Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dual Boot Partitions

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
Anonymous
February 24, 2005 7:59:50 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

I have been following the thread called "Dual Boot" from Feb 19, 2005 and
have read the various Microsoft articles mentioned there.

I also plan to dual boot Me and XP and have never done this before. My
question is about the types and sizes of DOS partitions. Please tell me how
to configure the partitions so that Me, rather than XP, is the default
operating system.

I need to divide 120GB up into parts. Currently, Me is installed and
configured. The OS and installed apps are the only thing on this drive. All
data files and personal files are on a separate hard drive because they are
irreplaceable. Each program needs to be installed twice, once on each OS.
Programs that won't work on Me and only on XP will just be installed on XP,
of course.

Shared files for both operating systems will include the zips and exe setup
files for drivers, programs, email store folders, and minimal backups.

What is the best way to divide up the 120GB? I want to leave enough room for
large installations for each OS, such as Office, Paint Shop Pro, Photoshop
Elements, PhotoImpact, Acrobat, etc. These larger apps are not yet installed
on Me. So far 13GB out of 120 (or rather 114) is used.

Is 40GB enough for each OS? Remember, this is operating system and installed
apps only. All irreplaceable data is also stored elsewhere on a separate
hard drive, an some will be in the shared files area.

WinMe is a Primary DOS Partition, but I'm not sure whether XP would be a
Primary DOS Partition or an Extended DOS Partition. The shared files would
be an Extended DOS Partition.

Here is my first option. Is this enough space for each OS? If I could get
away with 30GB per OS and give more space to the shared files, I'd rather do
that. I am sure that 20GB would not be large enough.

WinMe - Primary (40GB) FAT32
WinXP - Primary or Extended? (40GB) FAT32
Shared Files - Extended (40GB) FAT32

All partitions must be FAT32 for compatibility with existing Win9x
peer-to-peer network.

More about : dual boot partitions

Anonymous
February 25, 2005 12:39:08 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

40 gig is plenty big for each OS, 25 gig would be more than enough. I
have Windows 2000 on a 25 gig drive with all kinds of stuff installed
and I barely use 10 gigs.

You realize you're going to have to use a third party partitioning tool
to resize/repartition the drive, unless you want to destroy your current
ME installation by using fdisk.

All partitions don't need to be FAT 32 for peer network, a W/9x machine
can access and read NTFS files on a network. The files only need to be
FAT 32 on the local machine if you want them available while booted with
ME. In fact it may be preferable to have XP on NTFS, that way they will
be hidden from ME, less chances to do damages while working with ME and
the drive letter arrangement will make more sense in ME.

The default operating system will be set in the Boot.ini file, that's no
big deal. But I don't think using the XP boot loader is the best
choice. Primarily because you are going to end up with XP installed on
drive D at that will aggravate you to kingdom come. Better to make both
partition active with the partitioning utility then try to hide the ME
partition and fool XP into installing on drive C also (which in fact
will be D but XP will see it as C), then unhide the ME partition and use
a third party boot manager to load the operating systems. That way both
OS will be installed on a C drive of their own.

John

ForestSpirit wrote:

> I have been following the thread called "Dual Boot" from Feb 19, 2005 and
> have read the various Microsoft articles mentioned there.
>
> I also plan to dual boot Me and XP and have never done this before. My
> question is about the types and sizes of DOS partitions. Please tell me how
> to configure the partitions so that Me, rather than XP, is the default
> operating system.
>
> I need to divide 120GB up into parts. Currently, Me is installed and
> configured. The OS and installed apps are the only thing on this drive. All
> data files and personal files are on a separate hard drive because they are
> irreplaceable. Each program needs to be installed twice, once on each OS.
> Programs that won't work on Me and only on XP will just be installed on XP,
> of course.
>
> Shared files for both operating systems will include the zips and exe setup
> files for drivers, programs, email store folders, and minimal backups.
>
> What is the best way to divide up the 120GB? I want to leave enough room for
> large installations for each OS, such as Office, Paint Shop Pro, Photoshop
> Elements, PhotoImpact, Acrobat, etc. These larger apps are not yet installed
> on Me. So far 13GB out of 120 (or rather 114) is used.
>
> Is 40GB enough for each OS? Remember, this is operating system and installed
> apps only. All irreplaceable data is also stored elsewhere on a separate
> hard drive, an some will be in the shared files area.
>
> WinMe is a Primary DOS Partition, but I'm not sure whether XP would be a
> Primary DOS Partition or an Extended DOS Partition. The shared files would
> be an Extended DOS Partition.
>
> Here is my first option. Is this enough space for each OS? If I could get
> away with 30GB per OS and give more space to the shared files, I'd rather do
> that. I am sure that 20GB would not be large enough.
>
> WinMe - Primary (40GB) FAT32
> WinXP - Primary or Extended? (40GB) FAT32
> Shared Files - Extended (40GB) FAT32
>
> All partitions must be FAT32 for compatibility with existing Win9x
> peer-to-peer network.
>
>
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 12:39:09 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

What is the Xp boot loader?

I'm using Partition Magic, which comes with Boot Magic.

If XP is installed as NTFS, will the XP setup program be able to format the
partition as NTFS? I have never used WinXP and don't know much about it
other than reading these newsgroups and MS articles and our bad experience
when we tried installing and configuring it previously. Trying to get all
the info before doing anything.

Is there any 3rd party utility that can let Win95-Me "see" the NTFS
partition and be able to share files with it in Windows? NTFSDOS is
DOS-based and provides read-only access. Is there a Windows-based utility
that can provide both read-write access?

The other concern is the network. The network will be screwed up with NTFS,
and maybe also with FAT32. It may cause the other Win9x computers not to see
any computers on the network or the network not to be available for the
other computers to each other. That happened when my boyfriend tried to
install XP Home as FAT32. The entire network froze and was not accessible by
any computer unless I disconnected his PC from the network. Now that may be
because we didn't have user-level access (user names and passwords for all
computers) set up in XP. I don't know. The 95-Me network is the main reason
why I have not upgraded to XP. We don't know how to make the network work in
XP the way it works now in 95-Me.I'm afraid that when booted in XP, the
entire network will freeze or not be available and that the network will
only be available when I'm booted in Me. If I can get the network available
when booted in XP, I'd like to be able to share files on the shared files
partition and the Me partition, as well as the second hard drive, but I
don't know if that's possible.

Should XP not work out for me, then how will I *successfully* delete that
NTFS partition? FDISK will not delete it properly. Would Delpart do it?


"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:o 5IyPrtGFHA.2384@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
40 gig is plenty big for each OS, 25 gig would be more than enough. I
have Windows 2000 on a 25 gig drive with all kinds of stuff installed
and I barely use 10 gigs.

You realize you're going to have to use a third party partitioning tool
to resize/repartition the drive, unless you want to destroy your current
ME installation by using fdisk.

All partitions don't need to be FAT 32 for peer network, a W/9x machine
can access and read NTFS files on a network. The files only need to be
FAT 32 on the local machine if you want them available while booted with
ME. In fact it may be preferable to have XP on NTFS, that way they will
be hidden from ME, less chances to do damages while working with ME and
the drive letter arrangement will make more sense in ME.

The default operating system will be set in the Boot.ini file, that's no
big deal. But I don't think using the XP boot loader is the best
choice. Primarily because you are going to end up with XP installed on
drive D at that will aggravate you to kingdom come. Better to make both
partition active with the partitioning utility then try to hide the ME
partition and fool XP into installing on drive C also (which in fact
will be D but XP will see it as C), then unhide the ME partition and use
a third party boot manager to load the operating systems. That way both
OS will be installed on a C drive of their own.

John

ForestSpirit wrote:

> I have been following the thread called "Dual Boot" from Feb 19, 2005 and
> have read the various Microsoft articles mentioned there.
>
> I also plan to dual boot Me and XP and have never done this before. My
> question is about the types and sizes of DOS partitions. Please tell me
how
> to configure the partitions so that Me, rather than XP, is the default
> operating system.
>
> I need to divide 120GB up into parts. Currently, Me is installed and
> configured. The OS and installed apps are the only thing on this drive.
All
> data files and personal files are on a separate hard drive because they
are
> irreplaceable. Each program needs to be installed twice, once on each OS.
> Programs that won't work on Me and only on XP will just be installed on
XP,
> of course.
>
> Shared files for both operating systems will include the zips and exe
setup
> files for drivers, programs, email store folders, and minimal backups.
>
> What is the best way to divide up the 120GB? I want to leave enough room
for
> large installations for each OS, such as Office, Paint Shop Pro, Photoshop
> Elements, PhotoImpact, Acrobat, etc. These larger apps are not yet
installed
> on Me. So far 13GB out of 120 (or rather 114) is used.
>
> Is 40GB enough for each OS? Remember, this is operating system and
installed
> apps only. All irreplaceable data is also stored elsewhere on a separate
> hard drive, an some will be in the shared files area.
>
> WinMe is a Primary DOS Partition, but I'm not sure whether XP would be a
> Primary DOS Partition or an Extended DOS Partition. The shared files would
> be an Extended DOS Partition.
>
> Here is my first option. Is this enough space for each OS? If I could get
> away with 30GB per OS and give more space to the shared files, I'd rather
do
> that. I am sure that 20GB would not be large enough.
>
> WinMe - Primary (40GB) FAT32
> WinXP - Primary or Extended? (40GB) FAT32
> Shared Files - Extended (40GB) FAT32
>
> All partitions must be FAT32 for compatibility with existing Win9x
> peer-to-peer network.
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 5:30:19 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

In-line reply.

ForestSpirit wrote:

> What is the Xp boot loader?

It's what loads the Operating System. Specifically on NT systems it's
Ntldr, it reads the OS options from the Boot.ini file.
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/Window...

> I'm using Partition Magic, which comes with Boot Magic.

That's a good alternative, use it instead of Ntldr.

> If XP is installed as NTFS, will the XP setup program be able to format the
> partition as NTFS?

Yes.

> Is there any 3rd party utility that can let Win95-Me "see" the NTFS
> partition

Yes and no. Sysinternals has an NTFS reader but you still can't write
to NTFS.

...and be able to share files with it in Windows?

The file system is not an issue when sharing files over a network.

NTFSDOS is DOS-based and provides read-only access. Is there a
Windows-based utility
> that can provide both read-write access?

If you're talking about the Sysinternals product, as I said earlier it's
a read-only tool. It's NTFS for Windows 98. See:
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/ntfswin98.sh... Winternals
may have a different version of the product but I'm unaware of it.
Sysinternals has some of the best tools available but even this NTFS
reader has limitations and issues, read the information page.

> The other concern is the network. The network will be screwed up with NTFS,
> and maybe also with FAT32. It may cause the other Win9x computers not to see
> any computers on the network or the network not to be available for the
> other computers to each other.

NTFS will do ABSOLUTELY NONE of that. Files accessed over a network is
a different matter than files accessed on a local hard drive. I assure
you it means zip, nada, bug all to network file access, no more than it
means to copying an NTFS file to a FAT12 diskette.

That happened when my boyfriend tried to
> install XP Home as FAT32. The entire network froze and was not accessible by
> any computer unless I disconnected his PC from the network. Now that may be
> because we didn't have user-level access (user names and passwords for all
> computers) set up in XP.

Yes, user authentication could have had something with the problem, but
my guess is that it was a Master Browser issue. XP muscled in and the
W/9x machines lost the Browser Election process and got lost because
they then didn't have proper authentication for the XP machine... my
guess. The w/9x machines should have had their Master Browser
designation changed in the registry. My other guess is that it could
have been a firewall issue. Once again, I assure you that FAT32 or NTFS
had nothing to do with the network problem.

I don't know. The 95-Me network is the main reason
> why I have not upgraded to XP. We don't know how to make the network work in
> XP the way it works now in 95-Me.I'm afraid that when booted in XP, the
> entire network will freeze or not be available and that the network will
> only be available when I'm booted in Me. If I can get the network available
> when booted in XP, I'd like to be able to share files on the shared files
> partition and the Me partition, as well as the second hard drive, but I
> don't know if that's possible.

The network will work if properly configured. That's another subject
entirely and for another post. There are Networking newsgroups staffed
with extremely knowledgeable Network MVP's who can help you with these
configuration issues. To them these are simple things to fix.

> Should XP not work out for me, then how will I *successfully* delete that
> NTFS partition? FDISK will not delete it properly. Would Delpart do it?

You can use delpart, Partition Magic, or the XP setup CD.

John
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 5:47:50 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Questions about cloning with multiple partitions.

If I successfully set up a dual-boot system with multiple partitions, I will
no longer be able to use Ghost 2003 to clone and restore my operating system
should it become corrupt for any reason. Ghost cannot clone from a partition
on one hard drive to another hard drive, nor can it restore the same way. Is
there a cloning program that can do that? The DOS-based Ghost options allow
disk to disk (drive to drive) or partition to partition, but the partitions
have to be on the same hard drive. Ghost is technically for identical hard
drives of the same size and type. Mine are not. They are 10GB, 40GB, 60GB
and 120GB. With only one partition, it is no problem cloning to a smaller
hard drive if there is enough disk space for the data. With multiple
partitions, though, I feel it will be a problem cloning to a smaller hard
drive. It'll have a problem with partition sizes before it even gets to the
data!
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 2:26:00 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Have a look at BING, this is a boot manager, partition manager and drive
imaging application all rolled up in one. www.bootitng.com Having now
used BING for some time I would never dream of returning to using either
Ghost or Partition/Boot Magic again.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


ForestSpirit <seamaid24-graphics@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Questions about cloning with multiple partitions.
>
> If I successfully set up a dual-boot system with multiple partitions,
> I will no longer be able to use Ghost 2003 to clone and restore my
> operating system should it become corrupt for any reason. Ghost
> cannot clone from a partition on one hard drive to another hard
> drive, nor can it restore the same way. Is there a cloning program
> that can do that? The DOS-based Ghost options allow disk to disk
> (drive to drive) or partition to partition, but the partitions have
> to be on the same hard drive. Ghost is technically for identical hard
> drives of the same size and type. Mine are not. They are 10GB, 40GB,
> 60GB and 120GB. With only one partition, it is no problem cloning to
> a smaller hard drive if there is enough disk space for the data. With
> multiple partitions, though, I feel it will be a problem cloning to a
> smaller hard drive. It'll have a problem with partition sizes before
> it even gets to the data!
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 11:47:56 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

That sounds like the death-knell of the last Symantec app in the Maltby
household, then, Mike!!
Glad you finally jumped.


--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:uGY6HzyGFHA.2412@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Have a look at BING, this is a boot manager, partition manager and drive
> imaging application all rolled up in one. www.bootitng.com Having now
> used BING for some time I would never dream of returning to using either
> Ghost or Partition/Boot Magic again.
> --
> Mike Maltby MS-MVP
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>
>
> ForestSpirit <seamaid24-graphics@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Questions about cloning with multiple partitions.
>>
>> If I successfully set up a dual-boot system with multiple partitions,
>> I will no longer be able to use Ghost 2003 to clone and restore my
>> operating system should it become corrupt for any reason. Ghost
>> cannot clone from a partition on one hard drive to another hard
>> drive, nor can it restore the same way. Is there a cloning program
>> that can do that? The DOS-based Ghost options allow disk to disk
>> (drive to drive) or partition to partition, but the partitions have
>> to be on the same hard drive. Ghost is technically for identical hard
>> drives of the same size and type. Mine are not. They are 10GB, 40GB,
>> 60GB and 120GB. With only one partition, it is no problem cloning to
>> a smaller hard drive if there is enough disk space for the data. With
>> multiple partitions, though, I feel it will be a problem cloning to a
>> smaller hard drive. It'll have a problem with partition sizes before
>> it even gets to the data!
>
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:13:24 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

ROFL
Joan

Noel Paton wrote:
> That sounds like the death-knell of the last Symantec app in the Maltby
> household, then, Mike!!
> Glad you finally jumped.
>
>
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:15:46 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Finally jumped? I've been using BING for over two years. Do you mean
Ghost? I still use Ghost on a Win Me box here but that is a copy of the
original Ghost from Binary Research before it got bought out by Symantec.
That same box also has a copy of Partition Magic installed but then again
that was from PowerQuest before it was also taken over by Symantec. I
haven't had a Symantec badged product here for many years. Correction,
I've never had a Symantec product installed on any machine here since at
least '95.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


Noel Paton <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> That sounds like the death-knell of the last Symantec app in the
> Maltby household, then, Mike!!
> Glad you finally jumped.
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:30:28 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Joan Archer <joanarcher@gmail.com> wrote:

> ROFL

It might be funny if I were previously using a Symantec product but since
I was not and don't think I ever have, or at least for ten years, other
than when testing ....
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 3:08:25 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Ah - I was under the impression that your copy of Ghost was more recent than
that!



--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:uOLAs83GFHA.588@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Finally jumped? I've been using BING for over two years. Do you mean
> Ghost? I still use Ghost on a Win Me box here but that is a copy of the
> original Ghost from Binary Research before it got bought out by Symantec.
> That same box also has a copy of Partition Magic installed but then again
> that was from PowerQuest before it was also taken over by Symantec. I
> haven't had a Symantec badged product here for many years. Correction,
> I've never had a Symantec product installed on any machine here since at
> least '95.
> --
> Mike Maltby MS-MVP
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>
>
> Noel Paton <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> That sounds like the death-knell of the last Symantec app in the
>> Maltby household, then, Mike!!
>> Glad you finally jumped.
>
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 3:44:55 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Noel Paton <NoelDPspamless@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> Ah - I was under the impression that your copy of Ghost was more
> recent than that!

Nope. The copy I use on that PC dates back to the late 90s and could well
be an early Symantec copy - difficult to tell as all I now have is a boot
floppy that includes ghost.exe - although I definitely have a copy from
Binary Research here somewhere. Nevertheless both are pretty useless
nowadays as they can only be used with FAT formatted partitions or the
NTFS used by NT4 - not even W2K.
--
Mike
!