Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

hiding win xp from another win xp

Expand Messages
  • novoasigma
    hi, i tried to use editbini but i couldnt do it because i am now using fat partitions and editbini is only useful for ntfs partitions. my system partitions
    Message 1 of 19 , Sep 1, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      hi,

      i tried to use editbini but i couldnt do it because i am now using
      fat partitions and editbini is only useful for ntfs partitions.
      my system partitions "see" logical volumes where i dump backups,
      downloads, etc. these volumes are fat partitions.

      so i booted a floppy disk and edited boot.ini with edit.com - the
      floppy is that generated by the installation of w98se and then the
      copied xp worked fine.

      before the edition of boot.ini i made control+p and then accessed the
      rpm within xosl. it is necessary because i should look which is the
      number of partition where xp is now copied.

      it worked fine for the first hdd, but in the second one i had some
      troubles.

      after several unsuccesful trials where i combined all situations for
      boot.ini, i tried so the following:

      in xosl panel setup i unchecked the fix drive fat number box and
      checked the swap drive box. it worked very good for primaries and
      logicals xp.

      i tried it for 4 xp in first hdd and in the second one too and they
      worked fine.

      i tk you everybody
      bes regards.

      alberto
    • jchliu001
      ... Hi, I Didn t check the messages for a couple of days, so I got your explanations and hints first today. Thanks! ... Alberto, your success with XPs on the
      Message 2 of 19 , Sep 3, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In xosl@yahoogroups.com, ": :: ::: tim ferguson" <music@e...>
        wrote:
        > warning : i tried this #4 method with my second copy of XP
        > this weekend ..got stuck in an endless loop when trying
        > to start up ..i couldn't even boot in safe mode ..ended up
        > reinstalling... .. .
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "Dan Goodell" <dg1261@c...>
        > To: <xosl@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 7:22 PM
        > Subject: [xosl] Re: hiding win xp from another win xp
        >
        > : So to answer your question, you only need one "fdisk /mbr" between
        > : the time you create the DI image and the first time the restored
        > : clone is booted.
        > :
        > : Note that you do not need the Kawecki trick if you use the tip in
        > : www.goodells.net/multiboot/notes.htm#04. That tip erases the
        > : partition signatures directly from XP's registry *before* making
        > : the DI image.
        > :


        Hi,

        I Didn't check the messages for a couple of days, so I got your
        explanations and hints first today. Thanks!


        --- In xosl@yahoogroups.com, "novoasigma" <asigma@b...> wrote:
        > i tried it for 4 xp in first hdd and in the second one too and they
        > worked fine.


        Alberto, your success with XPs on the second HDD is very interesting
        (I understand you have all the bootable partitions in FAT). Till now
        I have tried to boot Win2K (NTFS) on HDD1 with no success, thus I
        just have not tried with XP yet. However, it seem that it works
        rather with FAT instead with NTFS on the second HDD. I wonder why?

        Regards,
        Julian
      • jchliu001
        Hi, I found some interesting previous discussions on the subject Win2000/XP on Slave Disk and got the point with SWAP DISC . Genius trick! Now I finally can
        Message 3 of 19 , Sep 8, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi,

          I found some interesting previous discussions on the
          subject "Win2000/XP on Slave Disk" and got the point with "SWAP
          DISC". Genius trick! Now I finally can boot Win2K and WinXP on my
          second disk. But nothing is perfect: although I can boot all 7
          partitions on HDD0 and the 3 primary partitions on HDD1, but not the
          logical partitions on HDD1. (Since this problem is more concerning
          the subject "Win2000/XP on Slave Disk", I am posting the details of
          my problems under this subject.)

          Thanks for all the hints.

          Best regards,
          Julian
        • novoasigma
          ... the ... hi, both my hdds are ide and i reached to boot xp from logicals at hdd1 using that trick. you must be careful in counting the exact position of the
          Message 4 of 19 , Sep 12, 2004
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In xosl@yahoogroups.com, "jchliu001" <Julian.Liu@t...> wrote:
            > Hi,
            >
            > I found some interesting previous discussions on the
            > subject "Win2000/XP on Slave Disk" and got the point with "SWAP
            > DISC". Genius trick! Now I finally can boot Win2K and WinXP on my
            > second disk. But nothing is perfect: although I can boot all 7
            > partitions on HDD0 and the 3 primary partitions on HDD1, but not
            the
            > logical partitions on HDD1. (Since this problem is more concerning
            > the subject "Win2000/XP on Slave Disk", I am posting the details of
            > my problems under this subject.)
            >
            > Thanks for all the hints.
            >
            > Best regards,
            > Julian

            hi,
            both my hdds are ide and i reached to boot xp from logicals at hdd1
            using that trick.
            you must be careful in counting the exact position of the logical
            partition where xp is in. eg, if you have three primaries and your xp
            is in the fourth logical after them you should assign partition 7 in
            boot.ini file, before booting, using a editor like edit.com (found in
            w98 diskette instalation). all other parameters of boot.ini file
            should be filled with zero.
            for my situation it worked.

            regards,
            alberto
          • jchliu001
            ... xp ... in ... in ... Hi, Both of my disks are also IDE and I have actually done the same way as you described, though I used editbini.exe for changing the
            Message 5 of 19 , Sep 15, 2004
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In xosl@yahoogroups.com, "novoasigma" <asigma@b...> wrote:
              >
              > hi,
              > both my hdds are ide and i reached to boot xp from logicals at hdd1
              > using that trick.
              > you must be careful in counting the exact position of the logical
              > partition where xp is in. eg, if you have three primaries and your
              xp
              > is in the fourth logical after them you should assign partition 7
              in
              > boot.ini file, before booting, using a editor like edit.com (found
              in
              > w98 diskette instalation). all other parameters of boot.ini file
              > should be filled with zero.
              > for my situation it worked.
              >
              > regards,
              > alberto

              Hi,

              Both of my disks are also IDE and I have actually done the same way
              as you described, though I used editbini.exe for changing the
              partition numbers in the boot.ini files. My partitions and the
              corresponding boot.ini files are set up as follows:

              - HDD0:
              Part 1 (primary): Win98SE with XOSL installed (3004.3 MB)
              Part 2 (primary): Win2K (5506.7 MB)
              Part 3 (primary): WinXP (5506.7 MB)
              Part 4 (logical): Win2K (5506.6 MB)
              Part 5 (logical): WinXP (10001.4 MB)
              Part 6 (logical): Win2K (5506.6 MB)
              Part 7 (logical): WinXP (10001.4 MB)

              - HDD1 (I boot all the partitions on this disk with "swap drives"):
              Part 1 (primary): Win98SE (3004.3 MB)
              Part 2 (primary): Win2K (5506.7 MB)
              Part 3 (primary): Win2K (5506.7 MB)
              Part 4 (logical): Win2K (5506.6 MB)
              Part 5 (logical): Win2K (10001.4 MB)

              The HDD1 was used to be my old HDD0 (before the new HDD0 was
              installed), and it worked perfectly before in booting all the
              primaries and logicals on this disk. The only things I changed on
              this disk is that I have de-installed XOSL, put the jumper as slave
              and than adjusted the XOSL-setup correspondingly for "hide" and "swap
              drives".

              The problem I encounter on HDD1 now is: although the 3 primaries boot
              ok, but the logicals not. Every time I boot theses two logicals (with
              swap drives) it boot up the Win2K so far that I can enter the
              password, but then it comes back to the mask again requesting for
              pushing "Ctrl, Alt and Del". If I do this and then enter the password
              once more, it comes back to the same mask requesting for
              pushing "Ctrl, Alt and Del" again; and then the whole thing again –
              an endless loop without going any further.

              I don't know what is wrong, may be it is becuase of the size of the
              partitions? Or may be I should not have de-installed XOSL on this
              disk. Do you have kept XOSL installed on HDD1? How big are the
              partitions on your HDD1?

              Regards,
              Julian
            • novoasigma
              ... and swap ... boot ... (with ... password ... hi, obbeying the safe mode i allways apply on those situations i learnt that is more interesting and secure
              Message 6 of 19 , Sep 15, 2004
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                >
                > Hi,
                >
                > Both of my disks are also IDE and I have actually done the same way
                > as you described, though I used editbini.exe for changing the
                > partition numbers in the boot.ini files. My partitions and the
                > corresponding boot.ini files are set up as follows:
                >
                > - HDD0:
                > Part 1 (primary): Win98SE with XOSL installed (3004.3 MB)
                > Part 2 (primary): Win2K (5506.7 MB)
                > Part 3 (primary): WinXP (5506.7 MB)
                > Part 4 (logical): Win2K (5506.6 MB)
                > Part 5 (logical): WinXP (10001.4 MB)
                > Part 6 (logical): Win2K (5506.6 MB)
                > Part 7 (logical): WinXP (10001.4 MB)
                >
                > - HDD1 (I boot all the partitions on this disk with "swap drives"):
                > Part 1 (primary): Win98SE (3004.3 MB)
                > Part 2 (primary): Win2K (5506.7 MB)
                > Part 3 (primary): Win2K (5506.7 MB)
                > Part 4 (logical): Win2K (5506.6 MB)
                > Part 5 (logical): Win2K (10001.4 MB)
                >
                > The HDD1 was used to be my old HDD0 (before the new HDD0 was
                > installed), and it worked perfectly before in booting all the
                > primaries and logicals on this disk. The only things I changed on
                > this disk is that I have de-installed XOSL, put the jumper as slave
                > and than adjusted the XOSL-setup correspondingly for "hide"
                and "swap
                > drives".
                >
                > The problem I encounter on HDD1 now is: although the 3 primaries
                boot
                > ok, but the logicals not. Every time I boot theses two logicals
                (with
                > swap drives) it boot up the Win2K so far that I can enter the
                > password, but then it comes back to the mask again requesting for
                > pushing "Ctrl, Alt and Del". If I do this and then enter the
                password
                > once more, it comes back to the same mask requesting for
                > pushing "Ctrl, Alt and Del" again; and then the whole thing again –
                > an endless loop without going any further.
                >
                > I don't know what is wrong, may be it is becuase of the size of the
                > partitions? Or may be I should not have de-installed XOSL on this
                > disk. Do you have kept XOSL installed on HDD1? How big are the
                > partitions on your HDD1?
                >
                > Regards,
                > Julian


                hi,
                obbeying the safe mode i allways apply on those situations i learnt
                that is more interesting and secure to install xosl partition in hdd1
                instead do that in hdd0, though mbr is in hdd0.
                recently i changed hdd0 by another one i had bought but the xosl
                partition was placed in hdd1 and the things ran fine.
                i dont know about w2k but referenced to xp have you unhidden
                the "master" extendend partition ? (the one that comes before the
                logical partitions in xosl setup).

                that is it for while i can pass for you.

                regards
                alberto
              • Mike O'Connor
                ... Hi, When are you guys going to use correct terminology! There s no such thing as a MASTER EXTENDED PARTITION Each physical hard-disk can have a maximum
                Message 7 of 19 , Sep 15, 2004
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  novoasigma wrote:

                  >>Hi,
                  >>
                  >>Both of my disks are also IDE and I have actually done the same way
                  >>as you described, though I used editbini.exe for changing the
                  >>partition numbers in the boot.ini files. My partitions and the
                  >>corresponding boot.ini files are set up as follows:
                  >>
                  >>- HDD0:
                  >> Part 1 (primary): Win98SE with XOSL installed (3004.3 MB)
                  >> Part 2 (primary): Win2K (5506.7 MB)
                  >> Part 3 (primary): WinXP (5506.7 MB)
                  >> Part 4 (logical): Win2K (5506.6 MB)
                  >> Part 5 (logical): WinXP (10001.4 MB)
                  >> Part 6 (logical): Win2K (5506.6 MB)
                  >> Part 7 (logical): WinXP (10001.4 MB)
                  >>
                  >>- HDD1 (I boot all the partitions on this disk with "swap drives"):
                  >> Part 1 (primary): Win98SE (3004.3 MB)
                  >> Part 2 (primary): Win2K (5506.7 MB)
                  >> Part 3 (primary): Win2K (5506.7 MB)
                  >> Part 4 (logical): Win2K (5506.6 MB)
                  >> Part 5 (logical): Win2K (10001.4 MB)
                  >>
                  >>The HDD1 was used to be my old HDD0 (before the new HDD0 was
                  >>installed), and it worked perfectly before in booting all the
                  >>primaries and logicals on this disk. The only things I changed on
                  >>this disk is that I have de-installed XOSL, put the jumper as slave
                  >>and than adjusted the XOSL-setup correspondingly for "hide"
                  >>
                  >>
                  >and "swap
                  >
                  >
                  >>drives".
                  >>
                  >>The problem I encounter on HDD1 now is: although the 3 primaries
                  >>
                  >>
                  >boot
                  >
                  >
                  >>ok, but the logicals not. Every time I boot theses two logicals
                  >>
                  >>
                  >(with
                  >
                  >
                  >>swap drives) it boot up the Win2K so far that I can enter the
                  >>password, but then it comes back to the mask again requesting for
                  >>pushing "Ctrl, Alt and Del". If I do this and then enter the
                  >>
                  >>
                  >password
                  >
                  >
                  >>once more, it comes back to the same mask requesting for
                  >>pushing "Ctrl, Alt and Del" again; and then the whole thing again –
                  >>an endless loop without going any further.
                  >>
                  >>I don't know what is wrong, may be it is becuase of the size of the
                  >>partitions? Or may be I should not have de-installed XOSL on this
                  >>disk. Do you have kept XOSL installed on HDD1? How big are the
                  >>partitions on your HDD1?
                  >>
                  >>Regards,
                  >>Julian
                  >>
                  >>hi,
                  >>obbeying the safe mode i allways apply on those situations i learnt
                  >>that is more interesting and secure to install xosl partition in hdd1
                  >>instead do that in hdd0, though mbr is in hdd0.
                  >>recently i changed hdd0 by another one i had bought but the xosl
                  >>partition was placed in hdd1 and the things ran fine.
                  >>i dont know about w2k but referenced to xp have you unhidden
                  >>the "master" extendend partition ? (the one that comes before the
                  >>logical partitions in xosl setup).
                  >>
                  >>that is it for while i can pass for you.
                  >>
                  >>regards
                  >>alberto
                  >>
                  >>

                  Hi,

                  When are you guys going to use correct terminology!

                  There's no such thing as a "MASTER EXTENDED PARTITION"
                  Each physical hard-disk can have a maximum of four PRIMARY partitions,
                  one of which on each disk can be an EXTENDED PARTITION! The EXTENDED
                  PARTITION is a *PRIMARY* PARTITION. Any partitions within it [them] is a
                  LOGICAL PARTITION!

                  You can have as many *logical* partitions as you want on each hard-disk
                  *inside* its extended partition, not limited to the letters of the
                  alphabet, although under Windows systems you can have problems depending
                  on how many other non-Windows-recognised partitions there are and what
                  their positioning in the extended partition is, relative to
                  Windows-recognised partitions. You can't allocate less than one cylinder
                  to each partition in the extended partition, same as you can't for a
                  primary partition, and they don't all have to be allocated a drive
                  letter simultaneously!

                  With post-NT versions of Windows you can use the system Disk Management
                  Tools to selectively allocate drive-letters to volumes[drives]. In other
                  word you can have many "inactive" partitions.

                  What I can't figure is WHY you many of you, particularly recently, want
                  to have multiple editions of the same set of windows OSes on multiple disks?
                  I can understand you having separate setups of the same OS for e.g.
                  Gaming/Business-oriented etc., but not the excessive number of different
                  editions of each - is that just because of the number of "please
                  re-install the OS" messages that get thrown at you by the Blue Screens,
                  in response to Windows screw-ups?

                  Why not learn *how* to partition the disks *properly* and keep the
                  OS/Applications/DATA all on separate partitions - none of you seem to
                  have any idea about using common Application partitions/DATA partitions
                  that can be used for *any* of the installed OSes.
                  with windows you are effectively limited to booting from a C: drive.

                  I have some [non-Windows/non-Linux-standalone-booting] disks that don't
                  have a C: drive at all - they might be booting directly from a Logical
                  K: drive as K:, and on which I can read-write every other bootable
                  partition or run programs from/network-share from the currently booted
                  partition on the LAN.

                  HTH

                  --
                  Regards,
                  Mike

                  Failed the exam for
                  --------------------
                  MCSE - Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
                  --------------------
                  [ISP blocks *.exe, *.cmd, *.bat, *.reg attachments]
                  [Please use zipped versions of above]
                • Dan Goodell
                  ... Not sure, but I don t think English is the first language of everyone in this newsgroup. And I had no trouble understanding what Alberto was referring to
                  Message 8 of 19 , Sep 15, 2004
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- Mike O'Connor <mikeoc@d...> wrote:
                    > When are you guys going to use correct terminology!
                    >
                    > There's no such thing as a "MASTER EXTENDED PARTITION"
                    >
                    > ... (snipped)...
                    >
                    > Why not learn *how* to partition the disks *properly*
                    > and keep the OS/Applications/DATA all on separate
                    > partitions - none of you seem to have any idea about
                    > using common Application partitions/DATA partitions
                    > that can be used for *any* of the installed OSes.

                    Not sure, but I don't think English is the first language of
                    everyone in this newsgroup. And I had no trouble understanding what
                    Alberto was referring to by <quote>"master" extended
                    partition</quote>, and note he did put "master" inside quotation
                    marks. While there may factually be only one extended partition,
                    many utilities - including the ubiquitous PartitionMagic - will show
                    several "extended partition" entries, one in each extended partition
                    table. Add to this the fact that a lot of common folk regard
                    logical volumes in the (one and only) extended partition
                    as "extended partitions", and it seemed clear to me that Alberto was
                    trying to circumvent any confusion.

                    Your point about using separate data partitions is well taken,
                    though. I don't see any data partitions in Julian's disk layout.
                    Maybe he didn't show everything, or maybe he has a reason for not
                    using them, but we won't know unless we ask him. Which nobody has
                    done yet.
                  • jchliu001
                    ... Dan is right, I didn t mention my data partitions because they are not the trouble makers in my case. As a matter of fact, I do use common Application
                    Message 9 of 19 , Sep 16, 2004
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In xosl@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Goodell" <dg1261@c...> wrote:
                      > --- Mike O'Connor <mikeoc@d...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > > to install xosl partition in hdd1 instead do that in hdd0,
                      > > > though mbr is in hdd0.
                      > > > ........................
                      > >
                      > > Why not learn *how* to partition the disks *properly*
                      > > and keep the OS/Applications/DATA all on separate
                      > > partitions - none of you seem to have any idea about
                      > > using common Application partitions/DATA partitions
                      > > that can be used for *any* of the installed OSes.
                      >
                      >
                      > Your point about using separate data partitions is well taken,
                      > though. I don't see any data partitions in Julian's disk layout.
                      > Maybe he didn't show everything, or maybe he has a reason for not
                      > using them, but we won't know unless we ask him. Which nobody has
                      > done yet.

                      Dan is right, I didn't mention my data partitions because they are
                      not the trouble makers in my case. As a matter of fact, I do
                      use "common Application data partition" since the Win95 days. At the
                      first place, it is my "D" and all of my OSs "share" this single "data
                      base" (of course, I have also other special data partitions).

                      Ok, Mike, you certainly wonder why someone would need so many OSs.
                      Well, at the first place, I am a person who tries and uses many
                      different applications. It always bothers me that after certain
                      installations (programs, driver updates, etc) or after a period of
                      applications the OSs start to get "fussy" or to get "lazy". I always
                      have one "clean" partition for each OS and I try to test those
                      installations only in designated "test-partitions". Only when I'm
                      sure that there is no problem, they would first come into my "clean"
                      partitions, from which I create the back-up images generations (with
                      Drive Image). To prevent the OSs to be overloaded with too many
                      applications, I "distribute" these installations in different OS test-
                      partitions. Besides, I also handle with video editing, and in order
                      to have the videos run "spotlessly" and "fluently", I have special
                      large OS partitions without any hardware and software ballast, but
                      mainly the video editors. Ok, of course, as we all know that there
                      are also the problems that certain applications run only in certain
                      OSs – this increases the number of partitions additionally. It might
                      be peculiar, but it is just for my special personal needs. Well, I
                      generally handle 7 hard disks (totally 670GB, incl. externals) and I
                      am pretty sure that all my partitions are proper.

                      Thanks, Alberto, for the hint. I will also take a trial to install
                      XOSL on HDD1, may be that is what is missing in my system.

                      Regards,
                      Julian
                    • Mike O'Connor
                      ... Hi Julian [& Dan], I much appreciate the explanation of the need -- I don t ever get that problem of partitions getting /fuzzy/lazy/having to be
                      Message 10 of 19 , Sep 16, 2004
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        jchliu001 wrote:

                        >--- In xosl@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Goodell" <dg1261@c...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        >>--- Mike O'Connor <mikeoc@d...> wrote:
                        >>
                        >>
                        >>>>to install xosl partition in hdd1 instead do that in hdd0,
                        >>>>though mbr is in hdd0.
                        >>>> ........................
                        >>>>
                        >>>>
                        >>>Why not learn *how* to partition the disks *properly*
                        >>>and keep the OS/Applications/DATA all on separate
                        >>>partitions - none of you seem to have any idea about
                        >>>using common Application partitions/DATA partitions
                        >>>that can be used for *any* of the installed OSes.
                        >>>
                        >>>
                        >>Your point about using separate data partitions is well taken,
                        >>though. I don't see any data partitions in Julian's disk layout.
                        >>Maybe he didn't show everything, or maybe he has a reason for not
                        >>using them, but we won't know unless we ask him. Which nobody has
                        >>done yet.
                        >>
                        >>
                        >Dan is right, I didn't mention my data partitions because they are
                        >not the trouble makers in my case. As a matter of fact, I do
                        >use "common Application data partition" since the Win95 days. At the
                        >first place, it is my "D" and all of my OSs "share" this single "data
                        >base" (of course, I have also other special data partitions).
                        >
                        >Ok, Mike, you certainly wonder why someone would need so many OSs.
                        >Well, at the first place, I am a person who tries and uses many
                        >different applications. It always bothers me that after certain
                        >installations (programs, driver updates, etc) or after a period of
                        >applications the OSs start to get "fussy" or to get "lazy". I always
                        >have one "clean" partition for each OS and I try to test those
                        >installations only in designated "test-partitions". Only when I'm
                        >sure that there is no problem, they would first come into my "clean"
                        >partitions, from which I create the back-up images generations (with
                        >Drive Image). To prevent the OSs to be overloaded with too many
                        >applications, I "distribute" these installations in different OS test-
                        >partitions. Besides, I also handle with video editing, and in order
                        >to have the videos run "spotlessly" and "fluently", I have special
                        >large OS partitions without any hardware and software ballast, but
                        >mainly the video editors. Ok, of course, as we all know that there
                        >are also the problems that certain applications run only in certain
                        >OSs – this increases the number of partitions additionally. It might
                        >be peculiar, but it is just for my special personal needs. Well, I
                        >generally handle 7 hard disks (totally 670GB, incl. externals) and I
                        >am pretty sure that all my partitions are proper.
                        >
                        >Thanks, Alberto, for the hint. I will also take a trial to install
                        >XOSL on HDD1, may be that is what is missing in my system.
                        >
                        >Regards,
                        >Julian
                        >
                        >

                        Hi Julian [& Dan],
                        I much appreciate the explanation of the need -- I don't ever get that
                        problem of partitions getting /fuzzy/lazy/having to be reinstalled/
                        because my appications don't get embedded into the registry [except in
                        Windows (2000/98), which is only used about 1% of the time here, for
                        apps. only available with Windows drivers].

                        Sorry I didn't get back to Dan sooner because I had a small disaster on
                        my 80Gb drive [physically damaged previously from major [mains] power
                        failure] -- it's 80% of my entire disk storage, other drives are all
                        multi-boot-multi-OS, but small by current standards, and I'm in the
                        middle of resurrecting the third of three boot-partitions that got
                        affected by a hard-lock-up which necessiated a hard-power-down.

                        Must be nice to have that much storage available -- it's a bit hard on
                        Old Age Social Security Pension though!

                        All the best.

                        --
                        Regards,
                        Mike

                        Failed the exam for
                        --------------------
                        MCSE - Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
                        --------------------
                        [ISP blocks *.exe, *.cmd, *.bat, *.reg attachments]
                        [Please use zipped versions of above]
                      • James M. DeLuca
                        ... Doc Chiron butting in: Agreed Mike! I can also see how the confusion can arise from usage of RPM. Seeing that the Ranish Sector Usage List (my term)
                        Message 11 of 19 , Sep 16, 2004
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >From: Mike O'Connor
                          >When are you guys going to use correct terminology! There's no such thing
                          >as a "MASTER EXTENDED PARTITION".

                          Doc Chiron butting in:
                          Agreed Mike! I can also see how the confusion can arise from usage of RPM.
                          Seeing that the Ranish 'Sector Usage List' (my term) displays the 2nd entry
                          in each EBR (Extended Partition Record) following each LOGICAL drive entry
                          may cause folks to refer to them as 'lessor' extended partitions, when all
                          they are, are pointers (aka links) to the next EBR within the Extended
                          Partition.

                          Mike>
                          Each physical hard-disk can have a maximum of four PRIMARY partitions, one
                          of which on each disk can be an EXTENDED PARTITION! The EXTENDED PARTITION
                          is a *PRIMARY* PARTITION.

                          Doc:
                          The use of incorrect terms is partly a byproduct of IBM/Microsoft's
                          possible failure to define the terms early on, plus the fact that some users
                          pick up terminology with only a partial understanding of their relationship
                          to the system as a whole. Although even I am guilty of misusing terminology
                          on occasion, I do endeavor to avoid it whenever possible. There are many
                          references to partitions being PRIMARY, but in truth it is only the
                          partition table entries themselves that are PRIMARY. I believe some of this
                          confusion might dissipate somewhat if we begin calling the MBR's partition
                          table the PRIMARY partition table. Then it is easier to associate the
                          entries therein as PRIMARY. Does that seem fair? The logical extension of
                          that idea is that Extended Partition Records (EBRs) contain Extended
                          entries, consisting of an entry for a LOGICAL partition and maybe an entry
                          that is a link to the next EBR. BTW: If a LOGICAL partition is deleted, its
                          entry in the EBR is change to type 0x00. The partition's cylinder space is
                          not reclaimed, reused or overwritten until repurposed by tools such as FDISK
                          or PartitionMagic.

                          Mike, I'm guessing you mis-spoke, otherwise you are forgetting the way RPM's
                          'TEXT80x25' boot manager uses the non-standard approach to managing up to
                          about 30 Primary partitions by way of allowing most of them to be OFF-LINE
                          (inaccessible) during any one particular OS session, due to their failure to
                          be included in any linked partition table for that session.
                          It *IS* correct to say that the PRIMARY (i.e. MBR) partition table is
                          limited to four entries, ALL of which are deemed PRIMARY solely by the fact
                          they are there. Also, since a fair number of group members ar into LINUX in
                          some form, it is prudent to recall that there is also the LINUX Extended
                          partition type (0x85) that can exist side-by-side in the PRIMARY partition
                          table with a DOS Extended partition (types 0x05 & 0x0F).

                          Mike>
                          You can't allocate less than one cylinder to each partition in the extended
                          partition, same as you can't for a primary partition, and they don't all
                          have to be allocated a drive letter simultaneously!

                          Doc:
                          Stated explicitly, although RPM will allow you to create partitions starting
                          and stopping on almost any sector you want, you will quickly find out that
                          partitions NOT created in a multiple of whole cylinders will incur the wrath
                          of some OS or utility program such that you either conform or suffer the
                          consequences.

                          Mike>
                          What I can't figure is WHY you many of you, particularly recently, want to
                          have multiple editions of the same set of windows OSes on multiple disks?

                          Doc:
                          From reading many postings to this forum, I have to say that the reasons are
                          manifold.
                          Some wish to set up separate partitions for different users of the computer,
                          keeping them isolated from one another.
                          Some wish to have multiple platforms for the purpose of software
                          development, where the have different combinations of software other than
                          the software being developed, for the purpose of looking for
                          incompatibilities.
                          Some for the reasons you stated, such as gaming, software development,
                          financial programs, or just internet surfing (while limiting their system's
                          exposure to malware).

                          Mike>
                          Why not learn *how* to partition the disks *properly* and keep the
                          OS/Applications/DATA all on separate partitions - none of you seem to have
                          any idea about using common Application partitions/DATA partitions that can
                          be used for *any* of the installed OSes. with windows you are effectively
                          limited to booting from a C: drive.

                          Doc:
                          I've listend to that argument for separate partitions for OS/OS/OS/OS/Ommon
                          Apps/Common Data, on the grounds that if the OS or Apps partition is
                          corrupted that the other partitions will be okay (ie easily restored).
                          Part of the difficulty with that is various programs customizations don't
                          always save their changes to .INI or .CFG files in the program's directory
                          or subdirectories. Often they are saved in the REGISTRY (in the case of
                          Windows OSes). Since each partition has its own REGISTRY, keeping track of
                          the customizations for each partition could become a nightmare! Plus, how do
                          you choose which partition you will install the Apps from? That's right, you
                          have to install them from within each booted OS in order to create the
                          required REGISTRY entries while overwriting the previously installed files
                          from the previously booted OS. Sure you save space, but at what price?
                          Surely the cost of HDD capacity has dropped to the point where you don't
                          need to share a common Apps directory.

                          Doc Chiron out.

                          _________________________________________________________________
                          Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and
                          more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.