Boot Boundaries with 98 SE and XP Pro

[Mark G.]

I just found out this evening while investigating setting up a computer with
a dual boot that there is something known as boot boundaries. 98 and below
has a boot boundary of 2gb and 2000/XP has a boundary of 8gb. What exactly
does this mean? I also saw that some systems support INT13 extensions which
allow you to go further than the boundaries. How do I find this out? Is this
pertaining to my motherboard, HD, or what? If I set up another partition
with nothing on it yet, then it would be considering to be at 0, right? So
then I wouldn't be past that 8gb boundary with that especially if my system
doesn't support INT13 extensions.Thanks for the help and hope I can return
the favor.

[Jim]

Mark G. wrote:
> I just found out this evening while investigating setting up a computer with
> a dual boot that there is something known as boot boundaries. 98 and below
> has a boot boundary of 2gb and 2000/XP has a boundary of 8gb. What exactly
> does this mean? I also saw that some systems support INT13 extensions which
> allow you to go further than the boundaries. How do I find this out? Is this
> pertaining to my motherboard, HD, or what? If I set up another partition
> with nothing on it yet, then it would be considering to be at 0, right? So
> then I wouldn't be past that 8gb boundary with that especially if my system
> doesn't support INT13 extensions.Thanks for the help and hope I can return
> the favor.


If you're thinking about "buffers" they are not in the gigabytes, rather
megabytes. I know XP uses 8megs, I am uncertain about 98.

[Mark G.]

I don't recall them being referred to as buffers. Isn't it something else?
Is there anything else? Please respond someone ASAP so that I may get may
dual boot started. Thank you so much.
Jim > wrote in message
news:6cd1e4f1ec305ad9a7b1973c6ebd82c2@TeraNews...
>
>
> Mark G. wrote:
> > I just found out this evening while investigating setting up a computer
with
> > a dual boot that there is something known as boot boundaries. 98 and
below
> > has a boot boundary of 2gb and 2000/XP has a boundary of 8gb. What
exactly
> > does this mean? I also saw that some systems support INT13 extensions
which
> > allow you to go further than the boundaries. How do I find this out? Is
this
> > pertaining to my motherboard, HD, or what? If I set up another partition
> > with nothing on it yet, then it would be considering to be at 0, right?
So
> > then I wouldn't be past that 8gb boundary with that especially if my
system
> > doesn't support INT13 extensions.Thanks for the help and hope I can
return
> > the favor.
>
>
> If you're thinking about "buffers" they are not in the gigabytes, rather
> megabytes. I know XP uses 8megs, I am uncertain about 98.
>

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

The simplest way I've found to dual boot between Win9x and WinXP
would be to partition your drive(s) roughly as follows:

C: Primary FAT32 Win9x/Legacy Apps
D: Extended NTFS WinXP/Modern Apps

Adjust the partition sizes according to your actual hard drive(s)
size and the amount of space you'd like to allocate to each OS and its
applications. You needn't use the FAT32 or NTFS file systems for the
two OS partitions unless you want to, but this configuration allows
you to take full advantage of both OS's partition size, file
management, and (for WinXP) security features.

Create the partitions using Win9x's FDISK so you can enable large
disk support (FAT32). (No need for 3rd party partitioning
utilities/boot managers and their frequent complications.)

Install Win9x first, being sure to select "C:\Windows" (or
D:\Windows, if you prefer) when asked for the default Windows
directory. When you subsequently install WinXP, be sure to specify
"D:\Winnt" (or "D:\Windows," "C:\Winnt" as referred/applicable) when
asked for the default Windows directory, to place it in the other
partition. The WinXP installation routine will automatically set up a
Multi-boot menu for you. The default settings for this menu can be
readily edited from within WinXP. NOTE: If you elect to place Win98
on the "D:" drive, you'll _have_ to leave the "C:" drive as FAT32.

This method can be adapted to using 2 physical hard drives by
placing the boot partition (C:, which still must be FAT32) and either
of the operating systems on the Primary Master hard drive, and the
second operating system on the second hard drive.

It is also possible to have a 3rd partition for shared
applications, but it would be necessary for such a partition to be
formatted in the common file format (FAT32). The applications would
also have to be installed into each OS (to ensure proper system file
placement and registry updates), one at a time, but the bulk of the
program files could be located on this common partition. I do not,
however, actually recommend doing this as, if you were to uninstall
such an application from one OS, you may not be able to gracefully
uninstall it from the second OS, having already deleted crucial
installation data during the first uninstall action.

Just about everything you need to know (URLs may wrap):

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q217/2/10.ASP

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/howto/gettingstarted/multiboot.asp


Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
----
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH


"Mark G." > wrote in message
...
> I just found out this evening while investigating setting up a
computer with
> a dual boot that there is something known as boot boundaries. 98 and
below
> has a boot boundary of 2gb and 2000/XP has a boundary of 8gb. What
exactly
> does this mean? I also saw that some systems support INT13
extensions which
> allow you to go further than the boundaries. How do I find this out?
Is this
> pertaining to my motherboard, HD, or what? If I set up another
partition
> with nothing on it yet, then it would be considering to be at 0,
right? So
> then I wouldn't be past that 8gb boundary with that especially if my
system
> doesn't support INT13 extensions.Thanks for the help and hope I can
return
> the favor.
>
>

[Silly You]

"Bruce Chambers" > wrote in message =
...> Greetings --
>=20
> The simplest way I've found to dual boot between Win9x and WinXP
> would be to partition your drive(s) roughly as follows:
>=20
> C: Primary FAT32 Win9x/Legacy Apps
> D: Extended NTFS WinXP/Modern Apps
>=20
> Adjust the partition sizes according to your actual hard drive(s)
> size and the amount of space you'd like to allocate to each OS and its
> applications. =20

You gormless pillock! Firstly, how the **** does this answer the OP's =
question about INT13, and what it means. Did you even botther to read =
the subject line? Looks like Jim already understood what he meant! It =
appears you yet again reacted to key words, then proceded to =
copy-n-paste your **** as usual.

>You needn't use the FAT32 or NTFS file systems for the
> two OS partitions unless you want to, but this configuration allows
> you to take full advantage of both OS's partition size, file
> management, and (for WinXP) security features.

Another blatant example of cut-copy-paste technocrap! First of all, what =
other filing systems are there for 98/XP that he can use since you say =
he "needn't use the FAT32 or NTFS file systems"? Secondly, 98 cannot be =
on anything other than a FAT partition!

<snipped impertinent crap>

--=20
"I do prefer to give out incorrect info
when I can help it. ;-}

Bruce Chambers"

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=3D&hl=3Den&lr=3D&ie=3DUTF-8&selm=3Dvel=
4r21f9gce64%40corp.supernews.com

[Thomas Wendell]

Those boundaries you're talking about do exist. In W9x and older , the
system can't find IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS if they are placed later than 2GB
from the biginning of the disk. For WinNT it involved its startup files
(ntloader , ntkrnl etc) which could not be later than 8GB.


--
Most of my answers are learned on ms.public.xxx.xxx
Helsinki, Finland (remove spam_)




"Mark G." > kirjoitti viestissä
...
> I don't recall them being referred to as buffers. Isn't it something else?
> Is there anything else? Please respond someone ASAP so that I may get may
> dual boot started. Thank you so much.
> Jim > wrote in message
> news:6cd1e4f1ec305ad9a7b1973c6ebd82c2@TeraNews...
> >
> >
> > Mark G. wrote:
> > > I just found out this evening while investigating setting up a
computer
> with
> > > a dual boot that there is something known as boot boundaries. 98 and
> below
> > > has a boot boundary of 2gb and 2000/XP has a boundary of 8gb. What
> exactly
> > > does this mean? I also saw that some systems support INT13 extensions
> which
> > > allow you to go further than the boundaries. How do I find this out?
Is
> this
> > > pertaining to my motherboard, HD, or what? If I set up another
partition
> > > with nothing on it yet, then it would be considering to be at 0,
right?
> So
> > > then I wouldn't be past that 8gb boundary with that especially if my
> system
> > > doesn't support INT13 extensions.Thanks for the help and hope I can
> return
> > > the favor.
> >
> >
> > If you're thinking about "buffers" they are not in the gigabytes, rather
> > megabytes. I know XP uses 8megs, I am uncertain about 98.
> >
>
>

[Bill Wiggins]

"Bruce Chambers" > wrote in message =
...

<snipped>

Hi, not to agree with anything "Silly You" says (joined my killfile as =
soon as I read its post), but what does your reply have to do with the =
OP's query about what is apparently the (a) boot configuration? Also, =
your wording in your dual boot instructions need to be changed as they =
do suggest what Silly stated, though stated poorly.

[Bill Wiggins]

"Thomas Wendell" > wrote in message =
...
> Those boundaries you're talking about do exist. In W9x and older , the
> system can't find IO.SYS and MSDOS.SYS if they are placed later than =
2GB
> from the biginning of the disk. For WinNT it involved its startup =
files
> (ntloader , ntkrnl etc) which could not be later than 8GB.
>=20

Hi Thomas,

I am pretty sure you're correct, but the sizes (as the OP suggested) are =
not in gigabytes, rather megabytes.

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

The OP had asked, in multiple posts, how to create a dual-boot
with Win98 and WinXP. I replied to a single post with detailed
instructions on how to create a dual-boot system, thinking my one post
covered the questions in the OP's earlier posts, and this one. I did
fail to specifically address the "non-issue" of boot boundaries.
(Well, a non-issue if my instructions are followed, anyway.) My bad.

I've no idea what "Silly You" may or may not have said, but, if
his earlier posts (I kill-filed him almost immediately after he
appeared.) are any guide, it was simply mindless name calling. I
never saw him post anything of any technical content, much less merit.
What part of my post's wording seems unclear?

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
----
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH


"Bill Wiggins" > wrote in message
news:5efa2f5e7ababbf0f339a32dfc76094b@TeraNews...


"Bruce Chambers" > wrote in message
...

<snipped>

Hi, not to agree with anything "Silly You" says (joined my killfile as
soon as I read its post), but what does your reply have to do with the
OP's query about what is apparently the (a) boot configuration? Also,
your wording in your dual boot instructions need to be changed as they
do suggest what Silly stated, though stated poorly.

[Mark G.]

I found the best way to do it by trial and error cause from the years I have
worked with computers, I have learned that you can only take the comments
you get in these places at face value, but when lucky, then can be of
value....if that makes since. When there are 1 hard disk, two partitions, as
long as the OS's are at the beginning of each partitions, all is good in the
neighborhood, other than that, I could see it potentially causing problems.
Thanks for the thoughtfulness that went into this post whether all agreed or
not.
Bruce Chambers > wrote in message
...
> Greetings --
>
> The OP had asked, in multiple posts, how to create a dual-boot
> with Win98 and WinXP. I replied to a single post with detailed
> instructions on how to create a dual-boot system, thinking my one post
> covered the questions in the OP's earlier posts, and this one. I did
> fail to specifically address the "non-issue" of boot boundaries.
> (Well, a non-issue if my instructions are followed, anyway.) My bad.
>
> I've no idea what "Silly You" may or may not have said, but, if
> his earlier posts (I kill-filed him almost immediately after he
> appeared.) are any guide, it was simply mindless name calling. I
> never saw him post anything of any technical content, much less merit.
> What part of my post's wording seems unclear?
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> ----
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> having both at once. -- RAH
>
>
> "Bill Wiggins" > wrote in message
> news:5efa2f5e7ababbf0f339a32dfc76094b@TeraNews...
>
>
> "Bruce Chambers" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snipped>
>
> Hi, not to agree with anything "Silly You" says (joined my killfile as
> soon as I read its post), but what does your reply have to do with the
> OP's query about what is apparently the (a) boot configuration? Also,
> your wording in your dual boot instructions need to be changed as they
> do suggest what Silly stated, though stated poorly.
>
>

[Kadaitcha Man]

Bruce Chambers wrote:
> I
> never saw him post anything of any technical content, much less merit.


Funny that, I think the same about your posts.

--
Visit The Peanut Gallery: http://kadaitcha.kicks-ass.org:83/
JCaldw4956: Kadaitcha Man is one sick puppy who makes Adolph
Hitler look like a study in humility in comparison.

[Bill Wiggins]

Bruce Chambers > wrote in message
...

Hi,

> What part of my post's wording seems unclear?

It's really no big deal, it just caught my eye when SY pointed it out, =
but anyway, you said in the post concerned,

>You needn't use the FAT32 or NTFS file systems for the
> two OS partitions unless you want to, but this configuration allows
> you to take full advantage of both OS's partition size, file
> management, and (for WinXP) security features.

You had both (as an example) 98 and XP listed a a dual boot boot setup, =
but when you say, "You needn't use the FAT32 or NTFS file systems for =
the
two OS partitions unless you want to", makes it sound as if 98 can have =
NTFS as well, which isn't possible. But it also suggests that there are =
other filing systems available. You may want to reword it for the =
literal minded. I don't know, when SY spelled it out, it did appear that =
way.

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Ah. No, what I meant was that both OS's could be installed on
FAT16, if so desired, thus "... needn't use ... FAT32 or NTFS." Yes,
I can see how the sentence could seem unclear when taken by itself.

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
----
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH


"Bill Wiggins" > wrote in message
news:db5af90f6bc0299ef3fd7b9c72152a3d@TeraNews...
Bruce Chambers > wrote in message
...

Hi,

> What part of my post's wording seems unclear?

It's really no big deal, it just caught my eye when SY pointed it out,
but anyway, you said in the post concerned,

>You needn't use the FAT32 or NTFS file systems for the
> two OS partitions unless you want to, but this configuration allows
> you to take full advantage of both OS's partition size, file
> management, and (for WinXP) security features.

You had both (as an example) 98 and XP listed a a dual boot boot
setup, but when you say, "You needn't use the FAT32 or NTFS file
systems for the
two OS partitions unless you want to", makes it sound as if 98 can
have NTFS as well, which isn't possible. But it also suggests that
there are other filing systems available. You may want to reword it
for the literal minded. I don't know, when SY spelled it out, it did
appear that way.

[Silly You]

"Bruce Chambers" > wrote in message =
...
> Greetings --
>=20
> Ah. No, what I meant was that both OS's could be installed on
> FAT16, if so desired, thus "... needn't use ... FAT32 or NTFS." Yes,
> I can see how the sentence could seem unclear when taken by itself.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha *chortle, snort, cough*

Making a lame excuse for ****ing up wording (which is actually typical =
by you), won't slow the increase of your already immensely high =
stupidity point count!

--=20
G.I.Joe Said,

"Amethyst - Self Proclaimed Janitor of UseNet"