Installing windows 98 SE next to windows XP from partition

[Mcinwwl]

Hi!. I'm upgrading my retro gaming PC. right now it has windows XP, and I'd like to add windows 98 SE paralelly.

What I have:

- windows 98 SE OEM ISO

- windows XP installed on C, NTFS formatted

- 2nd partition F, FAT 32 formatted

And what I want to achieve

- make F bootable

- put win98 installation files over there

- boot from F

- install win 98 without breaking win XP install

the deal is, I haven't been using win 9x since I was a kid, and Now I cannot find any instruction how to get this done. there are instructions how to make bootable usb stick with rufus, but not from hdd partition. Is it possible, or am i leaving in the realm of fantasy?

[awkduck]

There are many ways to do this.

The difficulty is picking one that fits all your needs.

You might look into Grub4Dos. It is very versatile.

You can research using XP's "boot.ini".

The first issue, I see, is not borking your XP MBR. It loads the XP NTLDR. If you install Windows 98, the MBR will change.

It isn't hard to overcome this. But it depends on what you want.

The way that involves the least learning, is installing 98 first, then XP. XP setup will detect 98, and boot.ini can be configured to load 98 "via a menu" instead of XP. I've never done it that way. I assume it is straight forward, but I have no clue.

You can look into the different boot loaders, of which Grub4Dos is one. Some are more automated then others, and each has it's own options. Some may not support NTFS.

You might pick a boot loader, to research, then investigate how to install and boot both version of Windows with it.

[morris]

Here's another take if you don't want to spend a lot of time:

Get another hard drive or Compact Flash card (with an adapter) and set it as your bootable drive in your BIOS. Install Windows 9x there.

Then grab a copy of GRUB4DOS from here http://dl.grub4dos.chenall.net/grub4dos-0.4.4-2009-12-03.zip and copy it to your Win9x disk.

Run grub.exe from DOS before booting Windows. You can boot directly to a DOS prompt by editing MSDOS.SYS and setting BootGUI=0 (you can also create a boot menu by editing CONFIG.SYS and automate this process creating two entries, e.g. Windows 98 and Windows XP).

Once you run grub.exe it will show you a menu with many options and among them you can select XP as a preconfigured option, and it should boot XP.

Keeping the systems on different disks is the way to go IMHO. Windows 98 is not as stable as XP and it may give you trouble down the line.

You could use that extra FAT partition on your XP disk to share files with your 98 installation.

Good luck!

 

[jaclaz]

12 hours ago, awkduck said:

The first issue, I see, is not borking your XP MBR. It loads the XP NTLDR. If you install Windows 98, the MBR will change.

No, sorry but I have to correct you.

The MBR code only chainloads the active partition PBR (bootsector), it is this latter what loads NTLDR (under NT).

In this case the active partition is the C: (NTFS) and win 9x won't touch it.

BUT, exactly because the active partition is NTFS, it won't be easy to dual boot XP and 9x (without using an advanced boot manager like grub4dos or a "special" MBR such as MBLDR).

@Mcinwwl

Normally there are no problems in dual booting Win9x and XP with the "plain" NTLDR only, but the disk needs to have the active partition the FAT one (and the NTLDR and BOOT.INI would go there together with the DOS system files and - usually - also the Win9x ones), this implies that the FAT partition get drive letter C:, and so the NTFS one will get another letter.

This kind of issues with drive lettering can usually be solved, one way or the other, but it is not exactly easy or straightforward.

Using grub4dos you could set it up in such a way that the two OS are hidden the one from the other, this way the OS drive letter will be C: (but it will represent a different volume under each OS), and you won't have a "common" volume to exchange data.

Besides (my personal stance, not necessarily the right one) it is "dangerous" to have the same drive letter representing a different volume as - before or later - you might delete a file on the "wrong" volume (because you are booted to the "other" OS).

The "ideal" situation would be a setup with:
1) a small FAT16 or 32 partition holding both the NTLDR+BOOT.INI and the DOS/9x system files <- this would get C:
2) a FAT32 partition with the rest of the Win9x files <- this would get D:
3) the NTFS partition with XP <- this would get E: or a higher drive letter

In your current setup there is also the (possible) issue of the offset to the second partition, depending on the size of the first NTFS partition, the second one might be "too far" on the disk to be reached by the DOS files.

As Morris suggested, adding another disk would be the easiest.

Second would be having the two OS completely separated.

Third the "proper" way described above, but this, while possible, requires some "advanced" manipulation of the disk partitioning and drive lettering, prone to errors or incompatibilities.

All in all, if you have a (tested, safe) way to image your current system and restore it in case of troubles AND you want to mess with this kind of things, learning and experimenting, it might be worth the time and effort, otherwise, forget about same disk dual booting and procure a second disk for Win9x.

jaclaz

 

 

Edited May 29, 2023 by jaclaz

[awkduck]

11 hours ago, jaclaz said:

No, sorry but I have to correct you.

The MBR code only chainloads the active partition PBR (bootsector), it is this latter what loads NTLDR (under NT).

In this case the active partition is the C: (NTFS) and win 9x won't touch it.

BUT, exactly because the active partition is NTFS, it won't be easy to dual boot XP and 9x (without using an advanced boot manager like grub4dos or a "special" MBR such as MBLDR).

Thanks. Knew something was missing. I remember changing "just" the active partition, to dual boot (no boot loader). Think I just used a bootable Dos floppy, with FDISK.

It was not an efficient dual boot; but it lasted long enough to decide I wanted nothing to do with XP.

XP was the last Windows I used, before switching to Linux (2003); and I only used XP a short while. Never really used 2k or NT3/4.

After about 20 years of Linux, I'm using 98 again.

Edited May 29, 2023 by awkduck

[jaclaz]

Well, if you skipped over NT and 2K you missed a lot of fun with bootpart (in practice the only program that could "fix" dual/triple boot systems in case anything was different from the way MS designed it or in case of issues), JFYI:

https://www.winimage.com/bootpart.htm

jaclaz

[awkduck]

I've read 2k was rock solid. And NT looks tempting, as a challenge on newer machines.

[jaclaz]

1 hour ago, awkduck said:

I've read 2k was rock solid. And NT looks tempting, as a challenge on newer machines.

2K was (almost) perfect, both NT 4.00 and 2K were rock solid, the only issue with NT 4.00 was that the drivers had to be installed manually and not all the hardware of the time had proper drivers, NT 4.00 today (unless you have an old machine with its drivers or use a VM, and it has to be seen which VM has drivers for NT 4.00) is in practice impossible to install/use if not in a very basic manner, due to the lack of drivers.

jaclaz 

[awkduck]

9 hours ago, jaclaz said:

NT 4.00 today (unless you have an old machine with its drivers or use a VM, and it has to be seen which VM has drivers for NT 4.00) is in practice impossible to install/use if not in a very basic manner, due to the lack of drivers.

Officially, NT4 stands little chance. If one is willing to put in the work, it looks like you can do it. I haven't done it, but was tempted. I noticed FAT32, USB2.0 mass storage, and an HDA audio driver (also provides for many other chips). BEARWINDOWS has a good write up, on it all. It is one of those things I might try, if I was really bored.

I believe Kqemu (for older Qemu) works with NT4. That has lured me a little; just as a pure play thing.

I feel my thread hijacking habit creeping in.

[Goodmaneuver]

There is an other option worth considering after backing up your XP installation. Convert the XP partition to FAT32 off line then install 98 after testing that XP is OK.

[jaclaz]

7 hours ago, Goodmaneuver said:

There is an other option worth considering after backing up your XP installation. Convert the XP partition to FAT32 off line then install 98 after testing that XP is OK.

You mean both XP and 9x on a same partition?

Not recommended.

https://tweaks.com/windows/37469/install-windows-98-after-ive-installed-xp/

If a separate partition, there is really not much to gain (and a lot to lose IMHO) on running the XP on FAT32.

jaclaz

[Goodmaneuver]

3 hours ago, jaclaz said:

You mean both XP and 9x on a same partition?

I did not say that did I, though I have done this before and changed the Program Files install directory to COMMON as can be seen in some of my pictures I have uploaded.

 

3 hours ago, jaclaz said:

there is really not much to gain (and a lot to lose IMHO) on running the XP on FAT32

Not for a retro games machine though and besides if the extra file size is required make a new NTFS partition.

[jaclaz]

Sure you didn't say that, but I wanted to be sure you didn't mean or imply that.

On the other hand, if on a different partition (as the OP asked for) there is no need to convert the XP one from NTFS to FAT32, the doubt is whether it needs to be moved making space for the new partition(s) at the beginning of the disk.

jaclaz

 

Edited June 2, 2023 by jaclaz

[Goodmaneuver]

4 hours ago, jaclaz said:

the doubt is whether it needs to be moved making space for the new partition(s) at the beginning of the disk.

No, not if using Fat32 as you yourself have mentioned. WinME and I assume 98 can be installed in parallel with XP from the same Fat32 C: drive one after the other. The default install directory is Windows unless there is already a Windows folder then the install will ask where you want the install to be of which you nominate the Fat32 partition on which Volume.

[Mcinwwl]

On 5/29/2023 at 11:12 AM, jaclaz said:

BUT, exactly because the active partition is NTFS, it won't be easy to dual boot XP and 9x (without using an advanced boot manager like grub4dos or a "special" MBR such as MBLDR).

Sounds like fun for lazy Sunday. Worry not, this is a toy machine, I might loose only some game save states and time spent to handpick xp updates that live well with non-sse2 CPU.

Every guide I stumbled upon said it's the best to go with clean install of win98 and then install XP, but I'm glad to know there's an alternative. There's a fun to be had in going the stubborn way.
 

One question that went unanswered is whether i can somehow feed a separate partition with win98 installation files and make it bootable, so i can install without floppy/cd/rufus prepared pendrive. I guess the answer is "no"... ?