multiple boot/partition problem

[kbunt]

First of all, it's not really a problem per se, at least not yet.

The situation or chore is to analzye my options with a potential XP Pro retail CD that I can install on my current computer. However, I have Win2000 on the HDD and three distros also on the HDD in other partitions (including Kubuntu).

I am wondering if I can install XP on one of these partitions and although I've been googling/reading, I'm still unsure whether I could have it installed on this particular hard drive. I have a 2nd HDD but I wanted to keep it free for data for the various operating systems to share.

The thing is, one of the distros I'm not using anymore so I could use a portion of the HDD to install another OS be it Windows or another Linux distro. Another distro I need to reinstall since I messed it up (no, it's not Kubuntu).

This might not help much but it's something like this:
120 GB HDD

Windows 2000 7.5 GB 6.15 GB used -ntfs

NTFS partition – ntfs 65.7 GB 65 GB used -ntfs

Linux 1 9 GB -ex3
Linux 2 9 GB -ex3
Linux 3 20 GB -ex3

sda8 8.94 GB fedora
sda9 9.69 GB kubuntu
sda7 19.04 GB debian

I think that is accurate from what I looked over. The sda7 partition is the one I think I can 're-use' but I am not sure yet if it's available for another Windows OS. I know any Linux distro could go there but Windows might be another story. I wanted to install XP and another distro in that place. I think 10 GB each would be enough for XP and another distro. But, could they all co-exist and could XP go in sda7? I believe that Windows OS needs to be installed first in most cases (with oldest version first) but when my configuration/partitions already have a Windows OS and Linux distro(s) installed, what is my options?

I hope I don't have to shuffle things around too much. :-)

One last piece of info: I usually use Grub or GAG boot loader. I've had some confusing experiences using Grub and usually have GAG as the bootloader. The main con using it for me is that it's difficult to know which OS goes with which partition letter (so I use a LiveCD that has GRUB to find out).

[integr8e]

Re: multiple boot/partition problem

I don't believe you'll be able to install XP to your sda7 partition, being it's a logical partition. I've just recently had to reinstall Vista, and it wouldn't let me install it on my sda5 partition for that very reason (I had to do a little "shuffling" :P ). It wouldn't hurt anything, though, if you wiped the partition and attempted to install XP in its place; regardless, you'll probably have to re-install your preferred bootloader after installing XP, because Windows' bootloader will be installed in its stead :P

Give it a try, it shouldn't hurt a thing; and if it won't install to that partition, backup your stuff and do some rearranging

[toad]

Re: multiple boot/partition problem

If you don't fancy shuffling how about a virtualised solution? VirtualBox installs easily enough on both Kubuntu and Debian Etch (let alone Lenny or Sid)...

[Fredh]

Re: multiple boot/partition problem

Integr8 is right. windows wants a primary partition.

I don't know why you would want xp. win2000 was much more stable. Having said that win2000 is not supported anymore so.....why not replace it with xp, which will be supported for another few months

If you go the virtual path you will have the best of both worlds without dual booting.

Virtual box is nice and stable. I use vmware player. You can get pre-configured vm's for xp on the web or here:
http://www.penguin.ch/dokuwiki/doku....l:vmware:model

you can also convert your existing win2000 into a virtual machine:
http://www.howtoforge.com/vmware_con..._windows_linux

and then choose which version or win you want to run

you will want to get the latest version of vmware player for here:
http://www.vmware.com/download/player/

If you want to share files between win and linux you will have to set up your virtual machine with the NAT networking option and use samba to share.

Google has plenty of tutorials for setting up and running virtual machines.

As long as you are not gaming you will find your virtual windows just as fast and more stable than an installed version. Plus you won't need firewalls, anti-everything software

I hope this helps

[kbunt]

Re: multiple boot/partition problem

Thanks for the feedback, guys! I was afraid of that (needing the primary partition). In fact, I guess I wanted to confirm it but suspected it already.

I share files or networks with ntfs-3g and Samba respectively and they work great! I've never had a problem and although it is said not to move important files using ntfs-3g, I think the creators did a great job with it.

As for virtualbox or some virtual setup, I wonder if I am creating some disadvantage doing it that way? Perhaps, with speed or some other factor? I have heard that gaming suffers and although I don't do any, I still might want the speed. Btw, which virtual program is preferred or easiest to use?

Having my Win2000 converted to that sounds interesting, though. I only use Windows 2000 to be able have a Windows partition but there are some instances in which XP would be better (for MTP mp3 players and slightly better overall support). Plus, I want to eventually find some employment in which I can use some Windows and Linux knowledge (of what little knowledge I've accumulated thus far! LOL). I think it's not good I am not familiar with XP! I use Linux 80% of the time right now which has been increasing as I learn new things with it.

I have a 2nd, older and slower machine that I should have tried the Windows 2000 virtual box. Perhaps, I should do the experiment on there. I only installed 2000 on it to learn how to set up a system from scratch. But, the partitioning part of setting up operating systems still confuse me! Ugh!

I have to look at the faster machine that I would want XP on and figure out if there's any way of getting XP on the primary partition. If there is not an option there, then my other options are the virtual methods and installing XP on the primary partition of a 2nd drive, right?

[toad]

Re: multiple boot/partition problem

No way round the primary partition for windoze and shuffling (unless you have yaird to manage your init) is easy. But easiest is virtualisation, quite right.

I recommend VirtualBox. Dead easy to set up, plenty of howtos out there

http://www.ubuntugeek.com/create-and...irtualbox.html

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/VirtualBox

Performance depends on your RAM. I have 512MB and do notice a marked difference on Debian Etch when a second OS is running. But that is not rocket science now, is it. If you have 1 gig or more I dare say you won't notice much.

Come back in case of any questions re setup, etc.

Have fun

[Fredh]

Re: multiple boot/partition problem

As for virtualbox or some virtual setup, I wonder if I am creating some disadvantage doing it that way? Perhaps, with speed or some other factor? I have heard that gaming suffers and although I don't do any, I still might want the speed.

I have 1gig ram with 256mb allocated to my virtual xp. When running photoshop cs, flash cs and dreamweaver cs simultaneously i notice hardly any speed loss compared to my xp HD installed. So 256mb ram on the virtual machine is just as fat as 1gig on the HD installation. Does that answer your question?

As for which is best. That is a matter of taste and preferences.

But if you want to go the virtual path and also find out how to install xp from scratch. (Depending on your hardware that could prove to be very interesting ) Why not convert your 2000 to a virtual machine, format that partition and install xp where your 2000 was. That would also take care of your primary partitioning problem. AFAIK windows wants to be on the first primary partition of a harddisc.

[toad]

Re: multiple boot/partition problem

But if you want to go the virtual path and also find out how to install xp from scratch. (Depending on your hardware that could prove to be very interesting Wink ) Why not convert your 2000 to a virtual machine, format that partition and install xp where your 2000 was. That would also take care of your primary partitioning problem. AFAIK windows wants to be on the first primary partition of a harddisc.

Good thinking, fredh!

[Fintan]

Re: multiple boot/partition problem

I concur with all of the above.

I only use Windows 2000 to be able have a Windows partition but there are some instances in which XP would be better (for MTP mp3 players and slightly better overall support). Plus, I want to eventually find some employment in which I can use some Windows and Linux knowledge (of what little knowledge I've accumulated thus far! LOL). I think it's not good I am not familiar with XP!

Virtualization technologies was invented for the purpose of developing and testing (in) different OS environments so this is the perfect solution for your needs.
Especially when you factor in the "one click away" argument. Dual-booting is a pain.

Since you already have samba set up sharing is no problem

Let us know how it goes.

[kbunt]

Re: multiple boot/partition problem

As for virtualbox or some virtual setup, I wonder if I am creating some disadvantage doing it that way? Perhaps, with speed or some other factor? I have heard that gaming suffers and although I don't do any, I still might want the speed.

I have 1gig ram with 256mb allocated to my virtual xp. When running photoshop cs, flash cs and dreamweaver cs simultaneously i notice hardly any speed loss compared to my xp HD installed. So 256mb ram on the virtual machine is just as fat as 1gig on the HD installation. Does that answer your question?

As for which is best. That is a matter of taste and preferences.

But if you want to go the virtual path and also find out how to install xp from scratch. (Depending on your hardware that could prove to be very interesting ) Why not convert your 2000 to a virtual machine, format that partition and install xp where your 2000 was. That would also take care of your primary partitioning problem. AFAIK windows wants to be on the first primary partition of a harddisc.

Fred, I agree, it's a good idea. Very intriguing. However, as much as I agree with the idea (others also concur), I am not very experienced or familiar with the concept or the programs. Not to mention, I am just guessing it is one thing to install from scratch, an OS into another using one of the virtual programs and quite another to 'grab' an existing OS in it's own partition and convert it over. That sounds COMPLICATED! Perhaps, I should try doing it on my older, slower experimental machine? It's in almost the same situation, Windows 2000 was installed first and then I installed two distros afterwards. I wanted to learn how to do it as I had a lot of help setting up my newer machine.

The other concern is, how much disk space XP should have. The current 2000 partition has just under 9GBs. Is that enough? Perhaps, I could use a partition manager (like System Rescue CD for e.g.) to modify the size and make it 10GB? Or perhaps, the current partition amount is sufficient?

The main concern though is still how to convert the current Windows 2000 OS to the virtual side. Although, I still wouldn't know which one to use, Virtual Box or VMWare. So, what is the differences? I want it set up for the least amount of issues as it pertains to XP. That means, if I can avoid having things slow by choosing a certain virtual program, I would. Part two of the main concern is how difficult it is to convert and whether I risk 'breaking' the current Windows OS. The last thing I want to do is delete or cripple the OS files and then throw my hands up in frustration. I know that would lead to saying, 'bleh... I'll just install XP...' I do try to save my important files to a separate DATA/NTFS directory but I'd like to avoid mistakes and problems if I can.

If I have files and directories in a NTFS directory, XP can 'read it' fine, right? Even though I might have created/intalled the f ile/program using 2000?

Thanks again for any answers and comments.

[integr8e]

Re: multiple boot/partition problem

Sorry for the really, really late reply (I kept getting sidetracked by another project I was working on, and forgot about your post)

Anyway, both Virtualbox and VMware offer free products. Virtualbox is lighter and faster, and makes creating virtual machines very easy, however, it lacks several of the features offered by VMware. VMware offers two free products: VMware Server and VMware Player. VMware Server allows you to create and run virtual machines, but in comparison with Virtualbox and VMware Player, it is very slow and a resource hog. VMware Player is fairly quick and nimble, and can run virtually any virtual machine you throw at it, only, it lacks the ability to create virtual machines of its own (you have to use pre-built virtual machines, dubbed "virtual appliances"). You can still create your own virtual machines for VMware Player with several 3rd party applications; I know of 2 good ones. The first, called EasyVMX, is web-based and doesn't require you to have anything extra installed on your system; the other, VMX Builder, is Windows based, but can be run via Wine (instructions for doing so are located beneath its description). Anyway, it's mainly an issue of preference, not so much "which is the best option".

VMware provides an easy-to-use conversion utility, called VMware Converter, that allows you to convert (i.e. copy) an existing partition to a virtual machine. Only, it is Windows based so you'll have to run it either with Wine - which might not work - or from Windows.

I personally prefer VirtualBox, but haven't had much luck running/converting existing partitions with it; I found instructions, but the required commands aren't available via the repos' version of VirtualBox, so I'm going to install the latest version from their download page and see what I can turn up. I'll keep you posted on the results.

As far as the space required to run XP, I (once upon a long time ago) had XP installed on a P3 Compaq something another that had only a 10 gig hard drive (total capacity), and still had a little wiggle room, so I don't think the amount of space you have available is too much of an issue (I also corrupted an entire partition just by trying to move it 1MB to the left)

NTFS is NTFS; XP should be able to read your W2k files no problem.

[Fintan]

Re: multiple boot/partition problem

Thanks intergr you took the words out of my mouth

Just one point vmware converter is dead easy to use. If you have a separate partition then follow the instructions given in the link fredh's pertaining to converting win OS's. I don't think it is a good idea to run it in wine. Running it directly from win is definitely better.

10igs for xp is probably a bit tight, depending on how many apps you want to install.

Have fun