Make a duplicate partition also bootable

You can't just copy the partition. You can clone it, or just install a second copy of windows.

Yes you can, by choosing the "Copy Partition" (!) tool, in Partition Master.
I just looked, and there is another option I haven't c: tried yet: when I right click on the copied partition, I can set it to Primary. If I do that, will it not just replace the boot sector from C: to H:?

Well, I meant you can copy it, but it won't run if they are two partitions on the same drive or if they are on different drives, but are both installed. The boot loader will only point to one OS to start up. You would need to alter the boot loader in order for it to see both copies of windows and prompt you for which to boot into.

Oh Ok I see what you mean. Indeed, for now it just duplicated my C: to the H: . Do you know of I way I could change the boot loader?

Thanks!

Well, I can't tell you that part becuase it's in violation of Tom's Hardware forums. I orignally assumed you were just trying to replace the original drive, but at this point it's appearent that you aren't and I believe this goes against Microsoft's licensing agreement which in turn makes it in violation of Tom's Hardware forums. I'm sure if you google hard enough, you will find a solution.

Oh, I'm surprised to hear that. Or maybe I didnt make myself clear: I just want to copy or clone my C: to my H: (both partitions are on the same physical drive), so that I can use the H: as a "safety boot" partition, or in case C: crashes. Is that really not allowed?

What you are describing (having a prompt to which OS to boot) is dual booting, which I do belive requires a seperate license from microsoft.

On the other hand, if you wait until your C drive/partition craps out, then you modify the boot loader to point to the other partition (H), then that would be acceptable and I'd be able to point you in the right direction at that time.

If I'm wrong on the microsoft licensing, then someone please let me know and we'll continue on.

Are you sure it's against "the rules"; after all, he would be keeping the windows on the same computer.

if the point of point of dual-booting is simply to insure against a harddrive failure then why not go with raid 1 instead?
there's no question of licensing, no hassle of selecting which installation to load, and the mirrored drive maintains 1:1 copy in real-time.

I'm fuzzy on this, but I'll error on the side of caution.



^+1
to raid 1!!! Although the OP will need a 2nd hard drive instead of a seperate partition on the same drive.

RAID 1 is a viable option if you are worried only about drive failure. You cannot have 2 identical working partitions with the same OS running the same license key at the same time. It simply doesn't work that way due to licensing restrictions.
However RAID 1 will only protect you from a drive failure, it is not a backup in way shape or form. If you delete a file, it's gone off both drives, you get a virus, it is on both drives, everything mirrors exactly, all the bad things that can happen as well as the beneficial things. Keep that in mind.

XP, used to be able to partition out the drive, but with updates at a lose of them, as with 7 im not sure, you'd probably have to have a Premium Edition to create and reduce Partitions. But of it though, i think you'd have to boot from bois on the idea.

Bois has a boot order option. If the hard drive is in partition, you might be able to load from a partition from the drive. Otherwise its drive. Right? If the Partition is a DRive, then a Boot Order would be able to be applied?

Some agreements i think on some interests, maintain some levels of conflict within copying. If you copied of the OS, probably why, you probably would need to do just a drive and say "make" shift os to say, which is where alot of interest is with many things i would say given maybe some ideas. But dont worry.

The same issues that are within that issue is there too. Even when you arent "copying". To say.

Otherwise you'd have to have accesss to the systems also on your computer and be able to find the infomation as it would be stated in what would be the Help and Support feature and option of a selection in which you would probably access for any information on the idea.

Which withiin that of many updates and program installs have found themselves to be far less placed within the idea of such, but of it can be found to be able to go to say which sites it was or is , in which it was that you found your partition help/user for your interest.

So, i dont know. Would have to chewck your Os and see if that you need any inclining additional say properties of help for the idea, let alone additionally and reductively.

I don't know what version of windows we are talking about here, but you can check your license here:

http://www.microsoft.com/About/Legal/EN/US/IntellectualProperty/UseTerms/Default.aspx

I quickly read the license for windows 7 premium OEM. I am not sure, but they talk about it beïng ok to have a copy. It wouldn't be ok to install it on multiple virtual machines on the same computer. But what you are talking about aren't virtual machines. I think what's important is you wouldn't be using the copies of the software at the same time.

Nevertheless, if you really want to know you'll have to read it yourself for your particular license.

I looked at your link, and it does say only one copy per computer.
(Version = Windows 7 Ultimate)
It also states:
"You may use the software on up to two processors on the licensed computer at one time."
Not sure if that is the case here.

well, I guess it's ok to explain how to dual boot then...

it used to be something about the mbr (master boot record), but it's not the same for all windows versions. To be honest I forgot the details; maybe someone wants to step in here ?

I would say on ideas of dual boot, is not very placed within many interests given you can basically been seen or read as two computers when you are still using run or if even using two on sack of argument.

Others in the gain of being able to have more OS running to say in some system configs would be of the use and say benefit of that. Due to profile setups probably for software.

Cause having to uninstall and reinstall the os to run some software and or maintain features is very speculative.

But again on ideas of running multi-versions of the samething and different versions sometimes as well.

So details is hard placed to say. Cause the user agreements or license agreements contain "clauses" for more then one interest you may be interest of or on at anytime. So of the clauses are superficial to others. But still not voided clauses.

Cause most hard drives have to do "VMs" to say for dual boots. which i dont think is very liked on many parts. Cause of the design of the software. If im not mistaken at least. This is from what've come to "hear" before trying to make any use of it.

Cause if you are going to do dual-boot might as well have two drives. Right?

But of partitioning at times you are left with "virtual" or complete seperate platter install. Right? If you have multi-platter.

So, im some senses of sense to at times to actually clone the drive isnt an option. But usually anything bigger then 60-80gs i would say have at least two platters. but may be more of even 250 any more. Even for the size even then at times would rely heavy on VM within access of access within the same system install. Not saying it wouldnt work sometimes, just probably not better off and the software probably isnt so inclined to run in the settings.

Give or take, or none at all, or all. Who knows.

Theres more, but on my part falls more into copyright, trademarks, patents, and the like after awhile. Think anyways on more, actually should be just cant think of it right now.

The more processors i dont know. Thast saying that well, even though the software doesnt need more processors you can use more processors for it.

What that would do for just one operating system who knows. For programs you could run more at one time. Or just more programs. So would say more OSs as well.

But with OSs would only be one version to say at a time, yes? Or only one version?

Depends.
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?