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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Can it be said that a locical drive is a virtual drive?
"Tom" wrote:
"Timothy Daniels" wrote: "Tom" wrote: "Timothy Daniels" wrote: "R. C. White" wrote: One big problem in discussing this is the several ambiguous meanings of some terms, such as "drive", "partition" - and "boot". :( As many writers have commented, "We BOOT from the SYSTEM partition and keep the operating SYSTEM files in the BOOT volume." Microsoft didn't invent this terminology, but continues to use it. The boot process must begin in the System Partition, which must be on the boot device (typically the master HD on the primary IDE controller); this must be the Active (bootable) partition, which means it must be a Primary Partition. This partition must have the proper NT-style Boot Sector, and 3 files (NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and Boot.ini) must be in the Root of that partition. (In some installations, a few other files, such as NTBOOTDD.SYS, are required, but these are not typical.) All the rest of Windows (all recent versions, at least) must be in the Boot Folder in the Boot Volume. The Boot Folder is named \Windows, by default. (Except in WinNT and Win2K, where the default is \WinNT; in an upgrade installation, the new Windows installation inherits the name of the earlier version, so some WinXP boot folders are named \WinNT.) This Boot Folder - and its many subfolders - hold the GB or so of WinXP files. The Boot Volume can be any volume, either a primary partition or a logical drive, on any HD in the computer. (Maybe it could also be on an external HD or a rewritable CD/DVD - or even a very large USB flash drive, but I don't know about that.) The Boot Volume may share the System Partition - and typically does. There should be a separate Boot Volume for each installation of Windows; Microsoft (and nearly all other gurus) strongly advise against putting two Windows installations into a single volume. [............] Logical drives are not bootable. A dual-boot must start in the System Partition (which must be a Primary Partition). But C:\Boot.ini will point to the Boot Folder, which may very well be in a logical drive. (In my own system, C: is a small FAT-formatted primary partition on my IBM SCSI HD; my main WinXP is in D:\Windows, an NTFS-formatted logical drive in the extended partition on that SCSI HD; other Windows installations are in F:, L:, and X:, all logical drives in extended partitions on my two IDE HDs and all NTFS. My boot process starts with C:\NTLDR and then branches to D:\Windows - or wherever.) A logical drive can be a "Boot Volume" - but you can't boot from it. :( Yes. You are totally correct. Significant points are that the "boot files" are in the SYSTEM volume (partition), and the Operating System is in the BOOT volume (partition), and the two volumes (partitions) need not be the same or even on the same hard drive. The SYSTEM partition must be a Primary partition and it must be flagged as "active". The BOOT partition (containing the OS), can be a Primary partition or a Logical Drive in an Extended partition. *TimDaniels* Note, that any operating system installed in multiple boot scenarios are all "active", since the boot process to load them (in the extended/logical) are on the Primary partition, which has to have the bootloader at the beginning of it. If by "boot loader" you mean ntldr, it must be in the "active" Primary partition of the hard drive that is at the head of the BIOS's HD boot sequence, but the OSes that it loads may be from any of other Primary partitions and logical drives in the system, none of which even have to be on the same hard drive as ntldr. *TimDaniels* That isn't what I mean. All bootloaders are on any given Primary drive; you can have 3 OSes on 3 primary drives, and they will have their own bootloaders, but then you'll need a boot manager to get into those OSes. What I said was, that any primary/logical setup, whereas you have e.g. three OSes installed on them (1st OS primary, 2 and 3 on the extend/logicals), they are all by default "active". This because the bootloaders for all the OSes reside on the "active" (Primary) partition. This is why one has a choice to what OS they can boot into when they get to that option after the BIOS post. It's unclear, really, what you mean. I can understand my grammar OK, but yours leaves me baffled. What I wrote is right out of the Microsoft Windows XP Resource book, and I have verified what I wrote in the above paragraph. If you have some issue with it, please state what you disagree with. As for your "bootloaders", I must still assume that you mean ntldr, which can load an OS from any partition on any hard drive in the system. For those OSes that reside in a logical drive (i.e. a partition within an Extended partition), there is no ntldr resident in the same partition. For those OSes that reside in a Primary partition, there need not be an ntldr there, either, if it is not an "active" partition, as the OS can be loaded by an ntldr in another partition that *is* active. Put another way, the OS that is loaded can be loaded by an ntldr that is anywhere in the system. All it needs is a co-resident boot.ini file that points to the partition that does contain the OS. *TimDaniels* |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Can it be said that a locical drive is a virtual drive?
"Timothy Daniels" wrote in message ... "Tom" wrote: "Timothy Daniels" wrote: "Tom" wrote: "Timothy Daniels" wrote: "R. C. White" wrote: One big problem in discussing this is the several ambiguous meanings of some terms, such as "drive", "partition" - and "boot". :( As many writers have commented, "We BOOT from the SYSTEM partition and keep the operating SYSTEM files in the BOOT volume." Microsoft didn't invent this terminology, but continues to use it. The boot process must begin in the System Partition, which must be on the boot device (typically the master HD on the primary IDE controller); this must be the Active (bootable) partition, which means it must be a Primary Partition. This partition must have the proper NT-style Boot Sector, and 3 files (NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and Boot.ini) must be in the Root of that partition. (In some installations, a few other files, such as NTBOOTDD.SYS, are required, but these are not typical.) All the rest of Windows (all recent versions, at least) must be in the Boot Folder in the Boot Volume. The Boot Folder is named \Windows, by default. (Except in WinNT and Win2K, where the default is \WinNT; in an upgrade installation, the new Windows installation inherits the name of the earlier version, so some WinXP boot folders are named \WinNT.) This Boot Folder - and its many subfolders - hold the GB or so of WinXP files. The Boot Volume can be any volume, either a primary partition or a logical drive, on any HD in the computer. (Maybe it could also be on an external HD or a rewritable CD/DVD - or even a very large USB flash drive, but I don't know about that.) The Boot Volume may share the System Partition - and typically does. There should be a separate Boot Volume for each installation of Windows; Microsoft (and nearly all other gurus) strongly advise against putting two Windows installations into a single volume. [............] Logical drives are not bootable. A dual-boot must start in the System Partition (which must be a Primary Partition). But C:\Boot.ini will point to the Boot Folder, which may very well be in a logical drive. (In my own system, C: is a small FAT-formatted primary partition on my IBM SCSI HD; my main WinXP is in D:\Windows, an NTFS-formatted logical drive in the extended partition on that SCSI HD; other Windows installations are in F:, L:, and X:, all logical drives in extended partitions on my two IDE HDs and all NTFS. My boot process starts with C:\NTLDR and then branches to D:\Windows - or wherever.) A logical drive can be a "Boot Volume" - but you can't boot from it. :( Yes. You are totally correct. Significant points are that the "boot files" are in the SYSTEM volume (partition), and the Operating System is in the BOOT volume (partition), and the two volumes (partitions) need not be the same or even on the same hard drive. The SYSTEM partition must be a Primary partition and it must be flagged as "active". The BOOT partition (containing the OS), can be a Primary partition or a Logical Drive in an Extended partition. *TimDaniels* Note, that any operating system installed in multiple boot scenarios are all "active", since the boot process to load them (in the extended/logical) are on the Primary partition, which has to have the bootloader at the beginning of it. If by "boot loader" you mean ntldr, it must be in the "active" Primary partition of the hard drive that is at the head of the BIOS's HD boot sequence, but the OSes that it loads may be from any of other Primary partitions and logical drives in the system, none of which even have to be on the same hard drive as ntldr. *TimDaniels* That isn't what I mean. All bootloaders are on any given Primary drive; you can have 3 OSes on 3 primary drives, and they will have their own bootloaders, but then you'll need a boot manager to get into those OSes. What I said was, that any primary/logical setup, whereas you have e.g. three OSes installed on them (1st OS primary, 2 and 3 on the extend/logicals), they are all by default "active". This because the bootloaders for all the OSes reside on the "active" (Primary) partition. This is why one has a choice to what OS they can boot into when they get to that option after the BIOS post. It's unclear, really, what you mean. I can understand my grammar OK, but yours leaves me baffled. What I wrote is right out of the Microsoft Windows XP Resource book, and I have verified what I wrote in the above paragraph. If you have some issue with it, please state what you disagree with. As for your "bootloaders", I must still assume that you mean ntldr, which can load an OS from any partition on any hard drive in the system. For those OSes that reside in a logical drive (i.e. a partition within an Extended partition), there is no ntldr resident in the same partition. For those OSes that reside in a Primary partition, there need not be an ntldr there, either, if it is not an "active" partition, as the OS can be loaded by an ntldr in another partition that *is* active. Put another way, the OS that is loaded can be loaded by an ntldr that is anywhere in the system. All it needs is a co-resident boot.ini file that points to the partition that does contain the OS. My explanation is perfectly fine, you have have a problem with semantics as I see it. NTDLR and the lingo "bootloader" term are very much the same thing, just different words. After that, you just wnet on and stated IOWs what I said about other OSes residing on the primary partition, that has extened/logical drives with other OSes on them. Since the (I'll use this term for you) NTLDR in on the Primary along with the boot.ini, and NTDETECT, it is the active partition, that can load all the other OSes from it (if they are installed as such); hence the other OSes are also active as well (not on their own primary partitions); does this explain it better? That is the point I was making sans you stating a thread before that the NTLDR (or bootloader) has to be on the primary partition, which I stated well before these most recent posts. Note, I never said, nor did I even hint, and the NTLDR can reside or resides in an extended/logical drive(s), and where you felt the need to explain this further, maybe is a hint that grammar isn't the issue, rather reading comprehension, or asking for clairification before answering inline, while ultimately showing misundertstandings. If you read way back, you will see my statement regarding the bootloaders having to reside on the Primary partition(s). |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:11:00 -0500, "Tom" wrote:
"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:49:12 -0500, "Tom" wrote: Logical drives are bootable, or else dual-boot scenarios would not be possible. False - the bulk of an OS's code may reside on a logical volume, but standard system MBR code does not transfer control to logical volumes within an extended partition. There has to be bridging boot code on a primary partition to do this; an OS in a logical is booted from there. As I noted to RC, read the whole post, and not take out context what I said. I share RC's love of accurate semantics, especially in the area of partitioning. If you think of English is a content description language, then the value of accurate coding becomes apparent. When I say bootable in this case, I mean the OS can be booted to from the list after the BIOS post. I won't requeest any further that you should include the whole reading the next time :-). The "list after the BIOS POST" is already post-boot. You have already booted from the active primary partition; all you are now doing is selecting what to load next. Logical drives are not bootable, and do not need to be bootable to implement dual boot scenarios, including those that are based on the C:\NTLDR - C:\Boot.ini axis that I believe you are referring to when you mention the "list after the BIOS POST". It's on that basis that I labeled your assertion as false :-) Now let's see the rest of the post you are referring to... I'd still say your error is considering the continuation of loading an OS as "booting" it. An OS is "booted" when control first enters the OS code from system code, and that's mandated by system code. Standard system (MBR) code mandates the partition table limitations mentioned earlier; 4 partitions, only primary partitions bootable. You may not see anything on screen before you see the "list after the BIOS POST", but by then, one of two things has already happened: 1) Transfer from system code to OS code (C:\NTLDR - C:\Boot.ini) 2) Transfer to non-standard system code (i.e. add-on boot manager) It really goes about the semantic detail on what it means to "boot" (as opposed to "load") an OS. ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:47:33 -0500, "Tom" wrote:
"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 04:05:03 -0800, BAR FAT only addresses up to 4Gb of disk space [Windows XP, 95 and earlier Windows versions only] Detail: - NT can support 4G FAT16 volumes with 64k clusters - Win95SR2 thru WinME support only up to 2G FAT16 with 32k clusters Actually, clarif on "earlier Windows versions" is needed... Versions that support FAT32: - XP - Win2000 - WinME - Win98xx - Win95 SR2.x Versions that do not support FAT32: - NT 4.0 and earlier - Win95 SP1 - Win95 original - stand-alone versions of MS-DOS - Win3.yuk and earlier FAT32 supports HDs and volumes well over 32G ... All OSs that support FAT32, support FAT32 32G. It's just that XP's volume formatter is not only too lame to format FAT32 volumes over 32G, but is even too lame to realize its limitations and avoid trying. Instead, it grinds along until it hits 32G, then it falls over because the volume is "too big". This is not a FAT32 issue; it is an XP quality failure problem. While that may be your opinion of lameness, No, I think most folks would consider it lame, to have code destructively start an operation, tie up the machine for several minutes, then fail without the ability to undo the mess. using a partition size on FAT32 on anything bigger that 16gs, is a waste anyway IMHO, besides the facts of the file size limits FAT32 has. In todays larger drives that are available, it is a waste to use it. I'd disagree there, though like you I would not use FAT32 for one big C: drive on modern large HDs. Even if I were to use NTFS, I'd want to avoid setting up a modern large HD as one big C: I consider that function made purposefully for the sole reason of wasting space and performance. If that were the case, it would back out as soon as it sees the space it is asked to format is 32G, without starting to write to it (and thus mess up anything that might have been there). The way it, smells like really poor programming, rather than any particular deliberate by-design limitation. Unless there's a deliberate intention to imply FAT32 flakiness and FUD by creating the impression this is a file system problem, rather than bad XP code? NTFS - addresses up to 2,000Gb of disk space [Windows XP] AFAIK 2TB is the max limit for FAT32 as well. Correct for both filing systems, for drive support that is, but: The maximum possible number of clusters on a volume using the FAT32 file system is 268,435,445. With a maximum of 32 KB per cluster with space for the file allocation table (FAT), this equates to a maximum disk size of approximately 8 terabytes (TB). NTFS can be 16 exabytes. Thanks - right now, even 8T is beyond the shopping trolley, and hopefully by the time HDs exceed that capacity, we'd have decent maintenance tools for NTFS so that there'd be no need to retain FATxx. ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:55:48 -0500, "Anna" wrote:
"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote It's just that XP's volume formatter is not only too lame to format FAT32 volumes over 32G, but is even too lame to realize its limitations and avoid (tr)ying. Instead, it starts to format the volume (losing any data that was there), and grinds along until it hits 32G, then it falls over because the volume is "too big". This is not a FAT32 issue; it is an XP quality failure problem. I'm aware, of course, as I'm sure most of us are, that XP will not format a FAT32 volume 32 G. What annoys me is where those who should know better, present this as if it was a limitation of the FAT32 file system. It isn't. But I have never run into the situation where, through XP's Disk Management utility, it begins formatting a partition than 32 GB in FAT32 and then "grinds along until it hits 32G, then it falls over because the volume is "too big"." I have... In every instance I've encountered, XP will not provide a FAT32 formatting option if the partition is 32 G. And to the best of my knowledge this same restriction is present using the XP installation CD. Have you actually experienced the situation you describe? Yes, I have. I haven't re-tested it in subsequent SP1 or SP2 incarnations of XP, so maybe it's fixed, and I can't recall the exact method details - botching large chunks of HDs isn't the sort of thing one wants to test on a regular basis :-) It was early in my experience with XP (i.e. within the first month of the original release). I might have bounced off initial attempts to format volumes over 32G as FAT32 (e.g. after noting no FAT32 uption offered via drop-down) and tried some less obvious UI approaches to get the job done, such as typing commands via Start, Run. I found something that started the process, and fails as described. It was definately native XP tools that I was using, and it wasn't a matter of deep hacks either. Any extra effort required was shallow enough that I'd forgotten all about it until now! ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote:
The "list after the BIOS POST" is already post-boot. You have already booted from the active primary partition; all you are now doing is selecting what to load next. [........] ... I'd still say your error is considering the continuation of loading an OS as "booting" it. An OS is "booted" when control first enters the OS code from system code, and that's mandated by system code. Welcome, home, brother! Accurate terminology! Too many people nowadays use "boot" to mean "load". If you can remember when a "boot instruction" was a single machine instruction set on physical switches by hand and a "boot loader" was contained on a single punched card, you automatically know the difference. :-) But what would you call ntldr? It's not in the C:\WINDOWS folder and thus not part of the OS, and it's not part of a logical drive - which can contain an OS but the OS has to be loaded by an ntldr contained in another partition. I've seen it called "boot manager". But by your definition, it's not part of the "boot" process. Is it right to call it just a "loader"? *TimDaniels* |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Leythos" wrtote:
Timothy Daniels wrote: If you can remember when a "boot instruction" was a single machine instruction set on physical switches by hand and a "boot loader" was contained on a single punched card, you automatically know the difference. :-) Actually you had to load the boot strap code in on switches and then select a starting address to run it, that was before punch cards Actually, I'm embarrassed to admit that I can remember punched cards! :-) *TimDaniels* |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 09:59:37 -0800, "Timothy Daniels"
"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote: The "list after the BIOS POST" is already post-boot. You have already booted from the active primary partition; all you are now doing is selecting what to load next. ... I'd still say your error is considering the continuation of loading an OS as "booting" it. An OS is "booted" when control first enters the OS code from system code, and that's mandated by system code. Welcome, home, brother! Hey thanks! Too many people nowadays use "boot" to mean "load". Or "download" to mean "install" ... gibber If you can remember when a "boot instruction" was a single machine instruction set on physical switches by hand and a "boot loader" was contained on a single punched card, you automatically know the difference. :-) I can't - I was in a different faculty in those days, so while my engineering flatmates were going "ERROR EABT heh heh" to each other, I was headscratching though orgasmic chemistry. But what would you call ntldr? It's not in the C:\WINDOWS folder and thus not part of the OS Oh, it's part of the OS, alright. The OS starts in the first sector of the active primary partition - that's where the system hands off to the OS's pre-filesystem code. NTLDR is to NT what IO.SYS is to DOS and Win9x; it's the first code file to be loaded for the OS. What makes it a bit confusing is that one can dip into NT this way, and then immediately jump out again to load a different OS instead - either DOS mode, a Win9x, or Recovery Console. Those OSs are loaded in the same way; NTLDR loads a partition boot sector code image as if that had been in effect as the partition code, and jumps into that. But by your definition, it's not part of the "boot" process. Is it right to call it just a "loader"? No, it's part of NT (NT, Win2000, XP). It's just that the OS you start loading isn't always the OS you finish loading ;-) It's like when you F8 you way into Win9x's boot menu, and load DOS mode (Command Prompt Only) or even MSDOS (Previous Version of MSDOS) instead of Win95/98. The IO.SYS that starts the boot process for these OSs is common to both DOS mode and Win9x, but can change gears and load an older MSDOS instead. Mind you, if you do that in Win95SR2, you'll struggle to get back! In the interests of accuracy, I have to mention that Recovery Console isn't an OS, in that it cannot host programs other than itself. It feels a bit like the MS-DOS 4.00 incarnation of DOS Shell; one hopes it is the precursor of better things to come in future OS versions. ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote:
"Timothy Daniels" wrote: But what would you call ntldr? It's not in the C:\WINDOWS folder and thus not part of the OS Oh, it's part of the OS, alright. The OS starts in the first sector of the active primary partition - that's where the system hands off to the OS's pre-filesystem code. NTLDR is to NT what IO.SYS is to DOS and Win9x; it's the first code file to be loaded for the OS. What makes it a bit confusing is that one can dip into NT this way, and then immediately jump out again to load a different OS instead - either DOS mode, a Win9x, or Recovery Console. Those OSs are loaded in the same way; NTLDR loads a partition boot sector code image as if that had been in effect as the partition code, and jumps into that. But by your definition, it's not part of the "boot" process. Is it right to call it just a "loader"? No, it's part of NT (NT, Win2000, XP). It's just that the OS you start loading isn't always the OS you finish loading ;-) It seems, then, that a better descriptive term for ntldr's function is "load manager" rather than "boot manager". BTW, is there a routine further along in the OS loading process that is more complex, or is ntldr the final loader of the system? *TimDaniels* |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:24:05 -0800, "Timothy Daniels"
"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" wrote: "Timothy Daniels" wrote: What makes it a bit confusing is that one can dip into NT this way, and then immediately jump out again to load a different OS instead - either DOS mode, a Win9x, or Recovery Console. Those OSs are loaded in the same way; NTLDR loads a partition boot sector code image as if that had been in effect as the partition code, and jumps into that. But by your definition, it's not part of the "boot" process. Is it right to call it just a "loader"? No, it's part of NT (NT, Win2000, XP). It's just that the OS you start loading isn't always the OS you finish loading ;-) It seems, then, that a better descriptive term for ntldr's function is "load manager" rather than "boot manager". Yes; I like that terminology. It's the difference between walking the high street looking at Ford vs. BMW vs. Mazda, and walking into Ford's showroom and looking at Falcon vs. Mustang vs. Cortina. BTW, is there a routine further along in the OS loading process that is more complex, or is ntldr the final loader of the system? It will read like the Old Testiment, i.e. X begats Y begats Z, etc. ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com ---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Drive Letters | Paul | The Basics | 10 | November 8th 04 07:10 PM |
Ripping a CD and use the file as "virtual CD drive" | Agoston Bejo | The Basics | 4 | November 7th 04 01:13 PM |
Purchase External Hard Drive | DebbieG | Hardware and Windows XP | 13 | October 26th 04 02:17 AM |
Hard Drive Errors | Wade Waldron | Windows XP Help and Support | 1 | October 25th 04 12:01 PM |
Two "expert" issues I must solve before upgading | Jeff W | New Users to Windows XP | 29 | September 12th 04 03:38 PM |