Hi. I am cleaning up my system and I wanted to install XP, but for many reasons which I am sure you can imagine, I still want to install Win98SE as a secondary OS. I have experience creating dual boots with the Win9x OS's, but XP seems very different to me and I am worried that I cannot dual boot with it.

I use Partition Magic 6.0 to manage my partitions and it is also my boot manager. Has anyone here tried to dual boot with XP? I don't see why not, but from inexperience with XP, I am worried that I can't do this.

From what I have read, Partition Magic 6 NTFS partition's do not seem to support XP, but I have read on their site that if I create a FAT32 partition, XP will automatically convert it to NTFS upon installation. I believe this to be true.

What I am worried about is whether XP can dual boot in the first place and whether Boot Magic 6 (which come with Partition Magic 6) can handle the XP dual boot with 98SE. Can this be done? Which should I install first, XP or Win98se? Which boot should have partition magic installed to it?

Any advice?

You will need to use Partition Magic version 7 with XP. Version 6 will hose up the NTFS 5 partition.

Thanks for you input, but accoring to the power quest support/faq's, is says that I have another option.

instead of creating NTFS, i should create FAT32. According to them, XP will automatically convert the FAT32 into NTFS 5.

i think this will be okay. here is the FAQ on it...
Solution: Windows XP doesn't install to an NTFS partition created by PQDisk

I believe what I am going to have to do is install Win98SE first, then partition how i want with PQmagic 6. I will then set a Primary Empty FAT32 partion as the boot partition. I will then install XP and it should replace the FAT32 with the correct NTFS partion.

Hopefully, I will be able to get the Boot Magic boot mananger to recognize the WindowsXP OS. If it doesn't, I will try and find some third party partition (I have also heard that XP has a boot manager also).

Does this sound like it will work to you all?

you are correct about PM6 and FAT32, sorry I missread your first post.

The only isssue you may have is one I just came across. Boot Magic needs some sort of DOS partition, be it FAT32 or FAT16. If it doesn't see one it will complain and not load. I had created a small FAT32 partition after the NTFS so it would work but it still complained about no FAT partition and wouldn't let me install. Hopefuly you will have better luck then I.

the best way would be partition the hard drive first to the number you want and then install win98 on c drive and then install win xp on d drive .win xp has a build in boot manager if you install it this way when it boot up it will give you the option to boot to windows or to windows xp.

KISS - Keep it simple.

You don't need PM or other add-in utils. All you need is a '98 boot-disk, and use the Fdisk/format utils to set the drive up in advance of installing OS's..

Fdisk tutorials:

http://www.compguystechweb.com/index.html

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q255/8/67.ASP

Put each OS in its own logical-drive in the Extended partition, and have a common data 'droive' as well.

Set HD to along the lines of:

Primary:
C: (active Primary) fat16/fat32;
make it around 200-250Meg;
fat16 will be fine for a small (250Meg) partition - even though both OS can see fat32 as well.

This small active Primary partition will hold 'only' the boot-start-up files for each OS. The respective system files (the OS itself in each case) will go into separate logical-drives in the Extended partition.

You 'can', if you wish, copy the '98 folder there and install '98 form the C: drive. This would allow '98 to automatically go there in the future whenever it requires files off the CD - instead of asking for the CD. If you prefer 'not' to copy the '98 folder onto C: then you can make C: = around 100-150Meg - but I'd still leave it around 200-250Meg as you probably have 'large' HD?

Extended:
D: = fat32 = '98 = ???Gig - your choice;
E: = fat32 = shared data;
F: = fat32/ntfs = XP; your choice of file format.

Install '98 first, then XP.

Make XP ERD when XP has been successfuly installed; keep safe/current (up-to-date).

You 'can' install either OS first, but convention when starting afresh is to install oldest first, newest last. If XP goes in first (and you should remember to make the ERD as soon as it's installed OK) and an older OS after it, then you 'will' need to run the XP repair routine to restore the XP boot-loader/menu (which will usually be overwritten by an older OS installed after it).

The above scenario allows either OS to be re-installed without affecting the other - apart from '98 overwritng the XP boot-loader if re-installed; and you now know about running the Repair routine for XP to restore it?

And you may find reading the M$ KB articles below useful...; the last link is to another discusion area and covers an item referred to just above...

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q217/2/10.ASP

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q306/5/59.ASP

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q289/0/22.ASP

http://www.win2000mag.net/Forums/Application/Thread.cfm?CFApp=70&Thread_ID=79942

You will have to install Apps. for each OS.

If you use an add-in boot-manger utils, you are really complicating things unnecessarily. Each OS would be in its own separate primary; and you would still require an Extended partition for shared data, as the 'inactive' primary would be hidden from/inaccessble to the 'active' primary (OS).

There are views that suggest putting the data area in between the two OS; and there are those who say put the data area last. I think the M$ and gurus tend to the data area being 'sandwiched...' Your choice.

re: dave
boot magic will recognize the win98 dos partition b/c that is where it will be installed, so it "should" work fine... i stress that word "should" though...

re: ZVT.
i had that plan in mind. best part is, you have confirmed my belief in the WinXp boot manager that i wasn't sure existed. thank you.

re: trvlr.
wow. lots of input. that was nice of you. i must say that you have brought fourth an idea that i have never tried nor considered - one primary for 98se AND XP.

it is interesting and i will have to look more into it b/c honestly, my feeble mind doesn't see how that will work.

you said: "This small active Primary partition will hold 'only' the boot-start-up files for each OS"

does this mean all the files in the root? ie. config.sys, msdos.sys, command.com, and yadda?

would the 98 files go into one directory and the XP in another, or do they just all get dump into the root together?...

how can this be anyway? XP uses ntfs and 98 fat32? i don't see these files being in the same directory, unless less they are not partition type specific...

======

hmm... i am going to do some reading in the threads you mentioned. thank you for the help.

Sorry if this is a little lengthy - trying to explain it all 'briefly' isn't always possible...?

The basic/core/'text-book' approach to a dual/multi-boot for all M$ OS is to have a small C: (active) primary (system partition - where 'only' the OS boot/start-up files reside.) The actual OS (in each case) goes into a separate logical-drive; each OS has its own 'drive' as I indicated earlier.

Each OS is thus insulated from the predations (intrusion/affects) of the other(s); each 'drive' can be reformatted without affecting the other 'drives'; each OS can be re-installed without affecting the other(s) - apart from the problem that '9x/ME will overwrite the NT, W2K, XP boot-loader - whichever one is current.

When running a dual/multi-boot with NT/W2K/XP boot-loader involved, the boot sequence goes looking for the associated boot-files for the chosen OS; these 'have' to be in the active primary - otherwise no boot to that OS! Once it has found those boot-files it will (all being equal and correct) know where to go for the actual system (OS itself) files and thus boot up correctly - this info is contained in the boot.ini; it is dependant for its success on the boot-files for the chosen OS being in the Active Primary partition. This applies equally whether or not each OS is in its own space; is (also) in the active primary; is even on a separate/second HD.

Some other points to be familiar with re dual/multi-boots and re-installs of an existing OS, or adding another. Useful to know/understand… - 'cos it can be a little confusing initially when getting to grips with the theory around dual/multi-boots...?

Presuming you had a standard dual/multi-boot - with each OS in its own 'drive; nothing in the C: partition apart from all required boot/start-up files.

If you had a '9x/ME + NT system and re-installed '9x/ME then you would need to run NT repair to restore NT's boot-loader. ('9x/ME would have overwritten the NT boot-loader.) If you re-installed NT then the NT boot-loader would be be preserved, along with the dual/multi-boot.

If you had '9x/ME and W2K - and re-installed '9x/ME then same problem/resolutions

If you had NT and W2K and re-installed NT then again you would need to run W2K repair routine - NT will overwrite the W2K boot-loader. If you were to re-install W2K, again the dual-boot would be preserved.

If you had '9x/ME/NT/W2K + XP then re-installing any of those earlier OS would overwrite the XP boot-loader - thus requiring the XP Repair routine to restore it. An XP re-installation would preserve its own boot-loader and the dual/multi-boot.

Essentially the older the OS (or one that does not include a built-in boot-manager) the more likely it is to overwrite the boot-loader for a later OS that includes a dual/multi-boot option (i.e. one that has a 'built-in' boot-manager). NT/W2K/XP all have a built-in boot-manager; DOS/'9x/ME do not...

Also again, it is preferable to install oldest OS first, newest last.

Other options - but not ideal, although they will work...

You 'can' put one OS in the active Primary, alongside the boot-files for 'all' installed M$ OS/s; and the other OS/s in separate logical-drives.

You 'can' put two (or more) OS in the same partition, i.e. the active primary can have two OS/s + all other OS boot/start-up files present; the other OS/s being in separate logical-drives.

You can even have three in the primary - but it gets a little crowded...

(The Dell XP P2/233 I'm using for this has '95c/NTWs/NTsvr in C: ; D: = data; E: = NTSvr (ntfs); C: and D: = fat16. It works but things have gotten a little crowded on C: and D: over the last 3/4 years...)

The problem with this 'shared' primary approach is that the file format for C: (active) primary partition will be dictated by whatever OS you are intending to install there. The active Primary partition 'has' to be a file format common to all installed M$ OS; if an intended OS cannot 'see'/use the file format chosen for C: , then it will not install successfully - if at all... The only common format across the entire M$ range = fat16; and this has a limit of 2Gig for all DOS/'9x/ME; NT/W2K and (presumably XP) can handle 4Gig as fat16.

Also if you have to reformat the C: partition because of some major 'snafu', then you will lose 'all' boot/start-up files for 'all' installed OS - and thus no boot to anything until you get an OS back in C: and/or do some recovery work for the others. A simple re-install of an OS in C: - without resort to reformatting will 'not' lose access to the other OS/s - within the constraints imposed by NT/W2K and XP.

If one was to go with C: = fat16 then the max partition would be (down to) 2Gig - if DOS/'9x/ME present; if no '9x/ME/DOS present then it could be up to 4Gig.

If no DOS/NT/95a present then it could be fat32 - and obviously larger than 2Gig... (DOS/'95a/NT cannot 'see' fat32)

You get the idea - and see the irritations of having to consider formats when putting an OS (or 2/3) in the primary along with the boot/start-up files? Better not too when you can avoid it?

As regards putting more than one OS in a given partition/logical-drive; the determining factor where is just what file format you use; as you have rightly twigged/noticed - this is an issue to consider carefully? Logically it has to be one which all OS in that partition/'drive' can use…; fat32 is more efficient cluster-wise than fat16; ntfs more so and also offers greater security over fat16/fat32 - you takes your choice - based on which OS/s are going where and why.

Hope the above helps clarify it all somewhat?

If you browse posts: 21665 and 21647 on the W2K forum pages there is another slightly more detailed (and different?) how/why of dual-boot; covers dual-drives as well.

As I suggested in my earlier post, I'd be inclined to start afresh - and go along the standard/core lines? This will give you maximum stability; each OS secure; allow for further additional OS (or duplicate versions of current OS) to be installed.

I think you have enough self-study by now???

Need more input - post back?

re: trvlr

wow, that is a lot of info. *grin*

to make things more clear, let me tell you my intentions. i am installing two OS's. Win98SE and WinXP. that is it. i am starting fresh with empty hard drives.

the way i have always done mutliple OS's in the past, was by creation of multiple primaries. ie. Win98 and Win98_2(backup). i would put each on their own 1.5 gig fat32 parition. i would then make more extended partions for the sake of organization and those would be for data and programs.

the only down side to this is that a good portion of the programs need to be installe twice separatly for each OS because they can't share them. these OS weren't meant to coexist the way they do. this has never really been a problem in the past though. the my secondary bootups were rarely used because they were simply backups just in case i ended up screwing my primary boot... which does happen.

in regards to what you are suggestion, i think i am still a bit confused. what i beleive you are telling me to do is install XP and 98SE to extended partitions... and i would assume that they would put there necessary boot files in a single primary (c:\)

the problem i see with this b/c of my ignorance of the subject is the likly chance that two OS's boot files will conflict. i do not know XP at all or any NT platform to tell you the truth, but i still think things such as autoexec.bat, config.sys, and msdos.sys, and etc will be used by both XP and Win98se. This means that the second installed OS (WinXP) would REPLACE the first OS's (Win98SE) boot files...

due to this issue, it is obvious that i am not understanding what you are talking about.

so... i am going to reread your post now and also your links. i will also be readin your reply because i intend to do this all tomorrow if possible.

talk to you soon and thank you for your input. :)

-esteban

re: trvlr

after reading a few posts, i am starting to understand things better, although i still feel i should post again to try and clear things up.

Hardware:
17gig HD (Master 1)
20gig HD (Master 2)

Software:
WinXP
Win98SE

My proposal:
- Create two primary paritions (fat32).
- All other space as extended partitions for data storage.
- Install Win98 to first primary. Get functioning properly.
* Win98 parition = 2gigs
- Set second primary active.
- Install WinXP to second primary.
* WinXP parition = 4-5gigs
- WinXP converts fat32 into NTFS 5 automatically.
- WinXP 'should' be able to detect Win98SE on hidden partition thus enabling the boot manager.
- In regards to the extra storage space, it will be fat32 unless someone can give me a good reason for making it NTFS.
(Note: I cannot create NTFS 5 partitions [with PQ magic 6] which is what I understand WinXP to use. I can do it however if WinXP has a FDISK utility capable of it.)

What I believe yours to be:
- Create one primary parition (fat16?).
- All other space as extended partitions for data and OS storage.
- Install Win98 to extended partion (fat32).
It will automatically place boot files on primary.
- Install WinXP to a second extended partion (fat32 which converts to NTFS).
It will automatically place boot files on primary.
(Note: What is to stop XP from replacing 98SE boot files?)
- WinXP 'should' be able to detect Win98SE boot files on the primary and thus enabling the boot manager.
- In regards to the extra storage space, it will be fat32 unless someone can give me a good reason for making it NTFS.

=======================

First, I have been using my method for years, but I am open to change.

Second, do I even understand your method correctly?

Third, what are your on my opinion versus yours?

Thank you.

-Esteban

 When NT/W2K/XP go in ‘after’ another OS (that does not include a boot-manager) NT etc. detect the previous OS boot/start-up (DOS style) files and store/convert them into bootsect.dos. When one of the non boot-manager OS is chosen to boot NT etc. will utilise the bootsect.dos file to enable the chosen OS to boot.

NT etc. in effect replace/overwrite the previous boot-record – whatever it is – with their own, and add the bootsect.dos info to the boot-manager. A more detailed what/why/how etc. is in the following links, so you may find them useful to browse.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q94841

http://www.bcpl.net/~dbryan/ntfs-dual-boot.html

http://www.winplanet.com/winplanet/tutorials/737/6/

When any of the NT/W2K/XP trilogy go in they will automatically overwrite any current NT etc. style boot-loader with their own… If XP is the current OS and you add NT or W2K, then you will lose access to XP – until you run the Repair routine for XP… (and establish a dual-boot). This is a situation somewhat similar to adding DOS/’9x/ME to an NT/W2K/XP system… Similarly with NT after W2K.

 Your understanding of ‘my’ approach is correct. In all fairness it’s not ‘mine’- it’s the bog-standard/basic route as used my M$ and the gurus...

 Re “ What happens to stop XP from replacing the ’98 boot-loader?”

The info above should explain/clarify that for you; XP does, by design, in effect ‘replace the ’98 boot-loader (whilst actually preserving the required boot-files for future use).

 You 'can' put an OS on each hard drive as you have two? I would format each drive to have both Primary/Extended areas; then install an OS to each Primary. The boot-files for all installed M$ OS will be on HD-1 active Primary. HD-1 will have an OS in the Extended area (and perhaps data 'drives as well?). Extended area on HD-2 can be for data – or even other OS? The links to other W2K forum posts include both single/dual-HD approach - with a brief explanantion..

 Benefits of ‘my’ approach over ‘yours’ (dual-primaries)?
Possibly if you already have both Primary and Extended areas established and want to add a second (or more) OS then the single/common (active) primary is an advantage, as this will hold all the additional boot-files and the OS just goes into a logical-drive’. To create a second Primary may not be convenient with a preconfigured HD?

The dual-primary approach 'does' allow each OS to be complete within itself, although the XP Primary will also have reference to the '98 Primary as well... With XP and ’98 in separate primaries it would allow you to boot to ’98 in the event that XP went belly up in some way or other (after setting ’98 partition ‘active’ via Fdisk). Apart from that I can’t see any other obvious benefits? I’ve just usually ‘generally’ set up dual/multi-boots the bog-standard way; I have gone the dual primary route on occasion, but with no obvious benefit – apart from the experience…

You have raised some interesting points in this one...

Keep us posted on what you do/how you make out?

 When NT/W2K/XP go in ‘after’ another OS (that does not include a boot-manager) NT etc. detect the previous OS boot/start-up (DOS style) files and store/convert them into bootsect.dos. When one of the non boot-manager OS is chosen to boot NT etc. will utilise the bootsect.dos file to enable the chosen OS to boot.

NT etc. in effect replace/overwrite the previous boot-record – whatever it is – with their own, and add the bootsect.dos info to the boot-manager. A more detailed what/why/how etc. is in the following links, so you may find them useful to browse.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q94841

http://www.bcpl.net/~dbryan/ntfs-dual-boot.html

http://www.winplanet.com/winplanet/tutorials/737/6/

When any of the NT/W2K/XP trilogy go in they will automatically overwrite any current NT etc. style boot-loader with their own… If XP is the current OS and you add NT or W2K, then you will lose access to XP – until you run the Repair routine for XP… (and establish a dual-boot). This is a situation somewhat similar to adding DOS/’9x/ME to an NT/W2K/XP system… Similarly with NT after W2K.

 Your understanding of ‘my’ approach is correct. In all fairness it’s not ‘mine’- it’s the bog-standard/basic route as used my M$ and the gurus...

 Re “ What happens to stop XP from replacing the ’98 boot-loader?”

The info above should explain/clarify that for you; XP does, by design, in effect ‘replace the ’98 boot-loader (whilst actually preserving the required boot-files for future use).

 You 'can' put an OS on each hard drive as you have two? I would format each drive to have both Primary/Extended areas; then install an OS to each Primary. The boot-files for all installed M$ OS will be on HD-1 active Primary. HD-1 will have an OS in the Extended area (and perhaps data 'drives as well?). Extended area on HD-2 can be for data – or even other OS? The links to other W2K forum posts include both single/dual-HD approach - with a brief explanantion..

 Benefits of ‘my’ approach over ‘yours’ (dual-primaries)?
Possibly if you already have both Primary and Extended areas established and want to add a second (or more) OS then the single/common (active) primary is an advantage, as this will hold all the additional boot-files and the OS just goes into a logical-drive’. To create a second Primary may not be convenient with a preconfigured HD?

The dual-primary approach 'does' allow each OS to be complete within itself, although the XP Primary will also have reference to the '98 Primary as well... With XP and ’98 in separate primaries it would allow you to boot to ’98 in the event that XP went belly up in some way or other (after setting ’98 partition ‘active’ via Fdisk). Apart from that I can’t see any other obvious benefits? I’ve just usually ‘generally’ set up dual/multi-boots the bog-standard way; I have gone the dual primary route on occasion, but with no obvious benefit – apart from the experience…

You have raised some interesting points in this one...

Keep us posted on what you do/how you make out?

trvlr

well, like usual, there were complications. :)

my SCSI cd rom is broken... that make things really annoying... i have a cdrw, but that wasn't working in DOS and i had to dnload the DOS drivers...

once i did that, i found out XP cannot install from DOS... so i had to do it from Win98Se... that wasn't terrible, but it didn't load how i wanted at all.

in c:\, i had Win98SE and then I put XP on the other primary [d:\]. XP did what you decribed in earlier posts, and dumped it's critical (boot) files in c:\ (with Win98SE) and converted the Win98SE boot files into an ini or something of that sort. the boot manager kicked in which was a good thing.

too make a REAL long story short, i am not running XP anymore. the main reason is that so many complications occured and i would like to get in on cleany first before i use it... i will call this trial installation. :/

one big problem that arose was when i was installing XP from Win98SE. When I would run compatibilty checks or try to install the OS, it would read the CDROM for a bit and put ye ol' hour glass on the screen, but after a few minutes, there was no change. this was very irrating. i did read on a thread around here somewhere that some people waited over a half hour from something to happen... maybe i should have done the same. i was to irritated to do that though, so i copied the contents onto my hard drive to install it.

when i copied it, one file just wouldn't copy. i did manage to find and identical DLL on the CD that i copied in the directory, so that was okay. when i ran the instal or compatibilty check, another DLL failed to load... (win95upg.dll ??... i don't remeber...) It installed regardless.

after install, it seemed to be working fine except for the fact that it didn't install how i wanted. i wanted it on a whole separate partition so Win98SE and WinXP could switch back and forth as primaries. anyway... i also had another problem...

much like linux, windows XP does not like older hardware... well... it rejected my Diamond Monster Sound card (mx200). this was not very nice at all... every card after mine is supported by XP... >(

anyway, i guess i won't install XP or linux (RH7.1) ever again until i get a new sound card.

from what i did use of XP, it was MUCH faster and cleaner. i really wish things worked out on better circumstances.

questions:
* why won't XP install from DOS?

* why won't XP install on a SEPARATE partition 100%?

* why does XP do nothing when i try and install from CD in Win98SE?

* in Win98SE, when i replaced my OS with the same (i refresh things about 2x/yr), i always bring over critical data from the old OS. one of the most important is my outlook e-mail. the way i transfer this is by coping the saved email from [c:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Identities\{434A-B2...821}\Microsoft\Outlook Express] and moving this to the new outlook folders created. i keep my mail this way.

i didn't look through XP much, but i couldn't find this directory or where the e-mail is stored. this means i can't copy over my e-mail. i am sure there is a way to do it... any advice?

-------------------------

these are the main questions i had. thanks for your input!

-esteban