Re-reading this thread, I decided I wanted to clear things up here (in case someone who comes along and reads this thread doens't get confused).
My whole thing was that BootIT NG supports more than 4 primary partitions on a single drive, and has the ability to have separate boot items, each one updating the MBR to its own configuration details when you select the entry in the BING boot menu, and boot from it, meaning that the MBR partition table is *constantly changing* depending on which boot entry you select to boot into, and which partitions you chose to include for that boot entry.
Of course I did not understand that when I first started this thread, and that is why the XP partition was not visible to the Vista OS when I was booted into it, at that point in time, because *the XP partition was not included in the MBR details for that entry*, so when I was selecting it to boot into Vista, the XP partition was thrown out of the partition table in the MBR each time (even after I manually put it back in, in the "View MBR" section of EasyBCD, in which you can manipulate the partitions that are loaded to the MBR). It was only later when I reinstalled BootIT NG (after both OSes-XP and Ubuntu-were installed), and the program automatically detected them and added them to the boot menu, that I was able to boot into XP and Ubuntu from the BING bootloader. Apparantely, that "View MBR" section of BING has the capability of changing the partitions that are loaded to the MBR for *the entry that was booted last*, so in the process of screwing around with that, I was able to keep the XP partition in the MBR partition table when the Vista entry was booted.
Of course, had I taken the time to investigate BING's "Boot Edit" feature where you can choose which partitions are loaded to the MBR for a particular entry, I would have no doubt noticed the fact that the XP partition was not included (originally) in the MBR Details for the Vista entry in the BING menu....and would have no doubt got my triboot working sooner. :S
Just was rereading this thread, and thought I would clear it all up.
Cheers,
Jake
EDIT: BTW, one of the mods might want to wrap
tags around the text in those couple of posts that I used
Code:
tags instead, now that we've finally figured out where the problem with that lies...
