A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

using an old OS on XP



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old August 14th 14, 04:03 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default using an old OS on XP

On 8/14/2014 9:04 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:33:29 -0400, "Bill Cunningham"
wrote:


"BillW50" wrote in message
...

XP install should let you use either FAT or NTFS as long as the partition
is 32GB or smaller if I recall correctly. Any larger and it will only
install using NTFS. There are utilities that will convert from NTFS to
FAT32 anyway, so no big deal. And if you install Windows 98SE first,
dualboot should work just fine.


Humm. I have one partiion about 200GB. Maybe that's it then. And does
this 32G or less partition have to be at the beginning on the drive? Or can
it be the 2nd or 3rd primary partition?


The message you are replying to is *not* correct. XP cannot *create* a
FAT32 partition larger than 32GB.


That is what I said.

But it will happily use one if it was created by other software.


But that wasn't Bill's question. Bill's question was XP install will
only allow formatting with NTFS. This is true if the partition is larger
than 32GB.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
Ads
  #17  
Old August 14th 14, 04:30 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default using an old OS on XP

On 8/13/2014 11:33 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...

XP install should let you use either FAT or NTFS as long as the partition
is 32GB or smaller if I recall correctly. Any larger and it will only
install using NTFS. There are utilities that will convert from NTFS to
FAT32 anyway, so no big deal. And if you install Windows 98SE first,
dualboot should work just fine.


Humm. I have one partiion about 200GB. Maybe that's it then. And does
this 32G or less partition have to be at the beginning on the drive? Or can
it be the 2nd or 3rd primary partition?


I believe early versions of XP might have problems with partitions
larger than 132GB (or was it 128GB?), but that problem disappears with a
hotfix quickly down the line.

Windows 98SE is stuck with only using the first 128GB of the drive. So
it must be within this first part and can't see further than this. I
believe there are hacks around this problem if you need more.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
  #18  
Old August 14th 14, 04:44 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default using an old OS on XP

On 8/14/2014 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:58:43 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

On 8/14/2014 9:25 AM, Paul wrote:
[...]
I keep the OS portion small, so the backup takes ten minutes.


I never understood why people can't backup just the OS regardless if it
lives on a separate partition or not. What kind of poor backup software
are people using that doesn't allow backing up by path(s)? I've been
backing up by paths since the 90's at least. There is no need to backup
by partition unless you are just not very bright and just don't know how
to do anything else.


I think they are talking about being able to image your C: drive where
all of the hard to reconstruct structures are and using another drive
for "data" which is easily copied.


Yes I understand this. But it isn't necessary at all. Virtually all
backup software can backup by paths and you can create one backup for
boot/system and another one for data if you would prefer, even if
everything is on one partition.

My favorite method is a bit different, as I prefer to sync my data
instead of backing it up. And I prefer to clone my boot/system vs.
backing up. And I prefer to have everything on my drive C and I have no
problems separating boot/system and data on a single partition.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
  #19  
Old August 14th 14, 05:00 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default using an old OS on XP

BillW50 wrote:
On 8/14/2014 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:58:43 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

On 8/14/2014 9:25 AM, Paul wrote:
[...]
I keep the OS portion small, so the backup takes ten minutes.

I never understood why people can't backup just the OS regardless if it
lives on a separate partition or not. What kind of poor backup software
are people using that doesn't allow backing up by path(s)? I've been
backing up by paths since the 90's at least. There is no need to backup
by partition unless you are just not very bright and just don't know how
to do anything else.


I think they are talking about being able to image your C: drive where
all of the hard to reconstruct structures are and using another drive
for "data" which is easily copied.


Yes I understand this. But it isn't necessary at all. Virtually all
backup software can backup by paths and you can create one backup for
boot/system and another one for data if you would prefer, even if
everything is on one partition.

My favorite method is a bit different, as I prefer to sync my data
instead of backing it up. And I prefer to clone my boot/system vs.
backing up. And I prefer to have everything on my drive C and I have no
problems separating boot/system and data on a single partition.


It's a pushbutton backup strategy. Start it and walk away.

When I bought Retrospect, I spent two solid days scripting
the thing. In another case with Retrospect, I ended up
writing a fifteen page, step by step guide to using it,
so someone else would know how to use it. I was shocked
at the length of the procedure.

Compared to the 30 seconds I last spent to backup the WinXP drive.
Click the button and walk away (or, go to bed).

What prize do I win, if I'm more surgical in my approach ?
When the backup I made, doesn't happen to have the file
I need, what do I say then ? Better luck next time ?

The nickel and dime approach made sense, when we didn't
have big enough storage devices.

Paul
  #20  
Old August 14th 14, 05:08 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default using an old OS on XP

BillW50 wrote:
On 8/14/2014 9:04 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:33:29 -0400, "Bill Cunningham"
wrote:


"BillW50" wrote in message
...

XP install should let you use either FAT or NTFS as long as the
partition
is 32GB or smaller if I recall correctly. Any larger and it will only
install using NTFS. There are utilities that will convert from NTFS to
FAT32 anyway, so no big deal. And if you install Windows 98SE first,
dualboot should work just fine.

Humm. I have one partiion about 200GB. Maybe that's it then. And
does
this 32G or less partition have to be at the beginning on the drive?
Or can
it be the 2nd or 3rd primary partition?


The message you are replying to is *not* correct. XP cannot *create* a
FAT32 partition larger than 32GB.


That is what I said.

But it will happily use one if it was created by other software.


But that wasn't Bill's question. Bill's question was XP install will
only allow formatting with NTFS. This is true if the partition is larger
than 32GB.


You have some options.

The naive user starts with a hard drive completely blank, no MBR, nothing.
Under those conditions, you accept whatever the installer CD
throws at you in terms of policy. You're not going to be all that
happy with the choices.

However, you also have the option of preparing a partition
in advance. The install can then be instructed to "eat its
vegetables", use the offered partition, don't format it or
attempt to format it. You can do that with later OSes,
like on Windows 7, force a one-partition install instead
of the default two-partition install. All by offering a
pre-formatted partition.

In the case of an OS like Debian, it gives you royal hell
to offer it a pre-defined partition setup. For that OS,
it "wants the whole damn drive" and out of frustration,
I generally just give it the whole drive. Because I've
got better things to do, figuring out the installer
with no web browser to consult. Windows installers
are a little more flexible, in that I usually get
what I'm after.

Just because they artificially cut off partition
size at 32GB for FAT32, doesn't mean that there aren't
ways available to do it.

Paul
  #21  
Old August 14th 14, 05:12 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default using an old OS on XP

On 8/14/2014 11:08 AM, Paul wrote:
BillW50 wrote:
On 8/14/2014 9:04 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:33:29 -0400, "Bill Cunningham"
wrote:


"BillW50" wrote in message
...

XP install should let you use either FAT or NTFS as long as the
partition
is 32GB or smaller if I recall correctly. Any larger and it will only
install using NTFS. There are utilities that will convert from NTFS to
FAT32 anyway, so no big deal. And if you install Windows 98SE first,
dualboot should work just fine.

Humm. I have one partiion about 200GB. Maybe that's it then.
And does
this 32G or less partition have to be at the beginning on the drive?
Or can
it be the 2nd or 3rd primary partition?

The message you are replying to is *not* correct. XP cannot *create* a
FAT32 partition larger than 32GB.


That is what I said.

But it will happily use one if it was created by other software.


But that wasn't Bill's question. Bill's question was XP install will
only allow formatting with NTFS. This is true if the partition is
larger than 32GB.


You have some options.

The naive user starts with a hard drive completely blank, no MBR, nothing.
Under those conditions, you accept whatever the installer CD
throws at you in terms of policy. You're not going to be all that
happy with the choices.

However, you also have the option of preparing a partition
in advance. The install can then be instructed to "eat its
vegetables", use the offered partition, don't format it or
attempt to format it. You can do that with later OSes,
like on Windows 7, force a one-partition install instead
of the default two-partition install. All by offering a
pre-formatted partition.

In the case of an OS like Debian, it gives you royal hell
to offer it a pre-defined partition setup. For that OS,
it "wants the whole damn drive" and out of frustration,
I generally just give it the whole drive. Because I've
got better things to do, figuring out the installer
with no web browser to consult. Windows installers
are a little more flexible, in that I usually get
what I'm after.

Just because they artificially cut off partition
size at 32GB for FAT32, doesn't mean that there aren't
ways available to do it.


Of course, there are always ways around the defaults. Nobody ever
questioned this at all. :-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
  #22  
Old August 14th 14, 05:21 PM posted to alt.comp.freeware,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
David Catterall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default using an old OS on XP

Hot-Text wrote:

Bill
That old School
Use This This

Virtual PC 2007
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl...s.aspx?id=4580

It Supported your Operating System
Or
https://www.virtualbox.org


He's right, Bill.

I once tried to install W95 on to a FAT32 partition on a computer with XP
on it.

The machine jammed. Not because my installation was faulty, but because
the 2002 processor executed the 1995 code too quickly and caused, IIRC, a
division by zero error.

Good luck!
David


  #23  
Old August 14th 14, 05:32 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default using an old OS on XP

On 8/14/2014 11:00 AM, Paul wrote:
BillW50 wrote:
On 8/14/2014 10:29 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:58:43 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

On 8/14/2014 9:25 AM, Paul wrote:
[...]
I keep the OS portion small, so the backup takes ten minutes.

I never understood why people can't backup just the OS regardless if it
lives on a separate partition or not. What kind of poor backup software
are people using that doesn't allow backing up by path(s)? I've been
backing up by paths since the 90's at least. There is no need to backup
by partition unless you are just not very bright and just don't know
how
to do anything else.

I think they are talking about being able to image your C: drive where
all of the hard to reconstruct structures are and using another drive
for "data" which is easily copied.


Yes I understand this. But it isn't necessary at all. Virtually all
backup software can backup by paths and you can create one backup for
boot/system and another one for data if you would prefer, even if
everything is on one partition.

My favorite method is a bit different, as I prefer to sync my data
instead of backing it up. And I prefer to clone my boot/system vs.
backing up. And I prefer to have everything on my drive C and I have
no problems separating boot/system and data on a single partition.


It's a pushbutton backup strategy. Start it and walk away.

When I bought Retrospect, I spent two solid days scripting
the thing. In another case with Retrospect, I ended up
writing a fifteen page, step by step guide to using it,
so someone else would know how to use it. I was shocked
at the length of the procedure.

Compared to the 30 seconds I last spent to backup the WinXP drive.
Click the button and walk away (or, go to bed).

What prize do I win, if I'm more surgical in my approach ?
When the backup I made, doesn't happen to have the file
I need, what do I say then ? Better luck next time ?

The nickel and dime approach made sense, when we didn't
have big enough storage devices.


Yes but it isn't that difficult anymore. You just point and click the
folders the first time around and then save that profile. From there on,
you just run that one profile. Same idea as push button backup strategy.
It is really simple.

I find lots of problems with keeping boot/system and data on separate
partitions. One is somewhere down the line I always have to resize one
or more of them. Keeping both on the same partition solves this problem.
It doesn't matter if one grows larger or not.

Then there are other problems too. Like applications will store stuff in
the Program Folder, Documents and Settings, User, etc. folders. What do
you consider this stuff as? Some stuff could be considered as data,
configurations, profiles, accounts, updates, temp area, etc. And if you
create two partitions, this stuff could easily be spread between the
system and data partitions. This could cause problems down the line. Why
cause more headaches than you really need?

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
  #24  
Old August 14th 14, 05:48 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default using an old OS on XP

On 8/14/2014 11:18 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:44:52 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

On 8/14/2014 10:29 AM,
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:58:43 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

On 8/14/2014 9:25 AM, Paul wrote:
[...]
I keep the OS portion small, so the backup takes ten minutes.

I never understood why people can't backup just the OS regardless if it
lives on a separate partition or not. What kind of poor backup software
are people using that doesn't allow backing up by path(s)? I've been
backing up by paths since the 90's at least. There is no need to backup
by partition unless you are just not very bright and just don't know how
to do anything else.

I think they are talking about being able to image your C: drive where
all of the hard to reconstruct structures are and using another drive
for "data" which is easily copied.


Yes I understand this. But it isn't necessary at all. Virtually all
backup software can backup by paths and you can create one backup for
boot/system and another one for data if you would prefer, even if
everything is on one partition.

My favorite method is a bit different, as I prefer to sync my data
instead of backing it up. And I prefer to clone my boot/system vs.
backing up. And I prefer to have everything on my drive C and I have no
problems separating boot/system and data on a single partition.


I suppose if you only have one machine this is a good way to deal with
it but I have a bunch. The only thing that is unique on any of them is
the C: drive and that (loaded) software. The big files are movies,
songs and other byte hungry files that are duplicated all around the
network so my main backup concern is the C:
I use File Synchronizer to keep these "data" files backed up on a
mirrored set of drives on my server, along with a couple of other
machines where they may be played.
Disk drives are cheap, you might as well have a lot of redundancy with
your data..


I too have a lot of machines and I still keep everything on drive C. I
have no problems whatsoever separating the system files from the data
files. And I too sync my data files from machine to machine using
SyncBack (the free one). And it doesn't matter if the data is on the
same partition as the system files or not. There is no difference
whatsoever where they are at.

And if you want to make a system backup while ignoring the data, no
problem. You tell your backup program to backup everything except temps,
browser cache, etc. and all of this data. You tell it once and then it
is just one button press to do so from there on. It is really easy.

I do have some data that are usually really huge that doesn't make sense
to have on every machine. Those are generally movies, videos, music
collections, etc. This data is completely different than other data.
Those are generally kept on different external drives instead.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
  #25  
Old August 14th 14, 07:36 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default using an old OS on XP


"BillW50" wrote in message
...
On 8/14/2014 11:18 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:44:52 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

On 8/14/2014 10:29 AM,
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:58:43 -0500, BillW50 wrote:


[snip]

Now what exactly is "Syncback"? I've never heard of that one.

Bill



  #26  
Old August 14th 14, 07:46 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default using an old OS on XP


"BillW50" wrote in message
...

Of course, there are always ways around the defaults. Nobody ever
questioned this at all. :-)


Ok I'm questioning

Bill



  #28  
Old August 14th 14, 07:56 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default using an old OS on XP

On 8/14/2014 1:46 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...

Of course, there are always ways around the defaults. Nobody ever
questioned this at all. :-)


Ok I'm questioning


Okay that opens lots of different forks in the road. Which way do you
want to go? What do you exactly want to go for example?

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
  #29  
Old August 14th 14, 08:37 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default using an old OS on XP


"BillW50" wrote in message
...

Okay that opens lots of different forks in the road. Which way do you want
to go? What do you exactly want to go for example?


Well I have noticed this for starters. Formating a new filesystem with
fat32 will work with XP but the system hangs and stops installing. With ntfs
it continues. Winows seems to be the only OS that can't handle a large fat32
filsystem and I think fat32 goes up to 1 TB. Is there a way around that?


  #30  
Old August 14th 14, 08:56 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default using an old OS on XP

On 8/14/2014 2:37 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...

Okay that opens lots of different forks in the road. Which way do you want
to go? What do you exactly want to go for example?


Well I have noticed this for starters. Formating a new filesystem with
fat32 will work with XP but the system hangs and stops installing. With ntfs
it continues. Winows seems to be the only OS that can't handle a large fat32
filsystem and I think fat32 goes up to 1 TB. Is there a way around that?


Whoa! How large is this FAT32 partition for starters? I never had a
problem with XP installing in a more than a 32GB FAT32 already made
partition before, but I never tried up to an 1TB partition before.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.