Juggling partions?

big snip

I haven't read all the bun fight.

If you use fdisk as your 'boot manager' to control the Active Partition,
then you may as well have a boot manager.

I don't see any advantage in doing what you are doing.

You could install ME, install XP to create a multiboot config and be done.

I would certinaly get rid of the notion of fdisk - too powerful. Have a bad
day? Righto then lets delete a partition.

Boot managers have their place and purpose. XP does see everything but plays
wonderfully dumb about other partitions as it should, so why not automate
the process, bite the bullet and shove a little tiny boot manager into the 8
MB minimum size partition space specially reserved for it at the front of
the disc which can't be used otherwise and interferes with nothing else and
be done. (this reminds me of someone that adamantly wanted to use all disc
space including that free space... what a waste of time).

I used to have one with linux and various windows OS installs - used XOSL
and it was fine. I ditched it when I got Virtual PC.

HTH
- Tim

PS you don't need to tell anyone if you put a boot manager in

Jim,
I put your post in my keep folder.

It seems to me that Noozer is wanting to use fdisk as a "boot manager".
--
Ron Sommer

"Jim" wrote in message news:kg6bc.4565$zh.1526@fed1read07...
Ok, let's backtrack a second here.

In your initial post, you indicated a desire to boot both WinMe and WinXP,
correct? That means dual-booting is the problem/issue. So when you say
"Where did I say I wanted to use ANY boot manager", you're absolutely
right,
you didn't say that, and THAT'S the problem. You are essentially trying
to
dual-boot WITHOUT a boot manager! Instead, you're mucking w/ PM and
trying
to fanagle everything MANUALLY. Even assuming you can do it (and for
reasons I won't elaborate here, it's mighty tricky unless you understand
all
the issues), its not necessary nor a good idea. You're encountering many
of
your current problems ONLY because you insist on avoiding a boot manager.

Your statement: "Is there any way I can repair these installations so both
installs will work?

Yeah, install a boot manager!

But you resist the boot manager, in fact, you specifically insist you
never
indicated a desire to use a boot manager. Well, what can I say, you want
to
dual boot, a boot manager is specifically designed to avoid the problems
you're currently having, so someone (me) suggests a boot manager, and you
say "I don't want a boot manager", then you list several problems that are
directly related to not using a boot manager, then wonder why people are
suggesting you use a boot manager! And around and around we go.

As far as using the XP boot loader (it's not really a boot "manager",
that's
an overstatement), yes, this is an option for managing the dual boot.
BUT,
you also indicated in a follow-up post the following:

"I wanted to avoid the XP and ME installations having anything to do with
each other."

Well, that's another problem. When you use the XP loader, it will
dual-boot
both OSs, BUT, they will NOT be independent of each other! Let's step
thru
the process. Assume WinME is on partition #1 as C:. You now what to
install XP on partition #2. Because the XP loader cannot hide partitions,
the WinME partition will always be exposed when XP boots. This is why the
XP installation will be booted as D:! The XP partition will still see C:
(WinME), albeit as data. If we also assume the XP installation is FAT32
(and I believe WinME sees FAT32 partitions), when WinME boots, it will see
the XP partition as D: (again, as data). IOW, the partitions are NOT
hidden
from each other. In fact, the dependencies are much worse than cosmetic.
The XP installation will install all the boot files in C:'s partition! So
now, if you need/want to delete the C: partition some time in the future,
you're in a mess. XP needs C: to be there for its boot files *and* to
make
sure that the XP partition remains D:. You can't move the XP partition
too
easily either, since it's boot files specifically point to that partition,
and moving it may alter its drive letter assignment (such assignments are
determined, by default, by the BIOS).

I know it's all rather complicated, but the point is, dual-booting either
manually or using the XP boot loader is in direct conflict with your
stated
objectives. Yes, the XP loader is FREE, but it's severely limited too.
I'm
suggesting BootIt NG, Boot Magic, heck, even the free XOSL boot manager,
are
MUCH better alternatives based on your stated objectives. You can NOT
have
total partition/OS independence using the XP boot loader. You *may* be
able
to achieve this manually using PM, but it's very tricky and takes a deep
understanding of what a boot manager does in order to prevent an even
bigger
mess.

To get back to BootIt NG, I suggested a third partition, again, to
maintain
your stated desire to keep these OS partitions independent. Now, to be
honest, you can certainly install it (or any other boot manager) into an
existing partition if you like. I don't recommend it, but you can. But
if
you create a small third partition ONLY for the boot manager, you won't
have
any boot manager dependencies associated with your OS partitions either.
For example, if you install BootIt NG (or any other boot manager) into the
first partition, w/ WinME, it will work fine. BUT, you know have to be
careful not to move, delete, or alter the first partition, lest you risk
mucking up the boot manager! In fact, all the boot manager files/folders
will be EXPOSED whenever the C: partition is visible (which without a boot
manager is ALWAYS). Why take that risk? Why introduce that dependency
too
when you don't have to? Instead, keep the boot manager in its own
partition
(you have a maximum of four primaries anyway, and currently are using only
two). But again, if you want to use an existing partition for the boot
manager, go ahead, be my guest.

Do you even know how disk partitioning works? You can only have one
active
primary partition. The other primary partitions (up to three) are not
seen
by the OS.


I've been multi-booting for nearly 12 yrs. (since NT 3.1). I've used
virtually EVERY boot manager ever invented (System Commander, Boot Magic,
BootIt NG, XOSL, MS boot loader, you name it, ALL OF THEM). I've been a
software developer for 20 yrs. I manage 5 machines in my own home office,
including 2 servers (W2K, W2K3) and Win98, XP, NT, and W2K clients for
development purposes. Virtually ALL of them are multi-boot machines, ALL
using BootIt NG (most on this particular boot manager for the past 4 yrs).
Most clients boot at LEAST three or four OS's, including MS-DOS 6.22,
MS-DOS
7.0, WinXP, Win98, to name a few. Even have a dual boot of Lindows 4.5
and
Win98 on my laptop.

Yes, I'm am VERY aware of how partitioning works, my knuckles are raw from
many years of being whacked by mistake after mistake, learning the hard
way
what does and doesn't work. Trust me, you don't know the half of it,
there
are TONS of caveats and gotchas involving multi-booting that I haven't
even
touched on, lest this conversation get even longer.

So, back to your statement, an "active" partition is nothing more than a
"mark", an "indicator" on the partition that says "this partition is
bootable". Thats' it, nothing more than that. In fact, nothing prevents
ALL the partitions from being marked "active", you can easily do this (not
sure why you would, but you could) using a partition manager (e.g., BootIt
NG). When the system is booted, the system will only boot the *first*
bootable partition it encounters in the partition table (where the active
indicator resides) of the mbr (master boot record). When you install a
boot
manager, like BootIt NG, it automatically changes/moves the active
indicator
for you, so that the correct OS is booted. But, unless you take
provisions
to hide the other partitions, they *will* be seen *if* the current OS
recognizes those partition types (FAT32, NTFS, etc.). THAT'S WHY YOU NEED
A
BOOT MANAGER! The other partitions don't just magically disappear once
one
of the partitions is booted. And it doesn't matter a wit whether the
other
partitions are marked active or not, that only affects what gets booted.
Once an OS is chosen by the system, the OS will see the other partitions
(according to the conditions I've already stated) irrespective of the
active
indicator (it has no bearing on hidden vs. not hidden, none).

The simplest, easiest, most OS independent solution that comports with
your
stated objectives is a boot manager. I recommend BootIt NG, it's a steal
at
the current price since it functionally replaces Boot Magic, Partition
Magic, and Drive Image, all of them, in one inexpensive, integrated
package.
Heck, I bought it four years ago for $30, and haven't had to pay a dime in
upgrade costs in all that time! And there have been MANY enhancements
since
that time. Consider what all three of those other packages cost over that
same period, initial and upgrade costs combined. But this is not an
advertisement for BootIt NG, use Boot Magic, XOSL, whatever, almost
ANYTHING
is better than attempting this manually OR using the XP boot loader.

I recommend BootIt NG because it's nearly foolproof. Simply install
BootIt
NG into its own partition. Assuming WinME is already installed, it will
boot immediately from the Direct Boot Menu. Now Create a new partition
for
XP, create a boot menu item, and add the new partition as the bootable
partition to the definition. Set the one-time boot option to "CD", save,
and reboot. Now run your XP install as normal, it will only see the new
partition, so install XP there. When complete, XP will run normally, but
will have overlaid the BootIt NG boot loader. Just insert the BootIt NG
disk, reboot, reactivate it, remove the floppy, and reboot. Now you have
two OS's installed, each bootable directly off the Direct Boot Menu, or
create a boot menu item for WinXP too, if you prefer. Each will boot as
C:,
XP will keep its boot files in its own partition, and when booted, will
automatically hide the other partitions (including the one belonging to
BootIt NG). How does BootIt NG do all this magic? Simple, if it's not in
the boot menu definition, then it's not placed in the partition table of
the
mbr when the OS is booted, thus the OS never sees it. IOW, BootIt NG
actually manages the "mbr", NOT the partition IDs like other partition or
boot managers. That's why it works so effortlessly. It keeps track of
partition locations for you, and when an OS needs to be booted, "loads up"
the mbr according to the boot menu item's requirements. If something
isn't
in the mbr, it just never gets seen.

That's it! No partition inter-dependencies, no mucking w/ active
indicators, no moving partitions around, no boot loader dependencies
within
OS partitions, none of that crap, all of that nonsense is gone. Your
grandkids will grow-up to be highly successful, flowers will bloom, the
world will be a happier place, all thanks to you.

Anyway, that's my last word on the subject, if you don't feel that 12+
years
of experience has much to offer, what can I say, keep rolling that
snowball
uphill, maybe you know something I don't, I gave it my best shot. Good
luck, god bless, and have a happy life.

HTH

Jim


"Noozer" wrote in message
news:Uu4bc.8433$Pk3.5408@pd7tw1no...

"Jim" wrote in message
news:qg3bc.4464$zh.3486@fed1read07...
This is why you use a boot manager like BootIt NG!!! (
http://www.bootitng.com ) If you had, you'd have NONE of these
problems.

Uhm... If I wanted a boot manager I would have used the one in XP, or
Lilo
from a Linux install or even the OS2 boot manager.

Instead, install BootIt NG in a *third* partiton all by its lonesome,

Why would I want a third partition?

partition you want booted, and AUTOMATICALLY all others are hidden!
You
can
believe how incredibly simple it all is.

Of course XP would have still stomped all over the other partition
regarless
of having a boot manager installed.

*more* difficult by mucking w/ PM to do this job. PM is *not* a boot
manager, not unless you install the Boot Magic boot manager that comes
w/
it

Where did I say I wanted to use ANY boot manager? PM is to move the
partitions around or change their type without losing the data. Only
plan
on
using it to correct my previous mistake.

People insist on making this stuff a LOT harder than it need be.

You're the one making it more complicated by adding a third partition
and
extra piece of software. XP has a perfectly fine boot manager. I just
didn't
want *ANY* boot manager.

you continue to muck w/ the MS boot loader, it will drive you nuts.
It's
major flaw is an inability to hide partitions. Because it can't,
you're
left in this mess of having to hide other partitions so, for example,
all
your OS installations can still boot as C: (i.e., you have no
inter-partition dependencies).

Do you even know how disk partitioning works? You can only have one
active
primary partition. The other primary partitions (up to three) are not
seen
by the OS.

NG or even Boot Magic. Install BootIt NG, you get 30 days FREE,

Or use the perfectly fine Manager built into XP for as long as you want
for
free.

"Ron Sommer" wrote in message
...
Jim,
I put your post in my keep folder.

It seems to me that Noozer is wanting to use fdisk as a "boot manager".

Exactly. I'll be lucky if I need to boot ME more than three times a year.
It's a fallback partition in case I need to test something under this old
OS.

I just wanted to get my ME partition back without losing it. I know how to
dual boot in XP and was trying to avoid that.

"Jim" wrote in message news:kg6bc.4565$zh.1526@fed1read07...
Ok, let's backtrack a second here.

In your initial post, you indicated a desire to boot both WinMe and WinXP,
correct? That means dual-booting is the problem/issue. So when you say
"Where did I say I wanted to use ANY boot manager", you're absolutely
right,
you didn't say that, and THAT'S the problem. You are essentially trying
to
dual-boot WITHOUT a boot manager! Instead, you're mucking w/ PM and
trying
to fanagle everything MANUALLY. Even assuming you can do it (and for
reasons I won't elaborate here, it's mighty tricky unless you understand
all
the issues), its not necessary nor a good idea. You're encountering many
of
your current problems ONLY because you insist on avoiding a boot manager.

Your statement: "Is there any way I can repair these installations so both
installs will work?

Yeah, install a boot manager!

Ok...

What I want is...

My PC to *ALWAYS* boot to Windows XP and NEVER show any kind of boot
manager... UNLESS I set the Win ME partition active. At that point I want it
to boot ME and ONLY ME until which time I set the XP partition active again.

When a user is on this PC I don't want them to know that the other OS is
installed and I don't want them choosing the other OS during boot.

But you resist the boot manager, in fact, you specifically insist you
never
indicated a desire to use a boot manager. Well, what can I say, you want
to
dual boot, a boot manager is specifically designed to avoid the problems
you're currently having, so someone (me) suggests a boot manager, and you
say "I don't want a boot manager", then you list several problems that are
directly related to not using a boot manager, then wonder why people are
suggesting you use a boot manager! And around and around we go.

The *ONLY* reason I need a boot manager is that Win XP won't keep it's
grubby fingers to itself. It should have no need to touch any other
partition except its own. If it isn't on the active partition it should be
be booting so why would it need to do anything with the rest of the drive?

I could live with the default XP boot loader if I had some way of editing
BOOT.INI from WinME, but I don't since XP is on an NTFS drive. Why aren't
the BOOT.INI options stored on the boot sector with the rest of the boot
loader?

As far as using the XP boot loader (it's not really a boot "manager",
that's
an overstatement), yes, this is an option for managing the dual boot.
BUT,
you also indicated in a follow-up post the following:

"I wanted to avoid the XP and ME installations having anything to do with
each other."

Well, that's another problem. When you use the XP loader, it will
dual-boot
both OSs, BUT, they will NOT be independent of each other! Let's step
thru
the process. Assume WinME is on partition #1 as C:. You now what to
install XP on partition #2. Because the XP loader cannot hide partitions,
the WinME partition will always be exposed when XP boots. This is why the
XP installation will be booted as D:!

*sigh*

The XP installation is *NOT* seen as D:

When I boot into XP I get a single hard drive with letter C:. XP works fine
and operates normally. I go into My Computer and I see only one drive. If I
go into Disk Manager I see Disk 0 with the Win ME partition there at 1.96GB
and Fat32 marked as Healthy (Unknown Partition). Right next to this I see
(C at 25.96 gigs and NTFS. It's marked Healthy (System).

This is exactly what I would expect to see with my current setup.

PLEASE STOP TELLING ME MY LETTERS ARE GETTING MIXED UP.

The XP partition will still see C:
(WinME), albeit as data. If we also assume the XP installation is FAT32
(and I believe WinME sees FAT32 partitions), when WinME boots, it will see
the XP partition as D: (again, as data). IOW, the partitions are NOT
hidden
from each other.

See above

In fact, the dependencies are much worse than cosmetic.
The XP installation will install all the boot files in C:'s partition! So
now, if you need/want to delete the C: partition some time in the future,
you're in a mess. XP needs C: to be there for its boot files *and* to
make
sure that the XP partition remains D:. You can't move the XP partition
too
easily either, since it's boot files specifically point to that partition,
and moving it may alter its drive letter assignment (such assignments are
determined, by default, by the BIOS).

Drive letters are not assigned by the BIOS at all. BIOS can determine the
order than hard drives are detected and that will affect drive lettering
though. Active primary partitions on all drivers are given letters before
any logical drives. Primary partitions that are not marked active don't get
drive letters at all. Since I only have one drive this whole point is moot.

I know it's all rather complicated, but the point is, dual-booting either
manually or using the XP boot loader is in direct conflict with your
stated
objectives. Yes, the XP loader is FREE, but it's severely limited too.
I'm
suggesting BootIt NG, Boot Magic, heck, even the free XOSL boot manager,
are
MUCH better alternatives based on your stated objectives. You can NOT
have
total partition/OS independence using the XP boot loader. You *may* be
able
to achieve this manually using PM, but it's very tricky and takes a deep
understanding of what a boot manager does in order to prevent an even
bigger
mess.

To get back to BootIt NG, I suggested a third partition, again, to
maintain
your stated desire to keep these OS partitions independent. Now, to be
honest, you can certainly install it (or any other boot manager) into an
existing partition if you like. I don't recommend it, but you can. But
if
you create a small third partition ONLY for the boot manager, you won't
have
any boot manager dependencies associated with your OS partitions either.
For example, if you install BootIt NG (or any other boot manager) into the
first partition, w/ WinME, it will work fine. BUT, you know have to be
careful not to move, delete, or alter the first partition, lest you risk
mucking up the boot manager! In fact, all the boot manager files/folders
will be EXPOSED whenever the C: partition is visible (which without a boot
manager is ALWAYS). Why take that risk? Why introduce that dependency
too
when you don't have to? Instead, keep the boot manager in its own
partition
(you have a maximum of four primaries anyway, and currently are using only
two). But again, if you want to use an existing partition for the boot
manager, go ahead, be my guest.

Do you even know how disk partitioning works? You can only have one
active
primary partition. The other primary partitions (up to three) are not
seen
by the OS.

snip

Anyway, that's my last word on the subject, if you don't feel that 12+
years
of experience has much to offer, what can I say, keep rolling that
snowball
uphill, maybe you know something I don't, I gave it my best shot. Good
luck, god bless, and have a happy life.
Only 12 years? Still a newbie? : )

I've dealt with CP/M, Windows 286, TRSDOS...etc... I've was burning Eproms
for projects on Commodore PETs before IBM even had a personal computer.

Anyhow... I didn't come here for a shouting match.

I'm used to "whatever primary is set active will boot"... That's what I
expected when I did my install. XP (and 2K and I assume NT) stomped on the
drives boot record. I didn't expect XP to touch any partition info except
the partition it was being installed on. The last time I had to deal with
this issue was during my OS/2 Warp days.

....so XP can't boot unless it had control of the drive, regardless of
whatever partitions and OS's are on the drive. I'll convert ME to a logical
partition and edit the XP Boot INI and HOPEFULLY be able to switch between
the two.

I also am not going to touch this thread again once I'm finished with the
rest of the posts today.

snip

I'm used to "whatever primary is set active will boot"... That's what I
expected when I did my install. XP (and 2K and I assume NT) stomped on the
drives boot record. I didn't expect XP to touch any partition info except
the partition it was being installed on. The last time I had to deal with
this issue was during my OS/2 Warp days.

...so XP can't boot unless it had control of the drive, regardless of
whatever partitions and OS's are on the drive. I'll convert ME to a
logical
partition and edit the XP Boot INI and HOPEFULLY be able to switch between
the two.

*SIGH*

....and after all this...

I just used PM8 to set the ME partition active and rebooted to get the
actually error from when it failed.... ME came up fine.

So my whole issue was that the ME version of FDisk wasn't setting the active
partition in a way that would work with XP on the drive. PM8 can do it fine
and that's all I need.

Both OS's are installed and are completely independant of each other and
both run as C:.

"Ron Sommer" wrote in message
...
Jim,
I put your post in my keep folder.

It seems to me that Noozer is wanting to use fdisk as a "boot manager".

Exactly. I'll be lucky if I need to boot ME more than three times a year.
It's a fallback partition in case I need to test something under this old
OS.

I just wanted to get my ME partition back without losing it. I know how to
dual boot in XP and was trying to avoid that.

"Jim" wrote in message news:kg6bc.4565$zh.1526@fed1read07...
Ok, let's backtrack a second here.

In your initial post, you indicated a desire to boot both WinMe and WinXP,
correct? That means dual-booting is the problem/issue. So when you say
"Where did I say I wanted to use ANY boot manager", you're absolutely
right,
you didn't say that, and THAT'S the problem. You are essentially trying
to
dual-boot WITHOUT a boot manager! Instead, you're mucking w/ PM and
trying
to fanagle everything MANUALLY. Even assuming you can do it (and for
reasons I won't elaborate here, it's mighty tricky unless you understand
all
the issues), its not necessary nor a good idea. You're encountering many
of
your current problems ONLY because you insist on avoiding a boot manager.

Your statement: "Is there any way I can repair these installations so both
installs will work?

Yeah, install a boot manager!

Ok...

What I want is...

My PC to *ALWAYS* boot to Windows XP and NEVER show any kind of boot
manager... UNLESS I set the Win ME partition active. At that point I want it
to boot ME and ONLY ME until which time I set the XP partition active again.

When a user is on this PC I don't want them to know that the other OS is
installed and I don't want them choosing the other OS during boot.

But you resist the boot manager, in fact, you specifically insist you
never
indicated a desire to use a boot manager. Well, what can I say, you want
to
dual boot, a boot manager is specifically designed to avoid the problems
you're currently having, so someone (me) suggests a boot manager, and you
say "I don't want a boot manager", then you list several problems that are
directly related to not using a boot manager, then wonder why people are
suggesting you use a boot manager! And around and around we go.

The *ONLY* reason I need a boot manager is that Win XP won't keep it's
grubby fingers to itself. It should have no need to touch any other
partition except its own. If it isn't on the active partition it should be
be booting so why would it need to do anything with the rest of the drive?

I could live with the default XP boot loader if I had some way of editing
BOOT.INI from WinME, but I don't since XP is on an NTFS drive. Why aren't
the BOOT.INI options stored on the boot sector with the rest of the boot
loader?

As far as using the XP boot loader (it's not really a boot "manager",
that's
an overstatement), yes, this is an option for managing the dual boot.
BUT,
you also indicated in a follow-up post the following:

"I wanted to avoid the XP and ME installations having anything to do with
each other."

Well, that's another problem. When you use the XP loader, it will
dual-boot
both OSs, BUT, they will NOT be independent of each other! Let's step
thru
the process. Assume WinME is on partition #1 as C:. You now what to
install XP on partition #2. Because the XP loader cannot hide partitions,
the WinME partition will always be exposed when XP boots. This is why the
XP installation will be booted as D:!

*sigh*

The XP installation is *NOT* seen as D:

When I boot into XP I get a single hard drive with letter C:. XP works fine
and operates normally. I go into My Computer and I see only one drive. If I
go into Disk Manager I see Disk 0 with the Win ME partition there at 1.96GB
and Fat32 marked as Healthy (Unknown Partition). Right next to this I see
(C at 25.96 gigs and NTFS. It's marked Healthy (System).

This is exactly what I would expect to see with my current setup.

PLEASE STOP TELLING ME MY LETTERS ARE GETTING MIXED UP.

The XP partition will still see C:
(WinME), albeit as data. If we also assume the XP installation is FAT32
(and I believe WinME sees FAT32 partitions), when WinME boots, it will see
the XP partition as D: (again, as data). IOW, the partitions are NOT
hidden
from each other.

See above

In fact, the dependencies are much worse than cosmetic.
The XP installation will install all the boot files in C:'s partition! So
now, if you need/want to delete the C: partition some time in the future,
you're in a mess. XP needs C: to be there for its boot files *and* to
make
sure that the XP partition remains D:. You can't move the XP partition
too
easily either, since it's boot files specifically point to that partition,
and moving it may alter its drive letter assignment (such assignments are
determined, by default, by the BIOS).

Drive letters are not assigned by the BIOS at all. BIOS can determine the
order than hard drives are detected and that will affect drive lettering
though. Active primary partitions on all drivers are given letters before
any logical drives. Primary partitions that are not marked active don't get
drive letters at all. Since I only have one drive this whole point is moot.

I know it's all rather complicated, but the point is, dual-booting either
manually or using the XP boot loader is in direct conflict with your
stated
objectives. Yes, the XP loader is FREE, but it's severely limited too.
I'm
suggesting BootIt NG, Boot Magic, heck, even the free XOSL boot manager,
are
MUCH better alternatives based on your stated objectives. You can NOT
have
total partition/OS independence using the XP boot loader. You *may* be
able
to achieve this manually using PM, but it's very tricky and takes a deep
understanding of what a boot manager does in order to prevent an even
bigger
mess.

To get back to BootIt NG, I suggested a third partition, again, to
maintain
your stated desire to keep these OS partitions independent. Now, to be
honest, you can certainly install it (or any other boot manager) into an
existing partition if you like. I don't recommend it, but you can. But
if
you create a small third partition ONLY for the boot manager, you won't
have
any boot manager dependencies associated with your OS partitions either.
For example, if you install BootIt NG (or any other boot manager) into the
first partition, w/ WinME, it will work fine. BUT, you know have to be
careful not to move, delete, or alter the first partition, lest you risk
mucking up the boot manager! In fact, all the boot manager files/folders
will be EXPOSED whenever the C: partition is visible (which without a boot
manager is ALWAYS). Why take that risk? Why introduce that dependency
too
when you don't have to? Instead, keep the boot manager in its own
partition
(you have a maximum of four primaries anyway, and currently are using only
two). But again, if you want to use an existing partition for the boot
manager, go ahead, be my guest.

Do you even know how disk partitioning works? You can only have one
active
primary partition. The other primary partitions (up to three) are not
seen
by the OS.

snip

Anyway, that's my last word on the subject, if you don't feel that 12+
years
of experience has much to offer, what can I say, keep rolling that
snowball
uphill, maybe you know something I don't, I gave it my best shot. Good
luck, god bless, and have a happy life.
Only 12 years? Still a newbie? : )

I've dealt with CP/M, Windows 286, TRSDOS...etc... I've was burning Eproms
for projects on Commodore PETs before IBM even had a personal computer.

Anyhow... I didn't come here for a shouting match.

I'm used to "whatever primary is set active will boot"... That's what I
expected when I did my install. XP (and 2K and I assume NT) stomped on the
drives boot record. I didn't expect XP to touch any partition info except
the partition it was being installed on. The last time I had to deal with
this issue was during my OS/2 Warp days.

....so XP can't boot unless it had control of the drive, regardless of
whatever partitions and OS's are on the drive. I'll convert ME to a logical
partition and edit the XP Boot INI and HOPEFULLY be able to switch between
the two.

I also am not going to touch this thread again once I'm finished with the
rest of the posts today.

snip

I'm used to "whatever primary is set active will boot"... That's what I
expected when I did my install. XP (and 2K and I assume NT) stomped on the
drives boot record. I didn't expect XP to touch any partition info except
the partition it was being installed on. The last time I had to deal with
this issue was during my OS/2 Warp days.

...so XP can't boot unless it had control of the drive, regardless of
whatever partitions and OS's are on the drive. I'll convert ME to a
logical
partition and edit the XP Boot INI and HOPEFULLY be able to switch between
the two.

*SIGH*

....and after all this...

I just used PM8 to set the ME partition active and rebooted to get the
actually error from when it failed.... ME came up fine.

So my whole issue was that the ME version of FDisk wasn't setting the active
partition in a way that would work with XP on the drive. PM8 can do it fine
and that's all I need.

Both OS's are installed and are completely independant of each other and
both run as C:.

"Ron Sommer" wrote in message
...
Jim,
I put your post in my keep folder.

It seems to me that Noozer is wanting to use fdisk as a "boot manager".

Exactly. I'll be lucky if I need to boot ME more than three times a year.
It's a fallback partition in case I need to test something under this old
OS.

I just wanted to get my ME partition back without losing it. I know how to
dual boot in XP and was trying to avoid that.

"Jim" wrote in message news:kg6bc.4565$zh.1526@fed1read07...
Ok, let's backtrack a second here.

In your initial post, you indicated a desire to boot both WinMe and WinXP,
correct? That means dual-booting is the problem/issue. So when you say
"Where did I say I wanted to use ANY boot manager", you're absolutely
right,
you didn't say that, and THAT'S the problem. You are essentially trying
to
dual-boot WITHOUT a boot manager! Instead, you're mucking w/ PM and
trying
to fanagle everything MANUALLY. Even assuming you can do it (and for
reasons I won't elaborate here, it's mighty tricky unless you understand
all
the issues), its not necessary nor a good idea. You're encountering many
of
your current problems ONLY because you insist on avoiding a boot manager.

Your statement: "Is there any way I can repair these installations so both
installs will work?

Yeah, install a boot manager!

Ok...

What I want is...

My PC to *ALWAYS* boot to Windows XP and NEVER show any kind of boot
manager... UNLESS I set the Win ME partition active. At that point I want it
to boot ME and ONLY ME until which time I set the XP partition active again.

When a user is on this PC I don't want them to know that the other OS is
installed and I don't want them choosing the other OS during boot.

But you resist the boot manager, in fact, you specifically insist you
never
indicated a desire to use a boot manager. Well, what can I say, you want
to
dual boot, a boot manager is specifically designed to avoid the problems
you're currently having, so someone (me) suggests a boot manager, and you
say "I don't want a boot manager", then you list several problems that are
directly related to not using a boot manager, then wonder why people are
suggesting you use a boot manager! And around and around we go.

The *ONLY* reason I need a boot manager is that Win XP won't keep it's
grubby fingers to itself. It should have no need to touch any other
partition except its own. If it isn't on the active partition it should be
be booting so why would it need to do anything with the rest of the drive?

I could live with the default XP boot loader if I had some way of editing
BOOT.INI from WinME, but I don't since XP is on an NTFS drive. Why aren't
the BOOT.INI options stored on the boot sector with the rest of the boot
loader?

As far as using the XP boot loader (it's not really a boot "manager",
that's
an overstatement), yes, this is an option for managing the dual boot.
BUT,
you also indicated in a follow-up post the following:

"I wanted to avoid the XP and ME installations having anything to do with
each other."

Well, that's another problem. When you use the XP loader, it will
dual-boot
both OSs, BUT, they will NOT be independent of each other! Let's step
thru
the process. Assume WinME is on partition #1 as C:. You now what to
install XP on partition #2. Because the XP loader cannot hide partitions,
the WinME partition will always be exposed when XP boots. This is why the
XP installation will be booted as D:!

*sigh*

The XP installation is *NOT* seen as D:

When I boot into XP I get a single hard drive with letter C:. XP works fine
and operates normally. I go into My Computer and I see only one drive. If I
go into Disk Manager I see Disk 0 with the Win ME partition there at 1.96GB
and Fat32 marked as Healthy (Unknown Partition). Right next to this I see
(C at 25.96 gigs and NTFS. It's marked Healthy (System).

This is exactly what I would expect to see with my current setup.

PLEASE STOP TELLING ME MY LETTERS ARE GETTING MIXED UP.

The XP partition will still see C:
(WinME), albeit as data. If we also assume the XP installation is FAT32
(and I believe WinME sees FAT32 partitions), when WinME boots, it will see
the XP partition as D: (again, as data). IOW, the partitions are NOT
hidden
from each other.

See above

In fact, the dependencies are much worse than cosmetic.
The XP installation will install all the boot files in C:'s partition! So
now, if you need/want to delete the C: partition some time in the future,
you're in a mess. XP needs C: to be there for its boot files *and* to
make
sure that the XP partition remains D:. You can't move the XP partition
too
easily either, since it's boot files specifically point to that partition,
and moving it may alter its drive letter assignment (such assignments are
determined, by default, by the BIOS).

Drive letters are not assigned by the BIOS at all. BIOS can determine the
order than hard drives are detected and that will affect drive lettering
though. Active primary partitions on all drivers are given letters before
any logical drives. Primary partitions that are not marked active don't get
drive letters at all. Since I only have one drive this whole point is moot.

I know it's all rather complicated, but the point is, dual-booting either
manually or using the XP boot loader is in direct conflict with your
stated
objectives. Yes, the XP loader is FREE, but it's severely limited too.
I'm
suggesting BootIt NG, Boot Magic, heck, even the free XOSL boot manager,
are
MUCH better alternatives based on your stated objectives. You can NOT
have
total partition/OS independence using the XP boot loader. You *may* be
able
to achieve this manually using PM, but it's very tricky and takes a deep
understanding of what a boot manager does in order to prevent an even
bigger
mess.

To get back to BootIt NG, I suggested a third partition, again, to
maintain
your stated desire to keep these OS partitions independent. Now, to be
honest, you can certainly install it (or any other boot manager) into an
existing partition if you like. I don't recommend it, but you can. But
if
you create a small third partition ONLY for the boot manager, you won't
have
any boot manager dependencies associated with your OS partitions either.
For example, if you install BootIt NG (or any other boot manager) into the
first partition, w/ WinME, it will work fine. BUT, you know have to be
careful not to move, delete, or alter the first partition, lest you risk
mucking up the boot manager! In fact, all the boot manager files/folders
will be EXPOSED whenever the C: partition is visible (which without a boot
manager is ALWAYS). Why take that risk? Why introduce that dependency
too
when you don't have to? Instead, keep the boot manager in its own
partition
(you have a maximum of four primaries anyway, and currently are using only
two). But again, if you want to use an existing partition for the boot
manager, go ahead, be my guest.

Do you even know how disk partitioning works? You can only have one
active
primary partition. The other primary partitions (up to three) are not
seen
by the OS.

snip

Anyway, that's my last word on the subject, if you don't feel that 12+
years
of experience has much to offer, what can I say, keep rolling that
snowball
uphill, maybe you know something I don't, I gave it my best shot. Good
luck, god bless, and have a happy life.
Only 12 years? Still a newbie? : )

I've dealt with CP/M, Windows 286, TRSDOS...etc... I've was burning Eproms
for projects on Commodore PETs before IBM even had a personal computer.

Anyhow... I didn't come here for a shouting match.

I'm used to "whatever primary is set active will boot"... That's what I
expected when I did my install. XP (and 2K and I assume NT) stomped on the
drives boot record. I didn't expect XP to touch any partition info except
the partition it was being installed on. The last time I had to deal with
this issue was during my OS/2 Warp days.

....so XP can't boot unless it had control of the drive, regardless of
whatever partitions and OS's are on the drive. I'll convert ME to a logical
partition and edit the XP Boot INI and HOPEFULLY be able to switch between
the two.

I also am not going to touch this thread again once I'm finished with the
rest of the posts today.

snip

I'm used to "whatever primary is set active will boot"... That's what I
expected when I did my install. XP (and 2K and I assume NT) stomped on the
drives boot record. I didn't expect XP to touch any partition info except
the partition it was being installed on. The last time I had to deal with
this issue was during my OS/2 Warp days.

...so XP can't boot unless it had control of the drive, regardless of
whatever partitions and OS's are on the drive. I'll convert ME to a
logical
partition and edit the XP Boot INI and HOPEFULLY be able to switch between
the two.

*SIGH*

....and after all this...

I just used PM8 to set the ME partition active and rebooted to get the
actually error from when it failed.... ME came up fine.

So my whole issue was that the ME version of FDisk wasn't setting the active
partition in a way that would work with XP on the drive. PM8 can do it fine
and that's all I need.

Both OS's are installed and are completely independant of each other and
both run as C:.

"Ron Sommer" wrote in message
...
Jim,
I put your post in my keep folder.

It seems to me that Noozer is wanting to use fdisk as a "boot manager".

Exactly. I'll be lucky if I need to boot ME more than three times a year.
It's a fallback partition in case I need to test something under this old
OS.

I just wanted to get my ME partition back without losing it. I know how to
dual boot in XP and was trying to avoid that.

"Jim" wrote in message news:kg6bc.4565$zh.1526@fed1read07...
Ok, let's backtrack a second here.

In your initial post, you indicated a desire to boot both WinMe and WinXP,
correct? That means dual-booting is the problem/issue. So when you say
"Where did I say I wanted to use ANY boot manager", you're absolutely
right,
you didn't say that, and THAT'S the problem. You are essentially trying
to
dual-boot WITHOUT a boot manager! Instead, you're mucking w/ PM and
trying
to fanagle everything MANUALLY. Even assuming you can do it (and for
reasons I won't elaborate here, it's mighty tricky unless you understand
all
the issues), its not necessary nor a good idea. You're encountering many
of
your current problems ONLY because you insist on avoiding a boot manager.

Your statement: "Is there any way I can repair these installations so both
installs will work?

Yeah, install a boot manager!

Ok...

What I want is...

My PC to *ALWAYS* boot to Windows XP and NEVER show any kind of boot
manager... UNLESS I set the Win ME partition active. At that point I want it
to boot ME and ONLY ME until which time I set the XP partition active again.

When a user is on this PC I don't want them to know that the other OS is
installed and I don't want them choosing the other OS during boot.

But you resist the boot manager, in fact, you specifically insist you
never
indicated a desire to use a boot manager. Well, what can I say, you want
to
dual boot, a boot manager is specifically designed to avoid the problems
you're currently having, so someone (me) suggests a boot manager, and you
say "I don't want a boot manager", then you list several problems that are
directly related to not using a boot manager, then wonder why people are
suggesting you use a boot manager! And around and around we go.

The *ONLY* reason I need a boot manager is that Win XP won't keep it's
grubby fingers to itself. It should have no need to touch any other
partition except its own. If it isn't on the active partition it should be
be booting so why would it need to do anything with the rest of the drive?

I could live with the default XP boot loader if I had some way of editing
BOOT.INI from WinME, but I don't since XP is on an NTFS drive. Why aren't
the BOOT.INI options stored on the boot sector with the rest of the boot
loader?

As far as using the XP boot loader (it's not really a boot "manager",
that's
an overstatement), yes, this is an option for managing the dual boot.
BUT,
you also indicated in a follow-up post the following:

"I wanted to avoid the XP and ME installations having anything to do with
each other."

Well, that's another problem. When you use the XP loader, it will
dual-boot
both OSs, BUT, they will NOT be independent of each other! Let's step
thru
the process. Assume WinME is on partition #1 as C:. You now what to
install XP on partition #2. Because the XP loader cannot hide partitions,
the WinME partition will always be exposed when XP boots. This is why the
XP installation will be booted as D:!

*sigh*

The XP installation is *NOT* seen as D:

When I boot into XP I get a single hard drive with letter C:. XP works fine
and operates normally. I go into My Computer and I see only one drive. If I
go into Disk Manager I see Disk 0 with the Win ME partition there at 1.96GB
and Fat32 marked as Healthy (Unknown Partition). Right next to this I see
(C at 25.96 gigs and NTFS. It's marked Healthy (System).

This is exactly what I would expect to see with my current setup.

PLEASE STOP TELLING ME MY LETTERS ARE GETTING MIXED UP.

The XP partition will still see C:
(WinME), albeit as data. If we also assume the XP installation is FAT32
(and I believe WinME sees FAT32 partitions), when WinME boots, it will see
the XP partition as D: (again, as data). IOW, the partitions are NOT
hidden
from each other.

See above

In fact, the dependencies are much worse than cosmetic.
The XP installation will install all the boot files in C:'s partition! So
now, if you need/want to delete the C: partition some time in the future,
you're in a mess. XP needs C: to be there for its boot files *and* to
make
sure that the XP partition remains D:. You can't move the XP partition
too
easily either, since it's boot files specifically point to that partition,
and moving it may alter its drive letter assignment (such assignments are
determined, by default, by the BIOS).

Drive letters are not assigned by the BIOS at all. BIOS can determine the
order than hard drives are detected and that will affect drive lettering
though. Active primary partitions on all drivers are given letters before
any logical drives. Primary partitions that are not marked active don't get
drive letters at all. Since I only have one drive this whole point is moot.

I know it's all rather complicated, but the point is, dual-booting either
manually or using the XP boot loader is in direct conflict with your
stated
objectives. Yes, the XP loader is FREE, but it's severely limited too.
I'm
suggesting BootIt NG, Boot Magic, heck, even the free XOSL boot manager,
are
MUCH better alternatives based on your stated objectives. You can NOT
have
total partition/OS independence using the XP boot loader. You *may* be
able
to achieve this manually using PM, but it's very tricky and takes a deep
understanding of what a boot manager does in order to prevent an even
bigger
mess.

To get back to BootIt NG, I suggested a third partition, again, to
maintain
your stated desire to keep these OS partitions independent. Now, to be
honest, you can certainly install it (or any other boot manager) into an
existing partition if you like. I don't recommend it, but you can. But
if
you create a small third partition ONLY for the boot manager, you won't
have
any boot manager dependencies associated with your OS partitions either.
For example, if you install BootIt NG (or any other boot manager) into the
first partition, w/ WinME, it will work fine. BUT, you know have to be
careful not to move, delete, or alter the first partition, lest you risk
mucking up the boot manager! In fact, all the boot manager files/folders
will be EXPOSED whenever the C: partition is visible (which without a boot
manager is ALWAYS). Why take that risk? Why introduce that dependency
too
when you don't have to? Instead, keep the boot manager in its own
partition
(you have a maximum of four primaries anyway, and currently are using only
two). But again, if you want to use an existing partition for the boot
manager, go ahead, be my guest.

Do you even know how disk partitioning works? You can only have one
active
primary partition. The other primary partitions (up to three) are not
seen
by the OS.

snip

Anyway, that's my last word on the subject, if you don't feel that 12+
years
of experience has much to offer, what can I say, keep rolling that
snowball
uphill, maybe you know something I don't, I gave it my best shot. Good
luck, god bless, and have a happy life.
Only 12 years? Still a newbie? : )

I've dealt with CP/M, Windows 286, TRSDOS...etc... I've was burning Eproms
for projects on Commodore PETs before IBM even had a personal computer.

Anyhow... I didn't come here for a shouting match.

I'm used to "whatever primary is set active will boot"... That's what I
expected when I did my install. XP (and 2K and I assume NT) stomped on the
drives boot record. I didn't expect XP to touch any partition info except
the partition it was being installed on. The last time I had to deal with
this issue was during my OS/2 Warp days.

....so XP can't boot unless it had control of the drive, regardless of
whatever partitions and OS's are on the drive. I'll convert ME to a logical
partition and edit the XP Boot INI and HOPEFULLY be able to switch between
the two.

I also am not going to touch this thread again once I'm finished with the
rest of the posts today.

snip

I'm used to "whatever primary is set active will boot"... That's what I
expected when I did my install. XP (and 2K and I assume NT) stomped on the
drives boot record. I didn't expect XP to touch any partition info except
the partition it was being installed on. The last time I had to deal with
this issue was during my OS/2 Warp days.

...so XP can't boot unless it had control of the drive, regardless of
whatever partitions and OS's are on the drive. I'll convert ME to a
logical
partition and edit the XP Boot INI and HOPEFULLY be able to switch between
the two.

*SIGH*

....and after all this...

I just used PM8 to set the ME partition active and rebooted to get the
actually error from when it failed.... ME came up fine.

So my whole issue was that the ME version of FDisk wasn't setting the active
partition in a way that would work with XP on the drive. PM8 can do it fine
and that's all I need.

Both OS's are installed and are completely independant of each other and
both run as C:.

"Ron Sommer" wrote in message
...
Jim,
I put your post in my keep folder.

It seems to me that Noozer is wanting to use fdisk as a "boot manager".

Exactly. I'll be lucky if I need to boot ME more than three times a year.
It's a fallback partition in case I need to test something under this old
OS.

I just wanted to get my ME partition back without losing it. I know how to
dual boot in XP and was trying to avoid that.