Using multiple bootable NTFS partitions with XP

[epp_b]

My hard drive map is something like this:[sYS 1 BOOTABLE] [sYS 2 BOOTABLE] [[LOGICAL][LOGICAL][LOGICAL XP BACKUP] [LOGICAL XP BACKUP 2]SYS 1 contains a basic installation of XP plus drivers and updates. SYS 2 contains an installation of XP plus drivers and my applications.Using PQBoot for Windows (comes with Partition Magic 8), I boot from SYS 2 to SYS 1. Now working from SYS 1 (SYS 2 was hidden), I installed a program to test it out. It didn't play nice, so I went to uninstall it...only to find that all of the programs I had installed on SYS 2 were listed there!Fearing the worst, I boot back to SYS 2 to find that the program I had installed on SYS 1 is now listed in the Add/Remove Programs applet on SYS 2! :'( ...not to mention, there are also a whole bunch of rogue registry entries on what was a nice, clean install... !So, I need to know... - Why the heck did this happen? An operating system is supposed to be atonomous! - How can I at least remove the program from the Add/Remove Programs applet? - Is it reasonably "safe" to manually remove any related entries from the registry?

Edited January 15, 2006 by epp_b

[Marsden11]

This is what happens when you let 3rd party tools take over. You start playing this hide and seek with your partitions and it does not behave correctly. Loose the 3rd party boot manager. Install Sys1 to C:\. Then install Sys2 to D:\ or whatever. Then use the XP boot loader to choose what Sys to boot to. Create a third partition to install all your apps on. Sys1 and Sys 2 can share it without any problems. Why? Because when are booted into Sys1 it stores any program info in its own Registry on the Sys1 install. When you boot to Sys2, reinstall the apps to your third partition and Sys2 will store all its program info in its own Registry on the Sys2 install.So two separate installs, two separate Registries, and a single partition with all your apps installed that will work for either Sys1 or Sys2.BTW, did you get two separate XP licenses?

[b2cm]

Why the heck did this happen? An operating system is supposed to be atonomous!

The partitions/installations were not set up to be 'autonomous'. You made a mistake somewhere, maybe when you installed the second XP. For what you seem to want, you would need to HIDE the partition where XP was first installed, WHEN INSTALLING the second XP on the second partition (make sure this is also a primary partition). For this purpose you need an advanced boot manager that auto-hides inactive primary partitions. Unfortunately, PQBoot isn't one of them (the advanced PQ/Symantec boot manager is called BootMagic.). All PQBoot does is switch the 'active' flag from one bootable partition to another. Anyway, I think the 2 setups are pretty mixed up.If you want to do it all over again:Use PQBoot to boot Partition1 (sets it as ACTIVE). Restart computer and boot from XP CD. Choose to install to Partition1, format to NTFS (to clear everything off the partition).After XP is installed, install a boot manager that autohides inactive partitions. Reboot and at the boot manager menu, boot Partition2. Whether or not you succeed in loading XP in Partition2 isn't important. What you want to achieve by selecting Partition2 with your boot manager are: first, you want to set Partition2 ACTIVE, and secondly, you want to HIDE Partition1. So you can reset the computer even while XP in Partition2 is loading.After restarting the computer, load the XP CD. Choose to install to Partition2, format to NTFS. Or if you want the simpler, Microsoft way of multi-booting:Convert Partition2 from primary to logical partition (having 2 open primary partitions isn't a good thing, supposedly). Install XP to Partition1 (C:). Then install XP to Partition2 (D:). Both would be autonomous, although each would be visible to the other. They could share applications and data, too, in Partition3 (E:) or Partition4 (F:), as Marsden described.

[epp_b]

First of all, I didn't just install another copy of XP. I made a copy of the base installation [LOGICAL XP BACKUP] to be a bootable primary drive (and hid it of course). I never had any problems with two primary partitions running 98 before.Second of all, PQBoot is a good bootloader that *does* properly hide the primary partition that is not currently in use. I cannot see the alternate partition in Windows Explorer after booting. This was not done incorrectly -- it worked perfectly fine with Win98. Maybe XP doesn't like it...would it work properly if I booted using XP's boot manager?

So two separate installs, two separate Registries, and a single partition with all your apps installed that will work for either Sys1 or Sys2.

I did have (or certainly should have had) two separate installs with their own set of programs and registries. I don't want to share applications, BTW. I want them to be completely separate.

BTW, did you get two separate XP licenses?

No. It's the same computer with the same drive on the same hardware. Edited January 15, 2006 by epp_b

[b2cm]

Second of all, PQBoot is a good bootloader that *does* properly hide the primary partition that is not currently in use. I cannot see the alternate partition in Windows Explorer after booting.

I just checked my copies of pqboot.exe (DOS), pqboot32.exe (console) and pqbw.exe (the one you use). And, yes, it does hide inactive primary partitions by default.

First of all, I didn't just install another copy of XP. I made a copy of the base installation [LOGICAL XP BACKUP] to be a bootable primary drive (and hid it of course).

I'm certain the problem was created by this process. If XP on Partition2 is a clone of XP on Partition1, and you did not edit its BOOT.INI file, then you have been loading the operating system on Partition1 all the time.That could explain why you have been using only one registry even as you have been booting two different partitions. What I don't get is how XP can work from and to a 'hidden' partition (maybe that a copy of XP in the hidden partition is visible in the active partition has something to do with it.). That was why I suspected that there was no partition hiding.

This was not done incorrectly -- it worked perfectly fine with Win98. Maybe XP doesn't like it...

Win9x versions work differently, so you assumed incorrectly. If you copy/clone an XP installation, you must restore the copy to where it was copied, not on another partition, to make it work. If not, you have to edit the BOOT.INI file to reflect the change in the location of the operating system.

would it work properly if I booted using XP's boot manager?

Whether or not you use a 3rd-party boot manager, it is always XP's bootloader that loads the operating system. What you should do is find a way to edit the BOOT.INI file in Partition2 to something like this:[boot loader]timeout=30default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS[operating systems]multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetectThen use PQBW to boot from one partition to another.

No. It's the same computer with the same drive on the same hardware.

Technically speaking, the EULA appear to specify that XP is a one copy/one install/one use per machine. Interpretation has been varied.

[epp_b]

I'm certain the problem was created by this process. If XP on Partition2 is a clone of XP on Partition1

It is not. XP2 has several additional appliacations installed.

...and you did not edit its BOOT.INI file

Yes, I did. I removed all entries except for the partition I wanted to boot.

then you have been loading the operating system on Partition1 all the time.

Nope. XP2 is 10GB. XP1 is 4GB. I checked to make sure I that I was on correct partition by checking the size of volume C:

That could explain why you have been using only one registry even as you have been booting two different partitions. What I don't get is how XP can work from and to a 'hidden' partition

That's what I'm trying to figure out too.

(maybe that a copy of XP in the hidden partition is visible in the active partition has something to do with it.). That was why I suspected that there was no partition hiding.

There *was* partition hiding though. I double and triple checked it using PartitionMagic and the alternate partition was not displayed in Windows Explorer.

Win9x versions work differently

You're right -- they work atonomously and independently of partitions like an operating system should.

If you copy/clone an XP installation, you must restore the copy to where it was copied, not on another partition, to make it work. If not, you have to edit the BOOT.INI file to reflect the change in the location of the operating system.

And I did.

Technically speaking, the EULA appear to specify that XP is a one copy/one install/one use per machine. Interpretation has been varied.

Please. Has Microsoft ever heard of "backups"? (er, let's not get into this argument...again )

[Peachy]

This is the best third-party bootloader IMHO.

[b2cm]

It is not. XP2 has several additional appliacations installed.

Of course. But you said it is a 'copy'. I took that to mean you used PM8 (or some clone software) to copy partition1 ('xp1') to another ('logical xp backup') partition, and from that backup partition to partition2.

Yes, I did. I removed all entries except for the partition I wanted to boot.

You'd get multiple entries for 'operating system' in the boot.ini file only if you used the CD to install XP to partition2 and went through the whole setup routine.

Nope. XP2 is 10GB. XP1 is 4GB. I checked to make sure I that I was on correct partition by checking the size of volume C:

You can verify using that method if you had Win9x/ME on C: (the 'system' and 'boot' partition is always one and the same). But, for Win2k/XP, it is different as the 'system' ("C:", the partition where the boot block and the ntdetect, ntldr and boot.ini files are located) and 'boot' (the partition where XP system files are located) partitions may be separate partitions. I still think this is a boot.ini problem. If you have Bart CD, use PM8 to set partition1 ACTIVE, and partition2 UNHIDE; then restart and boot from BartCD to check/edit the boot.ini files. The boot.ini file on C: should read something like this: [boot loader]timeout=30default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS[operating systems]multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetectand the boot.ini file on D: (partition2) like this:[boot loader]timeout=30default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS[operating systems]multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetectRestart.

[Marsden11]

Please. Has Microsoft ever heard of "backups"?

I have heard of them but you are breaking the EULA.Why would anyone install programs to a backup copy? That is not a "backup" but rather a 2nd install.This thread needs to be closed! All we are doing is aiding you in breaking the EULA.

[epp_b]

You'd get multiple entries for 'operating system' in the boot.ini file only if you used the CD to install XP to partition2 and went through the whole setup routine.

Nope - it happens if I copy a partition with PQPM as well. XP obviously runs some detection process during boot-up.

I have heard of them but you are breaking the EULA.

That's ridiculous and overzealos (BTW, I don't think EULA's are legally enforceable).

Why would anyone install programs to a backup copy? That is not a "backup" but rather a 2nd install.

I was using that as an example. I use a second bootable partition as a "sandbox" to test programs I am unsure about. ...And it could be used as a backup if I wanted it to be.

This thread needs to be closed! All we are doing is aiding you in breaking the EULA.

I hope you're kidding. That would make partitioning and backup software nearly useless.I'm sure "one copy" refers to the number of separate XP discs you can use on a specific computer. I imagine using multiple XP discs to install Windows would cause a mess with WPA.- - - - - - - -BTW, I went through and deleted all of the registry keys seemingly related to the program in question (Yahoo Widget Manager). It's gone from the "Add/Remove" list. I'm still going to restore a recent backup of drivers & updates to re-install my applications later. Edited January 16, 2006 by epp_b

[Peachy]

I have heard of them but you are breaking the EULA.Why would anyone install programs to a backup copy? That is not a "backup" but rather a 2nd install.This thread needs to be closed! All we are doing is aiding you in breaking the EULA.

The forum Admins and Scot have been notified and this thread is being reviewed. My personal opinion is this:Since epp_b can only use one installation at a time and it is physically impossible for him to use the backup when using the original installation, I don't see the problem. For practical intent, Windows Product Activation would not be able to distinguish this. So if WPA is supposed to detect a EULA violation, in this case it won't. Also, his use of Partition Magic to me follows appropriate use for that product. If Microsoft had a beef with that they would have sued PowerQuest/Symantec.But this is my opinion and not all the other Admins have spoken yet.

[epp_b]

Thanks, Peachy. Yes, it is not feasibly possible for me to use more than one installation at the same time. And please be aware that I have no intention to attempt to run it on a different computer or anything else that would cause Microsofts assets to spontaneously combust.

Edited January 16, 2006 by epp_b

[Ed_P]

Rather than pretending we are smart enough to think we are lawyers lets look at the problem in a different light and leave the thread open. If there is a legal issue I'm certain MS will notify the PTB and they can then close the thread based on fact rather than conjecture. The 1st question I have is why are you taking this approach of two different installs, one with apps one without? I haven't really read thru all the ramblings above so if this has been stated just point me to the posting. There are other options available for backup and recovery with XP.BTW FWIW imo epp_b's convoluted system isn't breaking the EULA. And since I'm not a lawyer either ...

[epp_b]

he 1st question I have is why are you taking this approach of two different installs, one with apps one without?

Simple: I use one installation that I consider to be stable as my "working" area. I use the other partition for the other 2% as my "testing" or "sandbox" installation to try out new software applications without having to be concerned about messing up my "working" installation.I used to be able to do this perfectly with Windows 98, but XP seems to intervene somewhere where it probably shouldn't be. My only possible guess is that they actually share a registry...but how is it possible for one installation on an active and visible partition to access and manipulate another installation on a different and hidden partition? And where is the Windows XP registry actually stored? (I know Win9X stored it in two files named USER.DAT and SYSTEM.DAT. These files are nowhere to be found on XP)I indent for these installs to be completely independent of each other for this very reason.Again, this is not "backup" -- that was just an example. Wipe that from your brain completely...ZZZZAP!

[Peachy]

It can't if it's hidden. The obvious answer, as stated earlier, is that you or the software accidently unhid the hidden partition.

[b2cm]

(I know Win9X stored it in two files named USER.DAT and SYSTEM.DAT. These files are nowhere to be found on XP)

The XP registry files are in "Windows\System32\Config" folder. (Don't understand XP in terms of your Windows 98SE experience, because these two operating systems are different and work differently.)

[epp_b]

It can't if it's hidden. The obvious answer, as stated earlier, is that you or the software accidently unhid the hidden partition.

I'm sorry, but I know for a cold-hard fact that the partition currently not use was hidden. I checked it every time I boot.

The XP registry files are in "Windows\System32\Config" folder.

Thanks. I'm going to guess and say that the files actually containing the registry are "software" and "system". Am I right?

(Don't understand XP in terms of your Windows 98SE experience, because these two operating systems are different and work differently.)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I'd still like to be able to dual-boot properly, though. Edited January 16, 2006 by epp_b

[Marsden11]

From Wikipedia

BackupBackup in computer engineering refers to the copying of data for the purpose of having an additional copy of an original source. If the original data is damaged or lost, the data may be copied back from that source, a process which is known as Data recovery or Restore. The "data" in question may be either data as such, or stored program code, both of which are treated the same by the backup software. Backups differ from an archive in that the data is necessarily duplicated, instead of simply moved.

Backups are permitted and always have been. Cloning, "backups" that are booted to are installs. If you boot to it, it's an install, period.By your own admission:

...as my "testing" or "sandbox" installation to try out new software applications without having to be concerned about messing up my "working" installation.

Which BTW, are the main reason MS created "driver roll back" and "restore points."That is not a backup but a second install.Is does not matter if you multi boot or run multiple images in a Virtual Machine environment on a single machine. If it is a Windows product, you need a separate license for each Windows product you wish to install to comply with the MS EULA. Concurrency does not apply here. The only MS EULA that allows 2 separate installs (desktop, laptop) is MS Office, however they can't be used concurrently. Don't like or agree with the MS EULA then use something else.Even if you install XP and run a virtual machine image of XP, it is still considered a separate install even though it exists only in a virtual image and is not physically installed to a particular partition.If this were not the case then why would MS make a point of informing Enterprise users on the changes coming to licensing with Windows Virtual Server 2005 R2. Enterprise customers will be able to run unlimited images on the MS Datacenter Edition. That is a huge change from the past and will save Enterprise customers millions.If we help you figure out how to multiboot with a single copy of XP, we are breaking the forum rules... period!

[epp_b]

Which BTW, are the main reason MS created "driver roll back" and "restore points."

You seriously trust that lame excuse for a backup? Please.Marsden, no offense, but please stop trolling with EULA mumbo-jumbo.

Don't like or agree with the MS EULA then use something else.

Wow, that's really easy to "say".Please, no more of these arguments!

[Ed_P]

If I recall epp_b the concept of two installs of the OS on one machine has already been discussed here, I just don't remember when, or where. But I believe it was within the past 6 months.The person wanted completely separate environments for their children to prevent problems one could encounter from spreading to the other. Separate user ids was inadequate, if one user catches a virus it effects all users. And if one user fills the hd with files then all users are effected. So the poster wanted each family member to have their own version of the system.I wish I could remember more details so you could find it but I don't, sorry.BTW another option you could try: removeable hds. Personally I prefer IDE tray mounts but a USB one would work also. If a drive is removed or unplugged anything you install or try on the other is quaranteed not to effect it. The removeable tray mount requires nothing special but the USB option requires a BIOS that supports USB booting.

[greengeek]

http://forums.scotsnewsletter.com/index.ph...topic=12966&hl=I think this is the one you're looking for.

[epp_b]

BTW another option you could try: removeable hds. Personally I prefer IDE tray mounts but a USB one would work also. If a drive is removed or unplugged anything you install or try on the other is quaranteed not to effect it. The removeable tray mount requires nothing special but the USB option requires a BIOS that supports USB booting.

Thanks, EdP. I actually do use removable HDD trays and am considering using one of my old HDDs for exactly that if I can't get it to dual-boot properly.greengeek, thanks for the link. I'll take a gander at that thread and see if I can come up with something. Edited January 16, 2006 by epp_b

[Peachy]

The Admins have decided to leave the thread open for the time being. Please stick to the topic at hand. If anyone wishes to debate the finer points of Microsoft's or any software EULA, he or she is more then welcome to start a new thread. In fact, I would encourage such a civil debate. While we are not lawyers, our decision is based on the fact that epp_b cannot use both installation's simultaneously. If one does not agree, please start a new thread and the issue can be taken up there.

[Ed_P]

http://forums.scotsnewsletter.com/index.ph...topic=12966&hl=I think this is the one you're looking for.

Yup, that's the one. Thanks greengeek.

epp_b cannot use both installation's simultaneously. If one does not agree, please start a new thread

Unless epp_b uses VMware or similar software I think most will agree it's physically impossible to run more than one at a time. And for the ones that don't do you really want them starting new threads!!

we are not lawyers

My comment wasn't directed at you Peachy. Or any of the other admins.

[b2cm]

I'm going to guess and say that the files actually containing the registry are "software" and "system". Am I right?

Yes. (And more. Include all those files without filename extensions.)

our decision is based on the fact that epp_b cannot use both installation's simultaneously

The problem is that the EULA is open to varied interpretation. I've read some user and third-party analysis of that EULA phrase, and many conclude the same way Peachy puts it here. Some think otherwise. I don't even know what Microsoft's own understanding is as I haven't read an official, definitive statement of their position. Even if there's one out there (let's say, the one espoused by Marsden), there is certainly ambiguity in the EULA as indicated by varied interpretation.When you have a situation like this, the EULA is nearly worthless. It is a contract and the user's sense of it is as significant as that of Microsoft. Where they do not share the same meaning, neither is bound by the other's understanding. In fact, the EULA would appear to be invalid, unenforceable.Of course, Microsoft can file a civil action against the user claiming the user has broken the EULA, and the court will determine whose sense is most sensible under the circumstances (and in contracts, ambiguity is usually resolved against the one who drafted the contract, in this case, Microsoft), and therefore, whether or not the user has broken the EULA. Until then, the 'correct' understanding is an open, undecided matter.

[epp_b]

OK, well, I've quit with the dual-booting for now.Hmm...another interesting scenario:1. I copied my main system partition to my extended volume as a logical partition and hid it.2. Boot back up to my main system partition to try a few programs3. Decided I didn't like the programs, so I deleted the system partition and copied the logical partition (that I just made as a copy of the system before installing a bunch of programs) back as a primary partition and made it bootable.4. What a mess! After booting up, XP tries to re-install a bunch of drivers, half of the startup items don't load, the Add/Remove Programs list has only four items (should have about 30 or so). I didn't evener both looking to see what other messes it made.Fortunately, I had an external backup of my system which I restored by deleting the system partition (and the logical partition backup I had made) and replacing the primary partition by copying the respective partition from the backup drive. That seems to have worked.I just don't understand how could this possibly happen!! I made an exact copy...

Edited January 19, 2006 by epp_b

[Ed_P]

epp_b, the next time you need/want to test new programs may I suggest a different approach.1. Use System Restore to create a restore point.2. Install the new program(s).3. Test/play the new program(s).4. Uninstall all the new program(s).5. Use System Restore to return to the point made prior to the installs.

[epp_b]

I despise system restore. Sorry, I will never use it.I just want to how on earth this is happening! What is XP doing? Is it editing a the registry in hidden partitions? Is there some kind of strange "shared' registry?

Edited January 19, 2006 by epp_b

[Ed_P]

I despise system restore. Sorry, I will never use it.

Humor me and try it sometime. It's not a backup/restore nor meant to replace your normal backup/restore process. But for your testing senario, it's probably perfect.

[Marsden11]

If your orginal installs were done correctly you would not be having these issues. When you are buggered from the beginning, your buggered. Everything you do from this point on will not function properly untill you correct the orginal installs.