"Jim" <null@null.com> wrote:
> JMTC, FWIW,
>
> Dual/multi-booting should involve more than partitioning. You really
> need a good boot manager too. Simply focusing on the partitioning
> only addresses the physical layout of your partitions, it does NOTHING
> to manage the boot process itself. That management can include
> hiding partitions, for example, and IMO, is a critical component if you
> don't want to end up w/ a mess. Let me explain.
>
> If you don't use a boot manager, and simply use partitioning software
> to resize and add partitions, you still have to contend w/ boot manage-
> ment (or more precisely, the lack of it). Most naive users default to
> using the Windows boot loader, which is NOT a boot manager. All
> Windows does is install boot files and a config file called boot.ini in
> the C: partition. In your case, this would be your existing W2K partition.
> If you now choose to install XP, Windows will install it as D: (or whatever
> drive letter is available) on your newly created partition. Your boot.ini
> file on C: will be updated to reflect that change. So the sequence is
> as follows: the Windows boot loader gets control at boot-up, locates
> the boot.ini file on C:,


Not exactly correct. The BIOS looks at the list of HDs in its HD
boot order and selects the HD at the head of that list and passes
control to that HD's Master Boot Record (MBR). Then MBR looks
at the partition table on the HD and gives control to the Boot Sector
on the partition that is marked "active". The Boot Sector passes
control to ntldr which, in turn, consults the boot.ini file for its list of
options which detail the location(s) of partition(s) that have bootable
OSes and displays them on the screen for the user to select from.
Then ntldr boots the OS in that partition (which may a primary
partition or a logical partition). It's not until after the OS is loaded
and started up that the concept of which partition is "C:" emerges.



> and then presents a menu of OS choices, and based on the selection,
> finds the appropriate partition to boot. Sounds simple enough. If you boot
> W2K, you'll see W2K as C:, and a data partition of D: (where XP resides).
> Likewise, if you boot XP, you'll still see C: (W2K), but only as a data
> partition, and of course, XP will be D:.
>
> Personally, I find this objectionable. I don't want one OS exposed to the
> other, if only to avoid inadvertent corruption of the other partition. But
> at the very least, I want the *choice* to see or not see the other
> partition(s). Using the Windows boot loader, you have no choice, you
> ALWAYS see partitions that the OS recognizes (for example, Win98
> would be an exception if your other OS partition, was say, NTFS, in that
> case, Win98 doesn't recognize NTFS, so it's not exposed). But in all
> other cases, you ALWAYS do. And while I understand there may be
> occasions that warrant such exposure (e.g., you can't boot one of the
> OS's and wish to repair it, such as its boot.ini file), 99% of the time this
> is NOT a good idea, or even necessary. The OS and your DATA
> (Word/Excel documents, pictures, audio clips, etc.) should NEVER be
> stored in the same partition anyway! Never clog/burden your OS w/
> DATA files. Instead, keep DATA files on a separate partition, and
> preferrable a format compatible to all those OS installations that wish/
> need access to them (including My Documents). By doing this, you
> can optimize your OS and DATA partitions differently, according to
> their much different characteristics. For example, I maintain my OS
> installations on a RAID0 (stripped) array for performance, but maintain
> my DATA files on a RAID1 (mirrored) array for data integrity purposes.
> This significantly reduces the size of the OS installation, allowing more
> room for other OS installations, faster OS backups/restores from image
> copies (and because it's smaller and faster, I backup more often!), and
> even completely different formats (the OS is typically NTFS for
> performance, the DATA is FAT32 for compatibility).
>
> The reason I'm making such a big deal about this is that people deal with
> the issue of dual/multi-booting much too narrowly. To do it right requires
> looking at the big picture, how your data is organized, how you you will
> manage the boot process, what your future expansion needs are, etc.
> Consider your own assessment, it all came down to partitioning. Well,
> that's like wanting to be a major league baseball player, and only focusing
> on hitting. It takes a lot more, like defense, running, rules of the game,
> etc. You'll never do well or do it successfully only focusing one a narrow
> aspect of the game.
>
> Anyway, back to the Windows boot loader. So let's assume you continue
> to use the Windows boot loader, as initially described in your post. Sounds
> acceptable, but there's a catch. You've just created multiple dependencies!
> First, your boot files are located on C:, and within the W2K partition.
> Suppose someday you wish to delete, move, or otherwise dispose of that
> partition. You can't because it's still supporting the booting of XP on D:.
> The second dependency is the fact that XP is based on D:. So now you
> have an additional problem if you choose to move the XP partition (some
> OS's, e.g., Win98, will determine drive letter assignment based on hardware
> location). This limits your ability to move the XP partition. Plus,
> suppose you want to clone that XP (D partition, perhaps to experiment w/
> installation of new software, establish a gaming version, whatever. Because
> you can't have two or more D: partitions, you can't just copy-n-paste the
> existing XP partition to establish another bootable version of XP. Why?
> Because you don't have a boot manager, which if you did, could HIDE all
> extraneous partitions! When I use my boot manager, and have cloned XP
> upteen times, I have NO problems because each is installed as C:, has its
> own boot files and boot.ini, and 100% completely independent from EVERY
> other OS on the system. And it's all possible because my boot manager let's
> me pick and choose which, if any, other partitions I want to make visible
> when a given OS is booted.


The core problem is the lack of an easy way to hide the other partitions
when an OS is being installed so that the OS will refer to itself as "C:".
Partition Magic can do that, although I'm not sure PM can be booted from
CD. I've used it to hide partitions by running it as an installed utility in
clones on other partitions in the system. It works, but the process is a
bit tedious. For the average person, who runs only one partition on a
HD, the easiest way to multi-boot is to merely put each OS on a different
HD and use the BIOS's HD boot order to select which HD contains the
ntldr loader and therefore (in the vanilla case) where to get the OS from.



> Yeah, it may sound a little confusing at first, there are a lot of tedious,
> arcane issues involving dual/multi-booting, but the biggest error I see
> made in these forums regarding recommendations is not getting people
> on a GOOD boot manager! If you insist on using the Windows default
> boot loader, you create a multitude of dependencies that will come back
> to bite you later (if not immediately, depending on your current situation).
>The Windows boot loader is NOT a boot manager, it's nothing more than
> a small bootstrap program that picks among various bootable partitions.
> Beyond that, it's nothing. Just take a look throughout these forums for the
> never ending cases of people trying to recover from the mess that the
> Windows boot loader creates. There are a LOT of very well done and
> useful FAQ's referenced in this forum wrt boot management issues, and
> MANY of the problems addressed in those FAQ wouldn't be a problem in
> the first place if people used a real boot manager. Microsoft simply takes
> the quick-n-dirty approach to dual/multi-booting w/ its default solution, then
> leaves you to contend with the mess it creates later down the road.
>
> I've been dual/multi-booting for a VERY long time, using MS-DOS, Win 3.0,
> Win 3.11, Win95/98, NT, W2K, XP, etc. I've seen all the quirks and run
> through my shares of successes and failures. And plenty of boot managers
> (Boot Magic, System Commander, XOSL, etc.), seen 'em all, some good,
> some bad, and almost always some serious limitations. I currently use
> BootIt NG, which is the best $35 you'll ever spend. It will make your
> dual/multi-booting life soooooooooooooooooooo much easier. Once you
> learn it, and realize what it can do, you'll never go back to anything else.
> And it even has its own partition manager and imaging solution, essentially
> an all-in-one solution. I've used it for the past 6-7 years with great success
> (and haven't had to pay for a single upgrade in all that time either).
>
> That's my recommendation. I don't claim to be an expert is much else wrt to
> computing, probably on-par with most everyone else in these forums. But
> this is one subject I know inside-out, been managing dual/multi-booting
> issues on Windows for more years than I care to acknowledge. Trust me,
> even if you go with another solution, even the free XOSL, do yourself a favor,
> GET A BOOT MANAGER! Ignore the recommendation that rely on the
> Windows boot loader.
>
> Jim


For 99% of multi-booting needs (including my own, which includes
selecting from 6 to 10 clones in the system), the Windows XP boot
manager is sufficient. I doubt that Microsoft would provide much
more than that since it would just encourage people to retain old
OSes and/or to experiment with Linux/Unix/Solaris and/or to run
multiple WinXPs instead of buying additional licenses. IOW, it's
in Microsoft's best interest to keep its boot manager limited and
inflexible - which it does.

*TimDaniels*




> <timber1299@dodgeit.com> wrote:
>> I want to put 2 operating systems (OS's) on one hard drive, sometimes
>> booting to 1 OS, sometimes booting to the other. I know you can do
>> this by partitioning the hard drive, but partitioning is something I
>> did not understand a week ago. I have obtained Partition Magic 8.0 &
>> have been combing through the User's Manual, the Help files, & googling
>> the subject in newsgroups. I have learned a lot, but have a lot of
>> blanks I need to fill in to make sure I do this correctly, so I would
>> appreciate any & all help you can provide!
>>
>> I currently have Windows 2000 Pro on my hard drive. I have yet to
>> obtain the restore disk for 2000, so I need this partitioning to be
>> done & not wipe out 2000. I also want to install XP. Following are
>> the things I have learned & related questions.
>>
>> In Partition Magic (PM), they use a bar-graph type of graphic to
>> illustrate the partitions on the drive. On my drive, the far left area
>> of the bar is the 2000 OS. The OS is in the only partition currently
>> on the drive. Of that partition, about 4.5GB are used out of the 19GB
>> on that partition. This partition is using a FAT32 file system. At
>> the far right end of the bar is 7.8 MB of unallocated space.
>>
>> I think what I want to do is reduce the existing partition (with 2000
>> on it) to about 7.5 GB, right? I believe that partition will sit at
>> the far left of the bar graph. Then do I make a second primary
>> partition that starts at the 7.5GB where the Win2K partition stops and
>> take that second partition up to 15 GB (7.5GB for the second partition)
>> that will hold XP?
>>
>> While searching through newsgroup posts on this subject, someone said
>> to create 2 more partitions (in addition to the 2 primary partitions
>> for the OS's), one for files created in Win2K & one for files created
>> in WinXP. This sounds good, but I have some questions.
>>
>> 1) The Win2K file system will be FAT32. I'd like to be able to read
>> all files from either OS. That means I would have to use FAT32 for all
>> partitions. Is there any drawback to NOT using the NTFS file system
>> for the XP files? And is it OK to use FAT32 for the primary partition
>> that XP will be installed on?
>>
>> 2) I have also read that I should install my applications under each
>> OS. In other words, if I want to use MS Office from either OS, I need
>> to install it under Win2K & XP. If I do this, and set things up like
>> I've described up to this point, will an update of, say, an Excel file
>> update all versions of that file? I'm rather confused about this, but
>> the bottom line is that, if possible, I want to be able to work on a
>> file from either OS & not have a newer & older version of the same
>> files at different places on the hard drive.
>>
>> 3) Regarding making partitions for files (one partition for each OS's
>> created files): should I make one extended partition & then divide
>> that up into logical partitions or should I do make 2 extended
>> partitions, and then use logical partitions inside those extended
>> partitions? Or are there other options?
>>
>> I have more questions, but I'm going to stop here for now, since
>> information I glean from these questions would likely change or answer
>> my additional questions.
>>
>> I know I'm asking a lot here, so I want to thank in advance anyone who
>> can contribute help. If there are any questions or clarifications I
>> need to make, please post them & I will respond quickly. Thank you!
>>
>
>