[Dave-H]

Thanks for that Ascii2.
It is odd that some computers work with this and others don't.
I wonder what the common factor is in those that don't work.

I can lay my hands on a Windows XP (SP2) installation disk, so I might give your suggestion a try.
What do you mean by "completed through Textmode"?

[Ascii2]

Dave-H, on Nov 15 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

I wonder what the common factor is in those that don't work.

Those that do not need neen not have anything in common; however, those that do work may requie something or a condition true from a set of things to be common. I believe that at least a single Windows registry hive information may be adjusted to allow the compatibility for the booltoader, but what exactly I am unsure (I would guess something from the SYSTEM or SYSTEM.alt hive).

Dave-H, on Nov 15 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

What do you mean by "completed through Textmode"?

The fist phase of Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 (maybe NT4 also) setup is known as Textmode. During Textmode, options to partition may be available, setup files are copied to system directory, and the End User Licence agreement may be accepted. The text mode is mostly blue in color and is composed entirely of ASCII or extended ASCII characters.

You should complete Windows XP Textmode part of Windows setup. Once completed the Windows XP boot files should be used; the rest of setup (Windows GUI-like setup) need not be run.

This post has been edited by Ascii2: 15 November 2008 - 04:16 PM

[Ascii2]

This post is an error. Please refer to the preceding post.

This post has been edited by Ascii2: 15 November 2008 - 04:14 PM

[Ascii2]

It appears that NTLDR may have bugs that prevent it from correctly loading Windows. Also, it seams that different versions of other files used to boot the computer have different versions (bugs).

An example of a KB article with a patch for NTLDR:

http://support.micro...om/?kbid=328269

EDIT: Removed first line of this post (was previously posted truncated)

This post has been edited by Ascii2: 10 February 2009 - 11:35 PM

[Dave-H]

Ascii2, on Feb 3 2009, 07:52 AM, said:

The reason why some of my tests mentioned earlier in this thread did

It appears that NTLDR may have bugs that prevent it from correctly loading Windows. Also, it seams that different versions of other files used to boot the computer have different versions (bugs).

An example of a KB article with a patch for NTLDR:

http://support.micro...om/?kbid=328269

Wow, I didn't think this thread would come back to life!
Thanks for the additional information Ascii2.

I tried downloading that MS patch, but the NTLDR file in it produced exactly the same result on my system, it wouldn't boot, with an error message about the registry "SYSTEM" file being missing or corrupted.
Reading the KB article, it does sound like exactly the same symptoms though.

I will try to borrow a Windows XP disk and try your suggested method of doing just the first part of the setup.
BTW when you were describing that, were you were talking about running setup from within Windows 2000, or booting from the Windows XP CD?
It won't run from a command prompt.
I also assume that you would select to do a separate install, not an upgrade, or it will overwrite the Windows 2000 files!

I'm not quite ready to give up on this yet..........

This post has been edited by Dave-H: 06 February 2009 - 09:15 AM

[Dave-H]

Another update.
Tried out Ascii2's suggestion of going through the first stage of a Windows XP install.
Unfortunately, no go.

Everything went as it should, and I aborted the install at the first reboot stage.
I now had Windows XP in the OS startup list from boot.ini, and XP setup was ready to do the GUI stages.
Unfortunately, when I tried to run Windows 2000, immediately back came the "Windows could not start because the following file is missing or corrupt \WIN-NT\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM" message.
So, no difference I'm afraid.

This is now even more puzzling, as it seems from this that if I really wanted to install Windows XP and have a triple boot system, I would no longer be able to run Windows 2000, which surely I should be able to do.

Does this mean that in this scenario I would have to put the Windows 2000 startup files back and boot XP with them?!
Surely not!

I'm now thinking of asking MS about this, as although they don't give any free support for Windows 2000 now, they should still support XP, and I can submit the question as a Windows XP support query, because dual booting 2000 and XP should surely be possible. If installing XP makes 2000 inacessible that needs to be sorted out.

So, back where I started I'm afraid...............

[cluberti]

Dave-H, on Feb 9 2009, 04:32 AM, said:

Another update.
Tried out Ascii2's suggestion of going through the first stage of a Windows XP install.
Unfortunately, no go.

Everything went as it should, and I aborted the install at the first reboot stage.
I now had Windows XP in the OS startup list from boot.ini, and XP setup was ready to do the GUI stages.
Unfortunately, when I tried to run Windows 2000, immediately back came the "Windows could not start because the following file is missing or corrupt \WIN-NT\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM" message.
So, no difference I'm afraid.

This is now even more puzzling, as it seems from this that if I really wanted to install Windows XP and have a triple boot system, I would no longer be able to run Windows 2000, which surely I should be able to do.

Does this mean that in this scenario I would have to put the Windows 2000 startup files back and boot XP with them?!
Surely not!

I'm now thinking of asking MS about this, as although they don't give any free support for Windows 2000 now, they should still support XP, and I can submit the question as a Windows XP support query, because dual booting 2000 and XP should surely be possible. If installing XP makes 2000 inacessible that needs to be sorted out.

So, back where I started I'm afraid...............

You might want to do it soon - free support cases for XP will end on April 14th of this year.

[uid0]

I doubt they'll be interested in helping with a frankenbuild though

[Dave-H]

cluberti, on Feb 9 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

You might want to do it soon - free support cases for XP will end on April 14th of this year.

Ah, thanks for the warning!

uid0, on Feb 9 2009, 04:01 PM, said:

I doubt they'll be interested in helping with a frankenbuild though

Well, it might be a bit of a "frankenbuild" but multibooting Windows XP with other MS OSs should certainly be supported, so I'm not asking for anything particularly non-standard!

[cluberti]

Assuming W2K was installed before XP, they should work (I just did this in a VM). If it's complaining about the registry when booting W2K (and it is), a repair install of 2K should potentially fix it, although not sure what it'll do to your boot.ini.

[Dave-H]

cluberti, on Feb 9 2009, 09:22 PM, said:

Assuming W2K was installed before XP, they should work (I just did this in a VM). If it's complaining about the registry when booting W2K (and it is), a repair install of 2K should potentially fix it, although not sure what it'll do to your boot.ini.

I know exactly what it will do, as I tried it so see if it would get Windows 2000 working again.
It puts the Windows 2000 startup files back again!
This fixed the problem, but of course Windows 2000 was back exactly as it was before, with a slow startup.
What it would have done to Windows XP I don't know, as I didn't let the XP install complete.
Quite possibly it would have made Windows XP start up just as slowly!
So it looks horribly as if Windows XP will boot with the Windows 2000 files, but Windows 2000 won't boot with the XP files, at least not on my system.
Of course if you trawl back in this thread, you'll see that using the XP files HAS worked for quite a few people.
I just wish that I could figure out why it works on some machines but not others.
I'm not 100% sure that anyone else with a dual boot machine has got it to work.
I would be very interested to know if that was the case.

[Colonel O'Neill]

Dave-H, on Feb 9 2009, 01:32 AM, said:

Unfortunately, when I tried to run Windows 2000, immediately back came the "Windows could not start because the following file is missing or corrupt \WIN-NT\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM" message.

I think you can use recovery console and do this:
EDIT: Or another OS. That works too.

Rename the \WIN-NT\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM file to SYSTEM.BAD
Copy the \WIN-NT\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM.ALT file to SYSTEM

This restores an older copy of the System hive and might fix it. That error occurs occasionally to my Windows 2000 and I would just have to change it to the ALT version and everything would be fine.

This post has been edited by Colonel O'Neill: 09 February 2009 - 06:45 PM

[Dave-H]

Colonel O'Neill, on Feb 10 2009, 12:40 AM, said:

Dave-H, on Feb 9 2009, 01:32 AM, said:

Unfortunately, when I tried to run Windows 2000, immediately back came the "Windows could not start because the following file is missing or corrupt \WIN-NT\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM" message.

I think you can use recovery console and do this:
EDIT: Or another OS. That works too.

Rename the \WIN-NT\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM file to SYSTEM.BAD
Copy the \WIN-NT\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM.ALT file to SYSTEM

This restores an older copy of the System hive and might fix it. That error occurs occasionally to my Windows 2000 and I would just have to change it to the ALT version and everything would be fine.

Thanks for that, I could actually do that in Windows 98 as I am dual boot.

Unfortunately the problem isn't that the registry is corrupted in any way (or any files missing!)

What's happening (I think) is that on my machine for some reason if I have the NTLDR file from any other NT OS version except the original 2000 one in my C:\ folder, the system will not start because it's doing something that it shouldn't with the registry files. There isn't actually anything wrong with them, in fact if I put the original NTLDR file back without doing anything else everything comes good again.
It is a mystery, because as I've discovered through this thread, it works on some machines and not others.

This post has been edited by Dave-H: 10 February 2009 - 08:28 AM

[Ascii2]

@Dave-H

If Master File Table or registry hive fragmentation is not great on your system (documented problems for the boot loader), the problem your are having would seem to be a bug in the Windows XP boot loader or other files involved in the boot process.

Try calling Microsoft Corporation at its hotfixes phone number.

State that you followed the directions from KB315233 or KB283433 and could not get your computer to dual boot. Also state that you attempted to overwrite boot files from hotfixes (such as fromKB892627) and that it did not fix the problem. Then ask if a hotfix exists to fix the problem. If one does not, you will probably be offered a case to fix the problem (what you want).

EDIT: If you call Microsoft Support, talk only to male agents (call back if you receive a female agent).

This post has been edited by Ascii2: 11 February 2009 - 04:52 PM

[Ascii2]

Dave-H, on Feb 4 2009, 05:44 PM, said:

I will try to borrow a Windows XP disk and try your suggested method of doing just the first part of the setup.
BTW when you were describing that, were you were talking about running setup from within Windows 2000, or booting from the Windows XP CD?

Booting from the Windows XP CD.

[Dave-H]

Ascii2, on Feb 11 2009, 05:37 AM, said:

Booting from the Windows XP CD.

Yes thanks, that what I eventually did.

Ascii2, on Feb 11 2009, 05:30 AM, said:

If Master File Table or registry hive fragmentation is not great on your system (documented problems for the boot loader), the problem your are having would seem to be a bug in the Windows XP boot loader or other files involved in the boot process.

Thanks for that Ascii2, I will check it out.
I'm interested what you say adout "registry hive fragmentation" as my registry is quite large and has never been optimised, so is probably very fragmented.
I optimise my Windows 98 registry all the time as I have startup problems if it gets too large, but I have never bothered on Windows 2000.
I'm wondering if this may be an issue here.

This post has been edited by Dave-H: 11 February 2009 - 02:55 AM

[Ascii2]

Dave-H, on Feb 11 2009, 02:54 AM, said:

I'm interested what you say adout "registry hive fragmentation" as my registry is quite large and has never been optimised, so is probably very fragmented.
I optimise my Windows 98 registry all the time as I have startup problems if it gets too large, but I have never bothered on Windows 2000.
I'm wondering if this may be an issue here.

Older versions of NTLDR could not load large fragmented registry hives during Windows boot (this was before Windows XP; Windows 2000 with Service Pack 4 NTLDR). Newer versions of NTLDR should not (not the same as "do not") have the problem.

Auslogics Registry Defrag (among many others) is software that may defragment registry hive files. If the registry hives that are maintained loaded in memory stay at about the same size (regardless if the size is great), do not expect much fragmentation.

By the way, if you test versions of NTLDR, it may be wise to keep a copy of the versions boot.ini, NTDETECT.COM, NTLDR, Ntbootdd.sys if necessary for SCSI, and possibly arcldr.exe and arcsetup.exe that boot Windows 2000 on a floppy. If you cannot later boot, from the hard disk partition, you may use the floppy to boot Windows 2000.

Also Dav-H, do you have a recovery console installed?

This post has been edited by Ascii2: 11 February 2009 - 03:46 PM

[Dave-H]

Thanks.
I have never had ntbootdd.sys, arcldr.exe or arcsetup.exe on my system.
It has always seemed to work fine without them.
The latter two are in the %systemroot%\ServicePackFiles\i386 folder.
Ntbootdd.sys doesn't exist at all.

My "SYSTEM" registry file is 9.25MB in size.
Is that excessive?

I do have the Recovery Console installed.

This post has been edited by Dave-H: 11 February 2009 - 04:59 PM

[Ascii2]

Dave-H, on Feb 11 2009, 04:58 PM, said:

My "SYSTEM" registry file is 9.25MB in size.
Is that excessive?

The size is large, although possibly not excessive (not something I am able to determine for you).

Dave-H, on Feb 11 2009, 04:58 PM, said:

I do have the Recovery Console installed.

The Recovery Console comes with a boot loader and NTDETECT.COM. Different versions of Recovery Console exist with different versions of their boot loader (CMLDR). I believe your problem is mainly do to design (defects) of the boot loaders.

Try removing the Recovery Console, prepare a floppy capable of booting Windows 2000 (in case booting from hard disk partitions fails later), install a recent version of Recovery Console (like from a Windows 2000 Professional with Service Pack 4 CD, not of a lower Service Pack), copy a recent version of Windows XP (not Windows Server 2003, as it seems to use a different file to load the operating system) NTLDR and NTDETECT.COM to the root of the system drive, and restart the computer.

[jaclaz]

Ascii2, on Feb 17 2009, 07:19 PM, said:

(not Windows Server 2003, as it seems to use a different file to load the operating system)

This is news to me.
Care to expand on this?


@Dave_H
Something that you may want to try is to move the various NTLDR's to different partitions/directories or put them inside floppy images.

It's abit complex, but may prove a working workaround.

Basically you can use grub4dos' grldr as your "main" loader (or load it through a "base", NOT corrupting SYSTEM hive, NTLDR), then chainload from it a floppy image with the actual NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and BOOT.INI, an image simialr to the one depicted here:
http://www.xxcopy.com/xxcopy33.htm

It is less difficult than what it may seem at first sight , but undoubtedly not "straightforward".

If you need help/more details, just ask.

jaclaz