Re: XP multiple install earth to bruce hello?

• Previous message: Roger Abell: "Re: Default Domain Policy Question"
• In reply to: nedjinski: "Re: XP multiple install earth to bruce hello?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]

Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:20:23 -0700

I sounds like you really have little choice, given the fussiness
of the specialized media handling stuff.
In the days before VMware, and now Virtual PC and Virtual
Server, I routinely had systems somewhat as you outline, if
only so I could go over to a different boot, try some things out,
blow away that build if that was in the cards, etc. and then
still be able to go back to the main, protected build right away
and be able to get stuff done while the build just blown away
was being reimaged.
The one thing here that you will need to be cautious about is
multiple activations with a single license key. If the activation
sees these as (sufficiently) different hardware within the 60
day reset tolerance, then it is going to want different licenses.

-- 
Roger Abell
Microsoft MVP (Windows  Security)
MCSE (W2k3,W2k,Nt4)  MCDBA
"nedjinski" <nedjinski@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:36D3B924-2C61-414E-9794-2049817EB0C3@microsoft.com...
> 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
> >
> >
> >

• Previous message: Roger Abell: "Re: Default Domain Policy Question"
• In reply to: nedjinski: "Re: XP multiple install earth to bruce hello?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]