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
  #46  
Old August 16th 14, 09:49 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Hot-Text
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 For Macintosh OS is here



"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message
...

"Jon Danniken" wrote in message
...

If it was me, I would install VirtualBox and install it in there. It's
a great place to test all types of different operating systems, from
Windows to Linux, and even Macintosh.


Where could you get a Macintosh OS? Online or buy it from Apple? That's
how much I know about them.

Bill



Microsoft for Apple's
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl....aspx?id=14201

More Info links

http://www.bing.com/search?form=MSHP... ac&mkt=en-us

Have a good Day



Ads
  #47  
Old August 16th 14, 10:00 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Hot-Text
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default using an old OS on XP



"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message
...

"BillW50" wrote in message
...
On 8/14/2014 4:39 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
"Jon Danniken" wrote in message
...

If it was me, I would install VirtualBox and install it in there. It's
a great place to test all types of different operating systems, from
Windows to Linux, and even Macintosh.

Where could you get a Macintosh OS? Online or buy it from Apple?
That's
how much I know about them.


I am sure this is old school, but this is what I know. Apple like
Commodore didn't care whatsoever if you pirated their operating system.
Commodore even wrote applications and they didn't care if you pirated
them either. As Commodore claimed they were in the hardware business and
only wrote OS and applications to support their hardware. What you did
with them is up to you.

Apple viewed it the same way with their OS. They just didn't care. That
is unless you crossed that line and were using them on non theirs
hardware (same with Commodore). Now they have a huge problem and don't
like that one bit. Both Apple and Commodore went after ones that targeted
non their machines and won easily.

So what I am saying in the end, as you don't qualify owing the OS unless
through a hardware purchase, I don't think it is legal through any other
means.


I see. Of course though Linux Distros come with no hardware but I guess
you would abide by a copyleft agreement or the distros agreement.
I remember the old VIC20s and C64s. There wasn't an OS there if I
remember. Just a Basic Interpreter burned onto ROM.


Bill

Linux set up run good on VirtualBox was by SunJava it at oracle on
but free

http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/se...ads/index.html

But Linux OS Runs Poor on a Virtual PC 2007

  #48  
Old August 16th 14, 12:48 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default using an old OS on XP

On 8/15/2014 4:17 PM, Paul wrote:
Bill Cunningham wrote:
"Paul" wrote in message
...
Sure it will. Success.

http://i58.tinypic.com/1xx79j.gif

I have a good idea what happened.


[snip]

I have no SP3 out for my XP. I'm pretty sure. I have XP Pro. x64
Edition. Now my computer came with XP MCE SP2. But the CDs are not
working on that. They must be scratched. So all I have is my x64 XP
CD. And a SP2 update.

Bill


You'll need to check the nlite site, to see if it
supports x64 or not. And then, if it does, slipstream
in the SP2 .exe file.


Yes isn't that odd? Why is there no SP3 for XP x64? Did Microsoft drop
support for it before SP3 came out or what?

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
  #49  
Old August 16th 14, 12:53 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,556
Default using an old OS on XP

On 8/15/2014 2:28 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
"Paul" wrote in message
...
Sure it will. Success.

http://i58.tinypic.com/1xx79j.gif

I have a good idea what happened.


[snip]

I have no SP3 out for my XP. I'm pretty sure. I have XP Pro. x64
Edition. Now my computer came with XP MCE SP2. But the CDs are not working
on that. They must be scratched. So all I have is my x64 XP CD. And a SP2
update.


Is it one of those name brand computers? And it came with XP MCE SP2 x86
originally? And XP x64 versions are rare and I bet drivers must be very
hard to find for it. Where did you get that version? And how is it for
Windows compatibility in general?

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2
  #50  
Old August 16th 14, 01:05 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default using an old OS on XP

BillW50 wrote:
On 8/15/2014 4:17 PM, Paul wrote:
Bill Cunningham wrote:
"Paul" wrote in message
...
Sure it will. Success.

http://i58.tinypic.com/1xx79j.gif

I have a good idea what happened.

[snip]

I have no SP3 out for my XP. I'm pretty sure. I have XP Pro. x64
Edition. Now my computer came with XP MCE SP2. But the CDs are not
working on that. They must be scratched. So all I have is my x64 XP
CD. And a SP2 update.

Bill


You'll need to check the nlite site, to see if it
supports x64 or not. And then, if it does, slipstream
in the SP2 .exe file.


Yes isn't that odd? Why is there no SP3 for XP x64? Did Microsoft drop
support for it before SP3 came out or what?


You can roll out a single Service Pack, or use regular security
updates to achieve the same effect. I'm sure the x64 OS received
some attention. Just not the way we as users would like it.

You could use wsusoffline to study what was released for
the OS. That would be one way to examine it, and see what
was offered. Whether support stopped prematurely or not.

Paul
  #51  
Old August 16th 14, 10:13 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Hot-Text
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default using an old OS on XP Use Two Hard Drives



"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message
...

"BillW50" wrote in message
...

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.


What kind of hacks?

Bill



There is a hacks
around this problem
it's Call
Use

Step-up-One
Two Hard Drives


Plug in your XP
Hard Drives as Master

Plug In New
Hard Drives as Slave

Step-up-Two

Start up Computer
Boot to XP

In XP Go To
Start
Control Panel
Switch to Classic View

Administrative Tools
Computer Management

Storage
Disk Management

you will see Disk 0
and Disk 1

Step-up-Three


  #52  
Old August 16th 14, 10:30 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Hot-Text
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default Ping: 98 Guy "using an old OS on XP"



"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message
...

"BillW50" wrote in message
...

Hi Bill, Windows 98SE needs a FAT partition I believe. Did you set up a
FAT partition for it? It might also need that partition being within the
first 120GB of the drive. Setting up dualboot is indeed possible, but the
installer will likely setup it up all wrong if you install an older
Windows version last. But it is indeed fixable.


The thing is installing XP as a fresh install will absolutely not let
me format c: with FAT32. It will only let me format with NTFS. I have
another partinio that is FAT32. I don't know what MS has against fat32
now, ntfs is fine but I like fat32 too. And it's more universal. Which OS
has to be installed first? I can't reformat a mounted partition either of
course.

Bill


  #53  
Old August 16th 14, 10:40 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
...

Is it one of those name brand computers? And it came with XP MCE SP2 x86
originally? And XP x64 versions are rare and I bet drivers must be very
hard to find for it. Where did you get that version? And how is it for
Windows compatibility in general?


I had some money back then. About 10 years ago and I bought a top of the
line emachine. So I think it's a gateway built machine. AMD 64 Athlon 3500+.
And cme with a 32 bit OS. I later bought x64 Pro XP edition.

Bill


  #54  
Old August 16th 14, 10:43 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default using an old OS on XP


"Bill in Co" wrote in message
m...
Bill Cunningham wrote:
I tried a partition the 120 and 140 GB sizes and by golly XP gave me
an
option to install fat32. Now if one expanded that partition if they
wanted
to, would they need to reformat the fat32 partition?

Bill


There are some programs that will allow you to resize existing
partition(s) and still preserve the data (on each), without requiring a
new reformat (destroying any existent data on that partition). Is that
what you meant? I think the good (and free) Easeus Partition Manager will
allow that, too.


Yes but it's not allowing me to merge. I use Parted magic too. Now at
one time I had a copy of Partition magic and it's the one software I know of
that would convert an NTFS to a FAT32. Why would someone want to do that?
Because they want too. That's what I like about FSF and the freesoftware
movement. Freedom to do those kind of things and not have someone telling
you "You use NTFS, you can't use FAT32."

Bill


  #55  
Old August 17th 14, 04:12 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
98 Guy[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP

Bill Cunningham wrote:

I know this is about XP and I have XP x64 Pro edition. I would like
to create a small partition to install win98se onto for fun and
nostalgia


If you're going to ask questions about win-98, then why be a bone-head
and not cross-post to microsoft.public.win-98.gen_discussion?

BillW50 wrote:

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.


Yes, win-9x/me needs to be installed first on a multi-OS drive, unless
you're willing to mess around with a boot manager.

And yes, XP was intentionally handicapped by Macro$haft so it can't
create FAT32 volumes larger than 32 gb. Booting a system with a DOS
floppy with format and fdisk on it is the easiest way to format or
partition a hard drive to include a large FAT32 volume.


Bill Cunningham wrote:

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 32-bit IDE driver for win-98 (ESDI_506.PDR) has a design flaw that
prevents it from handling hard drives larger than 137 gb. This is the
same flaw that the first release of XP had back in 2001. The flaw was
fixed in SP-1 for XP, but Macro$haft never released a fix for 98.

As has been mentioned already, win-98 enthusiasts have create a patch
for this a long time ago.

But also note that Intel has a patch for a long time as well (for
certain chipsets of the 800-series).

Also note that if you use a SATA hard drive (in SATA mode, not
IDE-emulation mode) then win-98 will be using the sata driver, not
ESDI_506.PDR to access the drive, meaning that win-98 is compatible with
drives up to 2 tb in size.

Paul wrote:

Is FAT32 "efficient" on a 2TB partition ? Not really.


Actually, it probably is.

Micro$haft designed their FAT-32 format programs to scale up the
cluster-size along with hard-drive size in order to keep the total
number of allocation units to 2 million or less.

Format.com has a /Z command-line switch that allows you to specify an
alternate cluster size - but it doesn't work.

Having large clusters (either 32 or 64 kb) is not necessarily wasteful
on a volume where you primarily store large files (media files, for
example).

I've used hard-drive formatting tools supplied by drive makers (like
Seagate, WD, etc) to format FAT32 volumes using custom cluster-sizes in
order to get around the intentional custer-size strategy that Micro$oft
designed into format.com.

For example, I've installed win-98se on a 500 gb sata hard drive that
was formatted as a single volume with 4kb cluster size (same as any
NT-based OS would do). This resulted in about 125 million allocation
units (far beyond what Macro$haft claimed was possible for either DOS or
Win-98 to handle).

BillW50 wrote:

Windows 98SE is stuck with only using the first 128GB of the drive.


That's true only if:

1) the drive is IDE and you choose not to use the above-mentioned
community-developed patch, or

2) the drive is IDE and you have a specified motherboard and choose
not to use the 32-bit replacement IDE driver from the Intel
application accelerator package, or

3) the drive is SATA and you choose to not use the drive in native
SATA mode with a compatible win-98 SATA driver

One of my win-98 systems has, for example, a 1.5 tb and 750 gb sata hard
drive (each formatted as a single FAT32 volume) connected along with a
smaller 80 gb IDE drive.

BillW50 wrote:

Enable48BitLBA - Break the 137Gb barrier! - Windows 9x Member Projects
http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/7859...137gb-barrier/


Yes, that is the community-developed replacement for the original
ESDI_506.PDR file.

Paul wrote:

Making sure that no partition gets near the 137GB mark


The point with the 137 gb problem is that you can't solve it by simply
keeping all volumes smaller than 137 gb. On a single physical drive,
win-9x/me will simply not be able to correctly access any sector beyond
the 137 gb point, no matter how the drive is partitioned or how the
volumes are sized.

Again, that only applies if win-98 is using the default 32-bit IDE
driver (ESDI_506.PDR) to access the drive.
  #56  
Old August 17th 14, 04:48 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,275
Default using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP

98 Guy wrote:

Paul wrote:

Is FAT32 "efficient" on a 2TB partition ? Not really.


Actually, it probably is.

Micro$haft designed their FAT-32 format programs to scale up the
cluster-size along with hard-drive size in order to keep the total
number of allocation units to 2 million or less.

Format.com has a /Z command-line switch that allows you to specify an
alternate cluster size - but it doesn't work.

Having large clusters (either 32 or 64 kb) is not necessarily wasteful
on a volume where you primarily store large files (media files, for
example).

I've used hard-drive formatting tools supplied by drive makers (like
Seagate, WD, etc) to format FAT32 volumes using custom cluster-sizes in
order to get around the intentional custer-size strategy that Micro$oft
designed into format.com.

For example, I've installed win-98se on a 500 gb sata hard drive that
was formatted as a single volume with 4kb cluster size (same as any
NT-based OS would do). This resulted in about 125 million allocation
units (far beyond what Macro$haft claimed was possible for either DOS or
Win-98 to handle).


I would expect the size of the FAT is a bit of an issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_...cation_Tabl e

"Because each FAT32 entry occupies 32 bits (4 bytes) the
maximal number of clusters (268435444) requires..."

1073741776 bytes or a gigabyte of RAM to hold the whole FAT.

How many of those could you have sloshing around, without
needing to re-read the FAT ? That's got to have some impact.

Win98 has some funny address space limitations I don't
understand, so a FAT that big might even cause problems
with the dimensions of some of the addressing.

I've not tested this, mainly because I wouldn't
recommend it as a configuration to anyone. It would
be fun to test, but I don't have a spare disk that
size which is completely empty.

Paul
  #57  
Old August 17th 14, 07:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP


"Paul" wrote in message
...
98 Guy wrote:

Paul wrote:

Is FAT32 "efficient" on a 2TB partition ? Not really.


Actually, it probably is.

Micro$haft designed their FAT-32 format programs to scale up the
cluster-size along with hard-drive size in order to keep the total
number of allocation units to 2 million or less.

Format.com has a /Z command-line switch that allows you to specify an
alternate cluster size - but it doesn't work.

Having large clusters (either 32 or 64 kb) is not necessarily wasteful
on a volume where you primarily store large files (media files, for
example).

I've used hard-drive formatting tools supplied by drive makers (like
Seagate, WD, etc) to format FAT32 volumes using custom cluster-sizes in
order to get around the intentional custer-size strategy that Micro$oft
designed into format.com.

For example, I've installed win-98se on a 500 gb sata hard drive that
was formatted as a single volume with 4kb cluster size (same as any
NT-based OS would do). This resulted in about 125 million allocation
units (far beyond what Macro$haft claimed was possible for either DOS or
Win-98 to handle).


I would expect the size of the FAT is a bit of an issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_...cation_Tabl e

"Because each FAT32 entry occupies 32 bits (4 bytes) the
maximal number of clusters (268435444) requires..."

1073741776 bytes or a gigabyte of RAM to hold the whole FAT.

How many of those could you have sloshing around, without
needing to re-read the FAT ? That's got to have some impact.

Win98 has some funny address space limitations I don't
understand, so a FAT that big might even cause problems
with the dimensions of some of the addressing.

I've not tested this, mainly because I wouldn't
recommend it as a configuration to anyone. It would
be fun to test, but I don't have a spare disk that
size which is completely empty.

Paul


I have talked to others about the possibility of a FAT64. They say they
don't think it would be practical. MS does have this exFat thing that must
be an extension.

Bill


  #58  
Old August 17th 14, 07:38 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
Bill Cunningham[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP


"98 Guy" "98"@Guy . com wrote in message
...

If you're going to ask questions about win-98, then why be a bone-head
and not cross-post to microsoft.public.win-98.gen_discussion?


Wow I just found out about this group. I always liked 98. It was DOS
with windows. Now Windows has a "fake" DOS, basically a CLI or DOS box.

I can't get my 98se to boot and I think I now know why. I had a genuine
win98se CD years ago. Now I don't know where it's at and I have a copy of it
I burned. I must not have made the CD-R bootable. I'm not sure what to do
now.

Bill


  #59  
Old August 17th 14, 08:25 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
Axel Berger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP

Bill Cunningham wrote:
I'm not sure what to do now.


I've never installed from CD. With current drives sizes I've copied the
CD to a folder on one of the partitions and used a floppy disk to boot
and run the installation from the HD drive. If you've no longer got a
floppy drive any other bootable CD ought to suffice to give you a DOS
prompt and HD access too.

This helps with the "insert installation CD" messages later and also
allows editing the /WIN98/MABATCH.INF

[Setup]
InstallDir="e:\WINBUNT"
InstallType=3
ProductKey="12345-67890-abcdef-ghijk-lmnop"
NoPrompt2Boot=1

Axel
  #60  
Old August 17th 14, 11:28 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,alt.windows98
Hot-Text
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default using an old OS (specifically, Windows 98) on XP

"Bill Cunningham" wrote in message
...

"98 Guy" "98"@Guy . com wrote in message
...

If you're going to ask questions about win-98, then why be a bone-head
and not cross-post to microsoft.public.win-98.gen_discussion?


Wow I just found out about this group. I always liked 98. It was DOS
with windows. Now Windows has a "fake" DOS, basically a CLI or DOS box.

I can't get my 98se to boot and I think I now know why. I had a genuine
win98se CD years ago. Now I don't know where it's at and I have a copy of
it I burned. I must not have made the CD-R bootable. I'm not sure what to
do now.


Bill
I have a Genuine windows 98 se CD too
That have to run in windows 98 fe

But there is a work around to it

By adding win98 boot to your
CD-R bootable

I would use
http://www.deepburner.com/
The Free will do the job

 




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 06:57 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.