Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 23:45:47 +0200 From: Nikola Lecic <nlecic@EUnet.yu> To: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> Cc: Jerry McAllister <jerrymc@msu.edu>, Rico Secada <coolzone@it.dk>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Adding a XP disk to FreeBSD machine Message-ID: <200706172145.l5HLjdZH029058@smtpclu-4.eunet.yu> In-Reply-To: <4675A5FD.7010400@u.washington.edu> References: <20070617175349.9debf85a.coolzone@it.dk> <46755FE4.3000204@u.washington.edu> <200706172001.l5HK17sU030505@smtpclu-6.eunet.yu> <20070617201128.GC5036@gizmo.acns.msu.edu> <200706172058.l5HKwYMs000717@smtpclu-4.eunet.yu> <4675A5FD.7010400@u.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:22:05 -0700
Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >>> Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >>>> 1. All windows disks must be primary if you're going to boot off
> >>>> of them -- sorry, it's a stupid requirement that M$ setup a long
> >>>> time
> >>>> =20
> >>> Nikola Lecic wrote:
> >>> What do you mean? I think he asked about slave (primary I
> >>> suppose). I ask this because ...
>=20
> Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Now that I think about it I don't think that there's anything wrong
> as long as the boot order doesn't change. This is simple to modify
> with SATA/SCSI, but PATA is statically set based on the jumper pins.
>=20
> Once you change the boot order, things change in the OS in terms of
> how the registry mapped entries, programs found their way around,
> etc, and it breaks everything.
Ok, clear, that's why I asked.
> Nikola Lecic wrote:=20
> >>> ... "windows" can normally boot from slave position without
> >>> bootloader, (in some cases with help of 'boot.ini' and
> >>> ntldr/ntdetect.com, but AFAIK only if booting is impossible even
> >>> when ad1 (D) is selected in BIOS as the first boot choice).
>=20
> Garrett Cooper wrote: =20
> Yes. Drive lettering gets tricky though, based on what partitions
> were active when stuff was installed, etc, because Nikola's first
^^^^^^^
Rico's
(you're answering my question, disk is Rico's :))
> NTFS/FAT formatted partition could have been C:, not D:, etc. *sighs
> and shakes head at bad partitioner in 2k/xp/2k3 installer*.
> > Nikola Lecic wrote:
> > I said that it's _possible_ to keep the second disk stay untouched
> > (as it remained after xp installation). I replied because (1)+(3) of
> > Garrett's e-mail implied (maybe, that's why I asked him a question)
> > that xp cannot start from the second disk without _separate_
> > bootloader installed _there_ from the outside, which is not true.
> >
> > My statement doesn't say anything about contents of the first disk
> > and doesn't negate any of the options you proposed.
> >
> > I did add two things:
> >
> > (a) a proposition to check ad1 separately -- doesn't hurt;
> >
> > (b) a possible help if xp cannot orientate itself.
> >
> > Nikola Le=C4=8Di=C4=87
> > =20
>
> Garrett Cooper wrote:
> The reasoning used in this document is the basis for my previous=20
> statement:
>=20
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/112019
>=20
> So as long as the boot ordering or disk ordering of the primary=20
> (Windows) disk doesn't change, things should be groovy.
I assumed that Rico just added primary slave as such, without changing.
Once upon a time I experienced that xp even then refused to boot (in
similar situation) without ntdetect.com.
Nikola Le=C4=8Di=C4=87
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200706172145.l5HLjdZH029058>