jaclaz

You seemed to imply (you actually explicitly said ) that: NT based OS cannot be installed on non-first disk NT based OS cannot be installed on Logical Volumes inside Extended partition The first is probably due to the assumption that the two parts of the NT OS (Loader files and kernel files/install) have to go on same partition/disk (the Loader files have to go normally on first disk Active Primary anyway). The second is completely inaccurate, as, as said NT was designed to be installed on Logical Volumes inside Extended partition (and again in "MS way" the Loader files have to go on first disk Active Primary anyway) I will try to clear the matter. #1 is of course solved if you have the loader files on the Active Primary on first disk, or, since you need anyway a third party bootmanager to hide/unhide partitions, you can well use one that can re-map the drives or boot the actual loader files from an image. #2: DOS (and consequently Windows 9x/Me) has this boot sequence: BIOS->MBR->Bootsector or PBR of Active Primary Partition->IO.SYS (System file, actual OS "kernel") Which is common to most "old school OS", including FreeDOS: BIOS->MBR->Bootsector or PBR of Active Primary Partition->KERNEL.SYS (System file, actual OS "kernel") or IBM PC-DOS: BIOS->MBR->Bootsector or PBR of Active Primary Partition->IBMBIO.COM (System file, actual OS "kernel") When MS developed NT (which as you may remember was a "fork" from OS/2) changed the way the OS boots for two main reasons: the kernel wasn't anymore "monolithic" there was a need - for the first time - to "dual boot" between NT and DOS (remember that at the time "normal" widows was Windows 3.10 or 3.11). So they developed this different boot sequence: BIOS->MBR->Bootsector or PBR of Active Primary Partition->NTLDR (Loader)->BOOT.INI->Choice->EITHER: arcpath to actual Windows NT install OR copy of a bootsector loading another OS (like DOS) AND since, for the first time they separated the OS loader from the actual kernel, the new NT system could be installed on ANY kind of partition (Primary or Logical Volume inside Extended) on ANY disk. Let's compare the two sequences: BIOS->MBR->Bootsector or PBR of Active Primary Partition->IO.SYS BIOS->MBR->Bootsector or PBR of Active Primary Partition->NTLDR (Loader)->BOOT.INI->Choice->arcpath to NT Install The common part: The BIOS looks on the MBR of first disk. The MBR code looks for the MBR of Active Primary Partition. The bootsector or PBR looks for a file inside this partition. This approach gives the limitation that the system file(s) NEED to reside on Active Primary partition of first disk, the difference is that whilst in DOS Loader AND Kernel are the same file, in NT they are separate, thus ONLY the Loader HAS to be on Active Primary partition of first disk, the Kernel (i.e. the OS install) can be on any partition on any disk. So, since the beginning, and because an already "unmovable" OS was common, the recommended way to install NT was to install it on a logical volume inside extended, putting in the Active partition, where a DOS usually was, only the loader files, that were capable to boot the DOS system files. Also remember that at the time MS DID NOT provide for the use of more than one primary partition, FDISK did NOT allow more than one primary. Since the Red and Green parts in the above sequence cannot be changed, third parties started to modify the Blue part, and created bootmanagers that either replaced or were "inserted" in the Blue part of the booting sequence. What Dan Goodels nicely documents here : http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/ is dependent on this initial assumption/goal: which clearly DOES NOT apply to the case at hand where the OP wants to SEE ALL partitions from the XP and ALL partitions but the XP NTFS one from Windows 98. In any case, as Dan himself says: There are quicker (and easier) ways to install various versions of NT family systems to different partitions without needing to install/hide/unhide/make an image/wipe, the latter two operations taking quite a lot of time. Basically, as you pointed out previously, NT keep drive letter assignment in the Registry, so the "trick" is simply to "pre-assign" the correct drive letter during install, which can be easily made through the use of migrate.inf file during installation: http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=19663 The correction to PBR "Sectors before" of Logical Volumes that Dan describes here: http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/ptedit.htm would of course be needed anyway, but some bootmanagers can also do it "on-the-fly" (example grub4dos) Unlike DOS/Win9x, where to have a partition bootable (in the sense of having a valid PBR booting code) you needed to either use the /S switch with FORMAT or use the SYS command, a partition FORMATted under NT systems ALWAYS has the PBR booting code. If you want to have this particular kind of setup in which every partition is "self-standing" and when one is booted all the others are hidden from it, all you need to do is having a Primary partition, let's say the DOS one, and one of the Logical Volumes visible, then install the NT to the Logical Volume, pre-assigning to it letter "C:\" (or whatever letter you like), then copy to the latter the files NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM,BOOT.INI (and possibly NTBOOTDD.SYS and BOOTFONT.BIN). Repeat for each NT OS, every time hiding the Logical Volume to which you already installed and unhiding another one, finally install DOS/Win9x to the Primary and you have your system set up just like Dan Goodel's theory, but without any need to image/wipe anything. Vista and later are/maybe different, and since right now I won't touch'em, cannot say, though if anyone is interested in them I am pretty sure that reading here: http://www.multibooters.co.uk/ a similar approach can be used. BTW, the above site has this rather nice graphical explanation of the boot sequence: http://www.multibooters.co.uk/multiboot.html When it comes to Windows 9x, which was NOT designed to be installed on a Logical Volume, there is no other practical way than that of imaging it, due to the "SU103 error": http://www.allensmith.net/OS/XOSL/II.htm#II1 but this is a limitations of the actual Install routine, not of the OS itself. Hope now things are clearer. jaclaz

Well, this way your later drive letters will shift in XP. I would try making the Fat partition after the volume for XP and UNmap it in XP. This way the driveletters on second drive will remain the same. OR, do not create the partition if not after having installed XP. (same result, as you can re-map in XP the drive letters of the volumes on second drive). jaclaz

At least they should. Of course they are to be used in a logical order: first you install the drivers (install.inf or w_install.cmd) second you create/mount the .wim (w_create.cmd/w_mount.cmd) third when you have finished with the .wim you unmount it (w_unmount.cmd) fourth, optionally, you uninstall the drivers (w_uninstall.cmd) As stated there, there is no help, you'll have to do some experiments, but if you run the batches without parameters, a minimal "syntax" is given, example: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=9658&st=42

Ok, now that you are not anymore confused , let's get back to business. It seems to me like your original post misses the detail on how the first disk is actually partitioned (besides the first Active Primary what kind of partitions are the rest?) However, for the original problem it doesn't matter, you are correct, fifth partition on first hard disk is "found" and assigned the G:\ letter BECAUSE it is formatted as FAT32 (i.e. a filesystem that Windows 98 recognizes natively) as soon as you re-format it to NTFS (or Ext2 or whatever other filesystem NOT recognized by Win 98) all subsequent drive letters will be shifted by one, i.e., as rloew already posted: So, the problem right now is NOT the letters that XP will assign (XP has internally support for static letter assignments during setup that can override the default letter atttribution AND post install static letter assignment - but both these features WON'T be needed in your specific case, as we can say that drive lettering in XP - including the NTFS partition - will be the same as it was on Windows 98 with the FAT32 one), but rather the way to make Windows 98 "keep" the current drive letter assignment. AFAIK, the only solution is the use of Letter Assigner (link already given). Alternatively, you need to either follow the suggestion by rloew (create an additional tiny FAT16 - or even FAT12 - partition to "hook the letter "G:\" under Win98 as last partition on first disk) or live with the fact that you will have to either re-install programs on the second disk or change their settings in all related .ini files and in the Registry of the Win98 install. The smallest partition you can create (whilst being respectful of CHS geometry) is a 1x255x63x512=8,225,280 i.e. roughly 8 Mb. If you are allright with this, go ahead, but remember that XP will see "G:\" as 105 Gb, and Win98 will see "G:\" as 8 Mb (you can remove in XP the drive letter for the smallish FAT partition). jaclaz

I may completely agree with you, or, better, I may be not in total disagreement with you. jaclaz

Nice find. Just for the record, it should possible (from Win98) to use this app: http://www.compuapps.com/download/swissknife/swissknife.htm also, you can add USB support to DOS and should be able to use FDISK normally or RPM or similar DOS tools. jaclaz

Yep, there are some problems on boot-land Board attachments right now. Get Wimcaptex.exe from here: http://nativeex.boot-land.net/Programs/WimCaptEx/WimCaptEx.htm I am attaching the small batches. jaclaz WimMountBatch001.zip

Just in case: A small tool for XP: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=9765 7-zip can access (read only) .wim's jaclaz

@LoneCrusader No intention whatever to attack you, and I do understand that you are in perfect good faith trying to help the OP. But it's the second time in this very thread that you post inaccurate information, that may confuse OP (or later readers of the thread). I mean, with the AFAIK or "in my experience", one can post almost everything, just imagine this sentence said in 1800, in perfect good faith: It is perfectly right and a consequence of both direct experience of the author AND of commonly available knowledge at the time. The same sentence said in 1900, is still perfectly valid. The same sentence said in 1905, again in perfect good faith, keeps it's validity as "direct experience" only. Said in 1920 it would have sounded absurd. Since the good ol' NT, it is the standard way to dual boot between Dos/9x and NT to have the NT on a logical volume: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/243896/en-us Sure. I am sorry, I was trying to be funny, and I evidently completely failed to. My apologies to all , if feathers were ruffled, it wasn't my intention. jaclaz

Very well summed up! jaclaz

Notwithstanding the "AFAIK", this is a bestiality . Windows NT family of OS are DESIGNED to be installed on logical volumes inside extended partition. Their booting must be initiated (normally) from a primary active, but there is NO need WHATSOEVER to install to primary and then clone it somewhere else! That is one of the workarounds to be able to install 9x on a logical volume inside extended, see XOSL help: http://www.allensmith.net/OS/XOSL/I.htm If you are not familiar with XP, or the way it boots or installs: As I said, I am unfamiliar with this, I just know that booting WinXP from the second drive did not work with my setup. Simply DO NOT talk about it , (or, better, GET familiar with it ) jaclaz

Is there an "illegal" UBCD? I only know about the real and obviously legal one: http://ultimatebootcd.com/ @Keyboarder You can use UBCD as a .iso. Add a line to your current BOOT.INI on the XP stick: Add to root of the XP stick (from latest grub4dos - right now it is already inside the UBCD linked below): grldr menu.lst And: the UBCD .iso, say in /images/ubcd5.iso Basically you need an entry in menu.lst similar to this: title Ultimate Boot CD map /images/ubcd5.iso (hd32) map --hook chainloader (hd32) Get latest UBCD with grub4dos support: http://ultimatebootcd.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2131 Read some basics about grub4dos from here: http://diddy.boot-land.net/grub4dos/Grub4dos.htm http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showforum=66 Check for newer grub4dos here: http://nufans.net/grub4dos/ jaclaz

Very, very interesting. Well, you'd have a more techical approach and far less money the good guys at MS have. Gadgets, and stupid visual effects SELL. Yep, that's the reason why the stick approach is useful, how come you didn't use it this time? http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=125258&st=11 jaclaz

hxxp://www.msfn.org/board/Gosh_s_XP_Build_Environment_t106064.html hxxp://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=106064 i.e.: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=106064 jaclaz P.S.: and BTW you will land here: hxxp://www.msfn.org/board/topic/106064-goshs-xp-build-environment/ I am happy not to be the only one that thinks that the good guys who write the Board Software have a lot of fun with changing the address for "friendly names" at each release.

You have a problem (and either an incompetent "guy who knows Siemens serial cables " or you misunderstood him). There is NOT any "driver" inside the connector. There is a "converter", and IC (integrated Circuit) that takes the RS232 signals (and yes, they peak at 12 V) and converts them to TTL level. This IC must be powered and normally it is powered by the "attached to PC" side, but some cables for cellular phones do need to be powered from the "attached to phone size". Problem is that there are IC's that need +5V cc/0 and some that need 3÷3.3 V cc/0, some that will "like" everything. As well, there are two different TTL levels, a +5V and a +2.8/3.3V one, and even converters that will choose which TTL level depending on the power you give them. If you are lucky your cable is one that will like "any" power voltage and anyway output the "right" TTL level (the 2.8/3.3 one). Read this post, where the matter is a bit more explained: jaclaz

You got most (but not all) of it right. The feature/issue is about "partition boundary alignment". Depending on the DOS you will be using (and on the DOS programs you will use in it) you DO NOT want to have that partition NOT respecting the 63 Head boundary. DOS should normally have a CHS compatible geometry on the partitions it can access. Read here: http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/geom/index.htm A good idea is to use the same for XP also, if you plan to use Vista/7, as some SERIOUS problems that may lead to data loss have emerged. Read this: http://www.boot-land.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=9897&hl= Where more info is given. jaclaz

IF your Power Supply is actually "barely giving enough power", INDEPENDENTLY from the problems you are having, you should change it NOW! An underpowered power supply can easily create weird things, including UNrepairable ones , like HD head crashes, overheating of vital parts and what not. And yes, IF it is really underpowered it may create exactly that kind of behaviour. Do use a PS calculator, see here: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=120535 But, more than that, use some common sense, i.e. don't take as "gold" the result of a calculator without thinking about it a bit and reading more on the topic, and also, an "aging" PSU is nothing like a "new" one in terms of actual power, how old is yours? At least testing it might be a good idea, but to have anywhere near an accurate enough result you will need either a dedicated PSU testing device or a multimeter AND have an above than average familiarity/knowledge with electricity/electronics and measurements. In other words, if you need to ask about it, you won't be able to test it manually. jaclaz

You should contact the "3rd parity" support , as what you want to do could be easily mistaken (or correctly taken, cannot say ) as attempting to remove a software protection, check against Rule #1: http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/18408-forum-rules-updated-must-read/ jaclaz

predestined? I like it! It sounds just "right" I am not too sure between: predestined cdob or cdob the predestined though. jaclaz

Yep, exactly: life is tough! ...the good thing is that every time you learn something more : I don't think that such a DVD is available. But why don't you slipstream SP2 as you have been advised to do here?: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=142596 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=142596&st=1 jaclaz

Possibly. I'll let you know when and if I'll be back . jaclaz

Yes, it is obvious and it was exactly my point - I guess we can call it "our" point , BUT, where would be the utility to hide/unhide the partition be residing? And moreover WHICH hiding/unhiding tool is it? You need something that installs either in the MBR only (like partita or MBLDR) or possibly in a few hidden sectors also like grub4dos grldr.mbr does (and in the case of grub4dos you will need two copies of grldr, one in the 9x and one in the XP partition, or put it in a third partition). In other words, you cannot use anything that resides in either the 9x or XP partition, if you are trying to provide a failsafe way in case one of the two (or their bootsectors) goes "beserk", as from a statistical viewpoint you have no reason to presume that the "9x" one is more likely to fail than the "XP" one or viceversa. grub4dos grldr.mbr in the MBR (+a few hidden sectors) may solve, say, 1/3 of the problem, i.e. since it can bypass bootsector CODE, it will remain functional even if bootsector CODE becomes corrupted (but of course not if the bootsector DATA becomes corrupted). In other words, what I am trying to understand is the theory, if you assume that one of the two partitions or one of their respective bootsectors is going to go beserk, what you propose as most "failproof" setup and why. jaclaz

Sure you do , only, don't expect anymore to have it from me, that was the essence of my previous post. That is what I would have tried to find out, had you actually replied properly to my questions. It is very possible that you didn't do anything wrong, and it's simply some problem of the winsetupfronUSB in combination with your source, your laptop or the USB key, but cannot really say. Surely someone else will have the abilities to help you without you needing to take some time in trying to be helped by revealing the details I would have needed. Unfortunately my crystal ball is in the shop once again for tuning and maintenance and tarots and i-ching (or the way I use them) are soooo unreliable that I cannot suggest you anything without info. jaclaz

That's allright , since you apparently wasted that of the members who tried to help you , as I see it, please do correct me if I am misunderstanding : You asked if SP2 is needed and how to add it: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=142596 http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=142602 You were told basically that: it is not "necessary", but "advised" you won't be able to add it on a vlited install you would need to slipstream to source BEFORE vliting You basically replied: that's OK, I won't slipstream SP2 since I won't need it or it is too difficult And now you are here to whine about not being able to install SP2 on a vlited install? BTW you changed opinion on vlite pretty fast : jaclaz

It reappeared . jaclaz