Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Shared/moved Font Folder

Last response: in Windows 2000/NT
Share
August 20, 2004 4:12:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system,microsoft.public.win2000.registry (More info?)

Good morning,

I'm running two instances of W3k on different drives (same maghine).

I have buttload of fonts----yes, let's not go there. If I combined them
all it would be over 100 meg. Now I have to shuffle them around.

Since it is possible to share the pagegile, I was wondering if I could
share the "Font" folder.

In fact, I would perfer to locate it *outside* the OS' partition and be
shared by both systems. I did a quick search of the registry and I have
over 375 references to "font" (the folder). Only a handful include the
full path to WINNT.

I don't doubt that I can change the pathe for the main references to
"WINNT/FONTS"...but that wouldn't solve the problem of all the other
applications that "go there"...would it?

Further, I would prefer to have it located in a different partition and
be accessable to both os's.

I seem to remember that Adobe Type Manager served a similar purpose for
cataloging Type One fonts---I prefer something more intense.

I would think that there must be a solution used where multiple users
share a common font folder in the graphics/print industry?

/My goal is to do the same with two OS's with the folder outside the
"system".

Thanks,

Michael
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 8:57:56 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system,microsoft.public.win2000.registry (More info?)

Take a look at

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Shell
Folders

Relocate Fonts folder and restart machine.

If this does not work, you might want to get the fonts folder deleted and
replace it with a junction (hard link) to a neutral folder. Do the same with
the other installation as well.

--
Andrei "Ndi" Dobrin
Brainbench MVP
www.Brainbench.com
August 24, 2004 12:58:03 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system,microsoft.public.win2000.registry (More info?)

On 8/22/2004 8:57 PM, Ndi wrote:
> Take a look at
>
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Shell
> Folders
>
> Relocate Fonts folder and restart machine.
>
> If this does not work, you might want to get the fonts folder deleted and
> replace it with a junction (hard link) to a neutral folder. Do the same with
> the other installation as well.
>
> --
> Andrei "Ndi" Dobrin
> Brainbench MVP
> www.Brainbench.com
Thanks--

But...

Will "current_user" apply the "move" to all logons (users)?

And, if I delete the font folder before I reboot and it doesn't
work---well, I will be without fonts and unable to repair the damage..

If I don't delete the folder, how will I know if it worked---that is,
how will I know it's acessing the new rather than the repathed folder.

Finally, do/will all apps be directed to the fonts at the new location.

One more...can I do the same to move "My Documents"...(with the same
caveats).

Thanks

Michael
Related resources
August 24, 2004 9:26:30 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system,microsoft.public.win2000.registry (More info?)

On 8/23/2004 3:58 PM, Michael wrote:
> On 8/22/2004 8:57 PM, Ndi wrote:
>
>> Take a look at
>>
>> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Shell
>>
>> Folders
>>
>> Relocate Fonts folder and restart machine.
>>
>> If this does not work, you might want to get the fonts folder
>> deleted and
>> replace it with a junction (hard link) to a neutral folder. Do the
>> same with
>> the other installation as well.
>>
>> --
>> Andrei "Ndi" Dobrin
>> Brainbench MVP
>> www.Brainbench.com
>
> Thanks--
>
> But...
>
> Will "current_user" apply the "move" to all logons (users)?
>
> And, if I delete the font folder before I reboot and it doesn't
> work---well, I will be without fonts and unable to repair the damage..
>
> If I don't delete the folder, how will I know if it worked---that is,
> how will I know it's acessing the new rather than the repathed folder.
>
> Finally, do/will all apps be directed to the fonts at the new location.
>
> One more...can I do the same to move "My Documents"...(with the same
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I meant "Documents and Settings"!




> caveats).
>
> Thanks
>
> Michael
August 26, 2004 4:58:20 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system,microsoft.public.win2000.registry (More info?)

On 8/24/2004 12:26 PM, Michael wrote:
> On 8/23/2004 3:58 PM, Michael wrote:
>
>> On 8/22/2004 8:57 PM, Ndi wrote:
>>
>>> Take a look at
>>>
>>> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Shell
>>>
>>> Folders
>>>
>>> Relocate Fonts folder and restart machine.
>>>
>>> If this does not work, you might want to get the fonts folder
>>> deleted and
>>> replace it with a junction (hard link) to a neutral folder. Do the
>>> same with
>>> the other installation as well.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrei "Ndi" Dobrin
>>> Brainbench MVP
>>> www.Brainbench.com
>>
>>
>> Thanks--
>>
>> But...
>>
>> Will "current_user" apply the "move" to all logons (users)?
>>
>> And, if I delete the font folder before I reboot and it doesn't
>> work---well, I will be without fonts and unable to repair the damage..
>>
>> If I don't delete the folder, how will I know if it worked---that is,
>> how will I know it's acessing the new rather than the repathed folder.
>>
>> Finally, do/will all apps be directed to the fonts at the new location.
>>
>> One more...can I do the same to move "My Documents"...(with the same
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I meant "Documents and Settings"!
>
>
>
>
>> caveats).
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Michael
Anonymous
August 27, 2004 7:32:34 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system,microsoft.public.win2000.registry (More info?)

Didn't see your question and synced the folder.

No, it will only move for current user. Try the similar key in
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE. If there is a "fonts" there, new users will get the new
font folder. If such a value does not exists, you needd to change it for
each subkey in HKEY_USERS.

My machine doesn't have one, so I guess you don't either (you might though
:) . But I do have a


HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Shell
Folders

And this will get you the same folder for newly created users. Note that
existing users still have to be migrated.

Make a .reg file that does this (actual registry file):

REGEDIT4

[HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Shel
l Folders]
"Fonts"="G:\\NT\\Fonts"

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Shell
Folders]
"Fonts"="G:\\NT\\Fonts"

Replace your G:\NT\Fonts with your font folder (remember to escape
backslashes). Merge them in both OSs (assuming the path is the same and
drives aren't bound to different letters in each OS. Now you and all new
users get the correct font folder.

If you ever reinstall, the first time you login as Admin, merge the file
before creating any new accounts.

--
Andrei "Ndi" Dobrin
Brainbench MVP
www.Brainbench.com
August 27, 2004 5:13:18 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system,microsoft.public.win2000.registry (More info?)

<snipped details>

Thanks...but keep reading...

So, what about relocating Documents and Settings? No, I obiously
wouldn't wish to point both os's to the same folder...However, can I
relocate "each" systems' D 'n' C folder(s) out of the "system" partition?

A side quention not for "registry", (for for file_system?) but what is
shell cache and dll cache?

My one system has a over 80 meg in the shell cache...the other is nearly
empty. Both have nearly identical features and are up to date with Sp4.

Finally---(I doubt the registy folks will care about the following, sorry)

I have two drives---currently W2k is in the primary/basic partition of
each drive. (the second drive is in a caddy). All basic...FAT32.

Anyway, I have a spare six gig drive. I put it in the caddy (where hd1
usually resides) and re-formatted it so that it has a 20 meg primary
partition and three (roughly) 2 gig logical partitions.

I formatted the first partition as FAT because I intended to load DOS in
there. I also planned to (of course) put the ntldr,boot.ini and
ntdetect there).

Well, I used drive copy and cloned my current drive hd0 to the 6gig
drive in the caddy. (However, I forgot to move the W2k boot files into
the FAT partition.)

Before I exited Drive Copy, if asked if I wanted to "hide" the
partition...I said yes. Can I still go back, put it back in the caddy
and move the w2k files there? I really don't want to screw up my
current partition table at boot when it "sees" a goofy (duplicte) drive
in the caddy!

So, first is my basic plan viable? Can I install DOS in the FAT primary
along with the W2k files and be able to boot directly to DOS?.

Or am I screwed since the rest of W2k is no longer going to be in a
partition called "c:/?" That is, when I swap the old hd0 out and
replace it the new configuration---well, "only" the boot files for w2k
(And DOS) will be in c:\.

By creating that small FAT/boot partition, drive letters in hd0 (the
"clone) are bumped up a notch. I'm sure I could still boot to the W2k
which is in hd2-- which could be my savior...but once there will I be
able to remedy what exists in hd0?

All in all, I really not get the boot/mbr/partition table thingee...I'm
at a 98se now. It's all FAT32 and runs Dos? If it has a Fat
partion---I haven't found it! MSDOS, IO.sys...well, and all the DOS
files are in a single FAT partition. Clue me in to why I needed to
create a FAT partition for DOS as I've described above?

Um, thanks!
Anonymous
August 29, 2004 8:55:27 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system,microsoft.public.win2000.registry (More info?)

> So, what about relocating Documents and Settings? No, I obiously
> wouldn't wish to point both os's to the same folder...However, can I
> relocate "each" systems' D 'n' C folder(s) out of the "system" partition?

You might not want to, for performance resons. But if you are not in a
hurry, I'll reply :) 

I could think of a way, but chaces are (quite great, too) that you will
screw up the system not only beyond repair, but beyond recovery, too. Since
the folder is managed entirely by NT, reinstallation might not that the
settings under account correctly and nuke your folders. Also, you might not
be able to start your computer.

As a result, I urge you to *NOT* do this:

Quote from MS:
"NOTE: The following section provides information about a configuration that
Microsoft does not support. We provide this information for informational
purposes only; Microsoft makes no guarantee that this configuration
functions properly.

WARNING: Microsoft strongly recommends against renaming any system folder.
Catastrophic system failure or an unstable computer could result if you
rename system folders. If implemented, a backup should be made of the system
before attempting this procedure"

If you still feel suicidal (hehe), there is a way. Step-by-step info is
available from here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=http://s...:
80/support/kb/articles/Q236/6/21.ASP&NoWebContent=1
(KB 236621).

> A side quention not for "registry", (for for file_system?) but what is
> shell cache and dll cache?

Shell cache (shell icon cache, actually, if that's what you mean) is a
file in which the shell stores all the icons it extracted during the
session. Just like a normal cache, except that it's not kept in memory. The
thing is, when you pop a menu or browse the same folder over and over again,
speed is of the essence. Once cannot wait 3 seconds for a refresh to take
place, so last icons get cached. Also, for slow links and such, caching
icons is a good idea since extracting an icon requires reading and
interpreting the file for all files that have embedded icons and reading
icons from ass associated programs for associated documents.

You can imagine how long it would take to display a 10.000 logs folder.
What happens is the icon for .log gets cached and all others get the first
icon.

You can safely delete this file, as Windows will rebuild it (note it's
hidden so deleting might envolve special actions. The cache will get rebuilt
as you browse (expect slowdowns).

DLL cache is a storage for Windows SFC (you might want to document online,
lots to say and this is a dial-up link :) . In short, SFC is a service that,
upon installation, service pack update, hotfixes, etc goes on and copies the
critical system files to this folder (drivers, system DLLs, etc). It
maintains a list of dates, sizes, positions, etc of these files and tracks
them. In the event that some get replaced (like installing an old W95
program that happily updates you dlls to 4.01, because they were the latest
at that point, without checking for version first), SFC nukes the bad copy
and replaces it with the original.

An event is logged (most of the times :) , that the file "lalal.dll" was
replaced by a bad, vicious, man-eating version (4.01). As a result, the file
was replaced with the original to maintain system stability (6.0).

The amount of space allocated to the service can be configured, but I
recommend against it. SFC does a nice job, imagine having to reinstall every
time you install an older or ill behaved version. Bleah.

> My one system has a over 80 meg in the shell cache...the other is nearly
> empty. Both have nearly identical features and are up to date with Sp4.

Depends on configuration, installed software, blah blah. It'll grow with
time, but aside from disk space, it does not affect system stability. Just
leave it be.

> By creating that small FAT/boot partition, drive letters in hd0 (the
> "clone) are bumped up a notch.

Windows 2000 "tags" each drive and partition upon installation, generating
an unique ID depending on drive, system time, etc. If you replace the drive
with another one and boot, the drive letters will not be "notched" onwards.
This only happens on W9x (Wintendo). However, playing with bootable drives
is not a good idea.

Also, "hiding" and "active" is only effective for W9x and DOS, and, of
course, booting up. The NT5 disk manager can see and mount any partition,
even hidden.

> Clue me in to why I needed to
> create a FAT partition for DOS as I've described above?

An itch. :) 

If you want to multiboot, the best idea is to boot to DOS 7+ (DOS mode of
W95/98). Unless you have a problem with that (I can't find such a reason,
but whatever). Advantages are that DOS 7 has FAT32 support.

Complex booting solutions, like 3-OS boot need to be thought up at the
very beginning. If you feel such an itch, create a 1-gig FAT partition at
the beginning of disk 1 and another 1 or 2 primary partitions, for the rest
of the OSs.

The partition's target is to hold boot loader for the best OS and, maybe,
a small DOS or Windows 9x. W98 installs and boots in about 300Mb, and 500
should be enough. This is to remain the boot partition. Install 24 on
primary partition 2 and XP on 3 if you want, but leave partition 1 as
bootable, FAT16.

If you didn't do this at beginning, it's more complicated, as W2k is not
as bare and stripped as W9x which doesn't even "boot", it just executes from
DOS. NT has partition signatures, path storage, etc. Also keeps SID, UID and
thus cannot be imaged and copied against another system unless (rather
complex) software prepares system registry while the system hasn't booted
yet.

My best bet would be to back it all up, re-partition, re-install and
restore. This will get you a robust multi-boot system.

Another bet is to use HDD0 for NT and HDD1 for DOS/9x. You can switch in
BIOS setup. Or install an advanced boot loader.

But this is meant to be expert domain. You are supposed to understand in
detail how MBR works, how partition tables are stored, how different OSs
store data and boot limitations. Partition and drive juggling without
through understanding of the inner workings will render your computer unable
to boot.

--
Andrei "Ndi" Dobrin
Brainbench MVP
www.Brainbench.com
August 30, 2004 4:59:40 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system,microsoft.public.win2000.registry (More info?)

<Snipped notes on (not) moving system files. I miss-wrote, my DLL cache
is 80 meg.

>>By creating that small FAT/boot partition, drive letters in hd0 (the
>>"clone) are bumped up a notch.
>
>
> Windows 2000 "tags" each drive and partition upon installation,
generating
> an unique ID depending on drive, system time, etc. If you replace the
drive
> with another one and boot, the drive letters will not be "notched"
onwards.
> This only happens on W9x (Wintendo). However, playing with bootable
drives
> is not a good idea.
>
> Also, "hiding" and "active" is only effective for W9x and DOS, and, of
> course, booting up. The NT5 disk manager can see and mount any partition,
> even hidden.

Yeah, I figured the "only" partition/volume which would cause trouble
would be moving the boot/system partition

>>Clue me in to why I needed to
>>create a FAT partition for DOS as I've described above?
>
>
> An itch. :) 
>
> If you want to multiboot, the best idea is to boot to DOS 7+ (DOS
mode of
> W95/98). Unless you have a problem with that (I can't find such a reason,
> but whatever). Advantages are that DOS 7 has FAT32 support.

I'm a bid confused---I don't need a FAT 16 partition for Dos 7? (Of
course, it appears so as I look at this laptop (win98se) ---again, all
Fat32 with/DOS

If you mean booting from a floppy---I do---I have to. Again, I use so
many various DOS utilities, it would be nice to have them on the system
rather than juggling a bunch of floppies. (One floppy hold enough for
boot/cdrom/network support only----then I have to go to other floppies
for various tasks)

> Complex booting solutions, like 3-OS boot need to be thought up at the
> very beginning. If you feel such an itch, create a 1-gig FAT partition at
> the beginning of disk 1 and another 1 or 2 primary partitions, for
the rest
> of the OSs.

A gig sound awfully large. In this new drive I formatted 20 meg (FAT)
which could hold five times the DOS stuff I have...

> The partition's target is to hold boot loader for the best OS and,
maybe,
> a small DOS or Windows 9x. W98 installs and boots in about 300Mb, and 500
> should be enough. This is to remain the boot partition. Install 24 on
> primary partition 2 and XP on 3 if you want, but leave partition 1 as
> bootable, FAT16.

Well, that was the basic plan, albeit with a much smaller FAT16. Then
you threw me off by suggesting DOS 7 is fine with a FAT32 partition.
(Meaning I don't have to do nuttin?) I simply sys DOS 7 in the same
partition w/w2k?) Again---some repair work will need to be done since
w2k "must" be the last system loaded?!)

> If you didn't do this at beginning, it's more complicated, as W2k
is not
> as bare and stripped as W9x which doesn't even "boot", it just
executes from
> DOS. NT has partition signatures, path storage, etc. Also keeps SID,
UID and
> thus cannot be imaged and copied against another system unless (rather
> complex) software prepares system registry while the system hasn't booted
> yet.

No, the w2k's have resided in their primary partitions for some time.
This was an afterthought.

> My best bet would be to back it all up, re-partition, re-install and
> restore. This will get you a robust multi-boot system.

I figured on a re-install. However, I've had a couple of major
problems---figured I'd need a re-install and when I got "near" that
point W2k asked if I wanted ("it") to try and repair the particular
install---while it took just as long as a complete install----all my
settings were there.

> Another bet is to use HDD0 for NT and HDD1 for DOS/9x. You can
switch in
> BIOS setup. Or install an advanced boot loader.

Well, as far as part one? Since hd1 is in a drive caddy----if I want to
mess with the BIOS before boot, I can pretty much do what I want with
it. However, I'm not sure I'll retain full access to both drives.

I have done much research on at least 6-10 boot loaders and tried a
couple. All have at least a couple of drawbacks. One really screwed up
my partition table...I would prefer a robust version of boot.ini---but
obviously a multi-OS boot manager has to monkey around with the disk
more than an MS only solution.

> But this is meant to be expert domain. You are supposed to
understand in
> detail how MBR works, how partition tables are stored, how different OSs
> store data and boot limitations. Partition and drive juggling without
> through understanding of the inner workings will render your computer
unable
> to boot.

I think I have a good grip on MBR and partition tables.

I think I'll see what happens with putting DOS 7 and w2k boot file in
that 20meg FAT 16 partition---of course my hope is that (since it will
move w2k up a drive letter) the w2k install disk will be able to
"repair" W2k (that would reside in D:\ instead of C:\).

Again, I have found w2k quite forgiving---the "standard" repair is
limited, but if one has the time, the setup disk can fix about anything
and keep what you started out with. In fact, it does everything
possible to stop one from re-installing!

Thanks a bunch
Michael

> --
> Andrei "Ndi" Dobrin
> Brainbench MVP
> www.Brainbench.com
>
>
Anonymous
August 31, 2004 9:54:37 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system,microsoft.public.win2000.registry (More info?)

> I'm a bid confused---I don't need a FAT 16 partition for Dos 7? (Of
> course, it appears so as I look at this laptop (win98se) ---again, all
> Fat32 with/DOS

There might be a confusing factor on my side, I ate too much. But aside
from that, I remember DOS 7 (W95) can "see" FAT32. You might need OSR2 or
smth. But you will go for 98 SE anyway, right?

> If you mean booting from a floppy---I do---I have to. Again, I use so
> many various DOS utilities, it would be nice to have them on the system
> rather than juggling a bunch of floppies. (One floppy hold enough for
> boot/cdrom/network support only----then I have to go to other floppies
> for various tasks)

Right. How about NT boot loader lettting you select OS from partition 1
(FAT 2G). Select Windows 98 (from C:) , but not before holding down CTRL.
This will bring up the W98 boot menu (or better yet, go for a config.sys
menu). Select command prompt only and voila, you're in DOS mode.

If you still love the floppy, go for a boot floppy that mounts the CD in D
or something. Just do a boot floppy and nuke the config.sys to something
like:

dos=high
device=himem.sys
device=oakcdrom.sys /d:mscd001 << this is in your Windows installation

and then put mscdex.exe in your autoexec (I think it brings trouble if in
config.sys). Once there, you have your tools CD that will be in a pure dos
environment. The short-named, LOCK needing DOS. Why 100 floppies?

> A gig sound awfully large. In this new drive I formatted 20 meg (FAT)
> which could hold five times the DOS stuff I have...

You would need to store NT loader files, Windows 98 and some space in
order to operate W98 and (I would if I were you) some NT recovery data. Like
registry backups. Yes, on a different partition. FAT. Anybody can repair
FAT, even Norton Utilities 8. Beware of long names though.

Besides, why not have W98 at hand when you multiboot anyway? It's
definately better than the DOS CLI in times of need. Plus games :) 

> (Meaning I don't have to do nuttin?) I simply sys DOS 7 in the same
> partition w/w2k?) Again---some repair work will need to be done since
> w2k "must" be the last system loaded?!)

Nooooooooooooooo! :) 
Emm, actually, yes, sorta. The fact is that SYS a: c: will get you a DOS7,
a small W98 boot but IIRC it will nuke the NT Loader. Then you'll need to
repair W2000 (insert cd, repair). But I also remember there was a 9x version
that could handle NT loader and insert itself into the boot.ini, but I can't
remember which. Was it W98SE?

Best bet would be to go for 9x in the first partition and then
install/repair other W2k/XP/NT4 installations. (You only need to repair one
and restore boot.ini). Perhaps this will be a goos point to start from
scratch and have backups at hand for future use. For a W2k lifespan of over
2 years, a start-from-scratch is a nice waypoint.

> No, the w2k's have resided in their primary partitions for some time.
> This was an afterthought.

I meant you cant just copy D:\WINNT to E:\winnt and then switch drives,
assuming that D and E will switch and noone will notice. 'Cause they will
not. This only works with 9x. Also, inserting a drive should not bump the
drives forward.

> I have done much research on at least 6-10 boot loaders and tried a
> couple. All have at least a couple of drawbacks. One really screwed up
> my partition table...I would prefer a robust version of boot.ini---but
> obviously a multi-OS boot manager has to monkey around with the disk
> more than an MS only solution.

NT boot loader is quite robust. I let MS handle everything. With a listtle
help it can boot Linux, too. Which adds up to just about all significant OSs
:p 

> I think I'll see what happens with putting DOS 7 and w2k boot file in
> that 20meg FAT 16 partition---of course my hope is that (since it will
> move w2k up a drive letter) the w2k install disk will be able to
> "repair" W2k (that would reside in D:\ instead of C:\).

Again, drives do not shift but in a reinstall. Ok, the drives SHOULD not
shift except for a reinstall. Mine don't.

Upgrading/repairing always kept the drives in place. Full install,
howerver, re-letter the drives.

> Again, I have found w2k quite forgiving---the "standard" repair is
> limited, but if one has the time, the setup disk can fix about anything
> and keep what you started out with. In fact, it does everything
> possible to stop one from re-installing!

Advanced tools are available, like user migration settings, full system
backup and such that will allow more than the system files to be migrated.
If you back up current user software settings and classes, retain Program
files and backup/restore contents of Docs and Sett\Administrator (need to
push and pop data, otherwise you end up with Administrator.000 or
Administrator.computername and that is as annoying as having 4 minute
uptime), you should be able to restore most of the settings through a fresh
install and have over 90% of your old programs working.

--
Andrei "Ndi" Dobrin
Brainbench MVP
www.Brainbench.com
September 2, 2004 9:54:17 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system,microsoft.public.win2000.registry (More info?)

It just dawned on me! I already had msdos.sys, command.com and io.sy
int the C:\ BEFORE I repaired/reinstalled (as I had moved w2k out of C:\
to create the fat16 partition) In fact, I believe the --->
c:\=bootsect.dos was added to boot.ini *by* w2k during the repair/reinstall.

So, why isn't it booting to dos? I have Msdos pointing to E:\ where I've
installed the a "windows" folder from my 98se command folder.

When I boot --- nothing happens. No error, it goes to a black screen
with the curser stuck at the top of the screen. I believe I don't need
to repair w2k's boot---I suspect something is wrong with my msdos.sys or
the pathing?

Also, I need some advice on my problem at the end of my note---Why are
applications ending up with "stuff" in c:\ even though I've move w2k out
and repaired it. Again, Im leaning to a registy entry that is pointing
installs to C:\

Thanks

Michael


On 9/2/2004 8:07 AM, Michael wrote:
> On 9/1/2004 3:53 PM, Ndi wrote:
> >>Same, Same with W3k from repair console---FIXMBR and FIXBOOT---I
always
> >>have to confirm which does which.
> >
> >
> > Oh yeah. Heh, never needed them (knock on wood)
>
> Yeah, then I found out that FIXMBR is a variant of fdisk....and the
> warning it gives is "generic"---a default as it is. I'm not certain it
> can do any harm at all?
>
> >>Another oddity. When W2k did the repair it placed bootsect.dos in
> >>C:\..Where it came from and why? Ya got me! PLUS! I know have
> >>arcsetup.exe and arcldr.exe---I have never seen them installed
before?!
> >
> >
> > I think (though not sure) that is the previous boot sector,
should you
> > want to revert. How about you view the file with a hex editor and
> decide?
>
> Well, I clearly never had "that" boot sector in my sysem, let alone the
> file. Plus, PM didn't put it there. But it is...I checked it out. It
> even has the fat12 sig. (I am certain I "requested" fat16 from
> Partition Magic.) With a 200 meg partition there is *no* reason for PM
> to override my request.
>
> > Mine identifies as EB 3C 90 4D 53 57 49 4E 34 2E 31 (E<PMSWIN4.1).
> As in
> > W98.
>
> I'm on my lapper now, I did look at the code -- the bootsect.dos is
> fat12 as it the MBR. Again, bootsect.dos is a *file* and not
> "installed" in the first sector--well, I guess both are true.
>
> > the arc* are part of the NT boot loader at setup. I think they are
> there
> > in case you wanted an install instead of a repair. I don't have them
> (any
> > more). They don't seem to have a clear explanation, except that for a
> freq
> > error when reinstalling after carnage on security. Being the first
files
> > copied, setup fails caliming that could not copy.
> >
> >
> >>I recall some versions of linux have a prob with FAT16 and I intend to
> >>load Mandrake on the old drive for some education.
>
> You saw that I misswrote above^^^^--I meant Fat12...
>
> > That would make me laugh for a few months. An OS that can't handle
> FAT12.
> > What, needs a new kernel module for mounting a floppy?
> >
> > There were issues about the 2G boundary and the 8G limitation, as I
> > recall, FAT16 related, but that's hardly an OS bug or limitation,
but a
> > hardware architecture issue. Since you plan on booting from the FAT
> > partition, this should not affect you in any way.
> >
> > Oh well. Have phun.
>
> One curious problem. By moving w2k from C:\ to the next partition
> (which it skipped and left intact, so it is not in a new E:\...) Well,
> it seems like the rest of the world "still" thinks w2k is in the root.
> That is, anything new that is "associated" with the program installs in
> the root!
>
> So, it there a registry key that was left unchanged duuring repair? I
> really can't afford to house much---again, the small primary was only
> created to house DOS and the w2k boot files *only*! I had to re-install
> Diskeeper yesterday and there it was, in C:\...Some programs don't allow
> one to direct the install to a particular folder...sigh.
>
> Again, I would like to think that I could find out why/where program
> installations are being directed to the old location of w2k. I am
> certain it is a registry issue. Hello group?
>
> This cannot be normal as Microsoft recommends my solution (a small
> root/boot/primary partition that is not fat32 or NTFS and housing w2k
> elswhere. So I doubt if applications should reflexively run to that
> partition. It must have something to do with some fingerprint left by
> W2k when it resided in c:\?
>
> ---->Thus, the likely suspect it the registry--making it fixable.
>
> Finally, I will probably "start" over--to some degree. That is, I will
> remove the few files from C:\--somehow force it to be fat!!16!!--I don't
> trust PM---it didn't do it the first time and am not crazy about fdisk.
>
> So, while I suppose it could at that point sys the partition with
Dos7...?
>
> Or should I wait and and do whatever repairs are necessary after the
> refomat and THEN install DOS--and do another repair. Any risk in doing
> both steps before the repair?
>
> I do not believe the repair (for either) will be as intense as the first
> time since I "relocated" w2k in addition to the reformat/resize.
>
> All I've read suggests that after "installing" DOS---one only needs to
> repair the boot sector (as DOS will have wiped out Ntldr--->thus not
> being able to find bot.ini (which I will also edit). I only hope I need
> to do "that" once (why not?) as the "one" boot process serves the w2k on
> hd1 as well.
>
> Jeeze, I'm almost tempted to "paste" an MBR in there myself---and be
> certain it the version I desire! Odd, PM can handle something like nine
> steps to resize a primary partiton--then fail to deliver the type
> requested! I will be so glad to have DOS in there and be able to
> perform low level functions without floppies. I went through about two
> dozen floppies with bad sectors---only a few years old.
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Andrei "Ndi" Dobrin
> > Brainbench MVP
> > www.Brainbench.com
> >
> >
!