Will a Parallel Install of XP allow me to run Applications on a Non-Booting XP, NTFS, single partition HD? [Applications are not working, running this HD as a slave.] Parallel Install to a “separate partition from current OS” is preferred -- I would have to create this partition --is this possible thru Dynamic Disk?

The apps would have to be reinstalled on the 'parallel' system. Everytime (almost) you install a program, links that are needed to have it run are set up in the systems Registry. When you install a new OS, the Registry will not have those links.

Thanks,Ham for your clarification I suspected as much, but wasn't sure of the explanation. --------- My 2nd question[posted to the forum,but it never appeared] was: RE: A clean Install of XP with 2 separate partitions: one for Win XP & the 2nd for Data & Applications: If XP later fails to boot: Can XP just be replaced & the Applications will still run without reinstalling? [I assume Data remains unaffected] If this really works, why don’t people in general just delete & replace OS’s that fail to boot? And is it better to put the Applications in the OS partition? --------- Your answer would apply here as well,I guess. The forum moderator seems to have removed my question--altho it's not a duplicate.

Responding to your question #2 in your "original post" If the OS is in its own partition and apps/utils in another, and you re-install the OS (to same partition as was) you still have to re-install the apps/utils etc. (dlls etc. need to be written to the OS involved and also registry entries.) This applies be the (re-)install a parallel (second) installation, or a complete removal of original and fresh install of the OS. The same situation as when both OS and apps are in the "same" partition. Is is better to put apps in same partition as the OS? Personally with drives the size they are these days I can see no real advantage. It was often a useful path when drive space was an issue (smaller drives) and you had two or more OS installed - each using the same OS. The app/util was (re-)installed for each OS to the shared partition, with appropriate dlls etc. going to the OS involved. Each OS shared/used the bulk of the (common) files in the apps partition, and had their appropriate dlls etc. in their own OS folder/partition. That did allow some saving of drive space (as it would today but no longer really a need?). Perhaps the one advantage of a parallel installation approach when the OS has died (providing it can be achieved - depends on the OS) is that it can usually remove the need to reformat etc; also does not demand all data be backed-up (although it's wise to do so before the parallel installation goes in).

Thanks alot ,trvlr More help than I expected! You said: "It was often a useful path when drive space was an issue (smaller drives) and you had two or more OS installed - each using the same OS[-?]." ------- Didn't you mean to say: "APP" instead of "OS" as the last word in your sentence? thus: "It was often a useful path when drive space was an issue (smaller drives) and you had two or more OS installed - each using the same APP."

Yes - that "OS" should have been APP... So your suggested last sentence is correct. Sorry about that...