Jump to content

Will Win2000 pro do everything 98 does ?


Stuckin98
 Share

Recommended Posts


You will need "reg.exe" from XP (the one from 2K won't work).

Are you sure? :unsure:

You need the reg.exe in the 2K support tools (or at least this what has been always used).

But you can use REGEDIT.EXE allright manually.

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No :blushing: You're right. The reg.exe from 2K support tools works. I was confused because of the one available at

http://www.petri.co.il/download_free_reskit_tools.htm

which doesn't work.

Yep :), from the mouth of the wolf ;):

REG: This tool enables you to add, change, delete, search, backup, restore, and perform other operations on registry entries from the command prompt or a batch file. It can be used on both local and remote computers. Note: This version of REG is in fact version 1.10 from the NT4 Resource Kit. It works with Windows 2000 but is not the version 2 that comes with the 2000 Reskit and is very much updated and with differing syntax to version 1.10, nor is it the version 3 that comes bundled with Windows XP (Thanks Pete!)

Some additional reference:

http://www.robvanderwoude.com/ntregistry.php

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/301423/en-us

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The plan is to install a Winndows 2000 SP4 Professional on the first partition of the second HDD (about 200GB). So, should I decrease the size of the targeted partition, before installing the Windows 2000, then turn the registry LBA48 support on, then resize the partition back to 200GB?

This plan would work perfectly with Windows 98. But, in case of Windows 2000 it does not work at all. After the first reboot, the installer ends with a message "INACCESSIBLE_BOOT_DEVICE". So, I guess, there is no easy way. I will have to add the registry patch during the installation, somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I gave up on complicated solutions. So, I used an old 20GB HDD, installed Windows 2000 on it, turned the LBA48 registry support keys on, then transferred the system to the big hdd through simple file copy.

There are two things unavailable in Windows 2000.

- 98 does remember the opened Explorer windows between sessions. (useful sometimes)

- 98 can remember the positions and sizes of console aplications, while 2000 does not. (very useful for me)

Edited by Sfor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- 98 does remember the opened Explorer windows between sessions. (useful sometimes)

Check this setting:


Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Advanced]
"PersistBrowsers"=dword:00000001

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the PersistBrowsers registry key does work. But, I've noticed significant differencies in this feature. In case of Windows 98 all restored Explorer windows had the default size. For some reason the windows restored by Windows 2000 are resized in most cases. To be more specific, the windows just opened and left without any action are restored as they were. On the other hand windows with the default directory changed are restored in different sizes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

I'm not enthusiast about the install method where you transfer from a 20GB disk to a >128GiB one, because if you need to repair your W2k, you'll likely get trouble.

I've forgotten the details since my W2k install Cd is slipstreamed using HfSlip (Msfn being the right forum for that), with the Sp4 and the Lba option included right from the beginning.

But I believe to remember that putting W2k in a system volume within the first 128GiB did work properly. Did you use an F6 diskette to provide disk host drivers to the W2k installer?

Also fun: on older Intel chipsets using the Intel Application Accelerator, I could copy the volume containing Txtsetup.oem on a diskette which I used as F6 successfully. Udma and Lba during install.

Just to keep in mind: you can move W2k from one disk to an other on the same disk host, especially if using the same port, but moving it from a disk host model to an other one is difficult. Nt4-5-6 differs from W9x in this aspect.

-----

W2k is stable and W98 unstable, yes, but in a dual boot you will format the volumes as Fat32 hence lose much of W2k's security. A big part of W2k's stability comes just from Ntfs protections which, combined with "power user" sessions without administrator rights, prevent badly written or malicious software from hampering the OS. As well, Fat32 loses files when the machine shuts down abnormally, and as files are missing, the OS shuts down abnormally more often, ending in an avalanche effect.

To the very least, one should put W2k in its Ntfs volume - separate from the applications W98 shall access - and run it from a non-administrator session.

-----

One thing W2k does not do is give applications a direct access to hardware. This is intentional, as a security feature, and contributes hugely to W2k's stability. But a few early games, often meant for Ms-dos or W95, willing to access the hard disk or the video Ram directly, are barren by W2k. This is why I had to keep a Win Me on a nephew's computer.

-----

W2k install disks and licences are easy to buy on eBay. Separate re-sell of Oem software is legal in all EU countries where Justice was asked to decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well. The good thing about having a dual boot Windows 98 and Windows 2000 setup is, it is possible to make a copy of Windows 2000 system files using Windows 98 and vice versa. So, having a full system backup copy, there is no need for system reinstalation or repair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Use instead a live CD of some recent Linux for OS copy! Like Ubuntu or Knoppix - one that accesses Ntfs.

Or a live CD of win XP, or a hard disk containing a W2k or XP, which you connect only for this purpose.

At least you can hope this CD or hard disk is sound, as opposed to a W98 on a disk connected permanently to the ill machine.

BTW, I'm not sure Linux keeps all Ntfs protections when copying, which a Win does even if it's not its own installation.

But beware encrypted directories are lost from one Nt5 installation to an other, even if you redefine the same users. In short: don't use Ntfs' encryption.

And...

Windows repair is more subtle than putting the original files in place. You have plenty of adjustments in the registry for instance, some must be kept, others must be restored. And think of C++ runtime as an other example: if you restore the original W2k versions, which are not all the runtime files, you may well run into worries.

These are reasons in favour of a W2k install disk for repairs, instead of file forcing. More: the same reasons favour a W2k Cd as up-to-date as possible, which means a slipstreamed one.

Edited by pointertovoid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to keep in mind: you can move W2k from one disk to an other on the same disk host, especially if using the same port, but moving it from a disk host model to an other one is difficult. Nt4-5-6 differs from W9x in this aspect.

I have no idea what you mean by "disk host", but if you mean that you cannot move a NT/2K (or XP/2003 or later for that matters) from one disk to another disk, there is no problem WHATSOEVER, as long as you EITHER:

  • replicate the disk signature (AND make sure that system partition offset is the same)
    OR:
  • delete (offline) contents of HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\MountedDevices in Registry

File-based copying from one volume to another (on the same or another disk) is NO problem if the format is FAT16 or 32, AS LONG AS you copy files with some common sense:

  1. first NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and BOOT.INI
  2. then all the rest

(this is needed as NTLDR may have problems in accessing large LBA addresses), whilst doing filebased copy from one NTFS volume to another is PURE FOLLY :ph34r: unless you use tools like STRARC or ROBOCOPY that "keep" permiisions and what not.

Actually in the good ol'times of NT4, the poorman's DEFRAG for FAT16 volumes was simply to copy the whole stuff to another disk or partiion (file-based) and the copy it back. ;)

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Use instead a live CD of some recent Linux for OS copy! Like Ubuntu or Knoppix - one that accesses Ntfs.

Or a live CD of win XP, or a hard disk containing a W2k or XP, which you connect only for this purpose.

Linux in any form will not copy any Windows specific attributes. In fact it can not copy Windows FAT32 file attributes, as well. So, it is not possible to do a perfect file system backup from Linux.

The best way to use Linux is a full partition backup copy, indeed. Personaly, I do prefer to use the Partimage and SystemRescue CD.

Edited by Sfor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CloneZilla is very simple and fast when making backups of whole disks or partitions. Making a backup copy is a matter of minutes if you boot if from a USB flash drive.

Please no :(, not again, Clonezilla is a cloning/imaging app and NOT a backup solution.

http://clonezilla.org/]CloneZilla

What is Clonezilla?

You're probably familiar with the popular proprietary commercial package Norton Ghost®. The problem with these kind of software packages is that it takes a lot of time to massively clone systems to many computers. You've probably also heard of Symantec's solution to this problem, Symantec Ghost Corporate Edition® with multicasting. Well, now there is an OpenSource clone system (OCS) solution called Clonezilla with unicasting and multicasting!

Clonezilla, based on DRBL, Partclone and udpcast, allows you to do bare metal backup and recovery. Two types of Clonezilla are available, Clonezilla live and Clonezilla SE (server edition). Clonezilla live is suitable for single machine backup and restore. While Clonezilla SE is for massive deployment, it can clone many (40 plus!) computers simultaneously. Clonezilla saves and restores only used blocks in the harddisk.

*anything* that copies sectors is a sector based imaging/cloning solution (and NOT a backup solution) and if it copies ALL sectors it is "forensically sound"

*anything* that copies sectors is a sector based imaging/cloning solution (and NOT a backup solution) and if it copies ONLY used sectors it is NOT "forensically sound"

*anything* that copies files is a file based solution and a backup app (and NOT an imaging or cloning solution)

Cloning/imaging partitions or volumes without saving ALSO the MBR DATA (including Disk Signature AND partition/volume offset - if primary - or also EPBR's DATA if Logical) is "looking for troubles".

As often happens, I lied :w00t: 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...