Putting XP on my 3rd harddrive

[Jeepwolf]

I presently have 2 hard drives partitioned into 6 partitions. I
really do not like XP, but there seems to be a few newer programs that
will not run on 98 anymore. I unplugged both of my hard drives abd
installed XP on another blank hard drive. In order to use it, I have
to unplug my Win98 drives and plug in the XP drive.

What would happen if I plugged in the 3rd drive and initially booted
to DOS (which I do anyhow). Could I just swap to this 3rd drive and
start XP? (I have that drive as a FAT32). I dont know how to setup a
dual boot, and it looks far too complicated to setup. Besides that, I
do not want XP loaded at all, 95% of the time.

I know I will have to change that drive from a master to a slave
drive, and that seems like it could be a problem to start XP from a
non-master drive.

Thanks for all help

Jeep

 

[Lil' Dave]

To start out with, you should get your head out of msdos when using or
installing XP. The partition XP is installed on should be NTFS, not FAT32,
for better reliability. The retail and generic OEM installation CD for XP
will boot and create an initial NTFS partition for its own installation.

Also, consider independent OSes that never see each other. One method is a
3rd party boot manager that can hide partitions. Another is using a
removable drive tray/enclosure.

XP will install on a 3rd hard drive if you choose. But, will put its boot
files on the active/primary partition on the 1st hard drive. And, should
allow dual boot capability to both 98 and XP. I don't recommend this as
both OSes are dependent on the XP boot files for booting capability. (All
eggs in one basket).
--
Dave
"Jeepwolf" <jeepwolf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:htc8l3dl8p5glv8tjneoqs040io8oqqo65@4ax.com...
>I presently have 2 hard drives partitioned into 6 partitions. I
> really do not like XP, but there seems to be a few newer programs that
> will not run on 98 anymore. I unplugged both of my hard drives abd
> installed XP on another blank hard drive. In order to use it, I have
> to unplug my Win98 drives and plug in the XP drive.
>
> What would happen if I plugged in the 3rd drive and initially booted
> to DOS (which I do anyhow). Could I just swap to this 3rd drive and
> start XP? (I have that drive as a FAT32). I dont know how to setup a
> dual boot, and it looks far too complicated to setup. Besides that, I
> do not want XP loaded at all, 95% of the time.
>
> I know I will have to change that drive from a master to a slave
> drive, and that seems like it could be a problem to start XP from a
> non-master drive.
>
> Thanks for all help
>
> Jeep

 

[Jeepwolf]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 06:44:40 -0600, "Lil' Dave"
<spamyourself@virus.net> wrote:

>To start out with, you should get your head out of msdos when using or
>installing XP. The partition XP is installed on should be NTFS, not FAT32,
>for better reliability. The retail and generic OEM installation CD for XP
>will boot and create an initial NTFS partition for its own installation.
>
>Also, consider independent OSes that never see each other. One method is a
>3rd party boot manager that can hide partitions. Another is using a
>removable drive tray/enclosure.
>
>XP will install on a 3rd hard drive if you choose. But, will put its boot
>files on the active/primary partition on the 1st hard drive. And, should
>allow dual boot capability to both 98 and XP. I don't recommend this as
>both OSes are dependent on the XP boot files for booting capability. (All
>eggs in one basket).

If I cant access files from DOS, they are not going to be on my
computer. Dos is the only means of security we have. When things go
wrong, dos can always fix them. Without dos access, I may as well
kiss all my personal data goodbye, when (not "IF", but "WHEN") XP
decides to permanently die. I saw this happen on a friends computer.
I tried to save her personal data from Dos and found it impossible.
She lost everything. The only way I will even consider running XP is
from a harddrive setup to be accessed from dos. So either I partition
to a FAT32, or I dont install XP. I'd rather have XP less reliable
than useless. I dont plan to use XP very much anyhow. I never liked
it and never will.

Now, as far as this 3rd party boot manager. Where can I download
something? Prefer freeware.

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Just because you couldn't recover the data using DOS doesn't mean it wasn't
recoverable. I'm sorry that your lack of knowledge caused the lady to lose
her data. Frankly, if you are that unfamiliar with the way things work and
are unwilling to learn the ways of NTFS, or even the problems you'll run
into using DOS to access an XP system in FAT32 (there WILL be problems),
then I suggest you stay away from XP altogether. Stick with DOS and 9x/DOS
systems.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"Jeepwolf" <jeepwolf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news8fbl3h2k3v4q2jvr26uf98ndqrk0o9sa7@4ax.com...

> If I cant access files from DOS, they are not going to be on my
> computer. Dos is the only means of security we have. When things go
> wrong, dos can always fix them. Without dos access, I may as well
> kiss all my personal data goodbye, when (not "IF", but "WHEN") XP
> decides to permanently die. I saw this happen on a friends computer.
> I tried to save her personal data from Dos and found it impossible.
> She lost everything. The only way I will even consider running XP is
> from a harddrive setup to be accessed from dos. So either I partition
> to a FAT32, or I dont install XP. I'd rather have XP less reliable
> than useless. I dont plan to use XP very much anyhow. I never liked
> it and never will.
>
> Now, as far as this 3rd party boot manager. Where can I download
> something? Prefer freeware.

 

[MEB]

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:e9s1mtrNIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| Just because you couldn't recover the data using DOS doesn't mean it
wasn't
| recoverable. I'm sorry that your lack of knowledge caused the lady to lose
| her data. Frankly, if you are that unfamiliar with the way things work and
| are unwilling to learn the ways of NTFS, or even the problems you'll run
| into using DOS to access an XP system in FAT32 (there WILL be problems),
| then I suggest you stay away from XP altogether. Stick with DOS and 9x/DOS
| systems.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User
| www.grystmill.com

I think one thing Gary is attempting to indicate is that there are recovery
programs designed to recover files from trashed NTFS systems.
Perhaps he was also indicating that had you contacted some forum or other,
for help with the lady's issue, perhaps the system itself might have been
saved.

On the other hand, many people feel exactly as you do. Some form of DOS or
other access, seems to give them a sense of security related to abilities to
access otherwise seemingly in-accessable partitions or hard drives, or
preform activities which can not generally be done if strictly NTFS is used
[unless you have the ulities and know what you are doing].

So if you wish to use Fat32 in XP while also having some other OS such as
9X, do so, however, as Gary has warned, there can be [dare we say ARE]
issues related to that combined/cross platform usage. Some claim none
occurs, but others seem to have constant problems and fill the forums and
help groups with those issues. So be forewarned.

If you want the ability with the least problems, choose a boot and
partition/drive manager which allows you to hide the partitions/drives from
each other, or use some method to ensure they are separate and distinct [not
on the same drive and not while both are hooked up].

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________


|
| "Jeepwolf" <jeepwolf@gmail.com> wrote in message
| news8fbl3h2k3v4q2jvr26uf98ndqrk0o9sa7@4ax.com...
|
| > If I cant access files from DOS, they are not going to be on my
| > computer. Dos is the only means of security we have. When things go
| > wrong, dos can always fix them. Without dos access, I may as well
| > kiss all my personal data goodbye, when (not "IF", but "WHEN") XP
| > decides to permanently die. I saw this happen on a friends computer.
| > I tried to save her personal data from Dos and found it impossible.
| > She lost everything. The only way I will even consider running XP is
| > from a harddrive setup to be accessed from dos. So either I partition
| > to a FAT32, or I dont install XP. I'd rather have XP less reliable
| > than useless. I dont plan to use XP very much anyhow. I never liked
| > it and never will.
| >
| > Now, as far as this 3rd party boot manager. Where can I download
| > something? Prefer freeware.
|
|

 

[glee]

"Jeepwolf" <jeepwolf@gmail.com> wrote in message
news8fbl3h2k3v4q2jvr26uf98ndqrk0o9sa7@4ax.com...
> snip
> Now, as far as this 3rd party boot manager. Where can I download
> something? Prefer freeware.

I personally use the freeware XOSL 1.1.5 and have for a number of years.
http://www2.arnes.si/~fkomar/xosl.org/

It is free, and unsupported.

I install XOSL to a very small (25MB) logical drive in an extended partition,
similar to what is described here:
http://www.tprthai.net/xosl.htm
and here:
http://www2.arnes.si/~fkomar/xosl.org/faqhow/faq.html
--
Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+

 

[98 Guy]

Lil' Dave wrote:

> The partition XP is installed on should be NTFS, not FAT32,

There is no requirement that XP be installed on NTFS, and in fact as a
SOHO user you will have better experiences with managing a FAT-32
drive vs NTFS.

The advantages of NTFS are fictional (for the home user) and are only
really needed/desired by network admins who manage dozens or hundreds
of PC's inside an organization.

> for better reliability.

There is no reliability difference between NTFS and FAT-32. There is
a large difference in the (low-cost) availability of tools that can
fix a drive that's been formatted in FAT-32 vs NTFS. Being able to
boot into a fully-functional command prompt is a huge advantage for
fat-32, but again not if you're managing many machines in a corporate
environment.

FAT-32 has slightly better performance vs NTFS.

 

[John John]

98 Guy wrote:

> Lil' Dave wrote:
>
>
>>The partition XP is installed on should be NTFS, not FAT32,
>
>
> There is no requirement that XP be installed on NTFS, and in fact as a
> SOHO user you will have better experiences with managing a FAT-32
> drive vs NTFS.
>
> The advantages of NTFS are fictional (for the home user) and are only
> really needed/desired by network admins who manage dozens or hundreds
> of PC's inside an organization.

That is plain and simply not true. NTFS advantages are not just fictional.



> There is no reliability difference between NTFS and FAT-32.

You have no clue what you are talking about.


There is
> a large difference in the (low-cost) availability of tools that can
> fix a drive that's been formatted in FAT-32 vs NTFS.

If you cannot mount an NT disk onto another NT type machine or if you
are too lazy to create a Bart's PE disk then that is your probblem.
Accessing NTFS files with proper tools is no more difficult than using
DOS, and a Bart's PE disk is free.


Being able to
> boot into a fully-functional command prompt is a huge advantage for
> fat-32, but again not if you're managing many machines in a corporate
> environment.

Irrelevant, use the proper tools. If your FAT32 drive is hosed you will
have to host it on another operating system, you won't be able to boot
to anything on the drive.


> FAT-32 has slightly better performance vs NTFS.

True in some cases but not always. The only slightly better performance
that I have ever noticed was when first opening folders with a large
folder structures and lots of files inside the folders, something like
10,000+ files per folder. Then FAT32 is a bit faster to open the
folders but once the NTFS folders have been opened there isn't much
difference in the access speed. In modern computing enviroments FAT32
file limits are a fairly big disadvantage.

John

 

[peter wagner]

Please allow me jumping in here with a question to your following
statement:

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 13:21:52 -0800, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:

>..... or even the problems you'll run
>into using DOS to access an XP system in FAT32 (there WILL be problems),
>then I suggest you stay away from XP altogether. Stick with DOS and 9x/DOS
>systems.

and MEB's response
Message-ID: <exgCAttNIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>


> So if you wish to use Fat32 in XP while also having some other OS such as
> 9X, do so, however, as Gary has warned, there can be [dare we say ARE]
> issues related to that combined/cross platform usage. Some claim none
> occurs, but others seem to have constant problems and fill the forums and
> help groups with those issues. So be forewarned.
>


I am doing almost exactly this:

running W98SE and W2K and Linux multi-boot on a pc with several hd's
with 12 partitions, ALL as fat32 (except linux). From each OS I can and
have done read/write to almost every partition, WITHOUT any (known)
error so far.

Have I been only lucky so far? What may happen?
Or are there differences between W2K and XP in filehandling? I'm
planning to add XP to that machine.

AFAIK W98SE is filehandling-wise not very different from pure DOS (?).

Many thanks in advance

Peter (he from the moor) Wagner)

 

[98 Guy]

peter wagner wrote:

> Or are there differences between W2K and XP in filehandling? I'm
> planning to add XP to that machine.

Stick to FAT-32. You'll avoid all sorts of file permission and file
access issues that can crop up because of NTFS, particularly if
malware is involved. FAT-32 is also easier to fix vs NTFS. The NTFS
file system is proprietary and there are fewer third-party providers
of tools to fix it, and those tools are more expensive.

> AFAIK W98SE is filehandling-wise not very different from pure
> DOS (?).

DOS, Win-9x and Win-ME are only aware of the FAT type of file system,
the most advanced being FAT-32.

How those OS's perform FAT-32 file access is naturally very
different. DOS does not operate in 32-bit protected mode, so the
underlying code that is used to access the hard drive will be
different than Win-9x/me (those OS's operate in 32-bit protected
mode). In fact, DOS will be using the motherboard's INT-13 routines
to perform hard-drive access, while win-9x and ME (and 2K and XP)
completely bypass the motherboard INT-13 routines.

DOS probably uses programmed I/O to access the hard drive, while
win-9x/me uses DMA, resulting in significant increases in access
speed.

 

[Lil' Dave]

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:47595897.B897E655@Guy.com...
> peter wagner wrote:
>
>> Or are there differences between W2K and XP in filehandling? I'm
>> planning to add XP to that machine.
>
> Stick to FAT-32. You'll avoid all sorts of file permission and file
> access issues that can crop up because of NTFS, particularly if

Most users of XP don't have the knowledge to fix anything. NTFS is less
likely to break. File permissions problem is notably found by new users
when accessing removable hard drives that were connected to another PC in
some fashion (NTFS partition). How that can be accessed, in that case, is
an easy fix in XP.

> malware is involved. FAT-32 is also easier to fix vs NTFS. The NTFS
> file system is proprietary and there are fewer third-party providers

FAT, as written by MS, is also proprietary.

> of tools to fix it, and those tools are more expensive.
>
>> AFAIK W98SE is filehandling-wise not very different from pure
>> DOS (?).

Its identical, except for long file/folder names. Believe you're referring
to ms-dos real mode.

>
> DOS, Win-9x and Win-ME are only aware of the FAT type of file system,
> the most advanced being FAT-32.
>
> How those OS's perform FAT-32 file access is naturally very
> different. DOS does not operate in 32-bit protected mode, so the
> underlying code that is used to access the hard drive will be
> different than Win-9x/me (those OS's operate in 32-bit protected
> mode). In fact, DOS will be using the motherboard's INT-13 routines
> to perform hard-drive access, while win-9x and ME (and 2K and XP)
> completely bypass the motherboard INT-13 routines.
>
> DOS probably uses programmed I/O to access the hard drive, while
> win-9x/me uses DMA, resulting in significant increases in access
> speed.

DMA does not require permission from the cpu to access memory for I/O
operations. Thus its name, Direct Memory Access. That's the difference.

XP uses DMA as well (if the device and bus is capable). Whether the
partition(s) on the hard drive in XP are NTFS or FAT32 makes no difference
regarding DMA use. So, I don't know what that has to do with your premise
of FAT32 over NTFS...

Nor do I understand why you bring up DOS vs. ms-dos based windows systems
and their use for drive access. Has nothing to do with it.
Dave

 

[98 Guy]

Lil' Dave wrote:

> > Stick to FAT-32. You'll avoid all sorts of file permission and
> > file access issues that can crop up because of NTFS, particularly
> > if
>
> Most users of XP don't have the knowledge to fix anything.

The OP most likely has knowledge and ability that exceeds "most users
of XP" based on the fact that he is even contimplating these matters.

> NTFS is less likely to break.

I have seen NTFS systems "break" on our various developer and server
systems 1/2 dozen or so times over the past 10 years, while the FAT-32
on our dozen win-98 systems have broke over the same time frame.

There is no justification for the statement "ntfs is less likely to
break" other than the misconception that newer technologies created by
Micro$oft is by default better than older ones.

> File permissions problem is notably found by new users
> when accessing removable hard drives that were connected
> to another PC in some fashion (NTFS partition).

That is not the only, nor the most common way, that NTFS file
permission issues can trip up users.

> FAT, as written by MS, is also proprietary.

No. Several versions of FAT are arguably (or legally) public domain,
and all versions are fully documented.

Proprietary in this context means publically documented.

> DMA does not require permission from the cpu to access memory
> for I/O operations. Thus its name, Direct Memory Access.
> That's the difference.

Not sure what you're trying to say.

> I don't know what that has to do with your premise of FAT32
> over NTFS...

I wasn't refering to FAT32 vs NTFS.

Peter Wagner had made a statement (or question) that "AFAIK W98SE is
filehandling-wise not very different from pure DOS (?)."

Pointing out that DOS and Win98 are similar from a filehandling POV
makes as much sense as saying that XP and 98 exhibit similar FAT-32
file handling characteristics (while that is true, it is also
self-evident, and does not mean that XP is more similar to 98 because
of it).

> Nor do I understand why you bring up DOS vs. ms-dos based
> windows systems and their use for drive access.

I didn't bring it up. Look at Wagner's post on Dec. 5.

 

[peter wagner]

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 12:16:02 -0500, 98 Guy <98@Guy.com> wrote:

>Lil' Dave wrote:
>
>> > Stick to FAT-32. You'll avoid all sorts of file permission and
>> > file access issues that can crop up because of NTFS, particularly
>> > if
>>
>> Most users of XP don't have the knowledge to fix anything.
>
>The OP most likely has knowledge and ability that exceeds "most users
>of XP" based on the fact that he is even contimplating these matters.
>
>> NTFS is less likely to break.
>
>I have seen NTFS systems "break" on our various developer and server
>systems 1/2 dozen or so times over the past 10 years, while the FAT-32
>on our dozen win-98 systems have broke over the same time frame.
>
>There is no justification for the statement "ntfs is less likely to
>break" other than the misconception that newer technologies created by
>Micro$oft is by default better than older ones.
>
>> File permissions problem is notably found by new users
>> when accessing removable hard drives that were connected
>> to another PC in some fashion (NTFS partition).
>
>That is not the only, nor the most common way, that NTFS file
>permission issues can trip up users.
>
>> FAT, as written by MS, is also proprietary.
>
>No. Several versions of FAT are arguably (or legally) public domain,
>and all versions are fully documented.
>
>Proprietary in this context means publically documented.
>
>> DMA does not require permission from the cpu to access memory
>> for I/O operations. Thus its name, Direct Memory Access.
>> That's the difference.
>
>Not sure what you're trying to say.
>
>> I don't know what that has to do with your premise of FAT32
>> over NTFS...
>
>I wasn't refering to FAT32 vs NTFS.
>
>Peter Wagner had made a statement (or question) that "AFAIK W98SE is
>filehandling-wise not very different from pure DOS (?)."
>
>Pointing out that DOS and Win98 are similar from a filehandling POV
>makes as much sense as saying that XP and 98 exhibit similar FAT-32
>file handling characteristics (while that is true, it is also
>self-evident, and does not mean that XP is more similar to 98 because
>of it).
>
>> Nor do I understand why you bring up DOS vs. ms-dos based
>> windows systems and their use for drive access.
>
>I didn't bring it up. Look at Wagner's post on Dec. 5.

(Full Quote seems ok this time <g>.

Here I am again.

First, let me apologize, if I confused the main stream..
My main intention was to give an example, what can be done with FAT32
AND NT-based OS's.
Surely this way I lose many advanced features of NTFS (ADS, Access
rights etc), but FOR ME I wanted to trade comfort for interoperability.

Now a short explanation for my "jumping in" at all:

I do this on acouple of machines of which I am the ONLY user, and I try
to know what I do <g>.

I developed this way to ....

- copy/backup the whole OS-partitions from outside (Linux)

- use the SAME data-partitions (not on the aktive OS-partitions) from
programs based on ANY of the involved OS's (mainly Win, sometimes Linux,
almost never DOS)

With respect to Linux/MSDOS I know of the problems of Long file Names
and different linebreak conventions.

But other than that: Until now I had no trouble so far.
This was the other reason for my jumping in:

Have I been simply lucky until now and disaster is waiting around the
corner
OR
is this really a possible way to go, if you now what you are doing?

Greetings from

Peter (he from the moor and with the queer file-organization) Wagner