Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 13:10:08 +0100
From: Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Matt Hanson wrote:
> start with W98 on drive 1, and do a fresh installation
> of W2K on drive 0.
>
> But I do want to have a thinned down copy of W2K on
> the system too. How did you go about accomplishing
> that one Philip? I don't quite see how you got around
> the conflicts with GUIds written to disk, as well as
> registry conflicts etc. when you set up 2 copies of
> W2K.
I simply installed Win2K on another logical drive. I didn't hesitate
that long, I just thought "let's go for the hell of it".
If you try this too you'll see that it will setup its Documents &
Settings, WINNT and Program Files dir on that logical partition. So it
has its very own settings and registry (in WINNT\System32\Config), and
very own program copies.
I manually edited the registries of all Windows copies on my Lib to be
able to share programs between Windows versions.
This is because I think it's nuts to have two copies of e.g., Matlab on
the same HD (2 X 300 MB, quite a waste of space) and having to update
the settings and prefs for two different copies separately, too. Same
goes for office suites, browsers (Mozilla), virus scanners, firewalls
and other SW.
I really don't know whether 2 Win2K copies share GUIDs or store them in
different places. I suspect they share it.
When I changed partitions outside of Win2K (e.g., in Linux) both Win2K
versions updated their disk info stuff separately (for example they both
assigned drive letters to OS/2 HPFS partitions which I had set to no
drive letter). But that doesn't imply they share GUIDs.
Newer OS/2 versions also store LVM info somewhere on cyl 0 track 0;
until recently their LVM info wiped the Win2K stuff. But I don't use
OS/2 LVM on my Lib, so I can't tell if it wipes the LVM info of just one
Win2K (implying separate copies) of both (implying several Win2Ks shares
one copy).
BTW Linux seems to have some LVM too (at least it recognizes Win2K LVM
info).
I just checked the Volume IDs in both Win2K versions (in the registry,
HKLM\SYSTEM\MountedDevices). The key values for the various partitions
with drive letters (keys \DosDevices\<drive_letter>:) are identical in
both Win2Ks, but the volume ID's referring to those key values (looking
like \??\Volume{long_hexadecimal_number}\ ) are clearly different.
Hmmmm......
...<snip>
> > (I'm so used to
> > OS/2's FDISK and Linux cfdisk that I forgot that
> > Win9x FDISK has the 8 GB barrier.)
>
> Is it a limitation of FDISK, or a system's BIOS, or
> both? I've been putting my Lib's 40GB HDD in my
(Just a reiteration, good for those new list members who don't read
archives)
It is a flaw resulting from a combination of a (deliberate? or clumsy?)
limitation in the Lib's BIOS and a limitation in FDISK (MS would call it
a feature).
FDISK (from DOS Win9x) always asks the BIOS how big the HD is. The Lib's
BIOS extended int13 subfunction no. 48h ("report HD size") is crippled
and reports a maximum of 8 GB minus hibernation size. So FDISK, asking
the Lib's BIOS, will get an answer which is never bigger than 8 GB minus
hibernation size.
(All other ext.int13 functions are OK.)
Other disk partitioning SW bypasses the BIOS and asks it the HD itself
(using separate I/O instructions). As the HD itself supposedly doesn't
lie, this other SW can see all of it.
And: other BIOSes (viz. the one in your desktop) probably have a better
implementation of int13 extensions, so FDISK will be able to do a better
job there than in a Libretto.
In the end, what matters is what has been written in the MBR. No program
will ever ask the BIOS for HD size, nor will any operating system; they
will just accept the entries in the MBR.
That's why using other disk partitioning SW than DOS/Win9x FDISK or
partitioning the HD in another PC will very effectively bypass the
Libretto's 8 GB HD size barrier.
:.....
> desktop to partition after the 8GB boundry with PM.
> If I booted the drive on the desktop from
> a W98 boot floppy and ran FDISK /MBR from the floppy,
> would FDISK still not be able to see the entire drive,
> and go ahead and create a corrupted MBR?
See above: I think FDISK running on another PC equipped with a
non-crippled BIOS will see all of your HD.
...<snip>
>
> > Yes but Win2K's disk management combines EZ-drive +
> > (most of) PM. So....
>
> I can that see by browsing the menus in W2K's "Disk
> Managment". Guess it doesn't create partitions tho'.
Oh yes it can. Just browse the options a bit more scrutinously.
:
:
:
(Hint: right-click on an empty part of the HD layout image below in
Logical Disk Manager)
> >....<snip>
> >> Is there no way of installing W98 onto another
> >> partition >after< installing W2K, and then getting
> >> W2K to dual-boot both? I've put in so many hours
> >> setting
>
> >(Didn't you say it's a hobby?)
>
> Heh... Yeah... But at all to many hair raising points
> it seems one God(s) has(have) plagued me with. 8-0
>
> > Must be possible. Should be something like this:
> > - Use bootpart (www.winimage.com) to save the Win2K
> > boot sector from C:
> > - Install Win98 on another partition then where
> > you've put Win2K
> > - Restore boot sector on C:
> > - Add a stanza to boot.ini for Win98 (check in your
>
> > current boot.iniwhat it looks like)
> >
> > The vital thing is to save the Win2K boot sector.
>
> Hmmm...
To restore it afterwards: I usually do it with DOS debug.exe or a binary
disk editor, in plain DOS or in Win9x after locking the C: partition.
You can't do this in Win2K BTW.
But there must be better / easier alternatives.
Philip
