I've a working custom built Desktop PC with Win XP Pro running without any
issues. My 80GB HDD is partitioned into 4 partitions of 20GB each. Now i'm
curious to know whether I can install Windows 2000 Server, so as to make it a
dual booting system.
Someone told me that I cant do so and I verified the MSknowledge base and I
found out that I cant do so. As the latest OS is to be installed Last.

Moreover, I was told one way that I can install W2k Server on the existing
partition but it would corrupt the XP file system but I can work around by
using the repair option in the XP install CD after the W2k Server has been
installed. Is this true??

If the above points are wrong then how can I work around it???

Then can I install W2k3 Server on the XP Pro as MS said Latest Last??? I'm
trying to download an evaluation copy of 2003 Server. If yes, then can u give
me step by step procedure so that I can install without issues.

"SAI" <SAI@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:90E1E3FE-983F-4A14-8285-2CFF50C74AB2@microsoft.com...
> I've a working custom built Desktop PC with Win XP Pro running without any
> issues. My 80GB HDD is partitioned into 4 partitions of 20GB each. Now i'm
> curious to know whether I can install Windows 2000 Server, so as to make
it a
> dual booting system.
> Someone told me that I cant do so and I verified the MSknowledge base and
I
> found out that I cant do so. As the latest OS is to be installed Last.
>
> Moreover, I was told one way that I can install W2k Server on the existing
> partition but it would corrupt the XP file system but I can work around by
> using the repair option in the XP install CD after the W2k Server has been
> installed. Is this true??
>
> If the above points are wrong then how can I work around it???
>
> Then can I install W2k3 Server on the XP Pro as MS said Latest Last??? I'm
> trying to download an evaluation copy of 2003 Server. If yes, then can u
give
> me step by step procedure so that I can install without issues.
>

What you wish to do is easily achived, although you will need a
free third-party utility. To start with, you need to state the following
for each partition:

- Type (primary/logical)
- Size
- What it is currently used for

Also: where do you want your server installation?

SAI wrote:
> I've a working custom built Desktop PC with Win XP Pro running without any
> issues. My 80GB HDD is partitioned into 4 partitions of 20GB each. Now i'm
> curious to know whether I can install Windows 2000 Server, so as to make it a
> dual booting system.
> Someone told me that I cant do so and I verified the MSknowledge base and I
> found out that I cant do so.


Well, that's not quite true. It's possible to install Win2K after
WinXP, but it's not quite as easy as installing the operating systems in
order of their release.


> As the latest OS is to be installed Last.
>
> Moreover, I was told one way that I can install W2k Server on the existing
> partition but it would corrupt the XP file system but I can work around by
> using the repair option in the XP install CD after the W2k Server has been
> installed. Is this true??
>


Yes, that's true, and it's not as hard as it sounds.

Install Win2K after WinXP is Installed
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/tips/xp_repair_2k.htm

> If the above points are wrong then how can I work around it???
>
> Then can I install W2k3 Server on the XP Pro as MS said Latest Last???


Yes.




--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

hi Bruce,

Thanx for the advice but it was not useful and it didnt workout. Infact I
could get it working by using the repair option from the WinXP cd after
installing the W2kServer. Thought i'd share my experience.

Thanx once again.
SAI

"Bruce Chambers" wrote:

> SAI wrote:
> > I've a working custom built Desktop PC with Win XP Pro running without any
> > issues. My 80GB HDD is partitioned into 4 partitions of 20GB each. Now i'm
> > curious to know whether I can install Windows 2000 Server, so as to make it a
> > dual booting system.
> > Someone told me that I cant do so and I verified the MSknowledge base and I
> > found out that I cant do so.
>
>
> Well, that's not quite true. It's possible to install Win2K after
> WinXP, but it's not quite as easy as installing the operating systems in
> order of their release.
>
>
> > As the latest OS is to be installed Last.
> >
> > Moreover, I was told one way that I can install W2k Server on the existing
> > partition but it would corrupt the XP file system but I can work around by
> > using the repair option in the XP install CD after the W2k Server has been
> > installed. Is this true??
> >
>
>
> Yes, that's true, and it's not as hard as it sounds.
>
> Install Win2K after WinXP is Installed
> http://www.dougknox.com/xp/tips/xp_repair_2k.htm
>
> > If the above points are wrong then how can I work around it???
> >
> > Then can I install W2k3 Server on the XP Pro as MS said Latest Last???
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
> both at once. - RAH
>

This happens quite often when you rush into something
without first answering the important questions. This is
why I replied to your post by asking you to post the
exact structure of your hard disk. I did not see an answer
from you.


"SAI" <SAI@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2650FB2F-6933-4D92-BFE0-62353B404697@microsoft.com...
> hi Bruce,
>
> Thanx for the advice but it was not useful and it didnt workout. Infact I
> could get it working by using the repair option from the WinXP cd after
> installing the W2kServer. Thought i'd share my experience.
>
> Thanx once again.
> SAI
>
> "Bruce Chambers" wrote:
>
> > SAI wrote:
> > > I've a working custom built Desktop PC with Win XP Pro running without
any
> > > issues. My 80GB HDD is partitioned into 4 partitions of 20GB each. Now
i'm
> > > curious to know whether I can install Windows 2000 Server, so as to
make it a
> > > dual booting system.
> > > Someone told me that I cant do so and I verified the MSknowledge base
and I
> > > found out that I cant do so.
> >
> >
> > Well, that's not quite true. It's possible to install Win2K after
> > WinXP, but it's not quite as easy as installing the operating systems in
> > order of their release.
> >
> >
> > > As the latest OS is to be installed Last.
> > >
> > > Moreover, I was told one way that I can install W2k Server on the
existing
> > > partition but it would corrupt the XP file system but I can work
around by
> > > using the repair option in the XP install CD after the W2k Server has
been
> > > installed. Is this true??
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yes, that's true, and it's not as hard as it sounds.
> >
> > Install Win2K after WinXP is Installed
> > http://www.dougknox.com/xp/tips/xp_repair_2k.htm
> >
> > > If the above points are wrong then how can I work around it???
> > >
> > > Then can I install W2k3 Server on the XP Pro as MS said Latest Last???
> >
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Bruce Chambers
> >
> > Help us help you:
> > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> >
> > You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
> > both at once. - RAH
> >

my sincere apologies......i stand corrected. My HDD is partitioned into 4
drives (C,D,E,F). XP Pro is installed in C drive. D,E,F are formatted with
some data in them. So I tried to install W2K Server into the E drive by using
the setup CD of W2KSrvr, and tried what Bruce suggested. Now i've realised
that this backward combination does work, though i dont really know the
implications that would arise in the future bcos of this backward
compatibility.

Anyways thanx for ur valuable advice. SHould have answered ur query without
RUSHING as u've rightly said.

SAI

"Pegasus (MVP)" wrote:

> This happens quite often when you rush into something
> without first answering the important questions. This is
> why I replied to your post by asking you to post the
> exact structure of your hard disk. I did not see an answer
> from you.
>
>
> "SAI" <SAI@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2650FB2F-6933-4D92-BFE0-62353B404697@microsoft.com...
> > hi Bruce,
> >
> > Thanx for the advice but it was not useful and it didnt workout. Infact I
> > could get it working by using the repair option from the WinXP cd after
> > installing the W2kServer. Thought i'd share my experience.
> >
> > Thanx once again.
> > SAI
> >
> > "Bruce Chambers" wrote:
> >
> > > SAI wrote:
> > > > I've a working custom built Desktop PC with Win XP Pro running without
> any
> > > > issues. My 80GB HDD is partitioned into 4 partitions of 20GB each. Now
> i'm
> > > > curious to know whether I can install Windows 2000 Server, so as to
> make it a
> > > > dual booting system.
> > > > Someone told me that I cant do so and I verified the MSknowledge base
> and I
> > > > found out that I cant do so.
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, that's not quite true. It's possible to install Win2K after
> > > WinXP, but it's not quite as easy as installing the operating systems in
> > > order of their release.
> > >
> > >
> > > > As the latest OS is to be installed Last.
> > > >
> > > > Moreover, I was told one way that I can install W2k Server on the
> existing
> > > > partition but it would corrupt the XP file system but I can work
> around by
> > > > using the repair option in the XP install CD after the W2k Server has
> been
> > > > installed. Is this true??
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, that's true, and it's not as hard as it sounds.
> > >
> > > Install Win2K after WinXP is Installed
> > > http://www.dougknox.com/xp/tips/xp_repair_2k.htm
> > >
> > > > If the above points are wrong then how can I work around it???
> > > >
> > > > Then can I install W2k3 Server on the XP Pro as MS said Latest Last???
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Bruce Chambers
> > >
> > > Help us help you:
> > > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> > >
> > > You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
> > > both at once. - RAH
> > >
>
>
>

By far the cleanest solution in cases like yours is to
use a third-party boot manager such as XOSL. The
steps are fairly simple:
1. Install XOSL.
2. Get it to hide all partition except for the target
partition (drive E: in your case).
3. Install the extra OS.
4. Re-activate XOSL if necessary.
This would give you a machine with two totally independent
OSs, both visible on their own drive letter C:. There would
be no issue about the order of installation or any other cross-
dependency.

The above steps are very coarse. Some OPs can work with
them, others require more details.


"SAI" <SAI@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4C7AD7BF-F585-411E-B30E-AC7764072D45@microsoft.com...
> my sincere apologies......i stand corrected. My HDD is partitioned into 4
> drives (C,D,E,F). XP Pro is installed in C drive. D,E,F are formatted with
> some data in them. So I tried to install W2K Server into the E drive by
using
> the setup CD of W2KSrvr, and tried what Bruce suggested. Now i've realised
> that this backward combination does work, though i dont really know the
> implications that would arise in the future bcos of this backward
> compatibility.
>
> Anyways thanx for ur valuable advice. SHould have answered ur query
without
> RUSHING as u've rightly said.
>
> SAI
>
> "Pegasus (MVP)" wrote:
>
> > This happens quite often when you rush into something
> > without first answering the important questions. This is
> > why I replied to your post by asking you to post the
> > exact structure of your hard disk. I did not see an answer
> > from you.
> >
> >
> > "SAI" <SAI@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:2650FB2F-6933-4D92-BFE0-62353B404697@microsoft.com...
> > > hi Bruce,
> > >
> > > Thanx for the advice but it was not useful and it didnt workout.
Infact I
> > > could get it working by using the repair option from the WinXP cd
after
> > > installing the W2kServer. Thought i'd share my experience.
> > >
> > > Thanx once again.
> > > SAI
> > >
> > > "Bruce Chambers" wrote:
> > >
> > > > SAI wrote:
> > > > > I've a working custom built Desktop PC with Win XP Pro running
without
> > any
> > > > > issues. My 80GB HDD is partitioned into 4 partitions of 20GB each.
Now
> > i'm
> > > > > curious to know whether I can install Windows 2000 Server, so as
to
> > make it a
> > > > > dual booting system.
> > > > > Someone told me that I cant do so and I verified the MSknowledge
base
> > and I
> > > > > found out that I cant do so.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, that's not quite true. It's possible to install Win2K after
> > > > WinXP, but it's not quite as easy as installing the operating
systems in
> > > > order of their release.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > As the latest OS is to be installed Last.
> > > > >
> > > > > Moreover, I was told one way that I can install W2k Server on the
> > existing
> > > > > partition but it would corrupt the XP file system but I can work
> > around by
> > > > > using the repair option in the XP install CD after the W2k Server
has
> > been
> > > > > installed. Is this true??
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that's true, and it's not as hard as it sounds.
> > > >
> > > > Install Win2K after WinXP is Installed
> > > > http://www.dougknox.com/xp/tips/xp_repair_2k.htm
> > > >
> > > > > If the above points are wrong then how can I work around it???
> > > > >
> > > > > Then can I install W2k3 Server on the XP Pro as MS said Latest
Last???
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Bruce Chambers
> > > >
> > > > Help us help you:
> > > > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > > > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> > > >
> > > > You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having
> > > > both at once. - RAH
> > > >
> >
> >
> >

ok that was really very neat and sounds comfy. Neways now coming to the
point....i just downloaded Solaris 10 for x86. Now is it possible to install
on the existing setup of mine....consisting of Win XP on Crive & Win2K Srvr
on E:drive. D: is pretty much free (17gb), so can I install using XOSL as u
suggested? Moreover i'm having a SATA HDD. Will this work with the specified
SATA??


"Pegasus (MVP)" wrote:

> By far the cleanest solution in cases like yours is to
> use a third-party boot manager such as XOSL. The
> steps are fairly simple:
> 1. Install XOSL.
> 2. Get it to hide all partition except for the target
> partition (drive E: in your case).
> 3. Install the extra OS.
> 4. Re-activate XOSL if necessary.
> This would give you a machine with two totally independent
> OSs, both visible on their own drive letter C:. There would
> be no issue about the order of installation or any other cross-
> dependency.
>
> The above steps are very coarse. Some OPs can work with
> them, others require more details.
>
>
> "SAI" <SAI@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4C7AD7BF-F585-411E-B30E-AC7764072D45@microsoft.com...
> > my sincere apologies......i stand corrected. My HDD is partitioned into 4
> > drives (C,D,E,F). XP Pro is installed in C drive. D,E,F are formatted with
> > some data in them. So I tried to install W2K Server into the E drive by
> using
> > the setup CD of W2KSrvr, and tried what Bruce suggested. Now i've realised
> > that this backward combination does work, though i dont really know the
> > implications that would arise in the future bcos of this backward
> > compatibility.
> >
> > Anyways thanx for ur valuable advice. SHould have answered ur query
> without
> > RUSHING as u've rightly said.
> >
> > SAI
> >
> > "Pegasus (MVP)" wrote:
> >
> > > This happens quite often when you rush into something
> > > without first answering the important questions. This is
> > > why I replied to your post by asking you to post the
> > > exact structure of your hard disk. I did not see an answer
> > > from you.
> > >
> > >
> > > "SAI" <SAI@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:2650FB2F-6933-4D92-BFE0-62353B404697@microsoft.com...
> > > > hi Bruce,
> > > >
> > > > Thanx for the advice but it was not useful and it didnt workout.
> Infact I
> > > > could get it working by using the repair option from the WinXP cd
> after
> > > > installing the W2kServer. Thought i'd share my experience.
> > > >
> > > > Thanx once again.
> > > > SAI
> > > >
> > > > "Bruce Chambers" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > SAI wrote:
> > > > > > I've a working custom built Desktop PC with Win XP Pro running
> without
> > > any
> > > > > > issues. My 80GB HDD is partitioned into 4 partitions of 20GB each.
> Now
> > > i'm
> > > > > > curious to know whether I can install Windows 2000 Server, so as
> to
> > > make it a
> > > > > > dual booting system.
> > > > > > Someone told me that I cant do so and I verified the MSknowledge
> base
> > > and I
> > > > > > found out that I cant do so.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, that's not quite true. It's possible to install Win2K after
> > > > > WinXP, but it's not quite as easy as installing the operating
> systems in
> > > > > order of their release.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > As the latest OS is to be installed Last.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Moreover, I was told one way that I can install W2k Server on the
> > > existing
> > > > > > partition but it would corrupt the XP file system but I can work
> > > around by
> > > > > > using the repair option in the XP install CD after the W2k Server
> has
> > > been
> > > > > > installed. Is this true??
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, that's true, and it's not as hard as it sounds.
> > > > >
> > > > > Install Win2K after WinXP is Installed
> > > > > http://www.dougknox.com/xp/tips/xp_repair_2k.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > > If the above points are wrong then how can I work around it???
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then can I install W2k3 Server on the XP Pro as MS said Latest
> Last???
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Bruce Chambers
> > > > >
> > > > > Help us help you:
> > > > > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > > > > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> > > > >
> > > > > You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> having
> > > > > both at once. - RAH
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>

If you can boot from a SATA disk then XOSL will work
very nicely.

XOSL will coexist with Win9x on a FAT32 partition, or it
requires its own partition of about 10 MBytes. Since you
don't appear to run Win9x, I recommend that you create
a 10 MByte FAT partition at the far end of any of your
partitions (primary or logical) on any of your disks (master
or slave). When installing XOSL into this partition, be very
careful as it is quite easy to pick the wrong partition and
wipe it out it the process!

After installing XOSL, do this:
- Reboot the machine.
- Add WinXP, Win2000 Server & Solaris to the XOSL menu.
With Solaris, simply nominate drive D: where Solaris will reside.
- For every OS, hide every other partition so that only one
partition is visible at any one time..
- Test WinXP & Win2000 Server.
- Boot into D:. The machine will hang, because there is no
operating system on D:. However, the WinXP & Win2000
Server partitions are now hidden.
- Boot the machine with a Win98 boot disk from www.bootdisk.com.
- Check that drive C: is the partition earmarked for Solaris.
- Install Solaris in drive C:.


"SAI" <SAI@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:17FE1A89-15F5-4BDC-901D-471C8BB96B3B@microsoft.com...
> ok that was really very neat and sounds comfy. Neways now coming to the
> point....i just downloaded Solaris 10 for x86. Now is it possible to
install
> on the existing setup of mine....consisting of Win XP on Crive & Win2K
Srvr
> on E:drive. D: is pretty much free (17gb), so can I install using XOSL as
u
> suggested? Moreover i'm having a SATA HDD. Will this work with the
specified
> SATA??
>
>
> "Pegasus (MVP)" wrote:
>
> > By far the cleanest solution in cases like yours is to
> > use a third-party boot manager such as XOSL. The
> > steps are fairly simple:
> > 1. Install XOSL.
> > 2. Get it to hide all partition except for the target
> > partition (drive E: in your case).
> > 3. Install the extra OS.
> > 4. Re-activate XOSL if necessary.
> > This would give you a machine with two totally independent
> > OSs, both visible on their own drive letter C:. There would
> > be no issue about the order of installation or any other cross-
> > dependency.
> >
> > The above steps are very coarse. Some OPs can work with
> > them, others require more details.
> >
> >
> > "SAI" <SAI@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:4C7AD7BF-F585-411E-B30E-AC7764072D45@microsoft.com...
> > > my sincere apologies......i stand corrected. My HDD is partitioned
into 4
> > > drives (C,D,E,F). XP Pro is installed in C drive. D,E,F are formatted
with
> > > some data in them. So I tried to install W2K Server into the E drive
by
> > using
> > > the setup CD of W2KSrvr, and tried what Bruce suggested. Now i've
realised
> > > that this backward combination does work, though i dont really know
the
> > > implications that would arise in the future bcos of this backward
> > > compatibility.
> > >
> > > Anyways thanx for ur valuable advice. SHould have answered ur query
> > without
> > > RUSHING as u've rightly said.
> > >
> > > SAI
> > >
> > > "Pegasus (MVP)" wrote:
> > >
> > > > This happens quite often when you rush into something
> > > > without first answering the important questions. This is
> > > > why I replied to your post by asking you to post the
> > > > exact structure of your hard disk. I did not see an answer
> > > > from you.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "SAI" <SAI@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:2650FB2F-6933-4D92-BFE0-62353B404697@microsoft.com...
> > > > > hi Bruce,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanx for the advice but it was not useful and it didnt workout.
> > Infact I
> > > > > could get it working by using the repair option from the WinXP cd
> > after
> > > > > installing the W2kServer. Thought i'd share my experience.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanx once again.
> > > > > SAI
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bruce Chambers" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > SAI wrote:
> > > > > > > I've a working custom built Desktop PC with Win XP Pro running
> > without
> > > > any
> > > > > > > issues. My 80GB HDD is partitioned into 4 partitions of 20GB
each.
> > Now
> > > > i'm
> > > > > > > curious to know whether I can install Windows 2000 Server, so
as
> > to
> > > > make it a
> > > > > > > dual booting system.
> > > > > > > Someone told me that I cant do so and I verified the
MSknowledge
> > base
> > > > and I
> > > > > > > found out that I cant do so.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, that's not quite true. It's possible to install Win2K
after
> > > > > > WinXP, but it's not quite as easy as installing the operating
> > systems in
> > > > > > order of their release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > As the latest OS is to be installed Last.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Moreover, I was told one way that I can install W2k Server on
the
> > > > existing
> > > > > > > partition but it would corrupt the XP file system but I can
work
> > > > around by
> > > > > > > using the repair option in the XP install CD after the W2k
Server
> > has
> > > > been
> > > > > > > installed. Is this true??
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, that's true, and it's not as hard as it sounds.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Install Win2K after WinXP is Installed
> > > > > > http://www.dougknox.com/xp/tips/xp_repair_2k.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If the above points are wrong then how can I work around it???
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then can I install W2k3 Server on the XP Pro as MS said Latest
> > Last???
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bruce Chambers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Help us help you:
> > > > > > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > > > > > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> > having
> > > > > > both at once. - RAH
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >

Hi,
At the onset let me wish u a Merry Christmas. Source
Coming to the point there are 2 versions of XOSL(1.1.5) and XOSL(GPL). I
downloaded 1.1.5. What is this RanishPartitionManager(RPM)??? How is
different??Should I install RPM or XOSL??? All these doubts arose when I
tried to download XOSL and it came up with these support items. Hence the
genuine doubts.......

Havent done the partitioning yet, but once I am done with partitioning then
i'll keep u posted.......

thanx in advance....



"Pegasus (MVP)" wrote:

> If you can boot from a SATA disk then XOSL will work
> very nicely.
>
> XOSL will coexist with Win9x on a FAT32 partition, or it
> requires its own partition of about 10 MBytes. Since you
> don't appear to run Win9x, I recommend that you create
> a 10 MByte FAT partition at the far end of any of your
> partitions (primary or logical) on any of your disks (master
> or slave). When installing XOSL into this partition, be very
> careful as it is quite easy to pick the wrong partition and
> wipe it out it the process!
>
> After installing XOSL, do this:
> - Reboot the machine.
> - Add WinXP, Win2000 Server & Solaris to the XOSL menu.
> With Solaris, simply nominate drive D: where Solaris will reside.
> - For every OS, hide every other partition so that only one
> partition is visible at any one time..
> - Test WinXP & Win2000 Server.
> - Boot into D:. The machine will hang, because there is no
> operating system on D:. However, the WinXP & Win2000
> Server partitions are now hidden.
> - Boot the machine with a Win98 boot disk from www.bootdisk.com.
> - Check that drive C: is the partition earmarked for Solaris.
> - Install Solaris in drive C:.
>
>
> "SAI" <SAI@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:17FE1A89-15F5-4BDC-901D-471C8BB96B3B@microsoft.com...
> > ok that was really very neat and sounds comfy. Neways now coming to the
> > point....i just downloaded Solaris 10 for x86. Now is it possible to
> install
> > on the existing setup of mine....consisting of Win XP on Crive & Win2K
> Srvr
> > on E:drive. D: is pretty much free (17gb), so can I install using XOSL as
> u
> > suggested? Moreover i'm having a SATA HDD. Will this work with the
> specified
> > SATA??
> >
> >
> > "Pegasus (MVP)" wrote:
> >
> > > By far the cleanest solution in cases like yours is to
> > > use a third-party boot manager such as XOSL. The
> > > steps are fairly simple:
> > > 1. Install XOSL.
> > > 2. Get it to hide all partition except for the target
> > > partition (drive E: in your case).
> > > 3. Install the extra OS.
> > > 4. Re-activate XOSL if necessary.
> > > This would give you a machine with two totally independent
> > > OSs, both visible on their own drive letter C:. There would
> > > be no issue about the order of installation or any other cross-
> > > dependency.
> > >
> > > The above steps are very coarse. Some OPs can work with
> > > them, others require more details.
> > >
> > >
> > > "SAI" <SAI@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4C7AD7BF-F585-411E-B30E-AC7764072D45@microsoft.com...
> > > > my sincere apologies......i stand corrected. My HDD is partitioned
> into 4
> > > > drives (C,D,E,F). XP Pro is installed in C drive. D,E,F are formatted
> with
> > > > some data in them. So I tried to install W2K Server into the E drive
> by
> > > using
> > > > the setup CD of W2KSrvr, and tried what Bruce suggested. Now i've
> realised
> > > > that this backward combination does work, though i dont really know
> the
> > > > implications that would arise in the future bcos of this backward
> > > > compatibility.
> > > >
> > > > Anyways thanx for ur valuable advice. SHould have answered ur query
> > > without
> > > > RUSHING as u've rightly said.
> > > >
> > > > SAI
> > > >
> > > > "Pegasus (MVP)" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > This happens quite often when you rush into something
> > > > > without first answering the important questions. This is
> > > > > why I replied to your post by asking you to post the
> > > > > exact structure of your hard disk. I did not see an answer
> > > > > from you.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "SAI" <SAI@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:2650FB2F-6933-4D92-BFE0-62353B404697@microsoft.com...
> > > > > > hi Bruce,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanx for the advice but it was not useful and it didnt workout.
> > > Infact I
> > > > > > could get it working by using the repair option from the WinXP cd
> > > after
> > > > > > installing the W2kServer. Thought i'd share my experience.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanx once again.
> > > > > > SAI
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Bruce Chambers" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > SAI wrote:
> > > > > > > > I've a working custom built Desktop PC with Win XP Pro running
> > > without
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > > issues. My 80GB HDD is partitioned into 4 partitions of 20GB
> each.
> > > Now
> > > > > i'm
> > > > > > > > curious to know whether I can install Windows 2000 Server, so
> as
> > > to
> > > > > make it a
> > > > > > > > dual booting system.
> > > > > > > > Someone told me that I cant do so and I verified the
> MSknowledge
> > > base
> > > > > and I
> > > > > > > > found out that I cant do so.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well, that's not quite true. It's possible to install Win2K
> after
> > > > > > > WinXP, but it's not quite as easy as installing the operating
> > > systems in
> > > > > > > order of their release.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As the latest OS is to be installed Last.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Moreover, I was told one way that I can install W2k Server on
> the
> > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > partition but it would corrupt the XP file system but I can
> work
> > > > > around by
> > > > > > > > using the repair option in the XP install CD after the W2k
> Server
> > > has
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > > installed. Is this true??
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, that's true, and it's not as hard as it sounds.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Install Win2K after WinXP is Installed
> > > > > > > http://www.dougknox.com/xp/tips/xp_repair_2k.htm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If the above points are wrong then how can I work around it???
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Then can I install W2k3 Server on the XP Pro as MS said Latest
> > > Last???
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bruce Chambers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Help us help you:
> > > > > > > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > > > > > > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> > > having
> > > > > > > both at once. - RAH
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>

RPM is a partition manager that allows you to force a
boot from a CD. This is handy in situations when this
option does not work in the BIOS. I recommend you
allow it to be loaded too - it's mostly invisible and it
won't interfere with the XOSL side of things.


"SAI" <SAI@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:67680D50-9CDA-409B-90F1-9B6BB0894F8A@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> At the onset let me wish u a Merry Christmas. Source
> Coming to the point there are 2 versions of XOSL(1.1.5) and XOSL(GPL). I
> downloaded 1.1.5. What is this RanishPartitionManager(RPM)??? How is
> different??Should I install RPM or XOSL??? All these doubts arose when I
> tried to download XOSL and it came up with these support items. Hence the
> genuine doubts.......
>
> Havent done the partitioning yet, but once I am done with partitioning
then
> i'll keep u posted.......
>
> thanx in advance....
>
>
>
> "Pegasus (MVP)" wrote:
>
> > If you can boot from a SATA disk then XOSL will work
> > very nicely.
> >
> > XOSL will coexist with Win9x on a FAT32 partition, or it
> > requires its own partition of about 10 MBytes. Since you
> > don't appear to run Win9x, I recommend that you create
> > a 10 MByte FAT partition at the far end of any of your
> > partitions (primary or logical) on any of your disks (master
> > or slave). When installing XOSL into this partition, be very
> > careful as it is quite easy to pick the wrong partition and
> > wipe it out it the process!
> >
> > After installing XOSL, do this:
> > - Reboot the machine.
> > - Add WinXP, Win2000 Server & Solaris to the XOSL menu.
> > With Solaris, simply nominate drive D: where Solaris will reside.
> > - For every OS, hide every other partition so that only one
> > partition is visible at any one time..
> > - Test WinXP & Win2000 Server.
> > - Boot into D:. The machine will hang, because there is no
> > operating system on D:. However, the WinXP & Win2000
> > Server partitions are now hidden.
> > - Boot the machine with a Win98 boot disk from www.bootdisk.com.
> > - Check that drive C: is the partition earmarked for Solaris.
> > - Install Solaris in drive C:.
> >
> >
> > "SAI" <SAI@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:17FE1A89-15F5-4BDC-901D-471C8BB96B3B@microsoft.com...
> > > ok that was really very neat and sounds comfy. Neways now coming to
the
> > > point....i just downloaded Solaris 10 for x86. Now is it possible to
> > install
> > > on the existing setup of mine....consisting of Win XP on Crive &
Win2K
> > Srvr
> > > on E:drive. D: is pretty much free (17gb), so can I install using XOSL
as
> > u
> > > suggested? Moreover i'm having a SATA HDD. Will this work with the
> > specified
> > > SATA??
> > >
> > >
> > > "Pegasus (MVP)" wrote:
> > >
> > > > By far the cleanest solution in cases like yours is to
> > > > use a third-party boot manager such as XOSL. The
> > > > steps are fairly simple:
> > > > 1. Install XOSL.
> > > > 2. Get it to hide all partition except for the target
> > > > partition (drive E: in your case).
> > > > 3. Install the extra OS.
> > > > 4. Re-activate XOSL if necessary.
> > > > This would give you a machine with two totally independent
> > > > OSs, both visible on their own drive letter C:. There would
> > > > be no issue about the order of installation or any other cross-
> > > > dependency.
> > > >
> > > > The above steps are very coarse. Some OPs can work with
> > > > them, others require more details.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "SAI" <SAI@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:4C7AD7BF-F585-411E-B30E-AC7764072D45@microsoft.com...
> > > > > my sincere apologies......i stand corrected. My HDD is partitioned
> > into 4
> > > > > drives (C,D,E,F). XP Pro is installed in C drive. D,E,F are
formatted
> > with
> > > > > some data in them. So I tried to install W2K Server into the E
drive
> > by
> > > > using
> > > > > the setup CD of W2KSrvr, and tried what Bruce suggested. Now i've
> > realised
> > > > > that this backward combination does work, though i dont really
know
> > the
> > > > > implications that would arise in the future bcos of this backward
> > > > > compatibility.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyways thanx for ur valuable advice. SHould have answered ur
query
> > > > without
> > > > > RUSHING as u've rightly said.
> > > > >
> > > > > SAI
> > > > >
> > > > > "Pegasus (MVP)" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > This happens quite often when you rush into something
> > > > > > without first answering the important questions. This is
> > > > > > why I replied to your post by asking you to post the
> > > > > > exact structure of your hard disk. I did not see an answer
> > > > > > from you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "SAI" <SAI@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:2650FB2F-6933-4D92-BFE0-62353B404697@microsoft.com...
> > > > > > > hi Bruce,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanx for the advice but it was not useful and it didnt
workout.
> > > > Infact I
> > > > > > > could get it working by using the repair option from the WinXP
cd
> > > > after
> > > > > > > installing the W2kServer. Thought i'd share my experience.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanx once again.
> > > > > > > SAI
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Bruce Chambers" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > SAI wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I've a working custom built Desktop PC with Win XP Pro
running
> > > > without
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > issues. My 80GB HDD is partitioned into 4 partitions of
20GB
> > each.
> > > > Now
> > > > > > i'm
> > > > > > > > > curious to know whether I can install Windows 2000 Server,
so
> > as
> > > > to
> > > > > > make it a
> > > > > > > > > dual booting system.
> > > > > > > > > Someone told me that I cant do so and I verified the
> > MSknowledge
> > > > base
> > > > > > and I
> > > > > > > > > found out that I cant do so.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, that's not quite true. It's possible to install Win2K
> > after
> > > > > > > > WinXP, but it's not quite as easy as installing the
operating
> > > > systems in
> > > > > > > > order of their release.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As the latest OS is to be installed Last.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Moreover, I was told one way that I can install W2k Server
on
> > the
> > > > > > existing
> > > > > > > > > partition but it would corrupt the XP file system but I
can
> > work
> > > > > > around by
> > > > > > > > > using the repair option in the XP install CD after the W2k
> > Server
> > > > has
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > installed. Is this true??
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, that's true, and it's not as hard as it sounds.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Install Win2K after WinXP is Installed
> > > > > > > > http://www.dougknox.com/xp/tips/xp_repair_2k.htm
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If the above points are wrong then how can I work around
it???
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Then can I install W2k3 Server on the XP Pro as MS said
Latest
> > > > Last???
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Bruce Chambers
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Help us help you:
> > > > > > > > http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> > > > > > > > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever
count on
> > > > having
> > > > > > > > both at once. - RAH
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >