Re: XP multiple install earth to bruce hello?
From: nedjinski (nedjinski_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 01/21/05
- Next message: Red: "Disabling Shut Down / Restart Command"
- Previous message: Nut Cracker: "Re: Default Domain Policy Question"
- In reply to: Roger Abell: "Re: XP multiple install earth to bruce hello?"
- Next in thread: Roger Abell: "Re: XP multiple install earth to bruce hello?"
- Reply: Roger Abell: "Re: XP multiple install earth to bruce hello?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:19:01 -0800
Hi Roger -
and thanks for your post.
well this machine is part experiment and part practical.
i wanted to have a multi OS machine for the following reasons -
part of the purpose of the machine is to be used as a Digital Audio
Workstation which has specific audio realetd hardware and programs, some of
which are finicky about sharing their space with other programs - ie.
conflicts.
so i thought i would make a machine with a general purpose partition / OS
for the usual web browsing, email etc.
and have another partition / OS for audio editing / recording & specific
programs with no conflicts and lots of breathing room.
then a third partition / OS for video editing / recording & specific video
programs.
and another set of partitions for pagefiles.
does all of this seem like overkill to you? am i making it all too
complicated?
"Roger Abell" wrote:
> Hi "emathers" of Earth.
> I hope you will not mind comments from another, as you
> have posted into a public forum.
> These I have inlined below . . .
>
> --
> Roger Abell
> Microsoft MVP (Windows Security)
> MCSE (W2k3,W2k,Nt4) MCDBA
> "nedjinski" <nedjinski@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:25C8C3C0-C839-4CFE-8BD8-A7070EEC5560@microsoft.com...
> > Hi Bruce & Simon -
> >
> > You were very kind to help me out last week with my
> > questions about multiple installations of XP on
> > multiple partitions.
> >
> > So I thought I would let you know of my results.
> >
> > Once I got the concept of the correct sequence it
> > wasn't all that bad.
> > Starting with clean disks I began the first XP
> > installation procedure and made all the partitions I
> > wanted to have for the other installs and pagefiles and then installed the
> > first copy of XP
> > -
> >
> > once the first install was complete I went ahead and
> > formatted all the empty partitions.
> >
> > My machine looks like this:
> >
> > Three Primary partitions - One Extended Partition
> >
> > Primary Partition one - 25gb
> > Primary Partition two - 20gb
> > Primary Partition three - 20 gb
> > One Extended Partition with four Logical Drives -
> > each about five gb each to be used as pagefile
> > containers, the last just spare space TBD.
> >
>
> On multiboot systems, even where the OS versions differ,
> I will commonly point all of the intalls to the same location
> (partition) for their pagefile and tell each OS the same size
> info for the pagefile. This never causes problem (that I have
> ever noticed) and does definitely save some space (I just
> which I could, with today's large memory systems, do the
> same thing for the hiberfil.sys hibernation file!).
>
> > So far it all seems to be working well. I haven't yet
> > activated XP and I assume I will have to activate all
> > three installs separately? I hope this doesn't raise
> Yes, each must be independently activated, and yes, it will
> raise red flags. If you read the EULA.txt file which define
> you license to use you will see that it say you may install
> one copy on one machine. I have run this up the flagpole
> at MS and have always received the answer that this means
> that a dual or triple boot machine (all XP) needs two or
> three licenses. AFAIK however, MS has not been active
> in strictly making this known or enforced.
> But, do expect activation issues, and do be aware of your
> rights as granted in the license.
>
> > the red flag with MS! BTW is the activation for the OS
> > or is it for the System? and what would happen if I
> for the OS or for the System ?
> Activation is per-bootable build, and the activation info
> is stored within that build.
>
> > activated the primary install and not the other two?
> > would they be rendered useless after 30 days?
> >
> yes, useless
>
> > so back to the partitions -
> >
> > I was under the impression that the different OS's on
> > different partitions would be invisible to each other?
> why ? If the partition is mounted with a letter then it is
> accessible (to the extent of permissions if NTFS is in use)
>
> > (the concept of three C: drives) But when I open
> > Windows Explorer I can see everything on the computer,
> > and it appears as though I can move files across
> > partitions, etc. So how separate are the installs? and
> > if they are "interactive" then whats the point of
> > separate partitions/installs in the first place?
> >
> The non-active installs are just so much storage.
> The partitions do not have to have drive letters when
> a different partition is booted. If they are mounted,
> then the well-known, built-in accounts and groups are
> recognized as these are the same everywhere. So, the
> storage of build2 can be manipulated when logged into
> build1 because things like Administrators, Users, etc.
> are defined to allow access (in the NTFS settings of
> the build2 storage) and any account in use in the boot
> of build1 is likely recognized as a member of Users
> (for an example)
> Why would one have multi-boots when only one can
> be owning the hardware (aka: booted, running) at a
> time ? That is up to your needs. Testing , etc..
> Some software like VMWare does have the ability
> to present virtual hardware and to allow raw partition
> installs to be used. With this, and much sweat getting
> it working with raw partitions, one can boot build1,
> log into build1, fire up the virtualization and boot
> build2 within it, log into build2, etc. . .
>
> > hope this finds it's way to you and feel free to email me directly in the
> > future - emathersatyahoodotcomm
>
>
>
- Next message: Red: "Disabling Shut Down / Restart Command"
- Previous message: Nut Cracker: "Re: Default Domain Policy Question"
- In reply to: Roger Abell: "Re: XP multiple install earth to bruce hello?"
- Next in thread: Roger Abell: "Re: XP multiple install earth to bruce hello?"
- Reply: Roger Abell: "Re: XP multiple install earth to bruce hello?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
