Blank entries in Boot.ini file

February 25, 2008

Hi all.I need help in fixing my boot.ini file in XP.My OS choice menu

displays two blank entries alongwith the XP entry which i want.My

boot.ini file looks like this.

[boot loader]

timeout=30

default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS

[operating systems]

multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS=""

multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP

Professional" /fastdetect /noexecute=optin /tutag=g0wx5p /

kernel=tukernel.exe

What if i delete the two blank entries in second of the file?Did it

affect the functioning of my system.

February 25, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

"Rishi" <rishianitstigma@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4b095a9b-8dbf-45a6-9e03-ea88d5bbb313@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

> Hi all.I need help in fixing my boot.ini file in XP.My OS choice menu

> displays two blank entries alongwith the XP entry which i want.My

> boot.ini file looks like this.

>

> [boot loader]

> timeout=30

> default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS

> [operating systems]

> multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS=""

> multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP

> Professional" /fastdetect /noexecute=optin /tutag=g0wx5p /

> kernel=tukernel.exe

>

> What if i delete the two blank entries in second of the file?Did it

> affect the functioning of my system.

For the purpose of booting up, the two lines with blank descriptions

are identical to the third line that has a description. You can safely

remove them.

February 25, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

> For the purpose of booting up, the two lines with blank descriptions

> are identical to the third line that has a description. You can safely

> remove them.

So,what if i need to add an entry of Vista which is in another drive

than XP?

February 25, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

Unless the current version of ntldr is that of Vista's, that will not work.

"Rishi" <rishianitstigma@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:73e62c23-27be-441a-a752-43b3f025ce82@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>> For the purpose of booting up, the two lines with blank descriptions

>> are identical to the third line that has a description. You can safely

>> remove them.

>

> So,what if i need to add an entry of Vista which is in another drive

> than XP?

February 25, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

"Rishi" <rishianitstigma@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:73e62c23-27be-441a-a752-43b3f025ce82@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>> For the purpose of booting up, the two lines with blank descriptions

>> are identical to the third line that has a description. You can safely

>> remove them.

>

> So,what if i need to add an entry of Vista which is in another drive

> than XP?

Add another line like so:

multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(x)partition(y)\zzz="Microsoft Vista"

Set the correct values for x, y and zzz and keep in mind

kookieman's warning.

February 25, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

It won't work period, Vista cannot be booted with ntldr.

John

kookieman wrote:

> Unless the current version of ntldr is that of Vista's, that will not work.

>

> "Rishi" <rishianitstigma@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:73e62c23-27be-441a-a752-43b3f025ce82@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>

>>>For the purpose of booting up, the two lines with blank descriptions

>>>are identical to the third line that has a description. You can safely

>>>remove them.

>>

>>So,what if i need to add an entry of Vista which is in another drive

>>than XP?

>

February 25, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

Pegasus (MVP) wrote:

> "Rishi" <rishianitstigma@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:73e62c23-27be-441a-a752-43b3f025ce82@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>

>>>For the purpose of booting up, the two lines with blank descriptions

>>>are identical to the third line that has a description. You can safely

>>>remove them.

>>

>>So,what if i need to add an entry of Vista which is in another drive

>>than XP?

>

> Add another line like so:

> multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(x)partition(y)\zzz="Microsoft Vista"

>

> Set the correct values for x, y and zzz and keep in mind

> kookieman's warning.

No, that won't work, Pegasus. Vista doesn't boot with ntldr and

boot.ini, it uses a different boot manager altogether.

For BIOS computer and MBR disks the MBR loads the Boot Sector, the Boot

Code loads Bootmgr, Bootmgr reads the Boot Configuration Data store

(BCD) and uses the information in the store to load Vista.

Windows Vista no longer starts after you install an earlier version of

the Windows operating system in a dual-boot configuration

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/919529

John

February 25, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message

news:ubVyEp7dIHA.2448@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Pegasus (MVP) wrote:

>> "Rishi" <rishianitstigma@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:73e62c23-27be-441a-a752-43b3f025ce82@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>>

>>>>For the purpose of booting up, the two lines with blank descriptions

>>>>are identical to the third line that has a description. You can safely

>>>>remove them.

>>>

>>>So,what if i need to add an entry of Vista which is in another drive

>>>than XP?

>>

>> Add another line like so:

>> multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(x)partition(y)\zzz="Microsoft Vista"

>>

>> Set the correct values for x, y and zzz and keep in mind

>> kookieman's warning.

>

> No, that won't work, Pegasus. Vista doesn't boot with ntldr and boot.ini,

> it uses a different boot manager altogether.

>

> For BIOS computer and MBR disks the MBR loads the Boot Sector, the Boot

> Code loads Bootmgr, Bootmgr reads the Boot Configuration Data store (BCD)

> and uses the information in the store to load Vista.

>

> Windows Vista no longer starts after you install an earlier version of the

> Windows operating system in a dual-boot configuration

> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/919529

>

> John

>

Thanks. Looks like I have to do a little homework to catch

up on the intricacies of the Vista boot loader.

February 25, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

"Rishi" <rishianitstigma@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:73e62c23-27be-441a-a752-43b3f025ce82@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>> For the purpose of booting up, the two lines with blank descriptions

>> are identical to the third line that has a description. You can safely

>> remove them.

>

> So,what if i need to add an entry of Vista which is in another drive

> than XP?

I think you have two options:

- Convince Vista to multi-boot. A Vista newsgroup would be a good

place to ask this question.

- Use a third-party boot manager such as XOSL. It sits like an umbrella

over the various OSs and invokes whatever native boot loader you

happen to select.

February 25, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

In reply to Pegasus (MVP) (I.can@fly.com.oz) who wrote this in

%23d56os7dIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl, I, Marvo, say :

> "Rishi" <rishianitstigma@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:73e62c23-27be-441a-a752-43b3f025ce82@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>>> For the purpose of booting up, the two lines with blank descriptions

>>> are identical to the third line that has a description. You can

>>> safely remove them.

>>

>> So,what if i need to add an entry of Vista which is in another drive

>> than XP?

>

> I think you have two options:

> - Convince Vista to multi-boot. A Vista newsgroup would be a good

> place to ask this question.

> - Use a third-party boot manager such as XOSL. It sits like an

> umbrella over the various OSs and invokes whatever native boot

> loader you happen to select.

A third option which would work, considering it's on another drive, is to

set the desired boot drive in the BIOS before booting up.

Personally I wouldn't touch Vista yet, at all. XP works.

February 25, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

"Uncle Marvo" swrote:

> Personally I wouldn't touch Vista yet, at all. XP works.

Most new OEM PC systems today are only offered with

Vista pre-installed. Most people, therefore, have the option

to either re-format their HD and then install XP, or try to

add XP as a dual-boot. This question about "How do I add

XP when Vista is already installed?" will be with us for at

least another year. Fortunately, there are many tutorials on

the Web to allow repair of the MBR for Vista when XP is

installed after Vista. Here is *just one*:

http://apcmag.com/5485/dualbooting_vista_and_xp

*TimDaniels*

February 25, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

Timothy Daniels wrote:

> least another year. Fortunately, there are many tutorials on

> the Web to allow repair of the MBR for Vista when XP is

> installed after Vista.

The MBR is not system-specific. And is not the one you need to worry so

much about

February 26, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

"jorgen" wrote:

> Timothy Daniels wrote:

>

>> least another year. Fortunately, there are many tutorials on

>> the Web to allow repair of the MBR for Vista when XP is

>> installed after Vista.

>

> The MBR is not system-specific. And is not the one you need

> to worry so much about

Did you bother to read the tutorial, or did your fingers just

fly to the keyboard? Here, again, is the URL:

http://apcmag.com/5485/dualbooting_vista_and_xp .

And here is a quote from the tutorial which contains information

available from numerous other places on the Web:

"Restoring Vista and dual booting:

"Because you can't use the Windows XP bootloader to boot Vista,

we have to reinstate Vista's bootloader to the MBR and configure

it to manage both operating systems."

"Compared with scenarios involving Ubuntu where you have to

reinstall the GRUB bootloader, getting Vista up and operational

again is very easy."

"Boot from the Vista DVD and on the screen where you're

prompted to "Install now", select "Repair your computer"."

In short, the MBR contains information needed to load the

the main boot loader - which, in turn, loads the loader. And

for Vista, the part in the MBR is different from that for the

WinNT/2K/XP family of OSes.

*TimDaniels*

February 26, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

Timothy Daniels wrote:

> Did you bother to read the tutorial, or did your fingers just

> fly to the keyboard? Here, again, is the URL:

> http://apcmag.com/5485/dualbooting_vista_and_xp .

> And here is a quote from the tutorial which contains information

> available from numerous other places on the Web:

> In short, the MBR contains information needed to load the

> the main boot loader - which, in turn, loads the loader. And

> for Vista, the part in the MBR is different from that for the

> WinNT/2K/XP family of OSes.

I don't really care what it says, because it is wrong. The system

specific code is located in the boot sector (of the active partition),

not in the mbr

February 26, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

jorgen wrote:

> Timothy Daniels wrote:

>

>> Did you bother to read the tutorial, or did your fingers just

>> fly to the keyboard? Here, again, is the URL:

>> http://apcmag.com/5485/dualbooting_vista_and_xp .

>> And here is a quote from the tutorial which contains information

>> available from numerous other places on the Web:

>

>> In short, the MBR contains information needed to load the

>> the main boot loader - which, in turn, loads the loader. And

>> for Vista, the part in the MBR is different from that for the

>> WinNT/2K/XP family of OSes.

>

> I don't really care what it says, because it is wrong. The system

> specific code is located in the boot sector (of the active partition),

> not in the mbr

What specific "system specific code"? And all of it, or just part of it?

It's a bit ambiguous as you stated it. Maybe the boot sector only

contains some machine language jump instruction(s) to other parts of the

disk.

February 26, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

Bill in Co. wrote:

> What specific "system specific code"? And all of it, or just part of it?

> It's a bit ambiguous as you stated it. Maybe the boot sector only

> contains some machine language jump instruction(s) to other parts of the

> disk.

the program code in the mbr just look for the active partition and load

its boot sector into memory. The program code stored here is what makes

things happen. io.sys for win9x, ntldr for 2k,xp,.. and bootmgr for vista

February 26, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

"jorgen" wrote:

> Timothy Daniels wrote:

>

>> Did you bother to read the tutorial, or did your fingers just

>> fly to the keyboard? Here, again, is the URL:

>> http://apcmag.com/5485/dualbooting_vista_and_xp .

>> And here is a quote from the tutorial which contains information

>> available from numerous other places on the Web:

>

>> In short, the MBR contains information needed to load the

>> the main boot loader - which, in turn, loads the loader. And

>> for Vista, the part in the MBR is different from that for the

>> WinNT/2K/XP family of OSes.

>

> I don't really care what it says, because it is wrong. The system specific

> code is located in the boot sector (of the active partition), not in the mbr.

This appears in the English version of Wikipedia at URL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_boot_record:

"Differences in MBR Code:

"Even different versions of the MS-DOS FDISK program,

not to mention the partitioning utilities for other types of

operating systems, may write variations of code to the

MBR sector. For example, the bytes of code written by

FDISK under MS-DOS 6.22, Windows 98 and the

Recovery Console of a Windows XP install CD are all

different. Yet, no matter how great a difference exists in

the MBR code, such as that written by an MS-DOS 3.30

install compared to the MBR produced by Windows XP,

they will all load the boot sector of any OS residing in the

"active" primary partition."

"The following table shows how the Standard Microsoft

MBR Code (created by MS-DOS 3.30 through Windows 95)

would appear in a disk editor:'

----------------- <data> -------------------

"A total of only 219 bytes (the zero-byte at 0DAh is necessary);

139 executable code bytes, plus 80 bytes comprising its English

set of error messages."

"In contrast, the MBR code created by a Windows 2000 or XP

install (seen in this next table) has a total of 383 bytes for its

English version:"

----------------- <data> -------------------

And that is just for Microsoft. Grub (the Linux boot loader)

has an MBR more different than that, although all the MBRs are

for the PC architecture.

*TimDaniels*

February 26, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

Timothy Daniels wrote:

> And that is just for Microsoft. Grub (the Linux boot loader)

> has an MBR more different than that, although all the MBRs are

> for the PC architecture.

>

We were talking about XP and Vista, not about some linux boot loader.

And yes, when looking back there are small differences in the mbr. But

for Windows/DOS they all do the same: load the boot sector, nothing more.

February 26, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

"jorgen" wrote:

> Timothy Daniels wrote:

>

>> And that is just for Microsoft. Grub (the Linux boot loader)

>> has an MBR more different than that, although all the MBRs are

>> for the PC architecture.

>>

>

> We were talking about XP and Vista, not about some linux boot

> loader.

>

> And yes, when looking back there are small differences in the mbr.

> But for Windows/DOS they all do the same: load the boot sector,

> nothing more.

Oh! Just Windows/DOS. OK, so talk about just Windows/DOS

MBRs. Even just for them, the MBRs are different. Let's revisit

what I just posted, then:

This appears in the English version of Wikipedia at URL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_boot_record:

"Differences in MBR Code:

"Even different versions of the MS-DOS FDISK program,

not to mention the partitioning utilities for other types of

operating systems, may write variations of code to the

MBR sector. For example, the bytes of code written by

FDISK under MS-DOS 6.22, Windows 98 and the

Recovery Console of a Windows XP install CD are all

different. Yet, no matter how great a difference exists in

the MBR code, such as that written by an MS-DOS 3.30

install compared to the MBR produced by Windows XP,

they will all load the boot sector of any OS residing in the

"active" primary partition."

"The following table shows how the Standard Microsoft

MBR Code (created by MS-DOS 3.30 through Windows 95)

would appear in a disk editor:'

----------------- <data> -------------------

"A total of only 219 bytes (the zero-byte at 0DAh is necessary);

139 executable code bytes, plus 80 bytes comprising its English

set of error messages."

Also read up on what *Dell* does with the MBR:

http://www.goodells.net/dellrestore/mediadirect.htm . Follow

all the links. You'll find it facinating.

*TimDaniels*

February 26, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

Timothy Daniels wrote:

> "jorgen" wrote:

>> Timothy Daniels wrote:

>>

>>> And that is just for Microsoft. Grub (the Linux boot loader)

>>> has an MBR more different than that, although all the MBRs are

>>> for the PC architecture.

>>>

>>

>> We were talking about XP and Vista, not about some linux boot

>> loader.

>>

>> And yes, when looking back there are small differences in the mbr.

>> But for Windows/DOS they all do the same: load the boot sector,

>> nothing more.

>

> Oh! Just Windows/DOS. OK, so talk about just Windows/DOS

> MBRs. Even just for them, the MBRs are different. Let's revisit

> what I just posted, then:

>

> This appears in the English version of Wikipedia at URL

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_boot_record:

>

> "Differences in MBR Code:

>

> "Even different versions of the MS-DOS FDISK program,

> not to mention the partitioning utilities for other types of

> operating systems, may write variations of code to the

> MBR sector. For example, the bytes of code written by

> FDISK under MS-DOS 6.22, Windows 98 and the

> Recovery Console of a Windows XP install CD are all

> different. Yet, no matter how great a difference exists in

> the MBR code, such as that written by an MS-DOS 3.30

> install compared to the MBR produced by Windows XP,

> they will all load the boot sector of any OS residing in the

> "active" primary partition."

>

> "The following table shows how the Standard Microsoft

> MBR Code (created by MS-DOS 3.30 through Windows 95)

> would appear in a disk editor:'

>

> ----------------- <data> -------------------

>

> "A total of only 219 bytes (the zero-byte at 0DAh is necessary);

> 139 executable code bytes, plus 80 bytes comprising its English

> set of error messages."

>

> Also read up on what *Dell* does with the MBR:

> http://www.goodells.net/dellrestore/mediadirect.htm . Follow

> all the links. You'll find it fascinating.

>

> *TimDaniels*

Oh yeah, real "fascinating"! And a bit of a pain in the butt to deal

with. :-)

I've already had to use DSRFIX on a couple of occasions. BTDT.

February 26, 2008

Re: Blank entries in Boot.ini file

Timothy Daniels wrote:

> Oh! Just Windows/DOS. OK, so talk about just Windows/DOS

> MBRs. Even just for them, the MBRs are different. Let's revisit

> what I just posted, then:

As said, the key point is: they all load the boot sector of the active

partition.

So when you install xp after vista, the key point is to restore the boot

sector. If you don't, you can write all the MBRs you want, they won't

fix your problem.

February 27, 2008

Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

"jorgen" wrote:

> Timothy Daniels wrote:

>

>> Oh! Just Windows/DOS. OK, so talk about just

>> Windows/DOS MBRs. Even just for them, the MBRs

>> are different.

>

> As said, the key point is: they all load the boot sector of

> the active partition.

>

> So when you install xp after vista, the key point is to

> restore the boot sector. If you don't, you can write all

> the MBRs you want, they won't fix your problem.

No one has said that only the MBR had to be changed

to "fix your problem". (Please note that it is not I who has

the problem of the inquiring poster.) The point of differing

opinion is whether the *MBRs* of various Windows/DOS

OSes are different. In that respect, you are mostly correct -

they are *usually* the same. I say "usually" because there

is some confusion in the online documentation about Vista's

MBR.

Here at APCmag, the author is clearly of the notion

that Vista's MBR differs from that of XP

(http://apcmag.com/5485/dualbooting_vista_and_xp):

"The Windows XP bootloader gets installed to the MBR

and Vista can no longer boot." [......]

And following the link to

http://apcmag.com/5485/dualbooting_vista_and_xp#restoring ,

we have:

"Restoring Vista and dual booting

"Because you can't use the Windows XP bootloader to boot

Vista, we have to reinstate Vista's bootloader to the MBR

and configure it to manage both operating systems."

This view is seemingly supported by Microsoft's own

online documentation

(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/919529/en-us):

"When you install an earlier version of the Windows operating

system on a Windows Vista-based computer, Setup overwrites

everything from the MBR, the boot sector, and the boot files.

Therefore, the earlier version the Windows operating system

loses forward compatibility with Windows Vista." [.......]

"RESOLUTION

"To resolve these issues, follow these steps.

"Note You can run the commands in the following procedure

by using the command prompt. If you run these commands in

Windows Vista, run them at a command prompt that has

elevated user rights. To do this, click Start, click Accessories,

right-click the command-prompt shortcut, and then click

Run as Administrator.

1. Use Bootsect.exe to restore the Windows Vista MBR and

the boot code that transfers control to the Windows Boot

Manager program. To do this, type the following command

at a command prompt: Drive:\boot\Bootsect.exe /NT60 All"

But it turns out that "bootsect.exe" just restores the boot sector

unless the option "/fixmbr" is added. Alone, "bootsect.exe"

defaults to "bootsect.exe /fixboot". (See the following webpage:

http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/bootsectexe-modifies-the-bootsector-not-the-mbr/ ).

The following reason is offered in the article for the disparity:

"The source of all this confusion is that during the Longhorn/Vista

beta program, quite a number of builds were shipped with a

version of bootsect.exe (originally dubbed `fixntfs.exe`) that

modified both the MBR and the bootsector."

So at one time, the MBR of Vista differed from the pre-Vista MBRs,

but when Vista was finally released, it had the old MBR. This site

offers a breakdown of the "bootsect.exe" command syntax if you're

interested:

http://thevistaforums.com/index.php?autocom=ineo&showarticle=32 .

The usual source of "bootsect.exe" is the recovery section of the

Vista installation DVD. But if you don't have the Vista installation

DVD, it turns out you can also get it from the free download of

VistaBootPro at http://www.vistabootpro.org/ (where the Download

link is at the bottom of the webpage).

*TimDaniels*

February 27, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Just to correct you must not mix the two commands: bootsect.exe and

bootrec.exe.

BOOTREC.EXE is the one with the parameters /FIXMBR, /FIXBOOT and /REBUILDBCD

Regards,

Sami

"Timothy Daniels" <NoSpam@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message

news:uRpWXKReIHA.3756@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> "jorgen" wrote:

>> Timothy Daniels wrote:

>>

>>> Oh! Just Windows/DOS. OK, so talk about just

>>> Windows/DOS MBRs. Even just for them, the MBRs

>>> are different.

>>

>> As said, the key point is: they all load the boot sector of

>> the active partition.

>>

>> So when you install xp after vista, the key point is to

>> restore the boot sector. If you don't, you can write all

>> the MBRs you want, they won't fix your problem.

>

> No one has said that only the MBR had to be changed

> to "fix your problem". (Please note that it is not I who has

> the problem of the inquiring poster.) The point of differing

> opinion is whether the *MBRs* of various Windows/DOS

> OSes are different. In that respect, you are mostly correct -

> they are *usually* the same. I say "usually" because there

> is some confusion in the online documentation about Vista's

> MBR.

>

> Here at APCmag, the author is clearly of the notion

> that Vista's MBR differs from that of XP

> (http://apcmag.com/5485/dualbooting_vista_and_xp):

>

> "The Windows XP bootloader gets installed to the MBR

> and Vista can no longer boot." [......]

>

> And following the link to

> http://apcmag.com/5485/dualbooting_vista_and_xp#restoring ,

> we have:

>

> "Restoring Vista and dual booting

>

> "Because you can't use the Windows XP bootloader to boot

> Vista, we have to reinstate Vista's bootloader to the MBR

> and configure it to manage both operating systems."

>

> This view is seemingly supported by Microsoft's own

> online documentation

> (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/919529/en-us):

>

> "When you install an earlier version of the Windows operating

> system on a Windows Vista-based computer, Setup overwrites

> everything from the MBR, the boot sector, and the boot files.

> Therefore, the earlier version the Windows operating system

> loses forward compatibility with Windows Vista." [.......]

>

> "RESOLUTION

> "To resolve these issues, follow these steps.

>

> "Note You can run the commands in the following procedure

> by using the command prompt. If you run these commands in

> Windows Vista, run them at a command prompt that has

> elevated user rights. To do this, click Start, click Accessories,

> right-click the command-prompt shortcut, and then click

> Run as Administrator.

> 1. Use Bootsect.exe to restore the Windows Vista MBR and

> the boot code that transfers control to the Windows Boot

> Manager program. To do this, type the following command

> at a command prompt: Drive:\boot\Bootsect.exe /NT60 All"

>

> But it turns out that "bootsect.exe" just restores the boot sector

> unless the option "/fixmbr" is added. Alone, "bootsect.exe"

> defaults to "bootsect.exe /fixboot". (See the following webpage:

> http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/bootsectexe-modifies-the-bootsector-not-the-mbr/ )

> .

> The following reason is offered in the article for the disparity:

>

> "The source of all this confusion is that during the Longhorn/Vista

> beta program, quite a number of builds were shipped with a

> version of bootsect.exe (originally dubbed `fixntfs.exe`) that

> modified both the MBR and the bootsector."

>

> So at one time, the MBR of Vista differed from the pre-Vista MBRs,

> but when Vista was finally released, it had the old MBR. This site

> offers a breakdown of the "bootsect.exe" command syntax if you're

> interested:

> http://thevistaforums.com/index.php?autocom=ineo&showarticle=32 .

>

> The usual source of "bootsect.exe" is the recovery section of the

> Vista installation DVD. But if you don't have the Vista installation

> DVD, it turns out you can also get it from the free download of

> VistaBootPro at http://www.vistabootpro.org/ (where the Download

> link is at the bottom of the webpage).

>

> *TimDaniels*

>

February 27, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

"Sami Laiho" wrote:

> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:

>> "jorgen" wrote:

>>> Timothy Daniels wrote:

>>>

>>>> Oh! Just Windows/DOS. OK, so talk about just

>>>> Windows/DOS MBRs. Even just for them, the MBRs

>>>> are different.

>>>

>>> As said, the key point is: they all load the boot sector of

>>> the active partition.

>>>

>>> So when you install xp after vista, the key point is to

>>> restore the boot sector. If you don't, you can write all

>>> the MBRs you want, they won't fix your problem.

>>

>> No one has said that only the MBR had to be changed

>> to "fix your problem". (Please note that it is not I who has

>> the problem of the inquiring poster.) The point of differing

>> opinion is whether the *MBRs* of various Windows/DOS

>> OSes are different. In that respect, you are mostly correct -

>> they are *usually* the same. I say "usually" because there

>> is some confusion in the online documentation about Vista's

>> MBR.

>>

>> Here at APCmag, the author is clearly of the notion

>> that Vista's MBR differs from that of XP

>> (http://apcmag.com/5485/dualbooting_vista_and_xp):

>>

>> "The Windows XP bootloader gets installed to the MBR

>> and Vista can no longer boot." [......]

>>

>> And following the link to

>> http://apcmag.com/5485/dualbooting_vista_and_xp#restoring ,

>> we have:

>>

>> "Restoring Vista and dual booting

>>

>> "Because you can't use the Windows XP bootloader to boot

>> Vista, we have to reinstate Vista's bootloader to the MBR

>> and configure it to manage both operating systems."

>>

>> This view is seemingly supported by Microsoft's own

>> online documentation

>> (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/919529/en-us):

>>

>> "When you install an earlier version of the Windows operating

>> system on a Windows Vista-based computer, Setup overwrites

>> everything from the MBR, the boot sector, and the boot files.

>> Therefore, the earlier version the Windows operating system

>> loses forward compatibility with Windows Vista." [.......]

>>

>> "RESOLUTION

>> "To resolve these issues, follow these steps.

>>

>> "Note You can run the commands in the following procedure

>> by using the command prompt. If you run these commands in

>> Windows Vista, run them at a command prompt that has

>> elevated user rights. To do this, click Start, click Accessories,

>> right-click the command-prompt shortcut, and then click

>> Run as Administrator.

>> 1. Use Bootsect.exe to restore the Windows Vista MBR and

>> the boot code that transfers control to the Windows Boot

>> Manager program. To do this, type the following command

>> at a command prompt: Drive:\boot\Bootsect.exe /NT60 All"

>>

>> But it turns out that "bootsect.exe" just restores the boot sector

>> unless the option "/fixmbr" is added. Alone, "bootsect.exe"

>> defaults to "bootsect.exe /fixboot". (See the following webpage:

>> http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/bootsectexe-modifies-the-bootsector-not-the-mbr/ )

>> .

>> The following reason is offered in the article for the disparity:

>>

>> "The source of all this confusion is that during the Longhorn/Vista

>> beta program, quite a number of builds were shipped with a

>> version of bootsect.exe (originally dubbed `fixntfs.exe`) that

>> modified both the MBR and the bootsector."

>>

>> So at one time, the MBR of Vista differed from the pre-Vista MBRs,

>> but when Vista was finally released, it had the old MBR. This site

>> offers a breakdown of the "bootsect.exe" command syntax if you're

>> interested:

>> http://thevistaforums.com/index.php?autocom=ineo&showarticle=32 .

>>

>> The usual source of "bootsect.exe" is the recovery section of the

>> Vista installation DVD. But if you don't have the Vista installation

>> DVD, it turns out you can also get it from the free download of

>> VistaBootPro at http://www.vistabootpro.org/ (where the Download

>> link is at the bottom of the webpage).

>>

>> *TimDaniels*

>>

> Just to correct, you must not mix the two commands:

> bootsect.exe and bootrec.exe.

>

> BOOTREC.EXE is the one with the parameters

> /FIXMBR, /FIXBOOT and /REBUILDBCD

>

> Regards,

>

> Sami

>

Thanks, Sami. I had missed that. These are the paragraphs that Sami

refers to in

http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/bootsectexe-modifies-the-bootsector-not-the-mbr/:

"The problem that most people seem to be having can be traced

back to single, simple fact: bootsect.exe does not modify the MBR:

it only fixes/repairs the bootsector of your Windows Vista partition.

The MBR is like a "global bootsector" that tells the BIOS where in

the hard-drive it should look for a bootloader. The bootsector, on

the other hand, is like a partition-dependant MBR - each operating

system can have its own bootsector to tell your system how to boot it.

"The source of all this confusion is that during the Longhorn/Vista

beta program, quite a number of builds were shipped with a version

of bootsect.exe (originally dubbed `fixntfs.exe`) that modified both

the MBR and the bootsector.

"However, in the Windows Vista RTM build and Longhorn Server

builds following that, bootsect.exe is a command-line utility used to

repair the bootsector and only the bootsector - it won't get your

MBR to use the Vista BCD/Bootmgr. In order to do that, you'll

have to boot from the

Vista DVD | Repair Options | Command Prompt.

bootrec.exe /fixmbr

bootrec.exe /fixboot

bootrec.exe /rebuildbcd

"Bootrec.exe is an "all-in-one" boot-repair tool that can only be

accessed and run from the Vista recovery console. The first

command rebuilds the MBR to use the Vista boot manager.

The second does the same thing as bootsect.exe and tells the

bootsector where to find the BCD bootloader (\bootmgr). The

final command rebuilds the BCD data from scratch and is highly

useful when recovering a borked Vista partition."

In short, "bootsec.exe" is now equivalent to "bootrec.exe /fixboot".

*TimDaniels*

February 27, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

The MBR *is* different but the articles that you quote are incorrect, or

at least partially incorrect. See inline below.

> Timothy Daniels wrote:

[snip]

> (http://apcmag.com/5485/dualbooting_vista_and_xp):

>

> "The Windows XP bootloader gets installed to the MBR

> and Vista can no longer boot." [......]

No it doesn't, that article has technical errors or that particular

passage is incorrect. No one disputes that the MBR is rewritten when

you install a Windows Operating System, that is a well known fact but

the XP boot loader is NTLDR and it does not reside in the MBR. You can

take a Windows 98 boot disk and rewrite/replace the XP MBR with the

Windows 98 MBR and the newly written MBR will still be able to boot

Windows XP, proof enough that the XP boot loader is not installed or

does not reside in the MBR!

> And following the link to

> http://apcmag.com/5485/dualbooting_vista_and_xp#restoring ,

> we have:

>

> "Restoring Vista and dual booting

>

> "Because you can't use the Windows XP bootloader to boot

> Vista, we have to reinstate Vista's bootloader to the MBR

> and configure it to manage both operating systems."

That is only half ass correct. You have to restore the Vista MBR but

the Vista boot loader itself is not in the MBR. The reason why you need

to change the MBR is not really evident, but it is not completely due to

the boot code requirements.

> This view is seemingly supported by Microsoft's own

> online documentation

> (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/919529/en-us):

>

> "When you install an earlier version of the Windows operating

> system on a Windows Vista-based computer, Setup overwrites

> everything from the MBR, the boot sector, and the boot files.

> Therefore, the earlier version the Windows operating system

> loses forward compatibility with Windows Vista." [.......]

>

> "RESOLUTION

> "To resolve these issues, follow these steps.

>

> [snip]

>

> 1. Use Bootsect.exe to restore the Windows Vista MBR and

> the boot code that transfers control to the Windows Boot

> Manager program. To do this, type the following command

> at a command prompt: Drive:\boot\Bootsect.exe /NT60 All"

Confusing to say the least. I would have to do some tests to see what

is really going on with the bootsect.exe tool. Keep in mind that

Microsoft is famous for changing terminology and for saying one thing

one day and seemingly the opposite the next day! If you read here:

Bootsect Command-Line Options

http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/49ded4da-b66f-4b42-9563-04c218a1a6ac1033.mspx?mfr=true

You will read:

"Bootsect.exe updates the master boot code for hard disk partitions to

switch between BOOTMGR and NTLDR. You can use this tool to restore the

boot sector on your computer. This tool replaces FixFAT and FixNTFS."

The Master Boot Code refers to the MBR IPL and if you search the

Microsoft site you will see that Microsoft specifically refers the

"Master Boot Code" as the MBR IPL too:

http://search.microsoft.com/results.aspx?mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&q=%22master%20boot%20code%22

Yet we know, or we thought that we knew that the Boot Sector is/was the

first sector of a partition or volume! Again, if you search the

Microsoft site for "Boot Sector" you will get all kind of differing

results but as far as booting NT versions the Boot Sector has always

been used to refer to the location of the Partition Boot Code, as

described here:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/prork/prcb_dis_stfl.mspx?mfr=true

In that article you can read:

"If the boot device is on a hard disk, the BIOS loads the MBR. The

master boot code in the MBR loads the boot sector of the active

partition, and transfers CPU execution to that memory address. On

computers that are running Windows 2000, the executable boot code in the

boot sector finds Ntldr, loads it into memory, and transfers execution

to that file." (Vista bootstraps in much that same manner, but, for

lack of a better term, there are new "layers" in the MBR.)

So go figure! With conflicting statements like the ones found in the

Bootsect.exe or other Vista articles and Microsoft continually changing

or interchanging the terms it is no small wonder that confusion reigns!

The plain facts are that sometimes you can't know for sure from one

day to the next what Microsoft means when they say something, it's like

going to see your mechanic and from one day to the next he changes the

meaning of the mechanical terms for your car! With that kind of

confusion there is no way of knowing for sure what exactly it is that

bootsect.exe does! The way I read it it appears quite evident that it

changes the (Partition) Boot Sector but it's not clear what exactly, if

anything, it does to the MBR. Maybe it changes both, but at this time I

don't know for sure if it actually changes the MBR. To add yet more

confusion you can read here:

How to use the Bootrec.exe tool in the Windows Recovery Environment to

troubleshoot and repair startup issues in Windows Vista

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/927392

there you will read that the "boot sector" clearly refers to the

Partition Boot Sector.

> But it turns out that "bootsect.exe" just restores the boot sector

> unless the option "/fixmbr" is added.

There is no /fixmbr switch for bootsect.exe. I think that some of the

conflicting information on the web is due to the fact that much of the

information may have been written when the Vista Release Candidates were

being experimented with.

Bootsect Command-Line Options

http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/49ded4da-b66f-4b42-9563-04c218a1a6ac1033.mspx?mfr=true

> So at one time, the MBR of Vista differed from the pre-Vista MBRs,

> but when Vista was finally released, it had the old MBR.

I'm not sure what you mean by "old MBR", what is the "old MBR"?

As for the new MBR "layers" you might find the information in the white

paper here interesting:

Custom Bootstrap Actions in Windows Vista

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/OEMBoot_Vista.mspx

In the Vista MBR and the boot process there is a bit more than the old

routine of the Master Boot Code simply passing the instructions to the

Partition Boot Code, there is a whole new element that isn't used at all

on older NT versions! The paper will explain in part why a previous

Microsoft MBR cannot (or might not?) boot Vista. One thing for sure,

with the exception of certain hardware constraints the NT boot process

has changed little from NT3.51 through to XP, the Vista boot process is

entirely different, it brings in some never seen before concepts, at

least never seen before on Microsoft operating systems. This is no

longer the same "old" NT boot process!

John

Sign In

Blank entries in Boot.ini file

Recommended Posts

Guest Rishi

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest Pegasus \(MVP\)

Guest Rishi

Guest kookieman

Guest Pegasus \(MVP\)

Guest John John

Guest John John

Guest Pegasus \(MVP\)

Guest Pegasus \(MVP\)

Guest Uncle Marvo

Guest Timothy Daniels

Guest jorgen

Guest Timothy Daniels

Guest jorgen

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest jorgen

Guest Timothy Daniels

Guest jorgen

Guest Timothy Daniels

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest jorgen

Guest Timothy Daniels

Guest Sami Laiho

Guest Timothy Daniels

Guest John John

Similar Content

cmd.exe - Entry Point Not Found The Procedure entry point clReleaseDevice could not be located on the dynamic link library

Unable to unpin a blank tile from Windows 10 Start Menu

Restore WordPad Paint Registry Entries

Error Message: Missing Entry in msi.dll (ProcessJsonRunModuleAndExit)

Finally found a solution to the issue of Word printing blank files to the System32 folder

Browse

Activity

Site Info