Will Win2000 pro do everything 98 does ?

[pointertovoid]

What I meant with "disk host" is generally called a "disk controller" - the one often included in the mobo's chipset.

Just to warn a user coming from W98 that, with W2k, moving a system disk from, say, an Intel to an AMD host is difficult.

I write "host" purposely because, since the introduction of IDE a looooong time ago, all disks have the controller on the PC board attached to the drive, and the mobo (or the extension card) holds a mere host now, not a controller.

[jaclaz]

What I meant with "disk host" is generally called a "disk controller" - the one often included in the mobo's chipset.

Just to warn a user coming from W98 that, with W2k, moving a system disk from, say, an Intel to an AMD host is difficult.

I write "host" purposely because, since the introduction of IDE a looooong time ago, all disks have the controller on the PC board attached to the drive, and the mobo (or the extension card) holds a mere host now, not a controller.

Yep , I understand now, but this is not really "accurate".

As long as we are within the IDE/PATA realm, there is no problem whatsoever, the actual "disk host" driver is still the same, no matter the motherboard, you need (if you are using a specific driver) to revert BEFORE the move to the "Standard Dual Channel PCI IDE Controller" driver and you are set.

BUT the migration won't possibly work anyway, but for OTHER reasons, like the chipset of processor or video driver, though.

Normally this is NOT a "real problem" as you run a Repair Install (from CD) and usually the migration completes allright.

The usual procedure is (was):

1. change the video driver to "Standard VGA"
   
2. change the disk controller driver to "Standard Dual Channel PCI IDE Controller"
   
3. remove each and every device you can from device manager
   
4. shutdown the system and move the disk to the "other" system
   
5. try booting in "Safe Mode"
   
6. if no errors try booting "normally"
   
7. if problem run a repair install
   

Same procedure (more or less) is applicable to XP/2003:

http://michaelstevenstech.com/moving_xp.html

Surely not the most linear/straighforward thing in the world , but doable allright .

jaclaz

[Sfor]

Well, the Partimage utility does copy only the occupied sectors of a partition, leaving the unused space behind. It also does a copy of the whole MBR and stores everything in a single compressed archive. The supported file systems are FAT, FAT32, NTFS and EXT up to version 3. EXT4 and newer file systems are not supported, as the application is no longer worked on.

It is possible to restore

- the whole MBR,

- just the partition data of the MBR

- just the boot strap code of the MBR

- partition data without the MBR

By my understanding, a backup is a copy made in oder to be restored, when something bad happens. I see no meaningful difference between backing up separate files, or the whole partition. The real problem comes, when it is necesary to restore a whole partition. So, in order to use a partition level system backup it is wise to keep all the relevant user data files on other partitions. So, the system restore procedure would not have to include prior data file backup. Following the idea, data file partition level backup does not seem to have much sense.

Since the thread is about Windows 2000 and 98, there is one significant difference between them when it comes to system restore. I can restore a Windows 98 using a plain DOS, while I can not do the same with Windows 2000. Windows 98 kernel is stored in just 8.3 DOS format names. The LFN support comes just after the kernel start, but before the GUI start. So, it is possible to start kernel after restoring just files with short names, then restore the long file names (LFN), then to initialize GUI.

Also, it is relatively easy to move Windows 98 to other computer with very different hardware.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Sfor

[jaclaz]

Since the thread is about Windows 2000 and 98, there is one significant difference between them when it comes to system restore. I can restore a Windows 98 using a plain DOS, while I can not do the same with Windows 2000. Windows 98 kernel is stored in just 8.3 DOS format names. The LFN support comes just after the kernel start, but before the GUI start. So, it is possible to start kernel after restoring just files with short names, then restore the long file names (LFN), then to initialize GUI.

Yes and no, I mean Windows 98 is DOS , so there is clearly an advantage, but you can use a "pure" DOS app to image and restore a Windows 2k allright:

http://www.partition-saving.com/

Also, it is relatively easy to move Windows 98 to other computer with very different hardware.

Yes, as long as you don't hit the 1 Gb ram issue (or know how to deal with it) AND you are in the under 128 Gb bigLBA club, and possibly a few more issues/quirks that are actually solvable, mostly thanks to the dedication ans support by MSFN members , but all in all I wouldn't define it "easy-peasy" or recommend attempting doing it to a newbie, and as I just posted also 2K/XP is perfectly possible and not all that difficult, but definitely I would define BOTH a Win9x and a NT/2K/XP hardware migration "not for the faint of heart".

jaclaz

[Sfor]

I found yet another difference between Windows 98 and Windows 2000. The tape backup software is significantly different. Backups made on Windows 98 with sytem backup tool (Seagate Backup Exec) are not restored properly with Windows 2000 backup tool (from Veritas). The funny thing is, the files are actualy restored without any error message, but the data is messed up. The tape handling is also significantly different.

Windows 98 backup tool gives much more freedom with handling multiple backups on the same tapes. It is possible to create an endless chain of backups one after another, by just adding another empty tape when the free space ends. In order to restore it is necesary to use only the tapes containing the particular backup job.

In Windows 2000 it is also possible to add backups one after another. The problem comes with restoring. It is necesary to use every tape from the beginning of the backup chain. So, the endless backup chain is not an option. Also it is not possible to freely name tapes as user wants.

So, Windows 98 let's user to treat tapes in a way more similar to standard removable media drives, while Windows 2000 forces quite a few restrictions to the way the tapes are handled.

I found no good freeware program able to handle tape drives in Windows 2000, so far. Turbo Tape works, but it's no good with handling large backup sets with more than one tape.

[Browncoat]

As often happens, I lied as there is a third approach (mixed mode ):

http://www.xxclone.com/

http://www.xxclone.com/itheory.htm

(which obviously, not being sector based, is NOT "forensically sound")

jaclaz

You've confused me Jaclaz, are you dissing or endorsing xxclone?

Because of its' properties I've used xxclone ever since 'discovering' it

over at majorgeeks. I like it.

[jaclaz]

You've confused me Jaclaz, are you dissing or endorsing xxclone?

Because of its' properties I've used xxclone ever since 'discovering' it

over at majorgeeks. I like it.

Well, I produced the opposite effect than what I meant, then.

I try as much as I can to have EXACT descriptions of things/tools.

Often people tend to use (or recommend) something without really-really understanding (or clearly stating) WHAT it is.

I try to do the opposite.

There are TWO main approaches (different sources/target):

1. disk based
   
2. partition (or volume) based
   

Then there are THREE approaches (different HOW/WHAT to save/image/backup)

1. sector based
   
2. file based
   
3. mixed mode
   

If you want an "integral" copy/*clone/image you use:

• disk based AND sector based <- this equates to "forensic sound"
  

this is the SAFER choice (though BOTH slower AND needing more space for the image/backup)

If you are dealing with DATA (and not with actual bootable volumes/OS/System volumes) you use:

• volume based AND file based <. this often equates to "backup"
  

Most apps use EITHER of the above approaches, with different levels of "added info" to the results.

XXCLONE (and also Norton Ghost as used by many people) use a "mixed mode" approach, where ALL the needed data is stored/saved/cloned, but NOT whatever is not visible in the filesystems AND the actual physical position of files in the filesystem may (or may not) be kept AND some NOT normally needed files are skipped/excluded (typically the pagefile/swap, just as an example).

A typical "forensic sound" disk image will hold each and every sector in the source, thus:

1. MBR (and ALL data in it)
   
2. hidden sectors (and ALL data in it)
   
3. PBR's/VBR's (and ALL data in it)
   
4. pagefile/swap
   
5. deleted files
   
6. broken filesystem elements
   
7. actual physical position of EVERYTHING
   

A typical volume based and file based volume image will hold:

1. NO MBR
   
2. NO hidden sectors
   
3. maybe or maybe not PBR's/VBR's (and ALL data in it) <- this depends on the particular app
   
4. NO pagefile/swap and none of a few more normally unneeded files
   
5. NO deleted files
   
6. NO broken filesystem elements
   
7. NO actual physical position of files
   

A typical file based ONLY image backup will hold:

1. NO MBR
   
2. NO hidden sectors
   
3. NO PBR's/VBR's
   
4. NO pagefile/swap and none of a few more normally unneeded files
   
5. NO deleted files
   
6. NO broken filesystem elements
   
7. NO actual physical position of files
   

A typical "mixed mode approach" image will normally hold:

1. MBR
   
2. NO hidden sectors
   
3. PBR's/VBR's (and ALL data in it)
   
4. NO pagefile/swap and none of a few more normally unneeded files
   
5. NO deleted files
   
6. NO broken filesystem elements
   
7. NO actual physical position of files
   

So, it all boils down on what you need in the resulting image, why you are making it (the scope it will be used later) you should choose an app based on what you need to do with it, knowing EXACTLY what it does and which problems the used approach may lead to and know HOW to solve issues (if ANY) that may arise.

As an example a lot of peeps think that using DriveIMageXML (a nice freeware for personal use) they are actually imaging a disk and are surprised when they find out that the app by itself does NOT store all the needed data (namely the MBR - but in some setups hidden sectors are also needed) to restore a disk or that further steps may be needed, like adjusting disk geometry:

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=23408&hl=

A disk is NOT a drive, and a drive is NOT a disk:

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=22984

(and you will also find in the above some nice reference to antigravitory cats )

jaclaz

Edited January 5, 2012 by jaclaz

[dw2108]

2000 Pro?

I got it in its prerelease form all the way to SP4 and various other hacks. Love it. Seldom use it. It's OK, BUT! Try installing a Tandy 106 DMP printer and printer driver. If you love very old stuff, it won't work. Also have a GOOD HIPS. XML based OSs with HTM files in the pagefile as temp files, which is true of NT to Win 7, are prone to infection. When you run a flying web page as an OS, expect a hacker to post the!

Dave

[mrsk565]

2000 vs. 98

I liked win2000 it was okay back when It was all I had. It had good internet using wifi,

Its alittle hard but gaming is possible on 2000, I think it dosent quite take advantage of hardware

Like 98se anyway. What I would do is test both and see which one you think is better

I felt win2000 performance degraded over time and I was always forced to reinstall at some point, even with no

viruses detected. Could win2k's system become currupt over time. I always thought it was strange

[dw2108]

2000 vs. 98

I liked win2000 it was okay back when It was all I had. It had good internet using wifi,

Its alittle hard but gaming is possible on 2000, I think it dosent quite take advantage of hardware

Like 98se anyway. What I would do is test both and see which one you think is better

I felt win2000 performance degraded over time and I was always forced to reinstall at some point, even with no

viruses detected. Could win2k's system become currupt over time. I always thought it was strange

Indeed! After DOS, MS developed first IE, and after that point in time, the registry was designed on the principles of IE. The group policies of Win 95 -- Win 7 came from those of IE. This is why 95 16-bit slowed down when IE was installed and why 98 LITE sped up 9x when IE was removed from the OS and thus away from the DOS kernel. ME/2000/XP were three different MS project to base a system on XML/HTM/HTML methodology. IT WAS A DISASTER!

Dave

Edited January 13, 2012 by dw2108

[Phenomic]

You've confused me Jaclaz, are you dissing or endorsing xxclone?

Because of its' properties I've used xxclone ever since 'discovering' it

over at majorgeeks. I like it.

Well, I produced the opposite effect than what I meant, then.

I try as much as I can to have EXACT descriptions of things/tools.

Often people tend to use (or recommend) something without really-really understanding (or clearly stating) WHAT it is.

I try to do the opposite.

There are TWO main approaches (different sources/target):

1. disk based
   
2. partition (or volume) based
   

Then there are THREE approaches (different HOW/WHAT to save/image/backup)

1. sector based
   
2. file based
   
3. mixed mode
   

If you want an "integral" copy/*clone/image you use:

• disk based AND sector based <- this equates to "forensic sound"
  

this is the SAFER choice (though BOTH slower AND needing more space for the image/backup)

If you are dealing with DATA (and not with actual bootable volumes/OS/System volumes) you use:

• volume based AND file based <. this often equates to "backup"
  

Most apps use EITHER of the above approaches, with different levels of "added info" to the results.

XXCLONE (and also Norton Ghost as used by many people) use a "mixed mode" approach, where ALL the needed data is stored/saved/cloned, but NOT whatever is not visible in the filesystems AND the actual physical position of files in the filesystem may (or may not) be kept AND some NOT normally needed files are skipped/excluded (typically the pagefile/swap, just as an example).

A typical "forensic sound" disk image will hold each and every sector in the source, thus:

1. MBR (and ALL data in it)
   
2. hidden sectors (and ALL data in it)
   
3. PBR's/VBR's (and ALL data in it)
   
4. pagefile/swap
   
5. deleted files
   
6. broken filesystem elements
   
7. actual physical position of EVERYTHING
   

A typical volume based and file based volume image will hold:

1. NO MBR
   
2. NO hidden sectors
   
3. maybe or maybe not PBR's/VBR's (and ALL data in it) <- this depends on the particular app
   
4. NO pagefile/swap and none of a few more normally unneeded files
   
5. NO deleted files
   
6. NO broken filesystem elements
   
7. NO actual physical position of files
   

A typical file based ONLY image backup will hold:

1. NO MBR
   
2. NO hidden sectors
   
3. NO PBR's/VBR's
   
4. NO pagefile/swap and none of a few more normally unneeded files
   
5. NO deleted files
   
6. NO broken filesystem elements
   
7. NO actual physical position of files
   

A typical "mixed mode approach" image will normally hold:

1. MBR
   
2. NO hidden sectors
   
3. PBR's/VBR's (and ALL data in it)
   
4. NO pagefile/swap and none of a few more normally unneeded files
   
5. NO deleted files
   
6. NO broken filesystem elements
   
7. NO actual physical position of files
   

So, it all boils down on what you need in the resulting image, why you are making it (the scope it will be used later) you should choose an app based on what you need to do with it, knowing EXACTLY what it does and which problems the used approach may lead to and know HOW to solve issues (if ANY) that may arise.

As an example a lot of peeps think that using DriveIMageXML (a nice freeware for personal use) they are actually imaging a disk and are surprised when they find out that the app by itself does NOT store all the needed data (namely the MBR - but in some setups hidden sectors are also needed) to restore a disk or that further steps may be needed, like adjusting disk geometry:

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=23408&hl=

A disk is NOT a drive, and a drive is NOT a disk:

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=22984

(and you will also find in the above some nice reference to antigravitory cats )

jaclaz

It’s very straightforward to copy the running Win2K OS from one disk to another. No need to boot from CD or another OS. I’ve been doing it for years, to have a backup if the primary disk fails, or to boot the backup in order to experiment with software, or to restore accidentally deleted files, etc.

For example copying C: to D: on a different disk. The resulting backup is bootable, so there is no need to restore anything. I posted a summary here, but if anybody is interested I can post the code. Microsoft has a KB on this for the purpose of repairing a non-booting system but the same method works for cloning.

//