xp is unbootable in XP/vista dual boot setup

#61
er sorry, i knew that mft is master file table, but i didn't know what the whole mirror thing was about

Addendum:

said failed to do the operation, when i attempted to rebuild boot sector, it says the extrapolated and current boot sector are the same and gives two options at bottom, dump and list
 
Last edited:
#62
To be honest, I'm not even sure where you found that option...:brows:
I just did a brief search in my own TestDisk, but couldn't find the option you're talking about, at least without running a few operations I don't want to do right now...
If you tell me the precise path to get to that option, so I can see firsthand what you're talking about, I might be able to shed more light on the situation. :wink:
 
#64
Ok, nevermind about the other options. If you already tried rebuilding the bootsector, and that didn't help, it may be time to start looking in different directions...:wink:
Such as use a non-RAID disk to dual-boot Vista and XP on, with Hn'S.
 
#65
create > disk > intel > advanced > boot > rebuild BS
the other option at the boot menu was the fix mft option

Addendum:

after the rebuild boot sector thing finishes, it says the extrapolated and current boot sectors are the same
and at the completion of that, there are two options at bottom, dump and list

Addendum:

but yes, like i was saying before, grub seems to simply not work on a raid0 setup though on raid1 it might work, since data is identical on the drives involved, so it wouldn't matter if it knows or reads the other disks, however I don't know if making a raid1 partition on a raid0 setup is even possible, though that has been suggested at other sites for people having problems with ubuntu on raid, but again i don't know how or if that can be done and basically it would have to be a small raid1 partition just for the boot files I guess
 
Last edited:
#66
create > disk > intel > advanced > boot > rebuild BS
the other option at the boot menu was the fix mft option

Addendum:

after the rebuild boot sector thing finishes, it says the extrapolated and current boot sectors are the same
and at the completion of that, there are two options at bottom, dump and list
Yeah, all those options do is list directories and files, and display the "technical" bootsector information. I believe the message you got after rebuilding the boot sector just simply means it completed successfully. Have you tried seeing if you still get that "unknown partition type" message from Grub?
 
#67
i mentioned before that i could just reinstall everything, wipe hard drive and start over, then I would install xp first then vista like is reccomended, then xp would have c drive and vista would be on d drive i think but show itself as c drive instead. Though this brings a slightly different problem, vista would essentially show 2 c drives so how would programs know which c drive is vistas? i can figure it out for myself easy enough by drive size and a different label probably, but 2 c drives seems like asking for trouble perhaps, but then maybe newer vista savvy programs wouldn't have an issue with that
 
#68
i mentioned before that i could just reinstall everything, wipe hard drive and start over, then I would install xp first then vista like is reccomended, then xp would have c drive and vista would be on d drive i think but show itself as c drive instead. Though this brings a slightly different problem, vista would essentially show 2 c drives so how would programs know which c drive is vistas? i can figure it out for myself easy enough by drive size and a different label probably, but 2 c drives seems like asking for trouble perhaps, but then maybe newer vista savvy programs wouldn't have an issue with that
The drive letters are specific to the system being booted into. It is impossible to have two partitions in the booted system with the same drive letter (i.e. C: like you're suggesting). If you want both systems to see themselves as C: and the other system as some other drive letter (such as D), then perform the following steps:


  1. Delete both partitions on your disk.
  2. Create two partitions, formatted with NTFS.
  3. Set partition 1 to "active".
  4. Hide partition 2.
  5. Boot from the XP CD, and install XP to that partition.
  6. Now unhide partition 2.
  7. Set partition 2 to "active".
  8. Boot from the Vista dvd, and install Vista to partition 2.
  9. Use EasyBCD (or Hn'S if your new system is not going to be using RAID) to dual-boot the two. You will need to copy over the boot files (i.e. ntldr, ntdetect.com, and boot.ini) from XP's partition, and place them in the root of the Vista partition. Use [thread=642]EasyBCD 2.0 Beta[/thread] to add the XP entry to your Vista boot menu, and hit Yes at the window which asks you if you want to let it autoconfigure boot.ini for you.
  10. You should now have a perfectly working dual-boot, and each system will see itself as C: when it is booted, and you will be able to change the drive letter of the other system (from the booted system)to whatever drive letter you want that partition to be seen as from the booted system. But each system will still see itself as C.
 
#69
just checked, XP still shows as an unknown partition, i think at this point it might be safe to say that grub or grub4dos for that matter as Hns is, is simply incompatible with raid0 in its current state, unless different raid controllers work, I'm using intel matrix raid, though I doubt that would make a difference and wouldn't apply to me anyways
 
#70
just checked, XP still shows as an unknown partition, i think at this point it might be safe to say that grub or grub4dos for that matter as Hns is, is simply incompatible with raid0 in its current state, unless different raid controllers work, I'm using intel matrix raid, though I doubt that would make a difference and wouldn't apply to me anyways
Ok, so did you make sure to install the RAID controller in both systems (i.e. Vista and XP) when you had a working dual-boot with EasyBCD? Maybe that's the source of your problem...

Jake
 
#71
i know that with what i said, its from data I have read online, vista would see 2 c drives, only if its installed after xp, and that from within xp vista would show as d drive, so there wouldn't be an issue with xp anymore, but i was still confused as to any potential problems with vista seeing 2 c drives.....not sure if changing xp drive letter to d from within vista would change it to xp as well, or only change how its seen in vista
 
#72
i know that with what i said, its from data I have read online, vista would see 2 c drives, only if its installed after xp, and that from within xp vista would show as d drive, so there wouldn't be an issue with xp anymore, but i was still confused as to any potential problems with vista seeing 2 c drives.....not sure if changing xp drive letter to d from within vista would change it to xp as well, or only change how its seen in vista
Vista does not and cannot see 2 partitions with the same drive letter (whether c, or d, or some other drive letter). As I said before, the drive letters are specific to the system being booted into. The booted system could care less what another system on the same computer calls any of the partitions on your system. Changing the drive letter of the XP partition from Vista does not change what XP sees itself as.
 
#73
that might be very useful information, additionally, that may explain why trying to install xp right from the disk into unpartitioned space, it kept trying to make itself on the e drive, even after i went into vista and changed my dvd drive from d to e, to make space for xp on d, but the only way for me to make xp on d drive was to make a d partition in vista for it

Addendum:

I'd planned on doing the repartition reinstall everything from scratch thing as a last resort, as i have more than 300 gigs on my hard drive, which will take ages to reinstall everything and download updates and what not, but its about all thats left for me to do, fortunately nothing critical is on my system that can't be backed up. Also I will mention that installing xp after my vista seemed to break some of my games namely unreal engine 3 ones....I tried reinstalling vista drivers to no effect, but apparently xp must of interfered with my vista partition, so thats a warning I guess to anyone who cares and attempts such a feat.

Anyways I'd reccomend simply placing a line in the known bugs for Hns or something that indicates it doesn't work in its current rendition with raid. If thats the case anyways which it seems to be. Well I guess I will reinstall now.

Anyways before I do that, I will thank both of you for your time and assistance in my problems here, and yea I guess good luck to anyone else who attempts Hns with a raid setup. So thanks.
 
Last edited:

Terry60

Knows where his towel is.
Staff member
#74
In your first post you said that XP was D: and saw Vista as C:
Lots of 3rd party software is extremely stupid/annoying (just about everything Adobe for starters) and will install files to the C:\program files\common files folder if it can see one, even if you tell it you want the program installed to D: or E: or anywhere else.
This means that the stuff you install on XP can put bits on Vista. If the same software is installed on both systems (There's Abobe again ...) then you'll get unpredictably screwy behaviour because both systems are independently updating/referencing the same stuff without knowing it..
I imagine your problems with your game software have the same cause.
Solutions
a) Use HnS or similar and abandon your RAID setup for a basic disk layout. (my option)
b) Use the MS registry hack to make Vista offline to XP (this also fixes the restore point problem, but unfortunately doesn't work for everyone (me for example)
c) Make sure all your systems install as C: and see other systems as notC:\ (but your restore points are still toast.)
 
#75
well I just finished installing xp, so its my only OS at the moment, I intend to use it as my main this time around, as vista was causing far too many problems, but yes as you were saying its probably third party softwares mostly and maybe nvidia drivers though I don't know, that was installing around on both drives, which is problematic since vista was on C, so of course it put some of it over there, despite the fact that I said to install to D which is where XP was. so yes that is the only logical explanation for why my games went and got broken, or more so anyways than they were. The original condition, as I had indicated, was that vista was on C, then later I installed XP to D, cd was on E

but now I went and did what dual booters are supposed to do, I installed XP on C, then later after i finish updates and such I will install vista to D or something I guess, but then I have read that in that circumstance, vista recognizes XP and makes it look like its on C as well, so I guess theres 2 C partitions probably in vista, or at least it sees 2 C drives, despite it actually being on D, again I don't know everything, or much at all, when it comes to this stuff.

Soon enough I will have vista installed too, then I can see first hand what it does and update here if wanted.
 
#76
In [post=37399]Post #70[/post], I asked the question, have you installed the RAID controller on both systems, and never received an answer. If you only installed a RAID controller on Vista, and not on XP, that may explain why Vista boots fine with RAID, using Hn'S, but XP doesn't.
 
Last edited:
#77
I will actually attempt a triple boot (again) at a later time, but not for awhile on that one, but when i install ubuntu it will be on a separate non raid disk, so I should encounter far fewer problems with that one this time.

Addendum:

oh sorry, i didn't notice that, I was using a custom disk for XP since my own disk gives errors and needs a repair when I get around to it, but I assume that disk also installs raid drivers, else XP wouldn't install or run. No updates were shown in windows update and no errors in device manager, so yes it has raid drivers on both. or did. Also if you hadn't noticed, XP and vista both ran fine, but xp would not start if I enabled Hns, only if I just used easybcd
 
Last edited:
#78
well I just finished installing xp, so its my only OS at the moment, I intend to use it as my main this time around, as vista was causing far too many problems, but yes as you were saying its probably third party softwares mostly and maybe nvidia drivers though I don't know, that was installing around on both drives, which is problematic since vista was on C, so of course it put some of it over there, despite the fact that I said to install to D which is where XP was. so yes that is the only logical explanation for why my games went and got broken, or more so anyways than they were. The original condition, as I had indicated, was that vista was on C, then later I installed XP to D, cd was on E

but now I went and did what dual booters are supposed to do, I installed XP on C, then later after i finish updates and such I will install vista to D or something I guess, but then I have read that in that circumstance, vista recognizes XP and makes it look like its on C as well, so I guess theres 2 C partitions probably in vista, or at least it sees 2 C drives, despite it actually being on D, again I don't know everything, or much at all, when it comes to this stuff.

Soon enough I will have vista installed too, then I can see first hand what it does and update here if wanted.
Read [post=37397]Post #68[/post]...
 
#79
true, it shouldn't be possible to have 2 C drives on the same hard drive, but I'm just saying what I have read online which is only accurate if vista is installed after XP, and vista would be the one seeing 2 C drives, there wouldn't actually be 2 C drives, vista would just disguise itself or something to make it think its on C.

It could show XP as D or something, but thats not what I've read, anyways I will know after I install vista and see firsthand

Addendum:

I could post links here if you want, I just did a google search before and thats what sites were indicating
 
Last edited:
#80
true, it shouldn't be possible to have 2 C drives on the same hard drive, but I'm just saying what I have read online which is only accurate if vista is installed after XP, and vista would be the one seeing 2 C drives, there wouldn't actually be 2 C drives, vista would just disguise itself or something to make it think its on C.

It could show XP as D or something, but thats not what I've read, anyways I will know after I install vista and see firsthand
Follow the steps I gave in Post #68, and you will see both of your systems will call itself C when each one is booted (from the booted system, the other system will be given a different drive letter). If you just install Vista after XP (without changing the "active" partition or hiding XP's partition), Vista's boot files will go to XP's partition (exactly what happened the first time you dual-booted the two) because it is "active", and moreoever, your XP install will see itself (and Vista will see it) as a non-C partition (most likely D), because the C drive letter is taken up by the Vista install. However, if you do hide XP's partition, and set the Vista partition to "active" before you install it, the install program will give to your Vista system the C drive letter, because Vista's partition is "active" and the XP system is hidden. And then each system will continue to call itself C, and the other system a different drive letter, because like I mentioned before, the booted system doesn't care what any other system calls the partitions when it is booted.

Jake

Addendum:

Addendum:

I could post links here if you want, I just did a google search before and thats what sites were indicating
Go ahead...:brows:
I'd like to see what these "sites" are saying, and first of all, if they have any idea what they are talking about.

Addendum:

Ok, I just did some research on RAID, and learned it stands for "Redundant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks". If I understand your situation correctly, I'm not sure why you would be attempting to use RAID at all, if you only have one hard disk...:S
In addition, it seems RAID level 0 (like you have, or had) is not even technically RAID at all, because it is not redundant. In level 0, data is split across drives, resulting in higher data throughout. Since no redundant information is stored, performance is very good, but the failure of any disk in the array results in data loss. This level is commonly referred to as striping.
Which type of RAID were you using anyway? Hardware RAID or software RAID? According to the info I read on the Net, the hardware based system manages the RAID subsystem independently from the host and presents to the host a single disk per RAID array. This way the host doesn't have to be aware of the RAID subsystems. In addition, there appears to be two types of hardware RAID solutions:

One, the controller based hardware solution:
DPT's SCSI controllers are a good example for a controller based RAID solution.
The intelligent controller manages the RAID subsystem independently from the host. The advantage over an external SCSI---SCSI RAID subsystem is that the contoller is able to span the RAID subsystem over multiple SCSI channels and and by this remove the limiting factor external RAID solutions have: The transfer rate over the SCSI bus.
Two, the external hardware solution (SCSI---SCSI RAID)
An external RAID box moves all RAID handling "intelligence" into a controller that is sitting in the external disk subsystem. The whole subsystem is connected to the host via a normal SCSI controller and apears to the host as a single or multiple disks.
This solution has drawbacks compared to the contoller based solution: The single SCSI channel used in this solution creates a bottleneck.
Newer technologies like Fiber Channel can ease this problem, especially if they allow to trunk multiple channels into a Storage Area Network.
4 SCSI drives can already completely flood a parallel SCSI bus, since the average transfer size is around 4KB and the command transfer overhead - which is even in Ultra SCSI still done asynchonously - takes most of the bus time.
And the software type of RAID occupies host system memory, consume CPU cycles and are operating system dependent. By contending with other applications that are running concurrently for host CPU cycles and memory, software-based arrays degrade overall server performance. Also, unlike hardware-based arrays, the performance of a software-based array is directly dependent on server CPU performance and load.

Addendum:

I had vista 64 installed, then made a second partition for windows xp. So vista is on C and XP is on D, well some of my programs and drivers are messing around with vista i think and screwing stuff up. So I need Vista to disappear for XP use. A typical scenario whatever, i can dual boot just fine with easy bcd. But then I decided to use that Hide n seek program because i need C partition hidden from XP. It gives me this error find --remap-root /XP.D.HnS and something about an error 15 file not found or something for that. I can still boot into vista just fine, but as said, i get that error if i try to boot. I assume this has something to do with the loader pointing incorrectly or something but I don't know if thats the case or how to fix it if it is. Anyways additional info of probable use is that I have 2 sata2 drives in raid0. I have 3 partitions, the first is for vista, the second is a 20 meg unpartitioned space for safety or something it was reccomended and I can afford the space loss anyways. the third partition is for Xp, so basically just 2 partitions, but i did create the 20meg one before the XP one then deleted the 20meg one because that was simple, so perhaps the XP one is still thought of as a third partition to the bootloader? still just subjective as I don't know. Anyways I need this wretched problem fixed sometime and I'm totally lost at it so anyways please help if you can.
Ok, sorry...I see now you have two disks. So which one then was the host (if using hardware RAID)?
Also, I just realized the root line in menu.lst should have been
Code:
root (hd0,2)
not
Code:
root (hd0,1)
The reason is, if you had a 20 meg partition in addition to the Vista partition when the XP partition was created, it means the XP partition would have been placed in the third slot in the MBR partition table (because the 20 meg partition had been occupying the second slot most likely), and would have still remained there even after deleting the 20 meg partition. But then again, maybe not...
Its possible, I suppose, that whatever app you used to delete the 20 meg partition was smart enough to adjust the partition table afterwards, and place the XP partition in the second slot of the partition table, which would mean "root hd0,1" was correct. But I highly doubt it.
No doubt that info would have been useful before, but I'm not sure it would have even worked then, due to the many complications of RAID. :frowning:
 
Last edited: