Guest Jeepwolf Posted December 3, 2007 Posted December 3, 2007 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
Guest Lil' Dave Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 Re: Putting XP on my 3rd harddrive 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
Guest Jeepwolf Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 Re: Putting XP on my 3rd harddrive 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.
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 Re: Putting XP on my 3rd harddrive 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 http://www.grystmill.com "Jeepwolf" <jeepwolf@gmail.com> wrote in message news:o8fbl3h2k3v4q2jvr26uf98ndqrk0o9sa7@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.
Guest MEB Posted December 5, 2007 Posted December 5, 2007 Re: Putting XP on my 3rd harddrive "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 | http://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 | news:o8fbl3h2k3v4q2jvr26uf98ndqrk0o9sa7@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. | |
Guest glee Posted December 5, 2007 Posted December 5, 2007 Re: Putting XP on my 3rd harddrive "Jeepwolf" <jeepwolf@gmail.com> wrote in message news:o8fbl3h2k3v4q2jvr26uf98ndqrk0o9sa7@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+
Guest 98 Guy Posted December 5, 2007 Posted December 5, 2007 Re: Putting XP on my 3rd harddrive 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.
Guest John John Posted December 5, 2007 Posted December 5, 2007 Re: Putting XP on my 3rd harddrive 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
Guest peter wagner Posted December 5, 2007 Posted December 5, 2007 Re: Putting XP on my 3rd harddrive 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)
Guest 98 Guy Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 Re: Putting XP on my 3rd harddrive 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.
Guest Lil' Dave Posted December 9, 2007 Posted December 9, 2007 Re: Putting XP on my 3rd harddrive "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
Guest 98 Guy Posted December 9, 2007 Posted December 9, 2007 Re: Putting XP on my 3rd harddrive 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.
Guest peter wagner Posted December 9, 2007 Posted December 9, 2007 Re: Putting XP on my 3rd harddrive 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
Recommended Posts