Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 17:31:41 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning
Matt Hanson wrote: > > Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 05:57:46 -0800 (PST) > From: Matt Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [LIB] Question on W2000 & partitioning > > I just realized that I may not be able to do a new installation of W2K on > the 1st primary partition of this 40GB HDD, and have it dual-boot the copy > of W98 that's living on the 2nd primary partition that follows it. That > copy of W98 thinks it's installed on C:, as Partition Magic hid the 1st > partition with W2K on it when I created that 2nd partition and made it > active. No you can't install Windows each on a separate primary (not easily that is). But you can dump the other primary (the one you want W2K on) and install Win2K anew in a logical partition. Or you can install Win2K in a primary partition using NTFS rather than FAT32 (Win98 won't see it then). > If I were to make both partitions visable when I re-install W2K, then W98 > will find itself on a D: partition. I'm guessing W98 is not going to like Nothing wrong with that. The first booted Windows always gets C: as its drive letter. >From my experience the rest goes as follows: - next, all logical partitions get drive letters assigned (D:, E:, ....) - the remaining primary partitions get the first free drive letters. So Win98 would get something like F: or G: But that is of no concern, as Win2K is active. Once Win98 boots, its primary partition will be C: again and Win2K's one will be F: or G: > that any more than W2K would have liked its image restored and thinned down > further down the drive at E: or beyond. > > Or is W2K's boot manager capable of hiding W2K's partition when W98 is > booted and visa versa? Can I leave the W98 partition hidden when I install > W2K, and then have W2K's boot manager set things up to boot both OSs as C:? No it's not the boot manager which hides things. It's Logical Disk Manager which assigns drive letters. Once again, it is very different from Win98 drive letter stuff. > To answer you question about why I hide partitions a Philip, I remembered > something in the process of experimenting with Partition Magic tonight. > It's something PM does automatically when you already have a primary > partition with an OS on the HDD. When you create a new primary partition, > PM will hide that new partition by default. If you make it active, PM will > hide the existing primary partition with an OS on it by default. Through > the years I guess I've just been accepting with what PM was doing > automatically. Yes but again, what PM does is good for Win98 but not necessarily so for Win2K. > > Matt > > ---------------------------- > PS: Just caught your last post as I was submitting this one Philip. I see > now that W2K >can< create partitions. However it doesn't seem to deal with > hiding or unhiding partitions PM plays with, nor rezize and/or move > partitions. Yes but you do not need it the way PM does. Win2K can hide partitions by simply taking away a drive letter from any partition. Win2K partitions can be hidden from Win98 by using NTFS. > >From what you say about FDISK running from a desktop that fully supports > Int13 extensions, it would seem that running FDISK /MBR on a HDD from the > Lib that way should work properly. Not while it *in* the Lib. It must be in another PC (with a non-crippled BIOS). Remember, the Lib 8 GB barrier is only a concern if ALL THREE of the following conditions are met simultaneously: 1. You want to add/delete partitions (changing bootable/active is no problem) 2. You are doing it with a HD inside a Libretto 3. You are using DOS / Win9x / WinME FDISK for it. If any of these conditions is NOT met, the 8 GB barrier is of NO concern AT ALL. (Save for hibernation space issues, of course. You must always save space for it.) > I'm having problems with PM changing the order of drive letters when I > insert a primary C: partition between the 1st primary, and the 33GB > extended partition that straddles the 8GB boundary with logical D: and E: > partitions on it. It keeps lettering the new 2nd partition F:, but I > suppose that's not a major issue. It can always be re-mapped in Windows. > Wonder if all partitioning software does that. Sounds identical to what I described above. It is the DOS way of drive lettering. > Sounds like I can just install a 2nd copy of W2K as a logical drive without > having to do further tweaks. You say you tweaked the registries of each of Yes. > your 3 Windows OSs to share folders. But that's not necessary, is it? I No. > can just install W2K to a logical drive, and be able to boot W2K1, W98, and > W2K2 individually... yes? And then later tweak things to share folders if > I get to it. Yes. Perhaps you may end up with two boot menus, if you have a FAT32 primary (C:) for W98 plus a Win2K in a logical partition, and another NTFS primary for another Win2K (also C:). But later on it is not hard to add the NTFS one to the W98 boot menu. It will be much easier to just leave your Win98 on a primary C: FAT32, and install all Win2Ks in logical partitions. > Does what you're saying about multi-booting mean W2K1's boot manager will > take over booting all 3 OSs? And does that answer my question about the Yes. Win98 will be called something like "Previous operating system on C:" Can be renamed easily by editing boot.ini > boot manager above? I'll get a boot menu with each of the 3 OSs including > and option to start the installed Recovery Console? Or will the Recovery > Console option get skipped until the copy of W2K1 or W2K2 is selected? You can only install the recovery console when Win2K has been installed already (AFAIK, that is - I may be wrong here). If you install it, it will be added to Win2K's boot menu automatically. > Big question though is this deal of hiding. The only way can see my > present W98 partition working is if it can be booted as C: Is that going > to happen? Sure. > And this: > ---------- > > 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. > > I'm not sure if that's true with Partition Magic, is it? Even after the > partition tables are set up with partitioning software on a desktop fully > supporting int13 extensions, when the drive is pit into the Lib, PM still > cannot see all the partitions from Windows or DOS correctly without drive > overlay installed. Ironic, as I can boot the Lib from a FD, and run DOS > programs on partitions >8GB from the command prompt without problems. Sigh.... why do you keep on hanging to PM? Just dump it, and a complicatory issue is dumped too. In the mean time, if you insist on PM, why not do the partitioning in a desktop, and then put the HD back into the Lib. With a little luck, PM will see all of the HD. As for hiding, all PM's boot mgr does is simply masking the hidden partition's type byte in the MBR slot with 10h. I don't think it will ask the BIOS how big the HD is (at least I hope PM is not so stupidly written). > > 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. > > I had to re-read that. You're saying that using partitioning software > >other than< DOS/Win9x based programs can effectively bypass the Lib's 8GB > handicap... yes. Meaning that PM, being DOS/Win9x based, just doesn't hack > it... yes? Yes. See somewhere above. That is, I concluded from your earlier posts (that PM needs EZ-drive) that PM also asks the BIOS for disk size, instead of asking the HD itself. If that is correct, the answer is: YES! (so the vital thing is, where does your disk partitoning stuff get its info, from the HD or from the BIOS?) (The hibernation space thing remains, that's a separate issue. Just leave space for it in the right place). Good luck, (awaiting the next questions :-) ) Philip
