I have windows 98se installed on the c:drive the first hard disk On the second hard disk, I made three partitions of around 6gb each I installed windows 2000 pro on the first partition, I can multiboot between windows 98 and windows 2000, no problem Then I installed windows xp pro on the second partition which is of course a primary partition also like the first one, after installation, i can multiboot between windows 98 and windows xp pro But i can't boot into windows 2000. Then i repair the windows 2000 installation, it appears that some of the installation files were overwritten by the windows xp pro installation. After repair, windows xp cannot start. Is it possible to install windows xp pro and windows 2000 over windows 98 and multiboot? Is it better to remove windows 2000 pro and multiboot between windows 98 and windows xp pro

Would it be a option for you to install Windows 98, Windows 2000 Pro and Windows XP Pro on your first hard disk? If so, you'll need to install them in each it's own folder i.e. Win98, Win2K and WinXP. One thing needs to be said: DON'T let Win2K or WinXP convert your hard disk to anything else, leave it with the FAT32 of Win98. Your other commonly used programs can be installed on the second hard disk. When you want to use them within all three OS's, you'll need to install them three times. But you can install the program each time in the same folder saving you disk space. It's for the shared files and registry entries that you'll need to install them three times. Hope this is of any help, keep us posted. Greetz from The Netherlands, The Count (December 30th, 13:58 hours)

If you want to have multiboot with as many operating systems you want, including multiple versions of the same os, all on the same drive, all running at the same time...then look into VIRTUAL PC FOR WINDOWS by Connectix. I have it installed on a ME pc, with XP Pro, Win98SE and Linux. I have run all 3 windows os at same time, switching between the 3 by clicking on the appropriate window. I have had all three on the internet at the same time without noticing any degradation. I like the functionality of being on Ebay with one, google.com with another and wherever with the 3rd. I will be installing W2K this week. They each function as if they were on separate computers. No, I don't work for Connectix, just think that this is the way to go for running multiple OS. An excellent way to test new software without the risk normally associated with such action. It's worth looking into.

Not quite sure I understand why you set (configured) the second drive to have 2 Primary partitions... Some folks do go that route, usually they claim it's a more secure arrangement (I'm not one of them). One Primary on the second drive would have been adequate, 'and' an Extended partition perhaps subdivided a little (with at least 2 logical-drives; one for XP, and the other for data)? But as you have 2 Primaries, ensure that '98 Primary is the 'active' Primary; that second drive is "Slave" to '98 "Master". Re-run W2K set-up via CD-boot/4 floppies boot - whichever (not from within '98). Point the actual system files (the OS itself) to the first Primary on second drive. This will (should), during the set-up process, deposit W2K boot/start-up files to '98 active Primary; establish dual-boot conditions. Make the ERD for W2K. At this point you will lose access to XP... Via CD boot/XP set-up floppies (if you have them...) re-install XP to second Primary. This will likewise install/deposit XP boot-files to '98 active Primary; will (should) overwrite W2K versions of those files; will (should) establish the triple-boot. '98 will now hold its own boot/system-files/apps etc., and the required boot-files for W2K/XP to boot, and also the bootsect.dos which allows '98 to boot when chosen via the W2K/XP boot-menu (accordingly). You may well get the choice to "Repair present installation" of W2K/XP; to "Upgrade"; to "Clean-install". I'd go for the Repair - use the Upgrade if the Repair fails to do the job (Repair usually does all that's required. Upgrade effectively overwrites current installation and achieves the same result at this stage of a new installation; both routes will/should deposit W2K/XP boot-files to the '98 'active' Primary, and make required changes, mbr etc...) Ideally...? One would/might put all OS on one drive (as The Count also suggests); data also on any available space on Master drive; with the second (Slave) drive purely for data/back-up etc. If you're willing to start a fresh... i.e. remove 'all' OS... then set your drives (preconfigure/format) along the lines of: HD-1 (Master): active Primary: c: = 100Meg = fat16 = boot/start-up files only for each M$ OS. Extended: d: = 3-5Gig = fat32 = '98 (system files/apps); e: = 3-5Gig = fat32 = W2K (system files/apps); f: = 3-5Gig = fat32 = XP (system files/apps); g: = balance of drive = fat32 = data; HD-2 (Slave): Primary: c: = fat32 = at least 3-5Gig = data; Extended: single partition as fat32, or subdivided into two or more logical-drives (fat32) for shared data (common access to all OS). HD-1 (Master) 'active' Prmary will hold only the relevant boot-files for each OS. Under 540Meg fat16 is the most efficient format to use; is also common to 'all' M$ OS - at boot time... Each OS itself is in its own space (logical-drive). Install oldest OS ('98) first, prgress to newest last (XP). Make ERD for W2K once installed. Why a Primary partition on Slave, as well as Extended; why not just a single Primary or a single Extended only - no Primary? With a Primary present you can (at a future date) install an OS there and thus access the drive's contents (after resetting the drive from Slave to Master). Useful in event of total loss of current Master drive? If the drive is single Primary only (no Extended) it does mean that if you had to (chose to) install an OS there in the future it would be a case of "all one's eggs in one basket... Whereas with both Primary/Extended partitions present you would have some degree of inbuilt security in event of further crashes...? If only an Extended partition, then if drive was to become a stand-alone drive... there is no easy way to install an OS there. (You could reconfigure drive to included a Primary - via an add-in util - e.g. PM/SC etc..., which would/should allow it without loss of data etc...?) Depending on size of current Master ('98) drive you may wish to alter sizes of suggested partitions for each OS installed there? Similarly... you could switch drives round and make new drive Master to old ('98) drive. Then configure drives as above. If not keen on a total restart... i.e . U wish to keep '98 drive as is? Reconfigure 'new' drive as (Slave) along lines of: Primary (non-active): c: = fat32 = 3-5Gig = W2K (system files); Extended: d: = fat32 = 3-5Gig = XP (system files); e: = fat32 = ???Gig = data only; f: = fat32 = ???Gig = data... and so on if wanting to organise data storage efficiently... Run W2K/XP installs from CD boot or set-up floppies - as appropriate; not from within an installed OS. '98 active Primary must remain 'active'; must not be reformatted (otherwise you will lose access to all other installed OS...); it will hold the boot/start-up files for W2K initially alongside the whole '98 installation. These W2K boot-files files will be replaced by the XP versions when XP goes in. W2K will establish the dual-boot conditions; XP will do its bit and complete the triple-boot. I have a 'quin' boot ('98/NTWs/NTsVr/W2K-pro/XP-Pro) on a single drive; each OS in its own 'space' and common data areas fat16 (2Gig limits) and fat32... The c: active Primary (fat16) is large enough (but under 540Meg)to hold the '98 setup/cab-files folder, so I can access those files without the CD at any time... The key issue in a dual/multi-boot M$ OS environment (without using add-in boot-manger utils) is that the 'active' Primary partition 'must' contain the boot/start-up files for all installed M$ OS... This active Primary partition is where each OS will (in effect) make its house call (check) to see how/where to boot to/from... once instructed to do so via the boot-menu choice. This M$ KB (drive letter assignments) explains the pros/cons of configuring a (usually second/third etc.) drive with only an Extended partition; and what happens to drive letter assignments when you have a second Primary with/without additional Extended partitions... Usful to understand? http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q51/9/78.ASP The Count's suggestion re' all apps in one common area (but necessarily installed afresh for each OS - because of registry entries/dlls etc.) is valid and worth considering too. It has its merits in terms of space saving... Presumably you are familiar with how to use Fdisk/format via '98 boot-disk both for: fat16 - active Primary (no large disk support); and fat32 - Extended partitions/second Primary over 2Gig... (enable large disk support)...? If new drive is 'noticably' faster than current '98 drive then (if Slaved to '98 Master) it will be running slower than spec; will be limited by '98 speed/specs. Make it the Master to the older (Slaved) drive and you get the benefits accordingly?

A lot of good suggestions but I am not sure they really address the issue Realdan has. The configuration is just fine and should work to boot all three OS's. I can understand that the W2K repair made it so XP wouldn't boot. This is because ntldr and ntdetect are replaced by the XP install. But these files work just fine with W2K in multiboot. Having multiple primary partitions is just fine. Reason for primary partitions is that you can boot them which you can not do with logical drives in an extended partition. You would do this so you could do the following for example http://www.computing.net/howto/simple/usingpqboot/ So I can't point to any reason why your config doesn't work. I would be curious as to the error given with the W2K boot and what the boot.ini says.

I have an additional question. What if I throw RedHat Linux into the mix. What is the best way to approach this.

Can't help on the Linux aspect other than to suggest: 1)Try the Linux forum here; 2)Check if the info at this JS link is adaptable to your inttttended Linux inclusion: http://www.windows2000faq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=15683 (from John Savills's faqs at: http://www.windows2000faq.com - installations section) I 'think' it would adapt fairly easily to allow you the arrangement I suggested in my earlier post (above) - and allow the Linux boot-loader too? 3)Use an add-in boot-manger util (PM/SC) Hopefully the some of the Linux cognoscenti will pop in here too and advise you further on that aspect?