[mntview64]

I have 2 hard drives in my computer and 2 DVD's. Both hard drives are EIDE/PATA. Right now I am running win98se and I want to install XP pro sp3 so it will dual boot both OS. Drive 0 is 250gb and Drive 1 is 40gb. Drive 0 has 5 partition volumes. C drive is primary/active with win98se installed on it. My other volumes have other programs installed into them except G drive, which I left empty. All volumes are FAT32 on both hard drives. So I have:
(Drive 0) ---------------------------------------------- (Drive 1) is extended partition with 4 volumes.
C:\ primary/Active win98se 35gb ------------- H:\ programs installed 10gb
D:\ programs installed 33gb -------------------- I:\ programs installed 10gb
E:\ programs installed 30gb -------------------- J:\ programs installed 9gb
F:\ programs installed 30gb -------------------- K:\ programs installed 9gb
G:\ empty 105gb

I want to install XP into my G volume and make it NTFS, because of large video files I want to download to it. I know that win98 can't see the NTFS volume or won't read it. What I need to know is, will win98 list G volume as G:\UNKNOWN or will it change the drive letters on my (drive 1) to G - H - I - J because it doesn't know there is a G volume on (drive 0).

My 2 DVD player/writers have drive letters V and W so they shouldn't get in the way of the letter assignment.
Thank you for any help.

[rloew]

mntview64, on 15 March 2010 - 03:36 PM, said:

I have 2 hard drives in my computer and 2 DVD's. Both hard drives are EIDE/PATA. Right now I am running win98se and I want to install XP pro sp3 so it will dual boot both OS. Drive 0 is 250gb and Drive 1 is 40gb. Drive 0 has 5 partition volumes. C drive is primary/active with win98se installed on it. My other volumes have other programs installed into them except G drive, which I left empty. All volumes are FAT32 on both hard drives. So I have:
(Drive 0) ---------------------------------------------- (Drive 1) is extended partition with 4 volumes.
C:\ primary/Active win98se 35gb ------------- H:\ programs installed 10gb
D:\ programs installed 33gb -------------------- I:\ programs installed 10gb
E:\ programs installed 30gb -------------------- J:\ programs installed 9gb
F:\ programs installed 30gb -------------------- K:\ programs installed 9gb
G:\ empty 105gb

I want to install XP into my G volume and make it NTFS, because of large video files I want to download to it. I know that win98 can't see the NTFS volume or won't read it. What I need to know is, will win98 list G volume as G:\UNKNOWN or will it change the drive letters on my (drive 1) to G - H - I - J because it doesn't know there is a G volume on (drive 0).

My 2 DVD player/writers have drive letters V and W so they shouldn't get in the way of the letter assignment.
Thank you for any help.

Changing the Partition currently designated G:\ to NTFS wil cause the Drive Letters after it to shift downward.
If you need to preserver the Lettering of the other Partitions, you can delete the cuirrent G:\ Partition and replace it with a tiny FAT Partition and the remainder with a NTFS Partition.

[the xt guy]

I dual boot Win 2K and 98 (actually 98SE2ME with 98lite applied). My 2K boot drive is NTFS and 98 doesn't see it at all, no drive letter assigned, nothing. It's as though it isn't even there.

My arrrangement is different than yours (6 HD's total installed, 4 of them are on a Promise IDE PCI card. All except the 98 drive are NTFS.)

I can use Paragon NTFS Reader under 98, which opens its own window and doesn't assign any drive letters at all to the NTFS drives it sees.

[mntview64]

Thank you rloew and the xtguy. This is what I needed to know. I will repartition my G volumes into 2 partitions, say 100gb and a 5gb volumes. Which should make them G and H. Then install NTFS on the G volume which will make the new H volume G again.
Another question on the subject, I think I have read that XP can be installed on any volume and it doesn't have to be on a primary volume, if there is already a primary/active volume on the hard drive. Is what I have read true? Another question, would there be any problems with the Registry in win98 and XP over lapping each other?

[Prozactive]

I believe that is true. I dual-boot WinXP and Win98SE on several of my systems, with WinXP usually installed in an NTFS partition. rloew and the xt guy are correct - Win98 will not see the NTFS partition and will increment all subsequent drive letters up one letter. Of course WinXP will see all partitions (FAT and NTFS) and assign drive letters accordingly.

There is no problem with registries. Win98 and WinXP maintain separate versions of their respective registries. HTH

This post has been edited by Prozactive: 16 March 2010 - 10:35 AM

[mntview64]

Thank you Prozactive. May I ask you another question? When XP boots, does it give itself drive letter C or does it keep the volume letter it is installed into? This duel booting is all new to me.

[Prozactive]

mntview64, on 16 March 2010 - 10:49 AM, said:

Thank you Prozactive. May I ask you another question? When XP boots, does it give itself drive letter C or does it keep the volume letter it is installed into? This duel booting is all new to me.

That is a good question and coincidentally is something I'm planning to check out more thoroughly soon. The short answer is no, WinXP does not give itself drive letter C:. That will remain with the primary Win98 partition. WinXP apparently gives itself the volume letter it's installed into, but that's the issue I want to investigate. It apparently depends on how the disk is partitioned. The hard disk in my laptop is partitioned into 3 volumes (2 FAT32 and one NTFS, in that order), and WinXP is installed in the (last) NTFS partition. When booting into WinXP, it assigns drive letter F: to its NTFS partition, behind C: and D: for the 2 FAT32 partitions and E: for the CD-ROM drive.

The hard disk in one of my desktop systems is partitioned into 4 volumes (one FAT32, one NTFS, and 2 FAT32, in that order) and again WinXP is installed in the (2nd) NTFS partition. WinXP assigns drive letter D: to its partition which is causing some problems as I prefer a different drive letter. Apparently there is some way in WinXP to change assigned drive letters through its disk management function but I have not investigated this yet. I'm not very familiar with all the nuts and bolts of WinXP as I don't use it that much, strongly preferring Win98 (obviously).

This post has been edited by Prozactive: 16 March 2010 - 11:12 AM

[mntview64]

Again thank you Prozactive. I also like win98. I have another computer, which I bought used, that I upgraded it enough to run XP, just to help me learn that OS. I know I am living in the old days with win98, but it just feels less controlling to me than the newer OS from XP and up. I could install win98 on every computer I own, without having to buy a new copy for each of my computers ($$$). Which I just had to do for my main computer so I can duel boot it. I am still going to stay with win98, as long as I can, but I am finding now, with IE6, that a lot of web pages won't open or run right as they used to do.

Another problem I might have, but not looking forward to figuring out. I have an old Logitech Cordless MouseMan Wheel mouse that I love, (I have 3 of them) but on my XP machine, it won't work, at least that is what XP told me when I installed it. So when I duel boot my main computer, will my mouse work in XP or will I have to use a newer mouse, each time I boot. I purchased the new Logitech MX1100 Cordless mouse, but it says XP and up only, on the box, so I don't know if that will work in win98. It is an USB mouse, so I guess I will just have boot mice hooked up, but not sure how that works. I wonder if anyone can answer that question for me?

[jaclaz]

OR
use letter assigner

Old, dead site:
http://www.v72735.f2s.com/LetAssig/

Via The Wayback Machine:
http://web.archive.o...s.com/LetAssig/

XP, unless you use a migrate.inf during installation will assign letters along it's internal order, that mind you is slightly different from the DOS one, check carefully here (and links within):
http://www.msfn.org/...showtopic=85729

and/or post info about your partitions (just one primary and all the rest logical volumes inside extended or multiple primaries? It may make a difference.)

jaclaz

This post has been edited by jaclaz: 16 March 2010 - 01:00 PM

[LoneCrusader]

mntview64, on 16 March 2010 - 10:49 AM, said:

Thank you Prozactive. May I ask you another question? When XP boots, does it give itself drive letter C or does it keep the volume letter it is installed into? This duel booting is all new to me.

In my experience with multibooting, (and my setup and opinions will differ from others here), I would never allow Windows XP to see the Windows 98 partition.

If Windows 98 is installed in the first primary partition on the first hard drive, and then you try to install XP to the second primary partition on the first hard drive (WITHOUT HIDING THE 98 PARTITION FIRST) XP will assign its partition drive letter D, however, it will invade the 98 partition with it's boot files, (BOOT.INI, NTLDR, etc), overwriting the 98/DOS style boot sector. Then, if something goes wrong with your 98 partition and/or bootsector, your XP will be unbootable.

As far as I know, 2K/XP cannot be booted from any hard drive other than the first one without the use of a boot loader that can remap the hard drives. (GRUB4DOS has this ability, but I do not use it and have very little experience with it.) I may be incorrect in this, as most of my experience is only with 9X systems, but I did try once to boot XP from the second hard drive, and it did not work.

For a complete understanding of multibooting, I recommend this site Understanding Multibooting by Dan Goodell.

Good luck!

[jaclaz]

@Lonecrusader
Not really.
There is no real "need" to actually re-map the hard disk drive, it is just one of the possible solutions, and you should be careful between the use of "booting XP" or "booting the XP bootloader NTLDR" (which are two very different things).

Quote

Then, if something goes wrong with your 98 partition and/or bootsector, your XP will be unbootable.

This is not different in any way from what will happen to the 9x.

I mean, if something goes wrong with your 98 partition and/or bootsector the XP will be unbootable AS WELL as your 9x.
That's why do boot starting floppies exist (and yes, you can boot start NT/2K/XP/2003 and Vista /2008/7) from a floppy.

cannie made a very specific topic, that is however full with info about dual booting:
http://www.msfn.org/...howtopic=118623

jaclaz

[LoneCrusader]

jaclaz, on 17 March 2010 - 05:18 AM, said:

Not really.
There is no real "need" to actually re-map the hard disk drive, it is just one of the possible solutions, and you should be careful between the use of "booting XP" or "booting the XP bootloader NTLDR" (which are two very different things).

As I said, I am unfamiliar with this, I just know that booting WinXP from the second drive did not work with my setup.

jaclaz, on 17 March 2010 - 05:18 AM, said:

Quote

Then, if something goes wrong with your 98 partition and/or bootsector, your XP will be unbootable.

This is not different in any way from what will happen to the 9x.

I mean, if something goes wrong with your 98 partition and/or bootsector the XP will be unbootable AS WELL as your 9x.
That's why do boot starting floppies exist (and yes, you can boot start NT/2K/XP/2003 and Vista /2008/7) from a floppy.

cannie made a very specific topic, that is however full with info about dual booting:
http://www.msfn.org/...howtopic=118623

jaclaz

Obviously the 98 partition would be unbootable in that situation as well, I thought that was obvious.
My point was that BOTH systems would therefore be unbootable, as WinXP would have placed it's boot files in the 98 partition. If XP was not allowed to do this, then only the 98 partition would be affected under these circumstances.

Just offering a different perspective. I believe I will stick to the Dan Goodell way.

[jaclaz]

LoneCrusader, on 17 March 2010 - 09:04 AM, said:

Obviously the 98 partition would be unbootable in that situation as well, I thought that was obvious.
My point was that BOTH systems would therefore be unbootable, as WinXP would have placed it's boot files in the 98 partition. If XP was not allowed to do this, then only the 98 partition would be affected under these circumstances.

Yes, it is obvious and it was exactly my point - I guess we can call it "our" point , BUT, where would be the utility to hide/unhide the partition be residing?
And moreover WHICH hiding/unhiding tool is it?

You need something that installs either in the MBR only (like partita or MBLDR) or possibly in a few hidden sectors also like grub4dos grldr.mbr does (and in the case of grub4dos you will need two copies of grldr, one in the 9x and one in the XP partition, or put it in a third partition).

In other words, you cannot use anything that resides in either the 9x or XP partition, if you are trying to provide a failsafe way in case one of the two (or their bootsectors) goes "beserk", as from a statistical viewpoint you have no reason to presume that the "9x" one is more likely to fail than the "XP" one or viceversa.

grub4dos grldr.mbr in the MBR (+a few hidden sectors) may solve, say, 1/3 of the problem, i.e. since it can bypass bootsector CODE, it will remain functional even if bootsector CODE becomes corrupted (but of course not if the bootsector DATA becomes corrupted).

In other words, what I am trying to understand is the theory, if you assume that one of the two partitions or one of their respective bootsectors is going to go beserk, what you propose as most "failproof" setup and why.

jaclaz

This post has been edited by jaclaz: 17 March 2010 - 09:40 AM

[LoneCrusader]

jaclaz, on 17 March 2010 - 09:39 AM, said:

Yes, it is obvious and it was exactly my point - I guess we can call it "our" point , BUT, where would be the utility to hide/unhide the partition be residing?
And moreover WHICH hiding/unhiding tool is it?

You need something that installs either in the MBR only (like partita or MBLDR) or possibly in a few hidden sectors also like grub4dos grldr.mbr does (and in the case of grub4dos you will need two copies of grldr, one in the 9x and one in the XP partition, or put it in a third partition).

In other words, you cannot use anything that resides in either the 9x or XP partition, if you are trying to provide a failsafe way in case one of the two (or their bootsectors) goes "beserk", as from a statistical viewpoint you have no reason to presume that the "9x" one is more likely to fail than the "XP" one or viceversa.

grub4dos grldr.mbr in the MBR (+a few hidden sectors) may solve, say, 1/3 of the problem, i.e. since it can bypass bootsector CODE, it will remain functional even if bootsector CODE becomes corrupted (but of course not if the bootsector DATA becomes corrupted).

In other words, what I am trying to understand is the theory, if you assume that one of the two partitions or one of their respective bootsectors is going to go beserk, what you propose as most "failproof" setup and why.

jaclaz

Ok, I see your point.
First, I am not implying that one partition/bootsector/OS/filesystem is more or less likely to go "berserk" as you put it. I was just giving an example of the benefits of keeping each OS's boot code and/or system partition fully independent of one another. Whether or not one system or another would fail is not the point of my suggestion.

In my own setup, I use System Commander installed to my 98SE (1st Primary Partition 1st Hard Drive) to manage booting 98SE, XP, and RedHat 9. So technically, System Commander is using the MBR + 98 partition when it loads. However, when I choose one of the three operating systems, say XP, both of the other partitions (98 and RH9) are marked hidden by System Commander before passing the boot process to the chosen OS. This way XP has it's own isolated C: partition, it's own independent boot code, and does not see, alter, or invade my 98SE partition.

As far as which bootloader to use, that's really a matter or personal preference combined with what features are needed by the individual user. I personally like System Commander, as it has a nice interface and allows one to password protect access to the boot menu (of course anyone who knows much about computers can get around this, I know). However System Commander does have limitations, for example, it cannot hide logical partitions from one another. Most people would not need this feature, but it is worth mentioning.

The link I provided above suggests XOSL (Free) and BootIt NG (Not Free) as example bootloaders. I use BootIt NG on one of my systems, and it works well, and can hide logical partitions from one another.

One possible method of making the boot process completely independent of any OS partition would be to create a small partition just to contain a bootloader, and then have the booloader hide it when passing the boot process on to a given OS, as I described above. Instructions for this were included in the documentation for System Commander, and I am confident it can be done for other bootloaders as well. This method would provide further insulation against the possible corruption/failure of any OS/partition/boot code, as only one partition/OS would be affected by said problem. And, in the event something went wrong with the boot loader, it could be repaired without having to deal with the "quirks" of any OS, or alter/repair their boot files.

This post has been edited by LoneCrusader: 17 March 2010 - 10:24 AM

[jds]

mntview64, on 15 March 2010 - 03:36 PM, said:

I have 2 hard drives in my computer and 2 DVD's. Both hard drives are EIDE/PATA. Right now I am running win98se and I want to install XP pro sp3 so it will dual boot both OS. Drive 0 is 250gb and Drive 1 is 40gb. Drive 0 has 5 partition volumes. C drive is primary/active with win98se installed on it. My other volumes have other programs installed into them except G drive, which I left empty. All volumes are FAT32 on both hard drives. So I have:
(Drive 0) ---------------------------------------------- (Drive 1) is extended partition with 4 volumes.
C:\ primary/Active win98se 35gb ------------- H:\ programs installed 10gb
D:\ programs installed 33gb -------------------- I:\ programs installed 10gb
E:\ programs installed 30gb -------------------- J:\ programs installed 9gb
F:\ programs installed 30gb -------------------- K:\ programs installed 9gb
G:\ empty 105gb

The order in which MS-DOS (*) enumerates partitions is :

a) First primary partition of each drive, in turn
b) All extended partitions of each drive, in turn
c) All remaining primary partitions of each drive, in turn

Drives that are not recognized are not enumerated.

* At least as far back as version 7.0, perhaps even 6.22
(earlier than that, only one primary partition was supported).

Assuming NT uses the same rules, what you should do is make
that 105G partition a primary partition. Then it will get
enumerated last for NT, & ignored for DOS/W9X. So all other
partition drive letters will match between the two O/S.

BTW, if you get phantom drive enumeration or other LBA problems
in W9X, you might want to try my revised patch for V7.10 'IO.SYS'
(based on original patch by Steven Saunderson), available at :
http://www.geocities...au/general.html [Edit: Updated the URL]

Joe.

This post has been edited by jds: 17 March 2012 - 02:41 AM

[mntview64]

jds, on 18 March 2010 - 01:52 AM, said:

mntview64, on 15 March 2010 - 03:36 PM, said:

I have 2 hard drives in my computer and 2 DVD's. Both hard drives are EIDE/PATA. Right now I am running win98se and I want to install XP pro sp3 so it will dual boot both OS. Drive 0 is 250gb and Drive 1 is 40gb. Drive 0 has 5 partition volumes. C drive is primary/active with win98se installed on it. My other volumes have other programs installed into them except G drive, which I left empty. All volumes are FAT32 on both hard drives. So I have:
(Drive 0) ---------------------------------------------- (Drive 1) is extended partition with 4 volumes.
C:\ primary/Active win98se 35gb ------------- H:\ programs installed 10gb
D:\ programs installed 33gb -------------------- I:\ programs installed 10gb
E:\ programs installed 30gb -------------------- J:\ programs installed 9gb
F:\ programs installed 30gb -------------------- K:\ programs installed 9gb
G:\ empty 105gb

The order in which MS-DOS (*) enumerates partitions is :

a) First primary partition of each drive, in turn
All extended partitions of each drive, in turn
c) All remaining primary partitions of each drive, in turn

Drives that are not recognized are not enumerated.

* At least as far back as version 7.0, perhaps even 6.22
(earlier than that, only one primary partition was supported).

Assuming NT uses the same rules, what you should do is make
that 105G partition a primary partition. Then it will get
enumerated last for NT, & ignored for DOS/W9X. So all other
partition drive letters will match between the two O/S.

BTW, if you get phantom drive enumeration or other LBA problems
in W9X, you might want to try my revised patch for V7.10 'IO.SYS'
(based on original patch by Steven Saunderson), available at :
http://jds.com-t.com/general.html

Joe.

Thank you JDS (Joe) This sounds interesting to me, but am still a little confused here. If I make my G volume into a primary partition, then install NTFS on it, win98 won't see it, so then win98 will change the drive letters on my second hard drive, because there won't be a G volume on my first hard drive. Then what happens when I boot into XP, where it can see all volumes, to the letter assignment? Do you know if XP has to be installed on a primary partition? I have read XP will run from a logical drive as long as it can install it's drivers in the first primary partition of the hard drive.
Another question, what is this V7.10 - IO.sys patch for? I downloaded all the win98 updates from MDGx web site and installed them in order to get my 250gb hard drive to run win98se, and so far everything is working great.

[LoneCrusader]

mntview64, on 16 March 2010 - 11:55 AM, said:

I am finding now, with IE6, that a lot of web pages won't open or run right as they used to do.

Give Firefox 2 a try. It is much newer than IE6, it can be customized to look almost exactly like IE6, and there is an Addon (PlainOldFavorites) that will allow you to use the IE6 style Windows\Favorites folder instead of Bookmarks.

mntview64, on 16 March 2010 - 11:55 AM, said:

I have an old Logitech Cordless MouseMan Wheel mouse that I love, (I have 3 of them) but on my XP machine, it won't work, at least that is what XP told me when I installed it.

I can't give you a definite Yes or No on this, but I can't imagine that there is not a way to get it working in XP.

mntview64, on 18 March 2010 - 10:13 AM, said:

If I make my G volume into a primary partition, then install NTFS on it, win98 won't see it, so then win98 will change the drive letters on my second hard drive, because there won't be a G volume on my first hard drive. Then what happens when I boot into XP, where it can see all volumes, to the letter assignment? Do you know if XP has to be installed on a primary partition? I have read XP will run from a logical drive as long as it can install it's drivers in the first primary partition of the hard drive.

AFAIK, XP cannot be installed to a logical partition, however, if one first installs it to a primary partition, and then copies it to a logical partition, (this is a tedious process described in the link I provided), it will run and function normally as if it were in a primary partition.

Windows 98 assigns drive letters on each boot. It will only assign drive letters to partitions that it can read, the others just won't show up at all. One possible solution no one has mentioned is SysInternals NTFS for Windows 98 (if it can still be found) as it will assign a drive letter to the NTFS partition.

Windows XP however sets "permanent" drive letters, and then remembers them by entering them in the registry. (Can be changed by editing/deleting the relevant registry entries, also described in my link)

Neither OS will "Change" the drive letters assigned by the other OS if this is what you mean. They may assign different drive letters when they are booted, but this will not affect the other OS. You could manually edit the drive letter assignments in XP to match those of 98;
or
If you use a 3rd party bootloader (examples above and in my link) simply hide the 98 System partition when booting XP, and hide the XP System partition when booting 98, this way each OS sees it's own partition as C: and the other drives would not be affected, they (should) be assigned the same letters in both OS's.

[jaclaz]

LoneCrusader, on 18 March 2010 - 10:12 PM, said:

AFAIK, XP cannot be installed to a logical partition, however, if one first installs it to a primary partition, and then copies it to a logical partition, (this is a tedious process described in the link I provided), it will run and function normally as if it were in a primary partition.

Notwithstanding the "AFAIK", this is a bestiality .

Windows NT family of OS are DESIGNED to be installed on logical volumes inside extended partition.

Their booting must be initiated (normally) from a primary active, but there is NO need WHATSOEVER to install to primary and then clone it somewhere else!

That is one of the workarounds to be able to install 9x on a logical volume inside extended, see XOSL help:
http://www.allensmit...t/OS/XOSL/I.htm

If you are not familiar with XP, or the way it boots or installs:

LoneCrusader, on 17 March 2010 - 09:04 AM, said:

jaclaz, on 17 March 2010 - 05:18 AM, said:

Not really.
There is no real "need" to actually re-map the hard disk drive, it is just one of the possible solutions, and you should be careful between the use of "booting XP" or "booting the XP bootloader NTLDR" (which are two very different things).

As I said, I am unfamiliar with this, I just know that booting WinXP from the second drive did not work with my setup.

Simply DO NOT talk about it , (or, better, GET familiar with it )

jaclaz

This post has been edited by jaclaz: 19 March 2010 - 02:06 PM

[LoneCrusader]

jaclaz, on 19 March 2010 - 02:02 PM, said:

Notwithstanding the "AFAIK", this is a bestiality .

Windows NT family of OS are DESIGNED to be installed on logical volumes inside extended partition.

Their booting must be initiated (normally) from a primary active, but there is NO need WHATSOEVER to install to primary and then clone it somewhere else!

I never claimed there was a "NEED" for copying/cloning to a logical partition. I just mentioned it as a possibility because I know it works, I have done it.

jaclaz, on 19 March 2010 - 02:02 PM, said:

If you are not familiar with XP, or the way it boots or installs:
Simply DO NOT talk about it , (or, better, GET familiar with it )

I speak from my own experiences and things that I DO know. If I don't know, I state clearly that I am not certain (AFAIK), or that I may be wrong.

I have tried to help the OP based on my own multibooting experience. If I have stated something incorrect without noting my degree of certainty, then please correct me.

I am reminded of something you said to me before:

jaclaz, on 14 February 2010 - 01:36 PM, said:

All I do is trying to see if I can help, but I will do it with my methods and at my own pace, take it or leave it

This post has been edited by LoneCrusader: 19 March 2010 - 03:55 PM

[dencorso]

jaclaz, on 19 March 2010 - 02:02 PM, said:

Notwithstanding the "AFAIK", this is a bestiality .

Now, jaclaz, that was really uncalled for. I know Italians are intense (from experience, as I'm from Italian stock), but I do think you could have said it more respectfully, even so.
Let's please tone it down, OK?