Is it possible to boot W2K TOTALLY above cyl 1024?

[danielshoes]

Hi folks! I have just purchased a 60 Gb drive and I was wondering whether I can or not install W2K totally above the cylinder 1024 (around 8Gb). I have the first 15 Gb of the drive filled with Linux and the rest of the space is free. Is there such "cylinder 1024 limitation" to W2K?

P.S.: I meant totally because I know that when you install W2K in a system where there is already a running W98/ME (FAT32) - usually installed below the cyl 1024 - , the W2K boot files are automatically "smartly" placed - during the W2K install - INTO THE W98/ME FAT32 partition. When this situation occurs, if you try to boot directly the W2K partition with a third party boot manager, like XOSL or another of your preference, you'll simply get an error message (what is obvious, because the boot files are not there!). So, M$ changes the things in a way that you have first to boot the W98/ME partition, get into that damn W2K boot manager and then choose between both. In my case, the entire W2K will fit totally into a NTFS partition above cylinder 1024. My question is: Is it gonna work?

Thanks in advance!

 

[obenton]

I believe that ntldr has to be at the beginning of the hard drive, else it won't be found and boot sector won't be able to turn over control. A workaround could be to use a floppy to boot w2k.

 

[danielshoes]

Thanks obenton, but I would like to hear the exact word from somebody who tried this. I belive at least one person in this forum had to deal with this situation when trying to install W2K in a big drive. I've made a seach in MS Knowledge base but couldn't find anything useful.

 

[Nothinman]

I havn't personally done it (I usually have a small /boot partition at the beginning followed by Win2K then my Linux root fs) but I'm willing to bet you'll be fine.

 

[stevewm]

The NT5 bootloader doesn't have the 1024 cyl limitation, in fact it can even boot from a Logical partition. It doesn't care where its at on the drive.

It places its boot files on the 98/Me partition for dual boot purposes if detected, I can't tell you how to get around this.


My current setup is this:

40GB hardrive:

BeOS 5.0.3, first partition, Primary

Mandrake v8, second partition, Primary

Extended container partition: about 20GB into the drive

Win2k Pro, thrid partition, Logical

Data/docs/mp3s, fourth partition, Logical



And I use the BeOS bootmanager.

 

[danielshoes]

Hi stevewm! Thanks for your help. Actually, once I had my W2K installed in a logical partition and it worked fine. Regarding the W2K 1024 cyl limitation, are you sure about you are telling or is it something that you guess?...

P.S.: I saw you are using BeOS boot manager. I used BeOS once and I got impressed with its hability to mount automatically all FAT, FAT32, NTFS AND EXT2 partitions. I am curious... is you BeOS installed in its own BeFS partition or in a FAT partition (as that ~500Mb file simulating a partition)?

 

[SemperFi]

I had w2k installed on a logical partition past 10 Gig last year with no problems. But I think you have to have a file system on the C drive that windows will recognize or use. Like fat, fat32, or ntfs. As mentioned earlier the ntldr is installed on the C drive.

Semper Fi

 

[stevewm]

Originally posted by: danielshoes
Hi stevewm! Thanks for your help. Actually, once I had my W2K installed in a logical partition and it worked fine. Regarding the W2K 1024 cyl limitation, are you sure about you are telling or is it something that you guess?...

P.S.: I saw you are using BeOS boot manager. I used BeOS once and I got impressed with its hability to mount automatically all FAT, FAT32, NTFS AND EXT2 partitions. I am curious... is you BeOS installed in its own BeFS partition or in a FAT partition (as that ~500Mb file simulating a partition)?

Win2k is installed in the last 20GB of my 40GB hardrive, well past the 1024 cyl. limit (1024 cyl is the first 2GB).


I have BeOS in its own partition with its native file system BeFS.

 

[ForUmuse]

danielshoes, in order to do what you are requesting you will need the following requirements met:

1.) Free unpartitioned space on your hard drive, or a means to create/free-up space
2.) A means for creating a Primary partition from #1
3.) A means for storing and running a boot manager to boot the W2K Primary partition.

When XOSL 'boots' your W2K Primary partition, it will be the ONLY Primary partition on the same physical disk (same hard drive) that is visible to W2K and, as a result, the Primary partition containing Win98/Me will be invisible. Conversely, any Extended partition containing Logical drives should be seen by W2K.

When XOSL 'boots' your Win98/Me Primary partition, it will be the ONLY Primary partition on the same physical disk (same hard drive) that is visible to W98/Me and, as a result, the Primary partition containing W2K will be invisible (even if formated FAT/32). Conversely, any Extended partition containing Logical drives should be seen by Win98/Me.

Note, if XOSL requires installation onto its own Primary partition, then #2 must be met twice.

 

[danielshoes]

Thanks SemperFi and stevewm again! Now I am more confortable to make my tweaks without fear...

ForUmuse, thanks for your tip too, but unfortunatelly I am pretty sure that the information you provided doesn't have relation with my doubt. In fact, your information is not exact, because I have other machine running W2K and WME in one disk and W98 in the second and I am able to run W2K with all the other two primary FAT32 partitions visible. Hiding is just a matter of changing the partition ID (what you do manually by configuring XOSL, according to your preference). But in part you are right, because we have to take the appropriate care regarding how each system respond to visible primary partitions. There are some situations where multiple primary FAT visibles under W98/ME may cause some troubles and even data corruption (check XOSL FAQs tips and tricks to find more details on this). Take care dude! Welcome to the forums!!!

 

[ForUmuse]

What I stated about visible/invisible conditions is independent of Win98/Me/2K. It has to do with the nature and limitations of multiple Primary partitions on the same physical disk. Of course W2K can see (and read/write) to FAT/FAT32 partitions, including FAT/FAT32 partitions residing on Primary partitions, but they have to be on different physical disks.

The nature is simple. The understanding may not may not be as simple. Sorry if you misinterpreted what I was trying to say. Since you think otherwise, please ignore anything I've offered and have a good day!

 

[stevewm]

Actually Win2k/XP have no limitations when it comes to multiple primary partitions on a single disk. And the filesystem doesn't matter.

The setup on my old k6-2 500 system is as follows:

14GB hardrive

Win2k, first partition, primary, FAT32 about 3GB

mp3s 'n stuff, second partition, Primary, FAT32, about 9GB

drivers/program installers, thrid partition, Primary, FAT32, around 2GB


Now Win9x based OSes absoultely do not support multiple primary partitions on the same disk. I've tried, results are not good. If windows does boot, you will be unable to use the recycle bin or delete anything. And it will eventually BSOD. I had to hide one of the partitions with Partition Magic for DOS/Win3.1, upon reboot scandisk said the RECYCLED directory was crosslinked, scandisk fixed it. But Windows kept saying the recycle bin format was invalid whenever I tried to delete something. Format/reinstall was the only thing that fixed it.

 

[danielshoes]

stevewm, these (yours) are the type of real experiences that I would like to hear. My W2K had no problems with multiple visible primary FATs in the same drive, but I never tried to do that with W98/Me based systems (though I ever heard bad comments about the results).

Definetelly, M$ has made an intelligent decision in abandoning the W9x/Me based OSs and concentrating all efforts to make XP a definitive solution for home/office/server enviroment.

Well, I believe the initial topic is closed now. Thanks to everyone who helped me! Take care!!!

 

[danielshoes]

stevewm, I am experiencing some weird results. I tried to install the W2K in a logical partition above cyl 1024 and with no visible FATs below (what looks like your configuration), and I simply got an error message from the W2K installer after selecting the partition to install it. See the config:
1st PRI - XOSL Boot Manager (XOSL FS) - 16Mb
2nd PRI - Linux "/BOOT" (EXT2) - 5Mb
3rd PRI - WinMe (FAT32) - 21 Gb
EXTENDED
- 1st logical - Win2K (NTFS) - 20Gb -> refusing to install W2K, claiming that there is no compatible partition
- 2nd logical - Linux SWAP - 250 mB
- 3rd logical - Linux (EXT2) - 6 Gb
- 4th logical - General data (FAT32) - rest of the drive
What do you think about it? What is causing the error message?

 

[stevewm]

Thats odd....

No visible FATs? There is no need to hide any partitions. I didn't.

All my partitions where made with Partition Magic v6 for DOS (burnt to a bootable DOS CD no less ) and formatted for FAT32 originally. I then formatted them to the correct file system during the OS' install.

I had no problems doing so. Win2k didn't give me any error messages, it happily formatted the partition I chose with NTFS.

 

[danielshoes]

Regarding the hiding, it is just a matter of avoid W2K install its initialization files in the WMe partition (a way that M$ found to make an easy dual boot for dummies). If you have a previous WMe installed and try to install W2K in another partition, W2K will try to help you and screw up things and you'll not be able to boot the W2K partition directly (as I want). Instead, you'll be forced to boot the WMe partition and then choose between the available systems in the W2K boot manager.

Now I got it to work... I changed things a bit:
1st primary Linux (/BOOT) - EXT2 - 100Mb
2nd primary WMe - FAT32 - 20Gb
3rd primary W2K - NTFS - 20Gb
EXTENDED
- 1st logical XOSL - XOSL FS - 50Mb
- 2nd logical Linux swap - SWAP - 250Mb
- 2rd logical Linux - EXT2 - 6Gb
- 4rth logical General data - FAT32 - rest of drive

Actually, I am not pretty sure about what has happened before and what exactly was wrong, but now things are ok. stevewm, thanks for your help and for sharing your experiences!!!

 

[stevewm]

Bit odd, don't understand why it wouldn't install into a logical partition. Mine did just fine Stupid old limitations and their workarounds (who ever thought of limiting to 4 partitions?!?! why?!?!)r

Well at least it works for you above the 2GB barrier.