Unnecessary second boot screen

[Pontus54]

The second boot screen has disappeared. (And good riddance to it.

)

Nevertheless

The BOOT.INI file I created looks like this:

[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows XP Home" /fastdetect

I have also tried this

[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(1)partition(1)\WINDOWS
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(1)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows XP Home" /fastdetect

and this

[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(2)partition(1)\WINDOWS
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(2)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Windows XP Home" /fastdetect

The the two last ones just gives me the NTOSKRNL error message. The first one is the one that gives me the rudimental XP progress bar.

Both Vista and XP are installed on the first partition of their own hard disks so the rdisk(x) option is the only one I've played with.

The diskmanager gives this picture.

Question: Isn't the fact that I do get this primitive XP progress bar proof that I now am in fact booting into the right hard disk and that another XP file has been screwed up?

 

[mqudsi]

Question: Isn't the fact that I do get this primitive XP progress bar proof that I now am in fact booting into the right hard disk and that another XP file has been screwed up?

Spot-on.

Looks like you're going to have to repair-reinstall Windows XP after all
Sounds like you know the intricacies of the whole repair installation thing, but here's a link anyway: How to perform an in-place upgrade of Windows XP

Ubuntu can't see drive M: since it is NTFS and Ubuntu uses its own file system instead.

 

[Terry60]

From your posts, I think you have just acquired a second HDD for Ubuntu, and therefore I assume Vista and XP are on your original first HDD ?
If so the rdisk(0) should be correct (the first in the BIOS sequence), but the partitions number from 1 in windows (0 is the MBR), so partition(1) will probably be Vista. Try rdisk(0) partition(2) upwards (if you've got other partitions on there too) till you hit the jackpot, or post a disk management screenshot so we can see your partition layout.

Addendum:

Sorry, I must learn to read right to the bottom of a post before replying, just saw your screenshot link.
I still think rdisk(1) should be correct assuming your Vista is 0 (it's system and active). Did you create the partitions in sequence from the start of the disk. That's logical,but sometimes people leave gaps, create partitions and come back to fill the gaps with partitions and the sequence in DM doesn't match the assigned partition numbers.
The progress bar doesn't look like NTLDR's, so I'm wondering if you've hit a Linux partition and it's doing something from its boot sector ?

 

[mqudsi]

Terry, that's the progress bar that is displayed when NTLDR itself is loading the kernel - on most computers it goes by so fast that you never see it. It was visible 100% of the time with Windows NT & 2000 though.

The order of the disks depends on their nature - if they were both IDE or both SATA then you'd be right in your rdisk() conclusion, but if it's a mixed SATA/IDE environment or what not; that would explain the weird order.

 

[Pontus54]

@Terry - Thanks for the input but when moving to a new computer while simultaneously repairing the old one and installing, reinstalling and tri-installing stuff all the time has made me lose track of what I have done and why.

Looks like you're going to have to repair-reinstall Windows XP after all
Sounds like you know the intricacies of the whole repair installation thing,

No, I don't.

In fact, I don't know what the hell I'm doing.

Thanks for the link.

Now before going any further, I would appreciate some input on this:

Running XP is not a goal in itself for me. Having a 32-bit OS that allows me to run an application that won't install on 64-bit Vista is. So here's what I'm thinking. Erase XP altogether

and install Windows 2000 on that disk instead.

I have very few requirements for the 2000 installation. I don't need the Internet connection to work, in fact even if it did I'm not sure it would be a good idea considering the risks it involves.

The best would of course be if I could install a 32-bit Vista besides the 64-bit, The retail version I bought came with both but I guess that's not allowed.

(And besides I't might not make any difference in the end.)

So, any general thoughts on this? Is it a bad idea altogether? Does memory problems make it impossible? Things to consider before taking the plunge? (Taking the Windows 2000 plunge in 2008. God, I'm not exactly living at the bloody edge of things.

)

When I had 3 installments of 2000 on 3 different hard disks a couple of years ago I found them to be quite unintrusive in nature, but I did disconnect the other drives when installing. Would that be a good idea now to not risk anything with my Vista installment?

 

[Terry60]

I don't think there's anything to stop you dual booting Vista in x64 and x86 varieties. (I'm sure we've plenty of examples on here of people doing just that - Guru ?) The license is for one PC, and multiple copies on that PC can only be run one at a time, so you're not in the same situation as if you installed Vista on 2 PCs that could be run simultaneously. That would violate the User Agreement. The key will verify the installation because the hardware is identical, and the verification process will be the same as if you'd just done a reinstall for any other reason.
The only reason I dual boot XP x86 is to enable me to install legacy software (Oxford English Dictionary) which has a 16 bit installer and therefore Vista x64 cannot install it. (incidentally if you install old software with an X86 OS, you can still execute it from the x64 OS if it is SO old that it doesn't put stuff in the registry - like OED)
Unfortunately I have the OEM Vista DVD (much cheaper), which comes in x64 OR x86, but not both together like the retail, so I was forced to use my old XP as the 32 bit backup.

 

[Pontus54]

Perhaps it's possible, but wouldn't the level of complexity be a bit too much for me? And even if the licence doesn't forbid it, what is Microsoft's practical approach to it in relation to Windows update and that kind of stuff?

I'll wait to see if I get any thoughts on my 2000 idea before I venture in to something like that.

 

[mqudsi]

Well, there is no problem with running 2000 w/ Vista via EasyBCD. I last installed 2000 two years ago, the only problem I experienced was much software no longer supports 2000.

For instance, IE7 doesn't run on Windows 2000, nor does PerfectDisk 2008, the latest Windows Installer, .NET 3.x, etc.

If the software you want supports 2000, there shouldn't be any problem.

But Terry is correct: it's 100% legal (not the shadowy half-and-half kind) to install both Vista x86 and Vista x64 on the same machine with the same one-PC license key.

It's also easier - you won't need to touch the dual-boot at all since Vista x86 will detect the Vista x64 installation and configure the bootloader accordingly all on its own.

Let us know what you like - we're here for you regardless of what path you take

 

[Pontus54]

Let us know what you like - we're here for you regardless of what path you take

The level of friendly support (not to mention expertise) on this site is second to none.

I can't deny that yours and Terry's suggestion about Vista x86 and Vista x64 is a bit tempting and it's good to know that the option is there but I still think I would like to follow the 2000 path.

So far I have only encountered the x86 problem with one, albeit for me important application, so even if you say that the installation process is easy it's still a matter of maintaining another Vista installation and probably having a second antivirus solution and perhaps other things I haven't even thought about.

So I would very much like to take you up on your generous offer of some guidance.

Perhaps even a new thread with an appropriate title would be in order to not hide the knowledge from others but I'll let you be the judge of that.

I will use the hard disk that I have XP installed on now and I'm free to partition it anyway I like. In fact I will as it bear the scars of one too many failed Ubuntu installations.

That will give me the possibility to disconnect the Vista hard disk while installing 2000 (if you don't recommend against it).

 

[mqudsi]

Actually, we *highly* recommend against disconecting the Vista drive while installing any other OS, as is mentioned here: Installing XP After Vista - NeoSmart Technologies Wiki

The problem is that disconnecting the Vista drive changes the boot drive and boot partition which will result in boot files being installed to the wrong drive.

Just follow the steps listed at Installing XP After Vista - NeoSmart Technologies Wiki word-for-word (replacing "XP" with "2000" wherever it appears) and you should be good to go - the steps are very easy and straight-forward to follow.

 

[Terry60]

I think you'll find a second Vista installation the most trouble-free option, provided it gives you the environment you want. (Some h/w and s/w still isn't compatible with Vista even in its 32 bit flavour - my scanner and printer for example, another reason why I have XP available in the background). You won't get the boot problems that putting a legacy OS on top of Vista always causes because of the lack of forward compatibility. You should just be able to install a second Vista and magically find it there in your boot menu. See this nicely illustrated explanation (http://www.multibooters.co.uk/multiboot.html) of how it all works if you're interested to know.

 

[Pontus54]

Thanks for the input.

I'm getting cold feets for both options. I feel like the village idiot of the multi boot society.

I sit by the computer every waking hour, it's really my only connection to the outside world so I'm a coward when it comes to experimenting too much.

My old computer is in the scrapyard so I don't have any back up if anything goes wrong.

The 2000 option makes me a bit uncomfortable. When it comes to installing Vista x86 and Vista x64 is sound much more straightforward. They should know of each others existence and not mess up anything especially as I have no other OS installed now.

But here's what I found while Googling a bit about it.

I'm yet to find someone that says the activation will work with both installments.

And what about the Virtual PC suggestion? I'm sure it's not problem free but could it be a alternative for me who only need to run one application and don't even need printers and stuff to work as I could do the printing of produced documents in my normal environment.

(The coloured parts is my doing, not the original authors.)

From Windows Vista blog:

Hey Gavin: I'm not going to interpret the license for you, but I will state that you cannot install both the 32- and 64-bit versions of Windows Vista simultaneously on the same machine (nor on a second machine, for that matter) using the same device key / PID.

From eggheadcafe:

Dual Boot Vista 64 and 32 - Andrew McLaren
05-Dec-07 05:27:06

Hi David,

Not sure about the dual-boot thing, but ... be aware that you wil need to
purchase TWO Vista licences if you want to run both 32-bit and 64 bit Vista.

If you buy Vista in the retail pack, both 32-bit and 64 bit are included.
But to activate them both on the same machine, you will need two activation
keys. Yep, even on the same hardware! If you activate your 32-bit Vista,
then try to activate your 64-bit Vista with the same key (or vice versa),
you will get an error that the activation key is already in use.


Also, I would strongly recommend using a virtual machine tool, such as
Virtual PC or VMWare, instead of dual booting. Virtual PC is a free download
from Microsoft:

Virtual PC 2007
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/virtualpc/default.mspx

I have run a VPN client from within a Virtual PC machine, it worked fine. By
using a VM, you can have your 32-bit and 64-bit versions running
side-by-side, alt-tabbing between them, sharing files etc in real-time;
instead of needing to shut down and reboot, to switch between versions.
Install 64-bit Vista on the physical hardware, then install Virtual PC, then
create a new VM ("virtual machine") in VPC, then install 32-bit Vista into
the VM.

Other folks may be able to help you with the dual boot scenario, if you
really want to go that way. Personally, I have long since given up on
dual-booting, it is too much hassle and too error-prone. Whereas VMs "just
work". Main proviso is you'll want 2GB of RAM, or more, to support a VM.

Application data files (such as Word 2007 docs) work exactly the same on
32-bit and 64-bit Windows. Even on 64-bit Vista, Word runs as a 32-bit
application (there's no 64-bit version of Office).

Hope it helps,
--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au

--
Charlie.
x(perts)64

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel

 

[JustinW]

Virtural PC is pretty straight-forward. Just create the new VM, put in the installation media when it tells you to, and you're good to go.

 

[Terry60]

I can't speak from the experience at having done it, because I don't even have the 32 bit files on my DVD, but the person who says dual-booting is too error prone and VM just works, is not exactly "on the money".
The only problems people have dual booting are getting it to work in the first place (and we're always here to help them ). Once it's set up it "just works" to borrow a phrase. The 2 systems are totally independent, and the only connection between them occurs for 5 seconds when the boot manager offers you the option. Otherwise they know (and care) nothing about the other.
VM, on the other hand, means that you're running one system inside another system, and you are always talking to the one, through the other. This means that performance is compromised and you're doubling the chances of problems occuring with every single transaction.
If automatic verification fails (and I don't see why it should, though I defer to anyone that's done it, and knows), it should only be necessary to phone the free verification number and get them to authorize over the phone.
Even my old XP wouldn't verify when I dual booted because the hardware of my new system was obviously different (I quite expected it would fail for that very reason), but all I had to do was phone the free number and say "I've moved my XP to a new system" and they authorized it.
Since the hardware hasn't changed in your case, I can't see why the verification would even be queried.

I'm sure there must be a user on here who has dual 32/64 Vistas who can verify that it's OK ??????

 

[explor777]

Unneccasry boot screen, redux

Ihave the same problem and there are no legacy items in the boot.ini

[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /fastdetect

With the second screen it has a timeout of 30 seconds and
the second entry says Window (default)

Thank You,
Robert A. Sexton
All Rights Reseverd

I have this little problem, not critical but I still want to clean it up.

I have...

...Vista on one hard disk.
...XP on the second.

When I boot I get these choices:

Microsoft Windows Vista
Microsoft Windows

If I chose Vista it works alright but if I choose the second (XP option) I get linked to a second screen giving me this:

Microsoft Windows
Microsoft Windows

Choosing the first will end in a black screen and nothing more happens while the second will boot XP.

Obviously I've somehow have managed to create this mess myself but it would be good the have it sorted out especially as I intend to install Ubuntu on a third hard disk later in the week.

 

[mqudsi]

You need to synchronize the first or second ARC paths above with each other.
either partition(1) or partition(2) all around.

 

[explor777]

Could you expound on that a little more since I'll never heard of a Arc path
and a query on a search engine did'nt bring up anything.

 

[JustinW]

He means make ...partition(x)... the same in the default setting under [boot loader] and the line under [operating systems]. Try changing the ...partition(2)... to ...partition(1)... under [operating systems] first so that it matches. If that doesn't work, change both of the lines to ...partition(2)...

What's arc stand for anyway CG? Address Resource Convention?


Addendum:


Quoted from a MS article: Advanced RISC Computing (ARC) specifications that are used to define the path to a Windows NT installation on Intel x86-processor-based computers and RISC-based computers

And out of all of that technical jargon, another acronym is used... what's RISC stand for? Answer: reduced-instruction-set computer.

Man, all these standards and acronyms and such involved in the world of computing... no wonder its confusing to so many.

 

[mqudsi]

Yeah, it's from the old days of computers, back when Motorola and Intel were still battling for who's going to control the PC sector - obviously Intel won out, but Motorola had the better tech and ideas... Intel was using CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) which was incredibly complicated to design a CPU for, but made writing assembly programs for the PC really, really easy; while Motorola was pushing RISC - it's polar opposite which made designing the CPU a lot easier and coding for it a hell of a lot harder.

For the end user though, the RISC CPUs with their simplicity used less power and worked tons faster (easier to optimize, as well) - but in the end Intel won out thanks in part to its popularity with (lazy) developers.

 

[Pontus54]

Hi, I'm back.

I installed VirualPC 2007 a couple of days ago and it was as kairozamorro said pretty straightforward.

I must confess I'm pleasantly surprised how well it works, especially with the Save state option which sort of freezes everything in its currents state and lets you pick up from where you left it last time.

It takes about 6-7 seconds on my system to start VirtualPC 2007 and another 3-4 seconds to start the chosen Virtual Machine so in about 10 seconds I'm there working with my document and I don't even have to load it, it's there the way I left it.

Plus - I don't have to close down anything I'm working with in my main operating system. The guest OS is just another application window and I can move back and forth freely.

Compare that to closing all the applications and documents that are open in the main OS, boot into the other OS and open the application. When finished it's all the way back again, boot and open all applications and documents I was working with.

I'm aware that a guest OS is a second rate citizen compared to a normally installed and booted OS but in some cases, and certainly mine, the Virtual thingy works a lot better with a lot less hassle.

P.S. Has anyone found out anything more about if you can activate both a 64 and 32 bit Vista running on the same computer using the same product key?