Re: Dual Boot
- From: "Pegasus \(MVP\)" <I.can@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 12:03:30 +1000
I don't believe in duplication of effort. Since you responded to
the post by Slip Kid, I assume that you decided to follow his
recommendations, in which case I will let him handle things.
If this is incorrect then please say so.
"Vince" <Vince@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1122BC67-0F44-44AD-9224-D1F443227666@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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: Slip Kid
- Re: Dual Boot
- From: Vince
- 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
- Re: Dual Boot
- From: Vince
- Dual Boot
- Prev by Date: RE: VPN Fails after SP1 Intall Failure
- Next by Date: Defragmenting Windows 2003 Server
- Previous by thread: Re: Dual Boot
- Next by thread: Re: Dual Boot
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
