boot.ini file for vista and xp

May 1, 2008 at 03:58:23
Specs: Win xp+sp2, E6500, 2.99GB ddr2

Hello,
I have recently installed XP and Vista 2 two partitions on my 250GB hard disk. (disk1). There is no OS on disk 0, it only contains data.


Disk ### Status Size Free Dyn Gpt
- ------- --- ---
Disk 0 Online 149 GB 0 B
Disk 1 Online 233 GB 0 B


I have installed vista in Vista (C) and XP in XP (I)

Volume ### Ltr Label Fs Type Size Status Info
--------- --------
Volume 0 K DVD-ROM 0 B
Volume 1 L Elements + UDF DVD-ROM 1024 KB
Volume 2 D OLD C NTFS Partition 20 GB Healthy
Volume 3 F PROGRAMS NTFS Partition 40 GB Healthy
Volume 4 G GAME SETUPS NTFS Partition 59 GB Healthy
Volume 5 H Empty NTFS Partition 31 GB Healthy
Volume 6 C VISTA NTFS Partition 50 GB Healthy System
Volume 7 I XP NTFS Partition 30 GB Healthy Boot
Volume 8 E SONGS MOVIE NTFS Partition 100 GB Healthy
Volume 9 J VARIOUS NTFS Partition 53 GB Healthy


However, my dual boot.ini file from xp is bit messed up, and I cant boot into vista.
When I select the option to load into vista, then the OS begins to load for 2-4 seconds and then just hangs up. If I make more changes for the entry in vista in the boot.ini file then sometimes I get the message that hal.dll is missing.

These are the contents of my boot.ini file, and and I able to boot into xp just fine, I just need to know the exact entry to boot into vista

[boot loader]
timeout=3
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS\system32\winload.exe="VISTA" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect


If someone can just tell me what the line for vista should be, then that would help a lot. I have installed vista ultimate edition.

Sarosh


See More: boot.ini file for vista and xp

Report •


#1
May 1, 2008 at 04:22:54

NTLDR is as far removed from a universal boot loader as you can get. Rebuild your MBR using the Vista boot loader.

Report •

#2
May 1, 2008 at 05:20:47

It's generally best to have the older OS installed 1st. You can do it the other way around but it's almost always more difficult & takes more steps to fix. How to make Vista bootable again is described in this article:

http://apcmag.com/how_to_dual_boot_...

Personally, I would start from scratch & do it the "right" way...in other words, install XP, THEN Vista.

"And that's the fishing line, because Sharkboy said so!"


Report •

#3
May 1, 2008 at 09:28:11

This is one of those rare issues where I have to disagree with jam.

There is really no reason to restart from scratch, this issue can be fixed with EasyBCD in a matter of minutes.

Download the program & have it write a new -- Vista -- bootloader. Then shutdown & you'll have both XP & Vista boot menu restored & accessible at reboot.


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
May 1, 2008 at 09:39:58

Hey, keep my rear out of this! lol

Actually, the article I linked to explains how to fix the boot issue using EasyBCD.

"And that's the fishing line, because Sharkboy said so!"


Report •

#5
May 1, 2008 at 12:49:49

I decided to give vista a pass, I've spent too much time on it.
Ive got xp running fine on the sata disk, thats more than enough for now.

I tried another program named vistaboot something, and I created 8 new entries each corresponding to the 8 partitions on both my hds, but none of them would boot into xp.

I also installing xp first and then vista, but then vista just loads directly and does not give any option to boot into xp.

Anyway, I'm all set with xp now, its running very nice on the new hardware.

Thanks for all the info you have given me.

Sarosh


Report •

#6
May 1, 2008 at 14:25:20

I was going to ask you why you chose to go that route in the first place. Having a hodge-podge of partitions all over the place -- organization-wise -- is a bit extreme. You typically shouldn't need more than three or maybe four at best.

I guess the other program you are referring to is VistaBootPro. Although, it is sorta like EasyBCD, I prefer the latter to the former. Too bad, you couldn't figure this out. Maybe, you'll have better luck with Vienna .... cough .... Windows 7.


Report •

#7
May 1, 2008 at 15:32:35

I prefer installing the 2nd OS (Vista) from within the 1st OS (XP).

All you had to do was properly partition the HDD (as Sabertooth said, 3 or 4 partitions), then install XP on C. Once XP is fully installed, put in the Vista DVD. Just to be clear, do this while already booted into XP. When the "install windows" screen pops up, click "install now" & follow the instructions. Do a full install, not an upgrade, & make sure Vista installs onto the D partition.

"And that's the fishing line, because Sharkboy said so!"


Report •

#8
May 1, 2008 at 17:18:14

Sabertooth: Having a hodge-podge of partitions all over the place -- organization-wise -- is a bit extreme.

jam: All you had to do was properly partition the HDD

You two aren't big into *NIX, are ya?

dsarosh: I decided to give vista a pass, I've spent too much time on it.
Ive got xp running fine on the sata disk, thats more than enough for now.

Oddly, a lot of people have been saying that.


Report •

#9
May 1, 2008 at 18:01:11

You betcha!

I am not too big into Linux, although, I have Kubuntu alongside Vista & XP on this machine.

I am not too sure about how big of a Linux fan jam is. But my guess is, he's not too deep into it either .... who knows, maybe I'll be eating crow on that .... LOL


Report •

#10
May 2, 2008 at 06:31:15

A little off topic for the Vista forum....

I wouldn't say I'm deep into Linux, but I have played around with quite a few distros. I have an older box (XP1600+, KT133A board, 384MB PC133, 32MB Geforce MX) that I use strictly for Linux testing. Right now it's setup with SimplyMepis 7.0. I've tried Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, PCLinuxOS, Vector, Damn Small, Puppy & a few others. I've been looking for a decent Windows alternative & although Ubuntu seems to be getting a big push lately, I've found Mepis to be a more "windows-like".

I'm also looking for a lightweight distro that I can put on some older boxes, then give them away. I hate to use Win95/98 anymore. WinME modified with 98lite & using the Win95 shell runs unbelievably fast on a 166MMX w/64MB system though. The problem with that is if it screws up, the normal user would be at a loss at how to fix it because of the modification. Then again, they'd be a a loss with Linux too. Maybe I shouldn't worry about it & just get that old crap out of my basement...lol

"And that's the fishing line, because Sharkboy said so!"


Report •

#11
May 2, 2008 at 13:10:34

jam,

Have you played around with ReactOS, I've seen it thrown around on a few forums as a viable alternative to Windows, but haven't really been that keen on trying it out. I guess I haven't really been able to get my head around the thought of replacing Windows with a "supposedly different OS" that will look, act & interface with the user in an manner that is albeit identical to Windows.

And like you, I also have an old Dell that I am nonplussed with. The CPU is a tad faster than your 166MHz, but it only has 48MB of memory. Consequently, it is not used for anything worthwhile, since '95 is pretty much useless to me or anyone I come in contact on a consistent basis & even with '98 on it, my time is still better spent watching paint dry.

I probably should get rid of it, but I know that thing is going to be worth a fortune 300 yrs from now .... hhmmm *strokes & gently taps on chin*


Report •

#12
May 11, 2008 at 05:33:18

Hi,
In case anyone is still reading, I got time today and installed vista again, this time on the older hard drive, and the dual boot is working fine.
I am able to boot into vista or xp without issues.
I always found that installing vista and xp on 2 seperate hard disks goes without any issues at all, but installing thme on the same hard disk has issues.

Sarosh


Report •


Ask Question