Blank entries in Boot.ini file

February 28, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

"jorgen" wrote:

> John John wrote:

>

>> I don't think anyone said any differently.

>

> Actually, the discussion started because Timothy Daniels said otherwise. The

> source he referred to stated that the specific boot loader was installed in

> the MBR and not the the partition boot sector

Not true. The discussion started in the thread "Blank entries in

Boot.ini file" in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general where I

commented that there were web tutorials on restoring Vista's MBR

if it had been overwritten by an installation of XP, and you argued

that MBRs were generic.

Again, no one has said that Vista's MBR function is any different

from that of previous Windows MBRs - that is, to simply call the

executable code in the active partition's Boot Sector. The essence

of the discussion is whether *contents* of the MBRs of Vista and

previous Windows are different so as to justify reloading the Vista

MBR if it had been replaced by XP's MBR, ...OR... whether the

MBRs could be used interchangeably. So far in this discussion,

the answer appears to be "sometimes" - which implies that the

MBR recovery should be done as a standard practice unless the

user knows exactly whether some special condition existed or not.

*TimDaniels*

February 28, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Timothy Daniels wrote:

> Not true. The discussion started in the thread "Blank entries in

> Boot.ini file" in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general where I

> commented that there were web tutorials on restoring Vista's MBR

> if it had been overwritten by an installation of XP, and you argued

> that MBRs were generic.

>

> Again, no one has said that Vista's MBR function is any different

> from that of previous Windows MBRs - that is, to simply call the

> executable code in the active partition's Boot Sector. The essence

> of the discussion is whether *contents* of the MBRs of Vista and

> previous Windows are different so as to justify reloading the Vista

> MBR if it had been replaced by XP's MBR, ...OR... whether the

> MBRs could be used interchangeably. So far in this discussion,

> the answer appears to be "sometimes" - which implies that the

> MBR recovery should be done as a standard practice unless the

> user knows exactly whether some special condition existed or not.

You quoted from your source the following:

"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."

"The Windows XP bootloader gets installed to the MBR

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

So yes, someone said something else

February 28, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

In article <O$Sx5DdeIHA.5560@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> says...

> CZ wrote:

>

> >>> rewriting the disk signature with the Windows 98 fdisk /mbr command

> >>> will cause a boot failure. In most cases Windows 2000/XP will hardly

> >>> bat an

> >

> > John:

> >

> > What does the disk signature have to do with the MBR?

>

> It's stored in the MBR at offsets 1B8h through 1BBh.

>

> > IIRC, the MBR is a sector that contains executable code, the partition

> > table, and ends with 55 AA.

> > And, each partition has a "partition boot sector".

> >

> > Have you tested booting into Vista via a Win 98 MBR?

>

> Yes, I tried it with one of the Vista Release Candidates and Vista

> failed to boot after the change. Maybe the final Vista release handles

> disk signature changes differently?

I did made a XP-MBR on Vista and it works ok. Note te disk signature

belongs to the boot-partition and the 3 bytes at 01B5-01B7 belongs

to the IPL. The disk signature can you find back in the register at

the boot-partition at DosDevices.

--

Met vriendelijke groeten, Jawade. Weer veel vernieuwd!

http://jawade.nl/ Met een mirror op http://jawade.fortunecity.com/

Bootmanager (+Vista +Linux), ClrMBR, DiskEdit (+Linux), POP3lezer,

DOS-Filebrowser, Kalender, Webtellers en IP-log, USB-stick tester.

February 28, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

John John wrote:

> jorgen wrote:

>

>> John John wrote:

>>

>>> ...unless or until the user decides he wants to enable BitLocker.

>>

>> Unless I've misunderstood the concept, it wont break there either. It

>> will only break/go into recovery mode if you change the mbr while

>> bitlocker is active.

>

> Yes, I think that is correct. It will break if you change the MBR

> *after* BitLocker is enabled, the MBR hash is only crated and stored in

> the TPM's Platform Configuration Register when BitLocker is enabled, so

> when BitLocker is enabled it should/will just create the hash with the

> existing MBR be it the Vista MBR or another one, I think.

I've looked briefly on the vista mbr, and there is actually a

bitlocker-related interrupt call in there. So it might be worth checking

that out some more

February 28, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: disk signature:

> It's stored in the MBR at offsets 1B8h through 1BBh.

John:

I just used Disk Probe via XP Pro and regedit in Vista SP1 on my dual boot

computer to confirm the data value and its location in the MBR and in

Vista's registry.

I may run the fdisk /mbr via Win 98 SE floppy boot disk test again.

Based on my previous test, I would not expect the disk signature to change.

It might be useful to know if SP1 makes a difference.

My previous test (and post):

David:

I did some testing to see if Vista does change the MBR.

On a Vista/Win XP dual boot computer, I ran fdisk /mbr from a Win98 SE

bootable floppy.

Results:

1) Vista's dual boot menu displayed in normal manner

2) Vista op system had a short prompt re: installing some drivers (could not

find what they they were about)

3) Vista's EventMgr did not have any relevant error messages

4) Vista ran in normal manner

5) When I selected "Other op systems" from the Vista dual boot menu, I

received an error message re: "ntldr" was missing, and the usual boot.ini

type of menu did not display

6) What I learned: The BCD store had been changed (note the "device

unknown" lines below)

Windows Boot Manager

--------------------

identifier {bootmgr}

device unknown

description Windows Boot Manager

locale en-US

inherit {globalsettings}

default {current}

resumeobject {50c73d4d-e6b3-11da-bc73-d30cdb1ce216}

displayorder {ntldr}

{current}

toolsdisplayorder {memdiag}

timeout 30

Windows Legacy OS Loader

------------------------

identifier {ntldr}

device unknown

path \ntldr

description Earlier version of Windows

Windows Boot Loader

-------------------

identifier {current}

device partition=C:

path \Windows\system32\winload.exe

description Microsoft Windows

locale en-US

inherit {bootloadersettings}

osdevice partition=C:

systemroot \Windows

resumeobject {50c73d4d-e6b3-11da-bc73-d30cdb1ce216}

nx OptIn

7) What I did to correct the problem: ran the following two cmds via Vista

Safe Mode boot:

Bcdedit /set {bootmgr} device partition=D:

Bcdedit /set {ntldr} device partition=D:

8) Summary:

I now have a computer dual booting Vista and Win XP via a Win98 SE MBR

February 28, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: disk signature

>> .. bootmgr stores the signature in its database

Jorgen:

I just ran bcdedit /enum and did not see the disk signatrue listed.

How does one verify that it is in the BCD store?

February 28, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: disk signature

Jorgen:

This makes sense to me:

"The Master Boot Record, created when you create the first partition on the

hard disk"

Above is per http://www.ntfs.com/mbr.htm

IMO, that is when the disk signature is created and would not be normally

recreated unless you repartition.

February 28, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: disk signature

Jorgen:

Per the following only the program code in the MBR (sector 0) is replaced by

fdisk /mbr, suggesting that the disk signature is not changed.

From: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/69013

What is the MBR?

At the end of the ROM BIOS bootstrap routine, the BIOS reads and executes

the first physical sector of the first floppy or hard disk on the system.

This first sector of the hard disk is called the master boot record (or

sometimes the partition table or master boot block). There is a small

program at the beginning of this sector of the hard disk. The partition

information, or partition table, is stored at the end of this sector. This

program uses the partition information to determine which partition is

bootable (usually the first primary DOS partition) and attempts to boot from

it.

This program is written to the disk by the fdisk /mbr command and is usually

called the master boot record. During typical operation, Fdisk writes this

program to the disk only if there is no master boot record.

February 28, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Jawade wrote:

> In article <O$Sx5DdeIHA.5560@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> says...

>

>>CZ wrote:

>>

>>>>>rewriting the disk signature with the Windows 98 fdisk /mbr command

>>>>>will cause a boot failure. In most cases Windows 2000/XP will hardly

>>>>>bat an

>>>

>>>John:

>>>

>>>What does the disk signature have to do with the MBR?

>>

>>It's stored in the MBR at offsets 1B8h through 1BBh.

>>

>>>IIRC, the MBR is a sector that contains executable code, the partition

>>>table, and ends with 55 AA.

>>>And, each partition has a "partition boot sector".

>>>

>>>Have you tested booting into Vista via a Win 98 MBR?

>>

>>Yes, I tried it with one of the Vista Release Candidates and Vista

>>failed to boot after the change. Maybe the final Vista release handles

>>disk signature changes differently?

>

> I did made a XP-MBR on Vista and it works ok. Note te disk signature

> belongs to the boot-partition and the 3 bytes at 01B5-01B7 belongs

> to the IPL. The disk signature can you find back in the register at

> the boot-partition at DosDevices.

Yes, the Windows 2000/XP MBR boots Vista without problems, so does the

Windows 98 MBR, as long as you edit and restore the disk signature after

you install it.

What exactly do you mean by "the disk signature belongs to the

boot-partition"? The disk signature is used (combined) in the creation

of all partition signatures on the disk, if you have more than one

partition the disk signature was used in (is part of) all the partition

signatures. The three bytes at offsets 1B5-1B7 are used to display

error messages from the Master Boot Code.

John

February 28, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

CZ wrote:

> Re: disk signature:

>

>> It's stored in the MBR at offsets 1B8h through 1BBh.

>

> John:

>

> I just used Disk Probe via XP Pro and regedit in Vista SP1 on my dual

> boot computer to confirm the data value and its location in the MBR and

> in Vista's registry.

>

> I may run the fdisk /mbr via Win 98 SE floppy boot disk test again.

> Based on my previous test, I would not expect the disk signature to change.

It does, CZ, there is absolutely no doubt about that, fdisk /mbr

rewrites the disk signature, that is a long well known characteristic of

the command, sometimes that "feature" can be used to advantage to

correct certain drive letter problems on Windows 2000/XP.

Fdisk /mbr rewrites the first 446 bytes of the MBR. Fixmbr, The Windows

2000/XP Recovery Console equivalent only rewrites the first 440 bytes.

The disk signature is held at bytes 440 to 443, just above the rewrite

threshold of fixmbr and within the extra six bytes that fdisk /mbr rewrites.

> It might be useful to know if SP1 makes a difference.

You mean with DiskProbe? No, I don't think so. Give this Disk Editor a

try: http://mh-nexus.de/hxd/ I think you will like it better than

DiskProbe.

John

February 29, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

"John John" wrote:

> CZ wrote:

>

>> Re: disk signature:

>>

>>> It's stored in the MBR at offsets 1B8h through 1BBh.

>>

>> John:

>>

>> I just used Disk Probe via XP Pro and regedit in Vista SP1 on my dual boot

>> computer to confirm the data value and its location in the MBR and in Vista's

>> registry.

>>

>> I may run the fdisk /mbr via Win 98 SE floppy boot disk test again.

>> Based on my previous test, I would not expect the disk signature to change.

>

> It does, CZ, there is absolutely no doubt about that, fdisk /mbr rewrites the

> disk signature, that is a long well known characteristic of the command,

> sometimes that "feature" can be used to advantage to correct certain drive

> letter problems on Windows 2000/XP.

>

> Fdisk /mbr rewrites the first 446 bytes of the MBR. Fixmbr, The Windows

> 2000/XP Recovery Console equivalent only rewrites the first 440 bytes. The

> disk signature is held at bytes 440 to 443, just above the rewrite threshold

> of fixmbr and within the extra six bytes that fdisk /mbr rewrites.

>

>> It might be useful to know if SP1 makes a difference.

>

> You mean with DiskProbe? No, I don't think so. Give this Disk Editor a try:

> http://mh-nexus.de/hxd/ I think you will like it better than DiskProbe.

>

> John

So what is the bottom line? Is the XP MBR interchangeable with

Vista's MBR?

*TimDaniels*

February 29, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

>> there is absolutely no doubt about that, fdisk /mbr

rewrites the disk signature, that is a long well known characteristic of

the command,

John:

Ok, I will run fdisk /mbr and post the results.

February 29, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

"jorgen" wrote:

> Timothy Daniels wrote:

>

>> Not true. The discussion started in the thread "Blank entries in

>> Boot.ini file" in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general where I

>> commented that there were web tutorials on restoring Vista's MBR

>> if it had been overwritten by an installation of XP, and you argued

>> that MBRs were generic.

>>

>> Again, no one has said that Vista's MBR function is any different

>> from that of previous Windows MBRs - that is, to simply call the

>> executable code in the active partition's Boot Sector. The essence

>> of the discussion is whether *contents* of the MBRs of Vista and

>> previous Windows are different so as to justify reloading the Vista

>> MBR if it had been replaced by XP's MBR, ...OR... whether the

>> MBRs could be used interchangeably. So far in this discussion,

>> the answer appears to be "sometimes" - which implies that the

>> MBR recovery should be done as a standard practice unless the

>> user knows exactly whether some special condition existed or not.

>

> You quoted from your source the following:

>

> "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."

>

> "The Windows XP bootloader gets installed to the MBR

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

>

> So yes, someone said something else

And you quote something which I quoted only to point out

that it is debatable (as in this thread) whether or not the MBRs

of previous Windows and Vista have the same contents and thus

whether they are interchangeable. It was never denied by anyone

posting that the MBR passes control to the Boot Sector of the active

primary partition. As it stands now, no one has shown yet one way

or the other whether the MBRs are identical or interchangeable -

especially in the general case.

*TimDaniels*

February 29, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

John wrote:

>> there is absolutely no doubt about that, fdisk /mbr

rewrites the disk signature, that is a long well known characteristic of

the command,

CZ wrote:

> Ok, I will run fdisk /mbr and post the results.

John:

Ok, you are correct, Win98 SE fdisk /mbr did change the disk signature in

the MBR (sector 0).

My Vista SP1 vol has problems (is basically not useable, and is the one I

normally use for email)

My non-SP1 Vista vol works w/o problems.

I am typing this in XP Pro SP2 which works w/o problems.

However, there were some collateral issues.

I will post a more complete post when I fix the Vista SP1 vol.

PS: this computer multi-boots between several installs of Vista and XP

February 29, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

>> Ok, you are correct, Win98 SE fdisk /mbr did change the disk signature in

the MBR (sector 0).

My Vista SP1 vol has problems (is basically not useable, and is the one I

normally use for email)

My non-SP1 Vista vol works w/o problems.

I am typing this in XP Pro SP2 which works w/o problems.

However, there were some collateral issues.

I will post a more complete post when I fix the Vista SP1 vol.

PS: this computer multi-boots between several installs of Vista and XP

New comments:

The drive enumeration system was changed for the Vista SP1 vol and instead

of being C:, the vol now boots as I:.

I am surprised that it even booted.

I will have to rebuild the vol.

February 29, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Timothy Daniels wrote:

> So what is the bottom line? Is the XP MBR interchangeable with

> Vista's MBR?

Interchangeable in what sense?

1- As on a Vista installation can the Vista MBR be replaced with the XP MBR?

or

2- As on a Windows XP installation can the XP MBR be replaced with the

Vista MBR?

The answers are yes, no and maybe. I'll give you my full verdict later

on. jorgen raised a point about BitLocker functions in the MBR, I'm

looking into that, it appears that the MBR must be TPM aware for

BitLocker to work properly, so if one wants to use BitLocker then other

MBR's are unsuitable.

John

February 29, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

CZ wrote:

>>>Ok, you are correct, Win98 SE fdisk /mbr did change the disk signature in

>

> the MBR (sector 0).

> My Vista SP1 vol has problems (is basically not useable, and is the one I

> normally use for email)

> My non-SP1 Vista vol works w/o problems.

> I am typing this in XP Pro SP2 which works w/o problems.

> However, there were some collateral issues.

> I will post a more complete post when I fix the Vista SP1 vol.

> PS: this computer multi-boots between several installs of Vista and XP

>

> New comments:

> The drive enumeration system was changed for the Vista SP1 vol and instead

> of being C:, the vol now boots as I:.

> I am surprised that it even booted.

>

> I will have to rebuild the vol.

You could probably repair that easily by simply editing the MBR and

manually rewriting the old signature back to its location... providing

that you had saved or recorded the signature bits in case of an event

like this. You can write the signature bits back to any MBR version

that you install (W98/XP/Vista) and all your operating systems should

boot and maintain their drive letter assignement.

Do you have the Vista MBR installed on any of your hard disks?

John

February 29, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

In article <e6OLUAmeIHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> says...

> Jawade wrote:

> > In article <O$Sx5DdeIHA.5560@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> says...

> >

> >>CZ wrote:

> >>

> >>>>>rewriting the disk signature with the Windows 98 fdisk /mbr command

> >>>>>will cause a boot failure. In most cases Windows 2000/XP will hardly

> >>>>>bat an

> >>>

> >>>John:

> >>>

> >>>What does the disk signature have to do with the MBR?

> >>

> >>It's stored in the MBR at offsets 1B8h through 1BBh.

> >>

> >>>IIRC, the MBR is a sector that contains executable code, the partition

> >>>table, and ends with 55 AA.

> >>>And, each partition has a "partition boot sector".

> >>>

> >>>Have you tested booting into Vista via a Win 98 MBR?

> >>

> >>Yes, I tried it with one of the Vista Release Candidates and Vista

> >>failed to boot after the change. Maybe the final Vista release handles

> >>disk signature changes differently?

> >

> > I did made a XP-MBR on Vista and it works ok. Note te disk signature

> > belongs to the boot-partition and the 3 bytes at 01B5-01B7 belongs

> > to the IPL. The disk signature can you find back in the register at

> > the boot-partition at DosDevices.

>

> Yes, the Windows 2000/XP MBR boots Vista without problems, so does the

> Windows 98 MBR, as long as you edit and restore the disk signature after

> you install it.

>

> What exactly do you mean by "the disk signature belongs to the

> boot-partition"? The disk signature is used (combined) in the creation

> of all partition signatures on the disk, if you have more than one

> partition the disk signature was used in (is part of) all the partition

> signatures. The three bytes at offsets 1B5-1B7 are used to display

> error messages from the Master Boot Code.

Yes, I was wrong, the signature belongs to al the partitions on that

disk. If you have a second drive, the signature in his MBR belongs

to all the partitions on the 2th disk.

But I put a w98 IPL in the MBR, the disk signature ok, but the

pc did'nt boot up (Vista). No message. In the second partition

(Linux) he said No system found, even in the 3th (XP). It's a

triple boot system.

--

Met vriendelijke groeten, Jawade. Weer veel vernieuwd!

http://jawade.nl/ Met een mirror op http://jawade.fortunecity.com/

Bootmanager (+Vista +Linux), ClrMBR, DiskEdit (+Linux), POP3lezer,

DOS-Filebrowser, Kalender, Webtellers en IP-log, USB-stick tester.

February 29, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Jawade wrote:

> In article <e6OLUAmeIHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> says...

>

>>Jawade wrote:

>>

>>>In article <O$Sx5DdeIHA.5560@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> says...

>>>

>>>>CZ wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>>>rewriting the disk signature with the Windows 98 fdisk /mbr command

>>>>>>>will cause a boot failure. In most cases Windows 2000/XP will hardly

>>>>>>>bat an

>>>>>

>>>>>John:

>>>>>

>>>>>What does the disk signature have to do with the MBR?

>>>>

>>>>It's stored in the MBR at offsets 1B8h through 1BBh.

>>>>

>>>>>IIRC, the MBR is a sector that contains executable code, the partition

>>>>>table, and ends with 55 AA.

>>>>>And, each partition has a "partition boot sector".

>>>>>

>>>>>Have you tested booting into Vista via a Win 98 MBR?

>>>>

>>>>Yes, I tried it with one of the Vista Release Candidates and Vista

>>>>failed to boot after the change. Maybe the final Vista release handles

>>>>disk signature changes differently?

>>>

>>>I did made a XP-MBR on Vista and it works ok. Note te disk signature

>>>belongs to the boot-partition and the 3 bytes at 01B5-01B7 belongs

>>>to the IPL. The disk signature can you find back in the register at

>>>the boot-partition at DosDevices.

>>

>>Yes, the Windows 2000/XP MBR boots Vista without problems, so does the

>>Windows 98 MBR, as long as you edit and restore the disk signature after

>>you install it.

>>

>>What exactly do you mean by "the disk signature belongs to the

>>boot-partition"? The disk signature is used (combined) in the creation

>>of all partition signatures on the disk, if you have more than one

>>partition the disk signature was used in (is part of) all the partition

>>signatures. The three bytes at offsets 1B5-1B7 are used to display

>>error messages from the Master Boot Code.

>

> Yes, I was wrong, the signature belongs to al the partitions on that

> disk. If you have a second drive, the signature in his MBR belongs

> to all the partitions on the 2th disk.

>

> But I put a w98 IPL in the MBR, the disk signature ok, but the

> pc did'nt boot up (Vista). No message. In the second partition

> (Linux) he said No system found, even in the 3th (XP). It's a

> triple boot system.

>

How did you change the IPL from GRUB/Lilo to W98?

John

February 29, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

"John John" wrote:

> Timothy Daniels wrote:

>

>> So what is the bottom line? Is the XP MBR interchangeable

>> with Vista's MBR?

>

> Interchangeable in what sense?

>

> 1- As on a Vista installation, can the Vista MBR be replaced

> with the XP MBR?

>

> or

>

> 2- As on a Windows XP installation, can the XP MBR be

> replaced with the Vista MBR?

>

> The answers are yes, no and maybe. I'll give you my full verdict

> later on. jorgen raised a point about BitLocker functions in the

> MBR, I'm looking into that, it appears that the MBR must be

> TPM aware for BitLocker to work properly, so if one wants to

> use BitLocker then other MBR's are unsuitable.

>

> John

The original question concerned the claim in APCmag that

Vista's MBR had to be restored after an installation of XP in

which XP's installer had overwritten Vista's MBR with XP's

MBR - or would it be sufficient to merely restore the active

primary partition's Boot Sector (which points to ntldr). That

question would be 1).

Then, when "jorgen" made the claim that MBRs are all the

same (at least among Windows OSes), the question also arose

about whether Vista's MBR would be equally suitable for

booting XP (provided that the Boot Sector in the active primary

partition pointed to Vista's boot loader/manager). That would

be question 2).

If use of BitLocker affects the answers to 1) and/or 2),

I guess there should be questions 1a), 1b), 2a), and 2b),

in which a) is "BitLocker Off", and b) is "BitLocker On".

*TimDaniels*

February 29, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Summary of results of running Win98 SE's fdisk /mbr on a Vista computer.

(note that the computer multi-boots between two Vista installs, one with SP1

and the other w/o SP1, and several installs of XP)

1) Did the disk signature change?

Yes, and Vista and XP automatically changed the partition signatures to

reflect the change (per a registry review).

2) Did vista load and run in the normal manner with the Win98 SE MBR and the

new disk signature?

For the Vista install w/o SP1: yes, it had zero problems.

For the Vista install with SP1: no. It would only boot into a temporary

profile, using either of two admin user accts. The drive enumeration system

was changed so that the Vista SP1 vol instead of being C: (the pre-test

drive letter), the vol now boots as I:. Note that both Vista vols were

installed via a DVD boot using the same TechNet DVD, so, the drive

enumeration system was not changed for the Vista vol that did not have SP1.

3) Manually changing the disk signature in sector 0 (the MBR) back to the

pre-test signature did not solve the problem with the Vista SP1 vol.

Notes

For non-Vista booting, drive C: is XP Home, meaning that Home was installed

before the other op system installs.

The computer has two hard disks, one has a single primary partition and an

extended partition, the other only has an extended partition (no primary).

February 29, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

CZ wrote:

> Summary of results of running Win98 SE's fdisk /mbr on a Vista computer.

> (note that the computer multi-boots between two Vista installs, one with SP1

> and the other w/o SP1, and several installs of XP)

>

> 1) Did the disk signature change?

> Yes, and Vista and XP automatically changed the partition signatures to

> reflect the change (per a registry review).

>

> 2) Did vista load and run in the normal manner with the Win98 SE MBR and the

> new disk signature?

> For the Vista install w/o SP1: yes, it had zero problems.

> For the Vista install with SP1: no. It would only boot into a temporary

> profile, using either of two admin user accts. The drive enumeration system

> was changed so that the Vista SP1 vol instead of being C: (the pre-test

> drive letter), the vol now boots as I:. Note that both Vista vols were

> installed via a DVD boot using the same TechNet DVD, so, the drive

> enumeration system was not changed for the Vista vol that did not have SP1.

>

> 3) Manually changing the disk signature in sector 0 (the MBR) back to the

> pre-test signature did not solve the problem with the Vista SP1 vol.

>

> Notes

> For non-Vista booting, drive C: is XP Home, meaning that Home was installed

> before the other op system installs.

*****************************************************

> The computer has two hard disks, one has a single primary partition and an

> extended partition, the other only has an extended partition (no primary).

That probably explains why one Vista installation booted and the other

didn't, the signature was change on one disk but not the second, the

installation on the disk with signature unchanged booted while the one

on the disk with signature changed didn't. Correct?

John

February 29, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

In article <ejLEa0veIHA.6136@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> says...

> Jawade wrote:

> > In article <e6OLUAmeIHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> says...

> >

> >>What exactly do you mean by "the disk signature belongs to the

> >>boot-partition"? The disk signature is used (combined) in the creation

> >>of all partition signatures on the disk, if you have more than one

> >>partition the disk signature was used in (is part of) all the partition

> >>signatures. The three bytes at offsets 1B5-1B7 are used to display

> >>error messages from the Master Boot Code.

> >

> > Yes, I was wrong, the signature belongs to al the partitions on that

> > disk. If you have a second drive, the signature in his MBR belongs

> > to all the partitions on the 2th disk.

> >

> > But I put a w98 IPL in the MBR, the disk signature ok, but the

> > pc did'nt boot up (Vista). No message. In the second partition

> > (Linux) he said No system found, even in the 3th (XP). It's a

> > triple boot system.

>

> How did you change the IPL from GRUB/Lilo to W98?

I have a Vista-MBR with my own bootmanager. I changed the IPL with

my own diskeditor with several copy-possibilities.

--

Met vriendelijke groeten, Jawade. Weer veel vernieuwd!

http://jawade.nl/ Met een mirror op http://jawade.fortunecity.com/

Bootmanager (+Vista +Linux), ClrMBR, DiskEdit (+Linux), POP3lezer,

DOS-Filebrowser, Kalender, Webtellers en IP-log, USB-stick tester.

March 2, 2008

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

Re: Vista MBR vs. XP MBR

John wrote:

>CZ wrote:

> Summary of results of running Win98 SE's fdisk /mbr on a Vista computer.

> (note that the computer multi-boots between two Vista installs, one with

> SP1 and the other w/o SP1, and several installs of XP)

>

> 1) Did the disk signature change?

> Yes, and Vista and XP automatically changed the partition signatures to

> reflect the change (per a registry review).

>

> 2) Did vista load and run in the normal manner with the Win98 SE MBR and

> the new disk signature?

> For the Vista install w/o SP1: yes, it had zero problems.

> For the Vista install with SP1: no. It would only boot into a temporary

> profile, using either of two admin user accts. The drive enumeration

> system was changed so that the Vista SP1 vol instead of being C: (the

> pre-test drive letter), the vol now boots as I:. Note that both Vista

> vols were installed via a DVD boot using the same TechNet DVD, so, the

> drive enumeration system was not changed for the Vista vol that did not

> have SP1.

>

> 3) Manually changing the disk signature in sector 0 (the MBR) back to the

> pre-test signature did not solve the problem with the Vista SP1 vol.

>

> Notes

> For non-Vista booting, drive C: is XP Home, meaning that Home was

> installed before the other op system installs.

*****************************************************

> The computer has two hard disks, one has a single primary partition and an

> extended partition, the other only has an extended partition (no primary).

That probably explains why one Vista installation booted and the other

didn't, the signature was change on one disk but not the second, the

installation on the disk with signature unchanged booted while the one

on the disk with signature changed didn't. Correct?

My response:

John:

The problem install was on disk00 which had its disk signature changed.

However, consider the following:

1) It did boot, but only into a temporary profile, which allowed me to look

for casual issues.

2) Manually changing the disk signature back to the pre-test value did not

solve the problem.

3) I did the same test about a year ago without any problems. I believe

that the same disk00 vol relationship was in use at that time, though I

cannot verify that it was.

Sign In

Blank entries in Boot.ini file

Recommended Posts

Guest Timothy Daniels

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest jorgen

Guest Jawade

Guest jorgen

Guest CZ

Guest CZ

Guest CZ

Guest CZ

Guest John John

Guest John John

Guest Timothy Daniels

Guest CZ

Guest Timothy Daniels

Guest CZ

Guest CZ

Guest John John

Guest John John

Guest Jawade

Guest John John

Guest Timothy Daniels

Guest CZ

Guest John John

Guest Jawade

Guest CZ

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