Re: Dual Boot
- From: "Vince" <Vince@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 17:22:07 -0700
Okay, here is what I did.. I used my sons computer, It is a Compaq sr1300nx
and loaded the windows server 2003 on to a Maxter 20gb hard drive set as
slave. The operating system that is on his computer is windows xp home
edition that is on a Western Dig 60gb set as master. It loaded just fine but
when I checked to see what letter the computer gave my maxtor, I could not
see the 60gb hard drive with windows xp home. All I could see is the Maxtor.
The letters were c and d, I split the hard drive. I rebooted and it booted
fine to the Server 2003. What happened was that when I put the Maxtor hard
drive in I must have loosened the IDE cable that went to the Western
dig/master, well, to my surprise, I had loaded the server 2003 succesfully
onto the 20gb maxtor while the 60gb Western Dig was diconnected. Now after I
plugged the IDE cable in, I can boot to windows Home edition which is now F,
but when I try to boot to the windows server, I get an error message; Windows
could not start because the following file is missing or corrupt; <windows
root> \system 32\ntoskrnl.exe. Pleases re-install a copy of the above file. I
can put the server cd in and it will bootup, or I can unplug the ide cable to
the 60gb and it will boot to server 2003, and I can boot to windows Home
edition fine. How can I install ntoskrnl.exe. I re-installed server 2003 and
I also have updated all the updates for server 2003. Any suggestions on how
to remedy this? I never put XOSL on the end of the hard drive like you told
me to, but I did partition for it:(
"Slip Kid" wrote:
> Pegasus (MVP) wrote:
> > "Slip Kid" <G-2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:T3Afe.194123$cg1.6376@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >>Pegasus (MVP) wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Slip Kid" <G-2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >>>news:efxfe.193688$cg1.6652@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Pegasus (MVP) wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> > *** Nobody has ever claimed that the native Windows boot manager
> > *** is more than a very basic solution, not even Microsoft. When MS
> > *** do not have a good in-house solution they often buy a company
> > *** that has - see defraggers, partition managers.
>
> I believe a simple dual boot with an MS OS combo is as basic as it gets.
> I have piles of documentation regarding dual booting, going back to
> the days when two OS's were not always compatible. Cite where MS
> recommends a third party solution for a dual boot with XP and '03?
>
> The MS boot process/files I refer to are safe, sufficient and not
> lacking - a third part solution is not required for the OP's case.
>
>
> > Just a few examples from your reply to illustrate my main point:
> >
> > You write:
> > It's now simple enough to create a bootable image and not only include
> > necessary files full utilities that allow you to boot from your Rom and
> > at least be *into* you drive(s), see what's up and do quite a bit of
> > repair (depending on the utilities you chose to put on the boot CD
> >
> > My comments:
> > - Necessary files full utilities? Meaning?
>
> Take a look at the utilities included with the boot discs I cited? As
> you have little patience with my writing I won't enumerate them. They
> are largely diagnostic and repair apps. When a disc fails to boot, they
> may be a last resort - and a boot disc is the best/easiest way to use
> them. Please, the very non-in-house tools you refer to can all be on a
> boot CD. Yes, even a boot manager!
>
> > - At least be *into* you drive(s)? Meaning?
>
> I meant that it is best to boot (for the install) from the install CD
> rather than accessing the CD from Windows. (This might be self-evident
> to many, but some assume installing an OS is the same as installing any
> app.) I won't bore you with the advantages of installing from a boot.
> I'm sure you can tell me that many questions in these groups can be
> addressed by asking "Are you installing from at boot?".
>
> > - Boot CD? How does a boot CD relate to the OP's question?
>
> Much of the response I was countering was OT. OTOH, if the OP was
> contemplating *more* than an install (re-partition..etc) I took
> advantage of giving him some broad advice that may be useful to him. I
> believe much of his *dilemma* could have been avoided had he better
> prepped his discs before he used them.
>
> Re-partiton? I see that as a solution too often - well after a system
> is in use. How can you claim it is anything but a risk to do that with
> an active and loaded drive? What is wrong with having your disc
> formatted correctely *before* one uses it?
>
> > =======================
> > You write:
> > A glutton for punishment and working outside the MS frame. When it
> > blows, you're on your own.
> >
> > My comments:
> > You don't seem to know XOSL. XOSL modifies the MBR
> > (a change that is easily reversed), and it leaves the various
> > OSs alone. You can remove XOSL in less than two minutes,
> > then boot from Windows without any further change.
> > In other words, it is unwise to comment on products unless
> > you know them very well.
>
> I used XOSL from its beginning. It is one of the simpler boot managers.
> Is any app that modifies the MBR without risk? Why is it necessary
> for the OP to take the risk in his case?
>
> Actually XOSL is great for other tasks!? It need not be *installed" for
> some of them or even for use as a boot manager?!
>
> For me? It was not easily un-installed. (It quit 'working' but did not
> 'leave' my disc) The solution was to replace the MBR.
>
> Forums/Usenet if rife with problems relating to third party boot
> managers. Boot.ini can be copied, saved and if there is a problem?
> Well, one can either boot from a floppy (using the boot files) or a CD
> and simply replace the MS files.
> Again, Google and boot manager and see what happen when things go wrong?
>
>
> > =======================
> > You write:
> > Have a *reason* to use a third party boot manager. I have not seen
> > the necessity with MS OS's.
> >
> > My comments:
> > Here are two excellent reasons:
> > - Modularity: Without a proper boot manager, one OS ends up
> > on a drive other than C:. A frequent question in this newsgroup
> > goes like this: I no longer need my OS on drive C: - how can
> > I move the one from drive D: to drive C:. With your method
> > you can't. With a proper boot manager it's easy.
>
> Yes, I suppose if one is not prepared for the future they will pay when
> it arrives! I solve your problem by re-partitioning any new drive. The
> primary volume on each drive is a small (200 meg) FAT partition which is
> both DOS and contains the system boot files only.
>
> I then have the maximum active volumes established - allowing for
> multiple OS's in the future.
> I what way is my method less convenient, less safe than a boot manager.
> (without any of the risks a boot manager holds.) Are you willing to
> claim a third-party boot manager is without risk. (Trust me, I am not
> an MS flag waver! I find many of their *apps* lacking and use many
> third party utilities. - Sorry to harp on boot.ini? Your scenario
> above is avoidable without resorting to a third-party boot manager)
>
> > - Separation. Many people have children who tend to wreck
> > Windows with Internet downloads and viruses. Some of them
> > install two versions of Windows: One for the kids, one for
> > themselves. With your method, viruses can easily damage
> > both versions. With a proper boot manager, they can damage
> > one installation only because the other one is completely
> > incaccesible.
>
> If a kid boots to *their" OS on drive in volume 2 on drive 1 (in my
> config) and runs into trouble? The trouble is *isolated* from any other
> OS's. I recently picked up an nasty Trojan on drive 0? I simply went
> into a clean/healthy OS on drive 1 and was able to clean the OS on drive
> 1.
>
> Further, by isolating my OS's/boot volumes? By using sysprep I've been
> able to migrate OS's to other drives, boxes with little effort. (Yes,
> I've moved OS to places where I was told they would not function) I
> think you might agree forsight allow one to face situations in the
> future without greif.
>
> >
> > While I will readily recognise that your initial response was
> > well-meant, it suffers from these problems:
> > - It's unnecessarily wordy.
>
> Yes, I went off on a tangent. I'm sorry if I believe proper disc
> management begins at disk prep and few people take the time to consider
> how flexible a disc can be if it is prepped with the future in mind. (It
> is not difficult to format a disk and use some imagination: "What might
> I be doing in the future." My method allows one to more easily go to a
> Linux OS (on another drive) and if a boot manager is required, multiple,
> active partitions that are established at format will be appreciated.
> Also, having a small, primary boot on each drive offers several
> advantages.
>
> As for the references to the drive imaging and disk partitioning in
> general? That was a result of addressing another issue, not brought up
> by me or the original OP.
>
> > - Some of it is incomprehensible.
> > - It ignores the features of proper boot managers.
> > - It fails to give the OP a clear path to resolve this problem.
>
> Use a boot manager if it is the *only* solution. I do not believe it is
> a necessary solution with SP and '02. I have used at least half a dozen
> boot managers. None as been as reliable as the MS multi boot if one is
> only using MS OS's. I addressed a way of isolating OS''s even if one is
> using boot.ini.
>
> Pegasus, I respect you. You've given me some great advice over the
> years! Pardon me? But it is your *advice* which led me to a more
> thoughtful approach prior to *using* a system! That is, *you* saved me
> from having to resort to a *clear path* which might not have been the
> best path had I not been better prepared.
>
> I rank you with the best? In this case the OP seems to be in a
> situation which might be best solved by a more comprehensive approach to
> his discs. It's not too late. Regarding my *advice* concerning imaging
> and boot discs and utilities and partitioning? Yes, one can *survive*
> without the extra effort.
>
> Multiple primary volumes only offer advantage(s). (I also believe the
> small boot partition, 'hidden' on drive 1 is wise - it is essentially a
> *ready to go* drive in case of a disaster on drive 0)).
>
> If you believe one should accept a new machine with a single partition?
> We do not agree?. In as little as half an hour I can prep a new drive
> which will meet various contingencies.
>
> No, I regard you highly and except for your insistance of a third party
> boot manager in this case my drive is full of useful advice from you. I
> wouldn't dare compare myself to you? But I also believe I suggested
> some sound practices. Calling it *drivel* did not address the value of
> some vere simple *rules* that I have seen to be of great value.
>
> But no, I won't put my life on the line if one wishes to use a third
> party boot manager. Go for it and good luck!
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Dual Boot
- From: Pegasus \(MVP\)
- Re: Dual Boot
- From: Pegasus \(MVP\)
- Re: Dual Boot
- References:
- Dual Boot
- From: Vince
- Re: Dual Boot
- From: Pegasus \(MVP\)
- Re: Dual Boot
- From: Slip Kid
- Re: Dual Boot
- From: Pegasus \(MVP\)
- Re: Dual Boot
- From: Slip Kid
- Re: Dual Boot
- From: Pegasus \(MVP\)
- Re: Dual Boot
- From: Slip Kid
- Dual Boot
- Prev by Date: Re: Dual Boot
- Next by Date: RE: VPN Fails after SP1 Intall Failure
- Previous by thread: Re: Dual Boot
- Next by thread: Re: Dual Boot
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
