[Dave-H]

Ascii2, on Sep 19 2008, 06:28 PM, said:

Ninho, on Sep 17 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

James_A, on Sep 13 2008, 06:49 PM, said:

... because the Windows 2000 version of NTLDR needs two additional files:
arcldr.exe and arcsetup.exe.

Hmmm... those 2 are used for SCSI disks I believe. Definately not used for booting from IDE !

--
Ninho

arcsetup.exe and arcldr.exe do appear to be required. I would attach the archive with all ntldr, NTDETECT.COM, arcsetup.exe, and arcldr.exe; but MSFN.org forums seems to limit attachment size to 200K (attachment would be like 303 KB).

I think arcsetup.exe and arcldr.exe have something to do with ARC paths.

For SCSI, Ntbootdd.sys is used. By default, Ntbootdd.sys is not installed when not necessary.

Curiouser and curiouser!
Both my C:/D: drive and my E: drive are SCSI drives.
Not only does arcsetup.exe and arcldr.exe only exist on my system in the ServicePackFiles folder, Ntbootdd.sys does not appear to be present on my system at all!

So what does that mean?

I have looked at PartitionMagic BTW, and it looks very good.
Unfortunately it's not free!
I'll have another look at the Ranish program, and at GParted too.
Thanks all.

[Ascii2]

Dave-H, on Sep 19 2008, 05:36 PM, said:

Ascii2, on Sep 19 2008, 06:28 PM, said:

Ninho, on Sep 17 2008, 01:28 PM, said:

James_A, on Sep 13 2008, 06:49 PM, said:

... because the Windows 2000 version of NTLDR needs two additional files:
arcldr.exe and arcsetup.exe.

Hmmm... those 2 are used for SCSI disks I believe. Definately not used for booting from IDE !

--
Ninho

arcsetup.exe and arcldr.exe do appear to be required. I would attach the archive with all ntldr, NTDETECT.COM, arcsetup.exe, and arcldr.exe; but MSFN.org forums seems to limit attachment size to 200K (attachment would be like 303 KB).

I think arcsetup.exe and arcldr.exe have something to do with ARC paths.

For SCSI, Ntbootdd.sys is used. By default, Ntbootdd.sys is not installed when not necessary.

Curiouser and curiouser!
Both my C:/D: drive and my E: drive are SCSI drives.
Not only does arcsetup.exe and arcldr.exe only exist on my system in the ServicePackFiles folder, Ntbootdd.sys does not appear to be present on my system at all!

So what does that mean?

A typo existed in my previous post "For SCSI, Ntbootdd.sys is used." should have been "For SCSI, Ntbootdd.sys is often used.". Using Ntbootdd.sys is normal for SCSI disks. However, it may be optional if the system BIOS is capable of loading the system files from the SCSI disk. If you are using server boards with onboard SCSI controllers (with support in BIOS) or simply have the BIOS support for handling of additional SCSI contollers, the Multi method (usual for IDE drives) may be used to load the operating system. Examining your signiture, I speculate this to be the case.
Posting the contents of your "boot.ini" file may be helpful.

Posting the contents of your "boot.ini" file should be helpful to determine the answer.

EDIT: I think it should also be mentioned that the Ntbootdd.sys file is not same file for all SCSI controllers.

This post has been edited by Ascii2: 19 September 2008 - 05:53 PM

[Dave-H]

Ah right, that explains why I dont have the Ntbootdd.sys file.
My motherboard is a server board (Supermicro X5DAE if anyone's interested!)
It has no on-board SCSI controllers, but uses an Adaptec PCI card which is actually a legacy from my previous system.

I posted my boot.ini file contents earlier in the thread.

This post has been edited by Dave-H: 20 September 2008 - 05:52 AM

[Dave-H]

OK, I finally "bit the bullet" and tried changing my disk partitions.
I used the Ranish partition editor, which I was very impressed with, thanks Ninho!

Well, after lots of agonising and head scratching, I'm now back as I was before!
It soon came back to me exactly why I had the drives partitioned as they were.
I converted the D: partition to a primary partition with no problem.
Unfortunately, when I rebooted I discovered that it was no longer drive D:!
It had become drive F:, and the old E: had become D:, and the old F: had become E:.

This is no good, because although I can redefine the drive letters using Windows 2000's disk manager, this does not change what DOS and Windows 98 sees.
The whole Windows 2000 system configuration depends on Windows 2000 being on the D: drive, and I certainly don't want the drive letters being different on the two operating systems!

No matter what I did, I couldn't resolve this.
If I disconnected the other two drives, the Windows 2000 partition became D: again.
However as soon as I reconnected the other SCSI (E:) drive, it became D: and shunted the Windows 2000 drive down to E:.
Even deleting the partition and reformatting the other SCSI drive didn't make any difference, it always became drive D:, whether it was a primary partition or a logical drive within an extended partition.
(Many hours I spent verifying and formatting drives yesterday!)

To add insult to injury, this didn't even do what it was supposed to do!
I had the system with just one physical disk connected, partitioned into C: and D: drives, both primary DOS partitions.
Windows 98 on C: and Windows 2000 on D:.
All worked fine, even though I couldn't leave it like that as I obviously need the other drives.

I then put the Windows 2003 NTLDR file into C:\ and rebooted to Windows 2000.
Exactly the same result as before -
"\WIN-NT\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM is missing or corrupt".

So the whole exercise was a complete waste of time!
The 2003 NTLDR still doesn't work on my system even if Windows 2000 is on a primary partition.


In fact the only way I could get the drive letters to be what I wanted again was to reformat D: as a logical drive within an extended partition, as it was before.
Then adding the other drives (also logical drives within extended partitions) didn't change the drive letters.

So, a large number of hours spent, terrified of losing my data, all for nothing!
Anyway, I am now back to normal, and haven't lost anything, apart from a day of my life.........

What I'm now considering is whether to try changing over the two OSs, and having Windows 2000 on C: and Windows 98 on D:.
That would put Windows 2000 on the active primary first partition on the drive, which would more closely match the configuration of a single boot system.
Anyone thinks that's worth a try (it won't be easy, as I don't want to reinstall both OSs from scratch)?

[Ambassador]

You may also want to try Fred Vorck's tutorial tomake a faster 2000 install.

[the xt guy]

Win 98 has to be installed in the first primary partition (C:) and the partition has to be marked active. It has to be "C". Try installing it to "D" and you get an error message.

[Ascii2]

Dave-H, on Sep 20 2008, 06:51 AM, said:

Ah right, that explains why I dont have the Ntbootdd.sys file.

Indeed. I note that you may not need Ntbootdd.sys on Windows 2000 with your BIOS, but this may not be true with Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 boot files (it is already know that they function differently given that arcldr.exe and arcsetup.exe are not used). It is possible that the Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 boot files handle SCSI devices differently (with respect to Windows 2000), or requires a different configuration in boot.ini for the SCSI devices.

So, merely copying the newer operating system files to Windows 2000 may not work for your configuration.

To find out what is necessary for your configuration using Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 boot files, you can install a Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 family operating system and examine (and retain a copy of) the files created.

This post has been edited by Ascii2: 25 September 2008 - 06:11 PM

[Dave-H]

the xt guy, on Sep 25 2008, 10:44 PM, said:

Win 98 has to be installed in the first primary partition (C:) and the partition has to be marked active. It has to be "C". Try installing it to "D" and you get an error message.

Are you saying therefore that you can't add Windows 98 to a machine that already has Windows 2000 on it?
In that case Windows 2000 would already be on the C: drive so Windows 98 would have to go elsewhere.

My Windows 2000 Resource Kit Book doesn't seem to say that there would be any intrinsic problem with that, only that you might have to use the Windows 2000 Repair Console after installing Windows 98 to repair the Master Boot Record, as it would have been over-written by Windows 98 Setup.

This post has been edited by Dave-H: 26 September 2008 - 12:08 PM

[Dave-H]

It's gone very quiet.................


Does anyone actually know any reason why I shouldn't swap my operating systems over so Windows 2000 is on C: and Windows 98 is on D: ? I might actually be able to use the later NTDETECT.COM and NTLDR files then.

More importantly, since I did all my messing about, although apparently everything is back to as it was before, Windows 2000 is now taking even longer to start up than it did before!
Quite the reverse of what I was trying to do in the first place of course!

Mainly it's now spending ages crawling along the very first "Starting Windows" progress bar, far longer than it used to, even though the NTDETECT.COM and NTDLR files are back to the ones that they always were.

Anyone any idea why this might be?

[James_A]

It's gone a bit quiet on my side, because I am still recovering from reading your dramatically recounted experience of moving your partitions round:... ...

Dave-H, on Sep 25 2008, 12:55 PM, said:

OK, I finally "bit the bullet" and tried changing my disk partitions. ...

Well, after lots of agonising and head scratching, I'm now back as I was before! ...
...
So, a large number of hours spent, terrified of losing my data, all for nothing!

I am not sure what to do next. I think one way I may have slipped-up is by looking at your Boot.Ini file and assuming that you had IDE disks not SCSI. Now Ascii2 has explained why that is. I have been trying to find out some more information before posting again. For example, the function of arcsetup.exe and arcldr.exe. I have never seen or heard of a Windows 2000 system without these two files present. Until now. Admittedly, all the systems I have installed or repaired have had IDE drives.

There must be some good BIOS support or emulation going on, otherwise how would Ranish (an MS-DOS program IIRC) load and work?

Since your current C: drive contains valuable data, I would be treading much more carefully from now on. Referring to another of your earlier posts, repairing the MBR is seen as a big problem in some circles, which is why you see the oft-repeated advice to install the latest OS last. Sorry, I don't (yet) have anything more constructive to add.

This post has been edited by James_A: 02 October 2008 - 02:28 AM

[Dave-H]

Thanks again James.
Yes, Ranish is a DOS program.
If you run it in Windows 2000 it just prompts you to copy it to a floppy and boot from that.
I just booted into "command prompt only" DOS mode (which I can do as I have Windows 98 installed of course) and used it from there.

With regard to "installing the latest OS last" of course that wasn't the case with my system, which was Windows 98 only for years and then had Windows 2000 added.
"the xt guy" seemed to be saying that Windows 98 has to be first as that has to go on the C: drive and won't work on the D: drive. This implies that it isn't possible to add Windows 98 to a Windows 2000 system, as two operating systems can't share the same partition and therefore 98 can't go on the C: drive as 2000 is already there!
I'm getting really confused........

Now I just wish I knew why the first stage of Windows 2000 startup is taking even longer than it did before.

This post has been edited by Dave-H: 02 October 2008 - 05:31 AM

[James_A]

For "install the latest OS last" I think all three of us are saying the same thing, just using different words:
1. Windows 98 first
2. Windows 2000 second

[Dave-H]

James_A, on Oct 3 2008, 07:57 AM, said:

For "install the latest OS last" I think all three of us are saying the same thing, just using different words:
1. Windows 98 first
2. Windows 2000 second

Yes indeed, sorry of course you were quite right!
The order that my operating systems were installed in is the "correct" one.

I just wonder if it is actually possible for a dual boot system to work correctly if Windows 98 is on drive D: and Windows 2000 on drive C:.
There is a MS KB acticle which actually goes into this -
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283433

This post has been edited by Dave-H: 03 October 2008 - 01:37 PM

[DosFreak]

Dave-H, on Oct 3 2008, 02:35 PM, said:

James_A, on Oct 3 2008, 07:57 AM, said:

For "install the latest OS last" I think all three of us are saying the same thing, just using different words:
1. Windows 98 first
2. Windows 2000 second

Yes indeed, sorry of course you were quite right!
The order that my operating systems were installed in is the "correct" one.

I just wonder if it is actually possible for a dual boot system to work correctly if Windows 98 is on drive D: and Windows 2000 on drive C:.
There is a MS KB acticle which actually goes into this -
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283433

You can you just need to make sure that C: is FAT16/FAT32.

Used to do it all the time with 9X/NT4/2000 back in 1999/2000.

[Dave-H]

DosFreak, on Oct 6 2008, 02:43 PM, said:

You can you just need to make sure that C: is FAT16/FAT32.

Used to do it all the time with 9X/NT4/2000 back in 1999/2000.

Yes, I realise of course that I can't use NTFS if I want Windows 98 to read the drives.
Really good to know that you have had systems with Windows 2000 on the C: drive and Windows 98 on the D: drive though.
Thanks very much!

[CaptainStacks]

Can I too get the Windows 2003 startup files for even faster starts?

I've read through the topic and I haven't found an available download.

[the xt guy]

For about three years (2002-2005) I had my primary computer dual booting Win2K and Win98. I used fdisk to divide the (blank) HD into two equal partitions. I installed Win 98 on one partition. Then I installed Win2K on the second partition. WhenWin2K was installed, it saw the installation of 98 and made a dual-boot loader where I could choose which OS to runa at bootup.

The Win2K partition was formatted as NTFS and the 98 partition was FAT32. When Win2K was booted, it saw itself as Drive C and the Win98 as Drive D. When Win98 was booted, it saw itself as Drive C and did not see the 2K installation at all.

The drive letters assigned between the two systems were not consistent. On 2K, my D drive was the 98 installation and the E drive was a CD-ROM.

On 98 my 2K was ignored since it was NTFS, so my CD-ROM became Drive D. My other hard and optical drives past letter D were also not consistent between 98 and 2K.

When you install Win 98, it's going to ask you where you want it to install it. Your only option will be whatever Win98 sees as 'Drive C'. If you already have Win2K installed (as NTFS) on a hard drive (taking up all the space on that drive) Win 98 will see that drive as unformatted. It doesn't matter if Win2K calls that drive 'C' while you are running win2K. To Win98 it is an unformatted drive. If you insist on using that drive, Win 98 will have to use fdisk and then completely format the drive to FAT32. Everything will be wiped off the disk, including your Win2K bootloader. Obviously you don't want that!

You will have to use a third party tool to shrink the 2K partition and free up some space on the drive.

Win98 can't see or understand 2K's bootloader. If you are installing it on the same drive as 2K (with a free partition to install to) it can install itself in that partition but will wipe 2K's bootloader off the drive and install its own. Then you will not be able to get into 2K. To correct that, you must start the 2K installation from the CD and choose the 'repair' option. That will reinstall the 2K boot loader. Assuming the two OS'es are on the same physical drive, Win2K should see that and create a dual boot system.

I don't know for certain if 2K will be able to do that if you have 98 and 2K installed on two physically seperate drives. It probably will, but I can't say for certain since I've never tried it.

Everything I've ever read and experienced says that Win98 must see itself as being installed on and then running on Drive C. While a different OS is running it may assign the Win98 drive as a different letter, but when you boot 98, it will be C again.

Drive letters will be reassigned between operating systems if necessary.

If you install 2K on a FAT32 partition then 98 should be able to see it. However, Microsoft's tools will not allow you to make a FAT32 partition larger than 32 gb (you will have to use third party tools for that.) Also Win 98, without special third party patches, cannot use IDE hard drives bigger than 137gb.

This post has been edited by the xt guy: 09 October 2008 - 01:51 PM

[Dave-H]

CaptainStacks, on Oct 9 2008, 06:01 PM, said:

Can I too get the Windows 2003 startup files for even faster starts?

I've read through the topic and I haven't found an available download.

There you are -

NTLDR
NTDETECT.COM

Right click and "Save Target As" please!
Let us know what difference these files make.
They are from Windows Server 2003.

[Dave-H]

the xt guy, on Oct 9 2008, 08:34 PM, said:

For about three years (2002-2005) I had my primary computer dual booting Win2K and Win98. I used fdisk to divide the (blank) HD into two equal partitions. I installed Win 98 on one partition. Then I installed Win2K on the second partition. WhenWin2K was installed, it saw the installation of 98 and made a dual-boot loader where I could choose which OS to runa at bootup.
<snip>
If you install 2K on a FAT32 partition then 98 should be able to see it. However, Microsoft's tools will not allow you to make a FAT32 partition larger than 32 gb (you will have to use third party tools for that.) Also Win 98, without special third party patches, cannot use IDE hard drives bigger than 137gb.

Thanks very much for all that!

I have never used NTFS partitions, but the general principles of what you did are similar to what I want to do.

I am now pretty convinced that the reason why the later Windows start-up files will not work for me is fundamentally because my Windows 2000 installation is not on the C: drive.
I certainly don't want the drive letter allocations to be different on my two operating systems.

From what several people have said, Windows 98 will not work unless it is on the C: drive, so it looks as if there's nothing I can do to resolve this. I will just have to put up with the "as designed" Windows 2000 boot speed.

I would be very interested to hear from anyone who has got this to work on a dual boot system, and what the configuration of that system actually is.

Glad that at least I've flagged this option to people generally, as several people have reported that their boot times have significantly improved by using later files, whatever the theory may say!

I did get my initial startup back to as it was before BTW, by repairing the MBR using the Repair Console.
It didn't make any difference on the first reboot, but after that it was back to as it was before.
Thanks all.
Cheers, Dave.

[Ascii2]

I have tested using boot files from Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 1 (the Windows XP version that most closely resembles Windows 2000 Professional with Service Pack 4) on Windows 2000 Professional with Service Pack 4 on computers of many hardware configurations (different hard disks, motherboards, BIOS, hard disk interfaces, etc.). All computers used C: as the system partition and were configured in boot.ini using the Multi method.

The result was that most (roughly 75%) computers running Windows 2000 Professional with Service Pack 4 were able to boot using Windows XP boot files; others were not.

In conclusion, the Windows XP boot files are not able to boot Windows 2000 on any hardware/BIOS configuration by simply replacing the boot files manually (therefore the files themselves are not fully compatible). It may be possible (untested) to use Windows setup or recovery console to write boot files, or make necessary adjustment to other related files so Windows 2000 operation system may be boot with Windows XP boot files.

@Dave-H:
It may be possible to still get Windows XP boot files to work on your computer if Windows XP setup is run and completed through Textmode. After that the Windows installation need not continue. Windows 2000 may be boot, boot.ini may be edited to remove the information for Windows XP and set another Windows version for default, and Windows XP System directory may be deleted. You should then have Windows 2000 Professional booting with Windows XP boot files.