    > You have no basis for saying that. Bet you will find
    > that the copy wont actually boot if you erase the
    > original partition, with the boot.ini file unmolested.
    >
    >
    >
    >
  41. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    > Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools Partition
    > Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.
    >
    > In Windows XP:
    >
    > ... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive Windows partition,
    > making the copy partition 2
    >
    > ... install some programs in partition 1
    >
    > ... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2
    >
    > ... registry information from partition 1 shows up in partition
    > 2, the newly installed programs from partition 1 show up in
    > partition 2's Add or Remove Programs and in MSconfig Startup
    > tab
    >
    > Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows XP puts
    > registry information somewhere on the disk that disk managers
    > cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred throughout
    > the drive? Could it have something to do with the system
    > folders labeled "System Volume Information"?
    >
    > I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools Partition Manager
    > 2005, I guess Ghost is next?
    >
    > Should I make the Windows partition backup copies to another
    > physical disk? Only one per disk?
    >
    > Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.

    This might help:
    http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/
    especially:
    http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/editbini.htm
    http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm
    "Note that if a partition no longer exists in the system, any drive letter
    previously assigned to that partition may be available for reallocation to
    new partitions. "No longer exists" means the partition tables no longer show
    any partition beginning at the same sector location. Remember that,
    commonly, hiding a partition doesn't make it invisible, but really just
    disguises it. That means that using a boot or partition manager to hide a
    partition won't necessarily result in Windows forgetting that partition had
    previously been assigned a drive letter, whether or not XP can access files
    on it."
  42. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns9650B7AB69534wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...

    > You are just a big ego, tough guy wanna-be, big mouth in cyberspace.

    Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
    your predicament better than that pathetic effort, child.
  43. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns9650B99A3A74wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158...

    > I carefully laid out the process,

    You didnt actually. You STILL havent explained why you got
    registry bleed initially WITHOUT deleting the contents of the
    boot.ini or why you were stupid enough to delete the contents
    of boot.ini and THEN see registry bleed and why it matters
    a damn what happens when the contents of boot.ini are deleted.

    > anyone who has a computer and some skill can verify my
    > conclusions. You've got lots of theories, if you can work the
    > keyboard for anything except posting to Usenet, go for it.

    You're the one with the problem, child.

    I've copied XP successfully many times.


    > Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
    >>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>>>> da_test <davexnet02NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
    >>>>>> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote
    >>
    >>>>>>> Besides some obvious and difficult bugs in 7tools
    >>>>>>> Partition Manager 2005, there is one which puzzles me.
    >>
    >>>>>>> In Windows XP:
    >>
    >>>>>>> ... make a hidden backup copy of the C drive
    >>>>>>> Windows partition, making the copy partition 2
    >>
    >>>>>>>... install some programs in partition 1
    >>
    >>>>>>>... hide partition 1 and switch to partition 2
    >>
    >>>>>>> ... registry information from partition 1 shows up
    >>>>>>> in partition 2, the newly installed programs from
    >>>>>>> partition 1 show up in partition 2's Add or Remove
    >>>>>>> Programs and in MSconfig Startup tab
    >>
    >>>>>>> Anybody know why that is happening? Apparently Windows
    >>>>>>> XP puts registry information somewhere on the disk that disk
    >>>>>>> managers cannot correctly copy? That information is sharred
    >>>>>>> throughout the drive? Could it have something to do with the
    >>>>>>> system folders labeled "System Volume Information"?
    >>
    >>>>>>> I was using PartitionMagic, now trying 7tools
    >>>>>>> Partition Manager 2005, I guess Ghost is next?
    >>
    >>>>>>> Should I make the Windows partition backup copies
    >>>>>>> to another physical disk? Only one per disk?
    >>
    >>>>>>> Copying Windows partitions used to be easy.
    >>
    >>>>>> It doesn't sound right. The registry is just a bunch of files,
    >>>>>> they're treated the same by partition managers. Verify
    >>>>>> that you actually are booting the second partition. Use
    >>>>>> diskmgmt.msc from the run box to view the partition info.
    >>
    >>>>> I know how to use Windows XP disk management.
    >>>>> The programs do not exist in the other installation but
    >>>>> the registry information exists. Apparently, somehow
    >>>>> the Registry gets corrupted. I'm not suggesting that
    >>>>> partition managers do the corrupting, apparently Windows
    >>>>> changes the registry information in the other installation.
    >>
    >>>>> The problem is easy enough to reproduce, given the
    >>>>> time. This last effort, among other things I did this:
    >>
    >>>>> ... everything below was done from my PartitionMagic 8
    >>>>> boot CD, including switching from one partition to the other,
    >>>>> making sure that one or the other partition was hidden
    >>>>> and inactive before booting to the active partition
    >>
    >>>>> ... reinstalled Windows XP on a FAT32 partition
    >>
    >>>>> ... made a copy
    >>
    >>>>> ... install a program in the original Windows XP
    >>
    >>>>> ... switched to the copy, there was no registry
    >>>>> information of the newly installed program
    >>
    >>>>> ... repeated that in the copy to see if program information
    >>>>> would show up in the original, it didn't, all was fine
    >>
    >>>> So why did you originally see any registry bleed at all ?
    >>
    >> Why didnt you answer this ?
    >>
    >>>> I bet that if you erase the original partition, the copy wont boot.
    >>>> Because the boot of the copy is using stuff in the original partition.
    >>
    >>> In the post you are replying to, that is more or less what I said.
    >>
    >> No it isnt. You say nothing about failing to boot.
    >>
    >>> But it's only using the registry information,
    >>> definitely not accessing program files.
    >>
    >> And as was pointed out to you by da_test, the registry is
    >> just files in partitions, nothing special about the registry there.
    >>
    >>>> And the boot.ini in the copy has wrong data in it.
    >>
    >>> Actually, Windows XP enters correct information.
    >>
    >> When you boot the copy, it corrects the contents of boot.ini ?
    >>
    >>> As I explained, Windows XP probably defaults to the wrong registry
    >>> location for reading and writing if the BOOT.INI contents are deleted.
    >>
    >> Why are you deleting the contents of boot.ini at all if the boot.ini
    >> contents are corrected automatically by XP when you boot the copy ?
    >>
    >>>> How are you specifying which partition to boot ?
    >>
    >>> The boot managers that come with PartitionMagic and Partition Manager.
    >>
    >>>>> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in
    >>>>> the original and switched to the copy
    >>
    >>>>> ... deleted the contents of BOOT.INI in the copy
    >>
    >>>>> ... the registry information began to leak
    >>
    >>>>> Deleting the contents of BOOT.INI caused the malfunction.
    >>>>> Maybe Windows XP depends on BOOT.INI information to
    >>>>> somehow point to the registry files. I guess when BOOT.INI
    >>>>> is empty, Windows XP uses a default location.
    >>
    >>>> I bet its not actually booting just the copy when you think you
    >>>> are booting the copy and the proof is to erase the original.
    >>>> Bet the copy wont boot anymore. With the copy boot.ini
    >>>> unmolested.
    >>
    >>> It will if I choose the second copy in the Windows XP boot menu.
    >>
    >> Dont believe it. If you didnt get any registry bleed initially,
    >> with the boot.ini file unmolested by you, why did you molest it ?
    >>
    >>>> The result you are getting with empty boot.ini files is likely just an
    >>>> artifact.
    >>
    >>> Nope.
    >>
    >> You have no basis for saying that. Bet you will find
    >> that the copy wont actually boot if you erase the
    >> original partition, with the boot.ini file unmolested.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
  44. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message

    >> You are just a big ego, tough guy wanna-be, big mouth in
    >> cyberspace.
    >
    > Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
    > your predicament better than that pathetic effort, child.

    What predicament is that, tough guy wanna-be?

    Are you talking about your inability to do anything with your
    computer except post to Usenet?
  45. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message

    >> I carefully laid out the process,
    >
    > You didnt actually. You STILL havent explained why you got
    > registry bleed initially WITHOUT deleting the contents of the
    > boot.ini

    I never said that. You could tell by my posts if you wanted to. Are
    you going to ask the same question a dozen times?

    > or why you were stupid enough to delete the contents
    > of boot.ini and THEN see registry bleed

    Well, tough guy wanna-be, I didn't want the Windows XP boot menu
    getting in the way of my boot managers.

    > and why it matters
    > a damn what happens when the contents of boot.ini are deleted.

    A few posts above, in reply to da_test, I proved that and expressed
    my theory about why it happens.

    Do you do anything with your computer besides post to Usenet? If you
    did, you could simply follow my instructions to disprove your
    contention.

    Do something instead of just talking.

    >> anyone who has a computer and some skill can verify my
    >> conclusions. You've got lots of theories, if you can work the
    >> keyboard for anything except posting to Usenet, go for it.
    >
    > You're the one with the problem, child.

    And yours is a fake solution repeated a dozen times, tough guy
    wanna-be.

    > I've copied XP successfully many times.

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

    "Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote:

    > This might help:
    > http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/
    > especially:
    > http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/editbini.htm
    > http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm
    > "Note that if a partition no longer exists in the system, any
    > drive letter previously assigned to that partition may be
    > available for reallocation to new partitions. "No longer exists"
    > means the partition tables no longer show any partition
    > beginning at the same sector location. Remember that, commonly,
    > hiding a partition doesn't make it invisible, but really just
    > disguises it. That means that using a boot or partition manager
    > to hide a partition won't necessarily result in Windows
    > forgetting that partition had previously been assigned a drive
    > letter, whether or not XP can access files on it."

    I was thinking that learning more about BOOT.INI probably is a
    good idea. Thanks for providing the links.

    Probably still need to also use a boot manager since the Windows
    boot menu does not hide the other partitions. The combination might
    be the only known way to keep bootable (non-conflicting) Windows XP
    partitions on the same disk. It's inconvenient, but it's no big
    deal.

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

    > > This might help:
    > > http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/
    > > especially:
    > > http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/editbini.htm
    > > http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm
    > > "Note that if a partition no longer exists in the system, any
    > > drive letter previously assigned to that partition may be
    > > available for reallocation to new partitions. "No longer exists"
    > > means the partition tables no longer show any partition
    > > beginning at the same sector location. Remember that, commonly,
    > > hiding a partition doesn't make it invisible, but really just
    > > disguises it. That means that using a boot or partition manager
    > > to hide a partition won't necessarily result in Windows
    > > forgetting that partition had previously been assigned a drive
    > > letter, whether or not XP can access files on it."
    >
    > I was thinking that learning more about BOOT.INI probably is a
    > good idea. Thanks for providing the links.
    >
    > Probably still need to also use a boot manager since the Windows
    > boot menu does not hide the other partitions. The combination might
    > be the only known way to keep bootable (non-conflicting) Windows XP
    > partitions on the same disk. It's inconvenient, but it's no big
    > deal.

    Yes, you need a "better" boot manager:

    "The most rudimentary boot loaders--such as linux LILO and the NT loader
    (ntldr) used by Windows 2000 and XP--have little or no control over the
    partition tables to hide any partitions. They rely on the principle that if
    differing OS's cannot understand partitions in foreign file formats, then
    the partitions are as good as hidden anyway. This doesn't help, though, if
    you install duplicate or multiple OS's that can read each other's file
    formats. Better boot managers can hide/unhide primary partitions depending
    on which you want visible. The most versatile can also selectively hide
    logical volumes in the extended primary partition.
    If the only OS's you've installed can't understand each other's file
    formats, or if they can and you don't care about it, then the rudimentary
    boot loaders should be fine. If you only have a couple OS's and can put them
    in primary partitions, then mid-level boot managers (like BootMagic,
    included with PartitionMagic) will allow you to hide them from each other.
    Since we've put some OS's in logical partitions that must be hidden when
    certain other OS's are booted, we need a good boot manager that is also
    capable of hiding logical partitions. BootIt-NG and XOSL fall into this
    latter category."

    If you plan cloning XP partitions, editing BOOT.INI is a must,
    unless you use a sophisticated boot manager as Bootit-ng.

    Then you have to deal with disk signatures too (Bootit-ng helps
    there also):

    "The other issue is that NT-family OS's "remember" drive letters by
    recording the signatures of the corresponding partitions in the XP registry.
    When you clone partition-1 to partition-2, the registry goes with it. But
    then when partition-2 tries to boot it will remember that the partition
    signature corresponding to partition-1 is where 'C:' was, and it may assign
    partition-2 a different drive letter. That's bad. The solution is to make XP
    forget the remembered drive letter assignments. The registry tweak to clear
    the partition signatures will do that. Make the registry edit on partition-1
    before cloning it to partition-2, then XP won't remember any previous drive
    letters and will build the registry partition signatures anew the first time
    it boots."
  48. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

    "John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    news:Xns96509BB4FFDA9wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158..."However, using NTFS
    "However, using NTFS as the only file system on a computer that
    contains both Windows XP and Windows NT is not recommended. On these
    computers, a FAT partition containing the Windows NT 4.0 operating
    system ensures that when started with Windows NT 4.0, the computer
    will have access to needed files."

    Is for an entirely different issue.

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

    "Joep" <available@request.nl> wrote:
    this is > "John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Xns96509BB4FFDA9wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158..."However, using NTFS
    > "However, using NTFS as the only file system on a computer that
    > contains both Windows XP and Windows NT is not recommended. On these
    > computers, a FAT partition containing the Windows NT 4.0 operating
    > system ensures that when started with Windows NT 4.0, the computer
    > will have access to needed files."
    >
    > Is for an entirely different issue.

    It's for the same issue.


    >
    > --
    > Joep
    >
    >
    >
    > Path: newssvr19.news.prodigy.com!newscon03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news.glorb.com!feeder.xsnews.nl!feeder.news-service.com!post.news-service.com!nf1.news-service.com!not-for-mail
    > From: "Joep" <available request.nl>
    > Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
    > References: <Xns964E3D5475535wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <Xns964E4F1A8D1B1wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e1phrFoshqU1@individual.net> <Xns964F5C773BA6Fwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e4lf5F16og5U1@individual.net> <Xns96505C2A591C0wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e6vcpF1hn0fU2@individual.net> <Xns96509054411ADwisdomfolly@207.115.63.158> <3e79i0F1ipvhU1@individual.net> <Xns96509BB4FFDA9wisdomfolly@207.115.63.158>
    > Subject: Re: 7tools Partition Manager 2005 problem
    > Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 23:05:04 +0200
    > X-Priority: 3
    > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
    > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
    > Message-ID: <36246$427fd1c2$3eddca68$23331 nf1.news-service.com>
    > X-Complaints-To: abuse@news-service.com
    > Organization: News-Service.com
    > Lines: 14
    > NNTP-Posting-Host: 62-221-202-104.dsl.uwadslprovider.nl (62.221.202.104)
    > NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 23:10:26 +0200
    > X-Trace: 36246427fd1c29b786fcd23331
    > Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:349958
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Partition Windows XP Storage