Making Multi-Operating-Systems work

[wallijonn]

I say use W98SE just for games that don't play nice with WXP. Everything else goes into WXP. 15GB for W98SE should be more than enough; twice that for WXP. Do a minimal install for W98SE. Yes, you'll want to install FireFox and a HOSTS file for those times that you absolutley need to get to the internet, which should only be to register a product (like HL2). If it's a 40GB HD then make it 12GB/28GB.

If you have 2 drives, install one, install W98SE.
Disconnect it (ribbon cable).
Install the other one. Install WXP.
Power down.
Make the W98SE master (connect the ribbon cable).
Make the WXP slave (connect the ribbon cable).
Power up.
Go into your bios to select whichever one you want to boot into.

if you don't have two drives, buy one when it is on sale. 120GB's can be had for $60.

[Wai_Wai]

In fact, I don't wish to install Windows on drive C. Rather I would like to install at drive D. I am worried about some stubborn programs will write files on drive C and will crash 1 OS.

[Wai_Wai]

Originally Posted by Mark_Venture

How about this...

Use something like XOSL as a boot manager. (freeware formerly from www.xosl.org now at... http://www2.arnes.si/~fkomar/xosl.org/)

Use something like Partition Magic to partition your drive as....
7Meg for XOSL
20gig Primary for Win98.
20gig Primary for WinXP.
Remaining free space as Extended partitions containing logical drives for data as Fat32. (fat32 can be seen by both XP and Win98.).

Each OS will be installed on its own "C" drive (if you use the right install process, which ever you choose from XOSL's menu becomes the C drive, the other becomes another drive letter).

You can redirect My Docs & favorites to the "data partition" so that can be shared.

If one OS crashes, the other still runs.

BUT since each OS is completely independant, you have to install the apps you want on each OS you want them available. SO that means installing some apps twice (once under XP, then again under 98).

That is how I have my system setup except I am running two copies of XP. One for real, every day stuff, the other as a TEST os to try stuff on.

What's the point of using XOSL as a boot manager?
How is it superior to WinsXP boot manager?

[pointreyes]

Originally Posted by Lucas_Maximus

that just over complicating things, just so each OS has it own C: drive.

Actually, a dual-boot method is more complicated than a multi-boot method, it's just the installation process that is more complex. The multi-boot simplifies things because you never have to remember which directory to install a program on. You don't have to go about installing a program doing a custom install and changing that letter to D or E or F or wherever you have that stupid OS installed. I have been doing the C drive method for years now and I will never go back to that asinine dual boot installation method, the multi boot method is my preference for several reasons:
1) No installation order required, you can install whatever Windows OS you want in whatever order you want.
2) I have done this for a customer and so it does happen for reasons. You might want to have two instances of the same OS installed but don't want the risk of the OSes conflicting each other.
3) You can remove an OS and still have the others working.
4) Never a risk of overwriting a system partition that belongs to another OS. With a dual boot method you have to have the C drive always active with D, E, or whatever drive for the system partition. Hence the C drive is your boot drive and sometimes your system drive. With a multi-boot method your C drive is always your boot and system drive.

Bascially with the multi-boot method, you have fully independent OSes instead of OSes that must rely on a single boot partition. You also have the assurance in knowing that whatever you install on that system partition will not infiltrate any of the other OSes.

[pointreyes]

Originally Posted by Wai_Wai

What's the point of using XOSL as a boot manager?
How is it superior to WinsXP boot manager?

A multi-boot method requires a boot manager that can activate one primary partition to another. AFAIK, I'm not aware of a Windows boot manager capable of doing this.

[Wai_Wai]

Originally Posted by pointreyes

Actually, a dual-boot method is more complicated than a multi-boot method, it's just the installation process that is more complex. The multi-boot simplifies things because you never have to remember which directory to install a program on. You don't have to go about installing a program doing a custom install and changing that letter to D or E or F or wherever you have that stupid OS installed. I have been doing the C drive method for years now and I will never go back to that asinine dual boot installation method, the multi boot method is my preference for several reasons:
1) No installation order required, you can install whatever Windows OS you want in whatever order you want.
2) I have done this for a customer and so it does happen for reasons. You might want to have two instances of the same OS installed but don't want the risk of the OSes conflicting each other.
3) You can remove an OS and still have the others working.
4) Never a risk of overwriting a system partition that belongs to another OS. With a dual boot method you have to have the C drive always active with D, E, or whatever drive for the system partition. Hence the C drive is your boot drive and sometimes your system drive. With a multi-boot method your C drive is always your boot and system drive.

Bascially with the multi-boot method, you have fully independent OSes instead of OSes that must rely on a single boot partition. You also have the assurance in knowing that whatever you install on that system partition will not infiltrate any of the other OSes.

Oh! Start to realise now.

I treat dual-boot and multi-boot more or less the same thing - dual-boot refers to 2 OS operating in one computer and multi-boot means 2 or more OS operating in one computer.

Would you mind to tell me how to set up a multi-boot system (or how to use multi-boot method?

[wallijonn]

Originally Posted by Wai_Wai

In fact, I don't wish to install Windows on drive C:. Rather I would like to install at drive D:. I am worried about some stubborn programs will write files on drive C: and will crash 1 OS.

Huh?

[Lucas_Maximus]

Originally Posted by pointreyes

Actually, a dual-boot method is more complicated than a multi-boot method, it's just the installation process that is more complex. The multi-boot simplifies things because you never have to remember which directory to install a program on. You don't have to go about installing a program doing a custom install and changing that letter to D or E or F or wherever you have that stupid OS installed. I have been doing the C drive method for years now and I will never go back to that asinine dual boot installation method, the multi boot method is my preference for several reasons:
1) No installation order required, you can install whatever Windows OS you want in whatever order you want.
2) I have done this for a customer and so it does happen for reasons. You might want to have two instances of the same OS installed but don't want the risk of the OSes conflicting each other.
3) You can remove an OS and still have the others working.
4) Never a risk of overwriting a system partition that belongs to another OS. With a dual boot method you have to have the C drive always active with D, E, or whatever drive for the system partition. Hence the C drive is your boot drive and sometimes your system drive. With a multi-boot method your C drive is always your boot and system drive.

Bascially with the multi-boot method, you have fully independent OSes instead of OSes that must rely on a single boot partition. You also have the assurance in knowing that whatever you install on that system partition will not infiltrate any of the other OSes.

Yeah but I find it easier not to mess about with other stuff like making a 7 meg partition at the start of the drive, if the windows XP and 98 will happily live on the same hardrive, just not the same partition.

It a lot of extra effort just so each windows Installtion see it's installation parition as a drive C:\.

[Lucas_Maximus]

I can see the point when using loads of different OS's, such as windows 98, winddows XP and then linux and maybe freebsd.

[pointreyes]

Originally Posted by Lucas_Maximus

Yeah but I find it easier not to mess about with other stuff like making a 7 meg partition at the start of the drive, if the windows XP and 98 will happily live on the same hardrive, just not the same partition.

It a lot of extra effort just so each windows Installtion see it's installation parition as a drive C:\.

The method that Mark_Venture uses is not what I do. I don't use XOSL and I don't need a dedicated partition for the software I use. If a person is using PartitionMagic, they happen to have BootMagic. And if Windows 98 is going to be the first partition then BootMagic can be installed on that same partition. Acronis Partitioner whatever it is called nowadays has an OS Selector as well and it will even install on NTFS partitions. I happen to use System Commander, it also works on NTFS so I can have NTFS partitions on a single drive and no dedicated partition is needed for my boot manager.

Personally, I find the dual boot method a lot more effort to maintain and therefore I'm willing to do the multi-boot method.

Wai_Wai, I'm defining multi-boot method as meaning that more than one partition can be a boot partition. Dual-boot is normally associated with using only one boot partition for booting up all the OSes. Due to using a boot manager I even keep the boot partition within Linux instead of touching the MBR. Your definition of multi-boot is certainly correct but I have not found a better way to describe what I'm doing because it was get quite tiresome to say I have a multi-independent boot OS system.

BTW: Where did I learn how to do this? I read the Partition Magic manual. It takes some getting used to but once a person gets comfortable doing this method it is very hard to go back to the other method.

[Lucas_Maximus]

well in essence what I was saying it a tad complicated, if all you want to do is boot win9x and windoes XP/2000. And i can understand why you would wnat to do it if you had lots of OS's such as linux and two different versions of windows.

The only thing you have to be careful about is that if your Os is 2000/XP that your installing to that make sure that the programs files that it usually installs to is a D: drive rather than C: but the usual installer programs can usually detect this.

[Mark_Venture]

Originally Posted by Wai_Wai

What's the point of using XOSL as a boot manager?
How is it superior to WinsXP boot manager?

Its not that its "superior" to WinXP's boot manager, but...

In my setup... Using XOSL since each OS is its own partition, If one crashes, I can format and re-install without affecting the other. The order of installing the OS's does not matter. You can install Win98 AFTER XP this way.

Using WinXP's boot manager, you have to watch because it messes with the boot files from EACH OS on the SAME parition. If one OS gets messed up, it can be difficult to recover and still have the ability to boot both OS's. The order in wich you install your OS matters.

[Mark_Venture]

Originally Posted by pointreyes

...I don't use XOSL and I don't need a dedicated partition for the software I use. If a person is using PartitionMagic, they happen to have BootMagic. And if Windows 98 is going to be the first partition then BootMagic can be installed on that same partition. Acronis Partitioner whatever it is called nowadays has an OS Selector as well and it will even install on NTFS partitions. I happen to use System Commander, it also works on NTFS so I can have NTFS partitions on a single drive and no dedicated partition is needed for my boot manager.

Actually, a dedicated partition is NOT needed for XOSL, Its just one way to use it.

The method I use now is very similar to how I got started with OS/2 way back when... Its boot manager would set itself up on a dedicated partition, so I just continued on with it out of habbit. When OS/2's boot manager got messed (by installing Windows), it was easy to recover that way. When I switched to XOSL, I figured if it gets messed, it might be easier to recover if its not on the same drive as an OS. But it can be done either way.

I tried PQ Boot magic, but I didn't like it as much as OS/2's BootManager. (personal choice) When I took OS/2 off my primary machine, I found XOSL. It works, its free, and I've been using it ever since.

Recently a friend told me about another free boot manager that can reside in the MBR if you want text mode only. I forget the name, and I never tried it. If you want graphics/mouse with it, then you have to install it to an existing partition or dedicated partition.

[pointreyes]

Originally Posted by Lucas_Maximus

The only thing you have to be careful about is that if your Os is 2000/XP that your installing to that make sure that the programs files that it usually installs to is a D: drive rather than C: but the usual installer programs can usually detect this.

That is not the only thing. Maybe I did not make myself clear enough so instead of stating what I don't have to deal with I will list what you have to deal with using your method.
1) Order of installation of OSes is required. You cannot simply install Windows XP and then Windows 98. And have you ever tried to install Windows 98/Windows 98 on a single drive? Can't with dual-boot method. I had a customer that needed this done and then once he had everything fixed, I was able to simply remove one of the OSes. No boot manager cleanup required due to the way I did it.
2) You cannot remove the first OS on the drive and expect the other OSes to boot up.
3) You do not have independent OSes, there is a reliance on the C drive to be the boot and sometimes the system drive.
4) I have had programs that will install on the boot drive instead of the D, E, or whatever drive unless it is explicitly stated.

I have had dual-boot systems in the pass and I now throughly hate that method. I like the fact that when I emulate an environment at work that I can get very close to that emulation. But then again, I'm normally using a configuration of Windows 2000 or XP/Windows 2000 Advanced Server or 2003 Enterprise or 2003 Standard for my two main Windows OSes on my systems with strictly NTFS partitions. Since I'm working with Server OSes I find it very important to emulate a server at work the same way and only by dedicating a single box for a single OS (which I also do) or by making the OS think it owns the box can I comfortably emulate what I have at work at home.

[Lucas_Maximus]

Your correct but however if it is just a home machine and the user understand how to install an OS and it doesn't matter too much if the OS is there for the next few year or not using the NT boot loader to boot Windows 2000/XP and windows 98. The way doesnt that I descibed lacks the need to muck about with loads of boot managers etc.

I was just giving what I thought was the simplest way of doing it without extra stuff needed.