On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 4:07 PM, thomas.wawersig
<thomas.wawersig@...> wrote:
> Hi Robyn,
>
> thanks for the information.
>
> Yes, I already checked priority in BIOS and XOSL setup (when I still
> had it).
> Actually I removed XOSL and just wanted to re-install, but it got
> stuck at "reading disk structure" (with this said external drive still
> plugged in...).
>
> Since I had it all up and running with an external disk before, it is
> probably not related to disk size, but number of primary partitions.
> The only difference (except for disk size of course) is another
> logical partition on the new drive. But what I forgot ist, that
> creating a logical partition requires a primary extended partition
> first. So all together XOSL now sees 5 primaries instead of 4. I think
> I remember that there is an issue with having more than 4 primary
> partitions (though I am not sure wehther I read this relating to
> XOSL). In your setup, are all partitions hosting an OS set up as
> primary partitions?
>

The limit of four primary (including extended) partitions is per disk.
It is not a limitation of XOSL, it is in the standard ms-dos
disklabel, that is, there is no place for more than four partitions in
a normal partition table.

I have succefully used XOSL with three disks having each 4 primary partitions.

I do not have any experience with external disks but I think support
for them would need to be in the BIOS. XOSL does not include any
recent drivers so it is not aware of USB, SATA, 1394, SD or any of
that recent stuff. For them to work correctly with XOSL (and the other
boot loaders), the BIOS needs to allow access to these new devices in
the old IBM PC-compatible way.

Antoine

Interesting Norman.
I suggest the bios is crucial (in principle, they're improving
all the time).  What is yours?
Junja


norman@... wrote:
> Hi Thomas
>
> Success with an external drive might depend on BIOS and connectivity
> used. I have used it successfully with a 1TB esata connected external
> drive. As you have  had success with a smaller USB drive it might be
> worth reinstalling XOSL and trying again.
>
> Regards
> Norman Back
>
> thomas.wawersig wrote:
>> Hi Norman,
>>
>> thanks for your incouraging comment. Is your 1TB an external drive?
>> If so I will give it a new try.....
>>
>> regards,
>> Thomas
>>
>> --- In xosl@yahoogroups.com, "norman@..." <norman@...> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> In my experience XOSL alread supports large drives. I'm currently using
>>> it successfully on a 1TB (1000GB) drive with multi boot XP, W2K & linux.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Norman Back
>>>
>>> thomas.wawersig wrote:
>>>> Hi there,
>>>>
>>>> this is a serious warning to NEVER try WinXP boot manager.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunetaley I had to look for an alernative to my beloved XOSL,
>>>> since I bought a 500GB hard disk, which somehow crashed my XOSL.
>>>> So in a fit of naive stupidity (after looking at various other boot
>>>> loader, that did not really come close to XOSL), I thought I give the
>>>> XP-thing a try.
>>>> What a total desaster!
>>>> Ok, I could boot into two different systems, but strange enough when
>>>> booting into the second XP, residing on a logical partition, I had the
>>>> system drive mapped as H: and still had good old C: (i.e. the first
>>>> system). Consequences were bitter: quite a lot of nice little apps did
>>>> not work properly anymore......
>>>> So well, of course I went back to scratch (I thought...). So I
>>>> pondered booting with a floppy (still have one:-)) and erasing the MBR
>>>> would be an easy way to get things back to normal.. What a childish
>>>> belief in the good of this world. I really forgot that these Redmond
>>>> guys do not tolerate any other gods beside them. Though I checked my
>>>> Bios a again and again: no way to boot from floppy or CD. No, Sir,
>>>> nothing. I had to use my XP installation CD instead to get rid of that
>>>> shit.
>>>>
>>>> So I wondered: will there ever, ever be XOSL supporting large external
>>>> drives?
>>>>
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe, send email to: <mailto:xosl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> or
use the web interface at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xoslYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----

 

The limit of four primary (including extended) partitions is per disk.
It is not a limitation of XOSL, it is in the standard ms-dos
disklabel, that is, there is no place for more than four partitions in
a normal partition table.

I have succefully used XOSL with three disks having each 4 primary partitions.

I do not have any experience with external disks but I think support
for them would need to be in the BIOS. XOSL does not include any
recent drivers so it is not aware of USB, SATA, 1394, SD or any of
that recent stuff. For them to work correctly with XOSL (and the other
boot loaders), the BIOS needs to allow access to these new devices in
the old IBM PC-compatible way.

Antoine

.

Hello members,

I have a problem with my XOSL installation. At present it is only letting me see
three logical partions. I have no problem seeing my three primary partitions
(Win XP, Linux Swap and XOSL) and my extended.
My installation lets me see three logical linux partitions, but will not let me
see an additional logical linux partition and an NTFS data partition.

XOSL also has an entry for booting from my floppy drive.

How can I get XOSL to see my final linux partition. I don't care if it sees the
NTFS data partition as I will not be booting from it.

Thank you,

Ernie

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Ernest <Ernie_L_Jackson@...> wrote:
>
> Hello members,
>
> I have a problem with my XOSL installation. At present it is only letting me
> see three logical partions. I have no problem seeing my three primary
> partitions (Win XP, Linux Swap and XOSL) and my extended.
> My installation lets me see three logical linux partitions, but will not let
> me see an additional logical linux partition and an NTFS data partition.
>
> XOSL also has an entry for booting from my floppy drive.
>
> How can I get XOSL to see my final linux partition. I don't care if it sees
> the NTFS data partition as I will not be booting from it.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Ernie
>

XOSL may not recognize every file system, which file system is used on
the Linux partition you do not see ?

We have received some reports of XOSL not being able to work properly
with big hard drives (>200GB?). This may be the same problem. How big
is your hard drive and how far on the hard drive are these partition ?

XOSL works only with msdos disklabel. It may not be able to see
correctly partitions that are using GPT, BSD disklabel, dynamic
partitions or LVM partitions.

XOSL can not boot Linux on its own, Lilo or Grub is needed to load the
kernel in memory. If I understand well, the partition where you
installed Lilo or Grub is one of the last two logical partition so you
are not able to boot your Linux OS through XOSL. Do DOS based tool see
these partitions (like fdisk on DOS) ?

As a workaround, you can probably install Grub on one of the Linux
partitions that XOSL sees and you will then be able to boot.

Antoine

I am asking XOSL will this work with Windows Home Server?

----- Original Message -----

From: Melinda Parker

To: xosl@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 11:11 AM

Subject: [xosl] Windows Home Server

I am asking XOSL will this work with Windows Home Server?

.

 

I install the XOSL but when I reboot my computer it says Extended Operating
System Loader 1.1.5 ant that's all :( Like, in the black screen. It doesn't load
the program, do I need a DOS to be installed on my hard drive or what is the
problem why the program won't start?

On Tue, 26 May 2009 08:36:38 -0400, allar.saks <allar.saks@...> wrote:

> I install the XOSL but when I reboot my computer it says Extended
> Operating System Loader 1.1.5 ant that's all :( Like, in the black
> screen. It doesn't load the program, do I need a DOS to be installed on
> my hard drive or what is the problem why the program won't start?
>

Well that is strange, it seems XOSL is not capable of setting a correct graphic
mode of the video chip. It is usually quite good at doing that (much better than
the X11 autoconfig of 2000-2001).

You do not need to have DOS on your computer, XOSL provides its own basic OS.
DOS is only required for running the installer.

What video chip do you have in that computer ? I'm afraid that if XOSL does not
like your video chip and the patch does not solve the problem, you will not be
able to use XOSL on that computer. Unless of course you want to try to find the
source of the problem in XOSL's code or if someone else can reproduce the
problem using a similar setup.

I have Geforce 4 MX video card.

--- In xosl@yahoogroups.com, "allar.saks" <allar.saks@...> wrote:
>
> I have Geforce 4 MX video card.
>
So it doesn't come from the video card.
But where is installed your XOSL?
It happen to me when I moved the partition with the XOSL installation.

...

I like XOSL and I want to use it with Vista. Web searches show that others have
sucessfully done this, but there is an "issue" with the Disk Signature. Here is
a great explanation of what Vista does:

http://www.multibooters.co.uk/mbr.html

In short, Vista overwrites the Disk Signature - which is nothing new, all
windows do this - but the Vista difference is that it records this value and
needs it to stay unmodified for it to boot.

Unfortunately, XOSL, for reasons unknown to me, writes something (?) into the
Disk Signature, breaking Vista's ability to boot. Here are some possible
workarounds:

http://www.multibooters.co.uk/managers.html#xosl

"Vista uses the Disk Signature in the boot process so you can either update
things so that the new signature is accepted, or preferably you can just remove
Vista's dependence on the signature so that the change has no affect. Details on
how to do these things are on the cloning page. Another option would be to make
a note of the Disk Signature and manually re-write it after installing XOSL."

I hate mucking around in windows, so my preference is towards the last option. I
don't have a lot of hope, but can anyone answer these questions:

1) *Why* does XOSL modify the Disk Signature? What does it put there?
2) What impact, if any, does modifying the XOSL written Disk Signature have on
XOSL? Will this break XOSL?

Here is my rough idea of how to do this work around:

Format and partion drive
Install XOSL
Install Vista (overwrites XOSL Disk Signature)
Restore XOSL (overwrites Vista Disk Signature)
manually overwrite XOSL Disk Signature with the Vista one
pray that this works

Install XP (overwrites Disk Signature)
Restore XOSL (overwrites XP Disk Signature)
manually overwrite XOSL Disk Signature with the Vista one (and hope XP is ok
with this??)

I also have to figure out how to recover XOSL without a floppy drive... bootable
recovery CD maybe...

Well I have to say, I didn't look at the links but I don't know what you are
talking about with the signature and Vista...

I have been using XOSL for years on a few systems and recently installed it on a
new system which is dual booting Vista and XP.
It works just fine.
I do vaguely recall that I needed to do a repair in the beginning.

My steps:
Install an OS onto a clean C drive and set it up roughly how I want.
Make an Image. I use Ghost.
Delete that install and install the next OS to the clean C drive. Set it up
roughly how I want and make the image.
Clear the drive and create additional partitions for the final placement of each
OS and restore the images to their respective partitions.
Install XOSL.

I do find it easiest to create a really small DOS partition where I put the XOSL
files and some utilities like Ranish partition mgr.
I install XOSL from there and can recover or uninstall from there.

That said, I have a HP with WinXP and XOSL simply will not operate properly on
that machine.
I presume some sort of Chipset or BIOS conflict but after a zillion tries I gave
up on that one.


I have been using bootable CF cards as replacements for floppy discs but not all
PCs will boot from a USB device.

And now you want to know how?
I found a program from HP. It is called HP DriveKey and the actual file is
HPUSBFW.EXE.
You need the DOS files but I don't recall at the moment if they need to be on a
floppy, a folder or an ISO file.



DP


--- In xosl@yahoogroups.com, "sol_403" <sol_403@...> wrote:
>
> I like XOSL and I want to use it with Vista. Web searches show that others
have sucessfully done this, but there is an "issue" with the Disk Signature.
Here is a great explanation of what Vista does:
>
> http://www.multibooters.co.uk/mbr.html
>
> In short, Vista overwrites the Disk Signature - which is nothing new, all
windows do this - but the Vista difference is that it records this value and
needs it to stay unmodified for it to boot.
>
> Unfortunately, XOSL, for reasons unknown to me, writes something (?) into the
Disk Signature, breaking Vista's ability to boot. Here are some possible
workarounds:
>
> http://www.multibooters.co.uk/managers.html#xosl
>
> "Vista uses the Disk Signature in the boot process so you can either update
things so that the new signature is accepted, or preferably you can just remove
Vista's dependence on the signature so that the change has no affect. Details on
how to do these things are on the cloning page. Another option would be to make
a note of the Disk Signature and manually re-write it after installing XOSL."
>
> I hate mucking around in windows, so my preference is towards the last option.
I don't have a lot of hope, but can anyone answer these questions:
>
> 1) *Why* does XOSL modify the Disk Signature? What does it put there?
> 2) What impact, if any, does modifying the XOSL written Disk Signature have on
XOSL? Will this break XOSL?
>
> Here is my rough idea of how to do this work around:
>
> Format and partion drive
> Install XOSL
> Install Vista (overwrites XOSL Disk Signature)
> Restore XOSL (overwrites Vista Disk Signature)
> manually overwrite XOSL Disk Signature with the Vista one
> pray that this works
>
> Install XP (overwrites Disk Signature)
> Restore XOSL (overwrites XP Disk Signature)
> manually overwrite XOSL Disk Signature with the Vista one (and hope XP is ok
with this??)
>
> I also have to figure out how to recover XOSL without a floppy drive...
bootable recovery CD maybe...
>

Well, I took the plunge and tried it out and everything worked. According to my
previous link, Vista does require the Disk Signature to remain unchanged, and I
verified that when you install / restore XOSL, it blanks these bytes to zero
(XOSL doesn't actually use them for anything).

At a high level, from a clean drive you just need to:

1) Set up partitions
2) Install Vista
3) record Disk Signature using a disk editor
4) Install XOSL, XP, other OS
5) restore Disk Signature

I never actually tested whether or not I needed to restore the Disk Signature
but it was a minor thing to do. Based on what you are saying it is unnecessary,
but better safe then sorry! Maybe the ghosting (something I don't do) makes it
unnecessary.

I am writing out an install guide based on what I did for my own reference, but
I might post it to this group for others.

Cheers.

--- In xosl@yahoogroups.com, "man_o_media" <Box4Stuff@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Well I have to say, I didn't look at the links but I don't know what you are
talking about with the signature and Vista...
>
> I have been using XOSL for years on a few systems and recently installed it on
a new system which is dual booting Vista and XP.
> It works just fine.
> I do vaguely recall that I needed to do a repair in the beginning.
>
> My steps:
> Install an OS onto a clean C drive and set it up roughly how I want.
> Make an Image. I use Ghost.
> Delete that install and install the next OS to the clean C drive. Set it up
roughly how I want and make the image.
> Clear the drive and create additional partitions for the final placement of
each OS and restore the images to their respective partitions.
> Install XOSL.
>
> I do find it easiest to create a really small DOS partition where I put the
XOSL files and some utilities like Ranish partition mgr.
> I install XOSL from there and can recover or uninstall from there.
>
> That said, I have a HP with WinXP and XOSL simply will not operate properly on
that machine.
> I presume some sort of Chipset or BIOS conflict but after a zillion tries I
gave up on that one.
>
>
> I have been using bootable CF cards as replacements for floppy discs but not
all PCs will boot from a USB device.
>
> And now you want to know how?
> I found a program from HP. It is called HP DriveKey and the actual file is
HPUSBFW.EXE.
> You need the DOS files but I don't recall at the moment if they need to be on
a floppy, a folder or an ISO file.
>
>
>
> DP
>
>
> --- In xosl@yahoogroups.com, "sol_403" <sol_403@> wrote:
> >
> > I like XOSL and I want to use it with Vista. Web searches show that others
have sucessfully done this, but there is an "issue" with the Disk Signature.
Here is a great explanation of what Vista does:
> >
> > http://www.multibooters.co.uk/mbr.html
> >
> > In short, Vista overwrites the Disk Signature - which is nothing new, all
windows do this - but the Vista difference is that it records this value and
needs it to stay unmodified for it to boot.
> >
> > Unfortunately, XOSL, for reasons unknown to me, writes something (?) into
the Disk Signature, breaking Vista's ability to boot. Here are some possible
workarounds:
> >
> > http://www.multibooters.co.uk/managers.html#xosl
> >
> > "Vista uses the Disk Signature in the boot process so you can either update
things so that the new signature is accepted, or preferably you can just remove
Vista's dependence on the signature so that the change has no affect. Details on
how to do these things are on the cloning page. Another option would be to make
a note of the Disk Signature and manually re-write it after installing XOSL."
> >
> > I hate mucking around in windows, so my preference is towards the last
option. I don't have a lot of hope, but can anyone answer these questions:
> >
> > 1) *Why* does XOSL modify the Disk Signature? What does it put there?
> > 2) What impact, if any, does modifying the XOSL written Disk Signature have
on XOSL? Will this break XOSL?
> >
> > Here is my rough idea of how to do this work around:
> >
> > Format and partion drive
> > Install XOSL
> > Install Vista (overwrites XOSL Disk Signature)
> > Restore XOSL (overwrites Vista Disk Signature)
> > manually overwrite XOSL Disk Signature with the Vista one
> > pray that this works
> >
> > Install XP (overwrites Disk Signature)
> > Restore XOSL (overwrites XP Disk Signature)
> > manually overwrite XOSL Disk Signature with the Vista one (and hope XP is ok
with this??)
> >
> > I also have to figure out how to recover XOSL without a floppy drive...
bootable recovery CD maybe...
> >
>

This is off topic but only brief.
Two of the early motherboards to have sata
which I tried weren't very handy.
With modern mobos, is there any problem
using software like Ranish PM or Bootit NG
with sata drives?
I'm hoping the bios hides the nature of the
hardware, making sata and ata look alike.
Sezor

That sounds to me as if it will work (though
I have no experience of Vista).
Keep us informed if it works.
Sezor


sol_403 wrote:
>
>
>
> I like XOSL and I want to use it with Vista. Web searches show that
> others have sucessfully done this, but there is an "issue" with the Disk
> Signature. Here is a great explanation of what Vista does:
>
> http://www.multibooters.co.uk/mbr.html
> <http://www.multibooters.co.uk/mbr.html>
>
> In short, Vista overwrites the Disk Signature - which is nothing new,
> all windows do this - but the Vista difference is that it records this
> value and needs it to stay unmodified for it to boot.
>
> Unfortunately, XOSL, for reasons unknown to me, writes something (?)
> into the Disk Signature, breaking Vista's ability to boot. Here are some
> possible workarounds:
>
> http://www.multibooters.co.uk/managers.html#xosl
> <http://www.multibooters.co.uk/managers.html#xosl>
>
> "Vista uses the Disk Signature in the boot process so you can either
> update things so that the new signature is accepted, or preferably you
> can just remove Vista's dependence on the signature so that the change
> has no affect. Details on how to do these things are on the cloning
> page. Another option would be to make a note of the Disk Signature and
> manually re-write it after installing XOSL."
>
> I hate mucking around in windows, so my preference is towards the last
> option. I don't have a lot of hope, but can anyone answer these questions:
>
> 1) *Why* does XOSL modify the Disk Signature? What does it put there?
> 2) What impact, if any, does modifying the XOSL written Disk Signature
> have on XOSL? Will this break XOSL?
>
> Here is my rough idea of how to do this work around:
>
> Format and partion drive
> Install XOSL
> Install Vista (overwrites XOSL Disk Signature)
> Restore XOSL (overwrites Vista Disk Signature)
> manually overwrite XOSL Disk Signature with the Vista one
> pray that this works
>
> Install XP (overwrites Disk Signature)
> Restore XOSL (overwrites XP Disk Signature)
> manually overwrite XOSL Disk Signature with the Vista one (and hope XP
> is ok with this??)
>
> I also have to figure out how to recover XOSL without a floppy drive...
> bootable recovery CD maybe...
>
>

Interesting.
I'm looking forward to the install guide
sezor

sol_403 wrote:
>
>
>
> Well, I took the plunge and tried it out and everything worked.
> According to my previous link, Vista does require the Disk Signature to
> remain unchanged, and I verified that when you install / restore XOSL,
> it blanks these bytes to zero (XOSL doesn't actually use them for
> anything).
>
> At a high level, from a clean drive you just need to:
>
> 1) Set up partitions
> 2) Install Vista
> 3) record Disk Signature using a disk editor
> 4) Install XOSL, XP, other OS
> 5) restore Disk Signature
>
> I never actually tested whether or not I needed to restore the Disk
> Signature but it was a minor thing to do. Based on what you are saying
> it is unnecessary, but better safe then sorry! Maybe the ghosting
> (something I don't do) makes it unnecessary.
>
> I am writing out an install guide based on what I did for my own
> reference, but I might post it to this group for others.
>
> Cheers.
>
> --- In xosl@yahoogroups.com <mailto:xosl%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "man_o_media" <Box4Stuff@...> wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Well I have to say, I didn't look at the links but I don't know what
> you are talking about with the signature and Vista...
>  >
>  > I have been using XOSL for years on a few systems and recently
> installed it on a new system which is dual booting Vista and XP.
>  > It works just fine.
>  > I do vaguely recall that I needed to do a repair in the beginning.
>  >
>  > My steps:
>  > Install an OS onto a clean C drive and set it up roughly how I want.
>  > Make an Image. I use Ghost.
>  > Delete that install and install the next OS to the clean C drive. Set
> it up roughly how I want and make the image.
>  > Clear the drive and create additional partitions for the final
> placement of each OS and restore the images to their respective partitions.
>  > Install XOSL.
>  >
>  > I do find it easiest to create a really small DOS partition where I
> put the XOSL files and some utilities like Ranish partition mgr.
>  > I install XOSL from there and can recover or uninstall from there.
>  >
>  > That said, I have a HP with WinXP and XOSL simply will not operate
> properly on that machine.
>  > I presume some sort of Chipset or BIOS conflict but after a zillion
> tries I gave up on that one.
>  >
>  >
>  > I have been using bootable CF cards as replacements for floppy discs
> but not all PCs will boot from a USB device.
>  >
>  > And now you want to know how?
>  > I found a program from HP. It is called HP DriveKey and the actual
> file is HPUSBFW.EXE.
>  > You need the DOS files but I don't recall at the moment if they need
> to be on a floppy, a folder or an ISO file.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > DP
>  >
>  >
>  > --- In xosl@yahoogroups.com <mailto:xosl%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "sol_403" <sol_403@> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > I like XOSL and I want to use it with Vista. Web searches show that
> others have sucessfully done this, but there is an "issue" with the Disk
> Signature. Here is a great explanation of what Vista does:
>  > >
>  > > http://www.multibooters.co.uk/mbr.html
> <http://www.multibooters.co.uk/mbr.html>
>  > >
>  > > In short, Vista overwrites the Disk Signature - which is nothing
> new, all windows do this - but the Vista difference is that it records
> this value and needs it to stay unmodified for it to boot.
>  > >
>  > > Unfortunately, XOSL, for reasons unknown to me, writes something
> (?) into the Disk Signature, breaking Vista's ability to boot. Here are
> some possible workarounds:
>  > >
>  > > http://www.multibooters.co.uk/managers.html#xosl
> <http://www.multibooters.co.uk/managers.html#xosl>
>  > >
>  > > "Vista uses the Disk Signature in the boot process so you can
> either update things so that the new signature is accepted, or
> preferably you can just remove Vista's dependence on the signature so
> that the change has no affect. Details on how to do these things are on
> the cloning page. Another option would be to make a note of the Disk
> Signature and manually re-write it after installing XOSL."
>  > >
>  > > I hate mucking around in windows, so my preference is towards the
> last option. I don't have a lot of hope, but can anyone answer these
> questions:
>  > >
>  > > 1) *Why* does XOSL modify the Disk Signature? What does it put there?
>  > > 2) What impact, if any, does modifying the XOSL written Disk
> Signature have on XOSL? Will this break XOSL?
>  > >
>  > > Here is my rough idea of how to do this work around:
>  > >
>  > > Format and partion drive
>  > > Install XOSL
>  > > Install Vista (overwrites XOSL Disk Signature)
>  > > Restore XOSL (overwrites Vista Disk Signature)
>  > > manually overwrite XOSL Disk Signature with the Vista one
>  > > pray that this works
>  > >
>  > > Install XP (overwrites Disk Signature)
>  > > Restore XOSL (overwrites XP Disk Signature)
>  > > manually overwrite XOSL Disk Signature with the Vista one (and hope
> XP is ok with this??)
>  > >
>  > > I also have to figure out how to recover XOSL without a floppy
> drive... bootable recovery CD maybe...
>  > >
>  >
>
>

Hello Sol,

Thank you for posting this. I am sure that others will appreciate it.

I did write a simple guide for myself some time back for various Windows XP
versions (testing, etc.). I shall have to rewrite it extensively to incorportate
Windows 7 for when it is released properly.

Yours,
Robyn

Thanks sol


sol_403 wrote:
>
>
>
> +===============================================================+
> |  How to create a multi boot Vista-XP-Linux system using XOSL  |
> +===============================================================+
>
> July 2009
> by: soundoflight [at] hotmail |dot| com
>
> This brief guide will explain how to set up your computer to safely run
> multiple operating systems, including windows Vista, in a multi-boot
> setup. There are many ways to acheive multi-booting, but my personal
> favorite is to use a third party bootloader that hides the various
> windows installations from each other. From a stability perspective, I
> much perfer this to relying upon windows or even Linux to manage the
> boot process.
>
> An exellent resource for learning about the multi-boot process from a
> Vista perspective can be found here:
> http://www.multibooters.co.uk/index.html
>
> XOSL is almost 10 years old, but since the low level fundamentals of
> booting have not changed much during this time, it's still an excellent
> choice as a boot manager. It still looks great, has great features like
> partition hiding and password protection, and its reliability is proven.
> Plus, it allows you demonstrate your mad computer skills. Nuf said.
>
>
> +========================+
> |  Tools you will need   |
> +========================+
>
> 1) A blank hard drive / a hard drive you are willing to lose all the
> data on.  In theory this guide could be adapted to work with your
> existing windows partition, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you
> really know what you are doing.
>
> 2) UBCD - the ultimate boot CD, an extremely useful FREE tool. I can't
> imagine life without it. If you get nothing else from this page, at
> least pick up this badboy. (http://www.ultimatebootcd.com/). This CD
> contains ALL of the pr ograms you will need, including Ranish Partition
> Manager and XOSL.
>
> 3) Vista DVD, XP CD, Ubuntu Linux CD + VAILD WINDOWS KEYS
>
> 4) Some sort of understanding of what is going on here. Unless you are
> comfortable with partitioning disks and clean installing Windows, don't
> even think about trying this. Read the documentation for XOSL
> (http://www2.arnes.si/~fkomar/xosl.org/), Ranish Partition Manager, and
> as many other mutli-boot guides as you can.
>
> 5) Access to a second computer will make your life a lot easier during
> this, to access manuals, information, drivers, etc.
>
>
> +================================+
> |  Steps to set up your system   |
> +================================+
>
> 1) Backup / Plan / Prepare. Before you start it's probably a good idea
> to update your motherboards BIOS, or at least check into what features
> the latest BIOS will offer you. My laptop came with OEM Vista, so I
> extracted the key from windows before I formatted using the ABR tool
> (http://directedge.us/content/abr-activation-backup-and-restore).
> Optionally, you can use the key on the bottom of the laptop and call
> microsoft to get them to activate it (but I'd rather not give the
> bastards the pleasure).
>
> 2) Change the boot order in your BIOS to boot from the CD first.
>
> 3) Boot with UBCD and wipe the hard drive clean using the tool of your
> choice. I'd recommend just zeroing the entire drive (one pass).
>
> 4) Boot with UBCD and run the Ranish Partition Manager.
> - Use the wizard to create ALL of the partitions you plan to make on
> this drive.
> - After you create each partition, remember to align the paritions with
> the cylinder boundaries. Make sure that all partitions start at minimum
> head and sector values (0 & 1), and end at maximum head and sector
> values (254 & 63). Also don't save or format anything until you make all
> the partitions. This is the one step of this process you don't want to
> mess up on.
> - Ranish doesn't have NTFS, so just pick FAT 32 for the windows
> partitions and leave them unformatted (we will use the windows
> installers to format these). In fact, leave all the partitions
> unformatted EXCEPT for Pri-1 (XOSL), which you should format to FAT-16
> using the "f" key.
> - Here is my example of how I set up my system:
>
> #    Type    File System             Size
>
> 1    Pri-1    FAT16 (XOSL)           32MB
> 2    Pri-2    NTFS (Vista)           40GB
> 3    Pri-3    NTFS (XP)              30GB
> 4    Pri-4    Extended&n bsp;              86GB
> 5    -Log-1    NTFS (Shared Data)    64GB
> 6    -Log-2    Linux ext3 (/)        10GB
> 7    -Log-3    Linux ext3 (/home)    10GB
> 8    -Log-4    Linux Swap            2GB
>
> - note: due to the aligning of the boundaries I also had small unused
> spaces before and after 1 and 8.
>
> 5) Reboot with the Vista DVD and install Vista. Use Vista to format the
> partition you made for it. Reboot about 1000 times to install Vista (1),
> the hardware drivers (2), and Vista windows updates (3).
>
> 6) ****CRITICAL STEP**** You must now note the Vista Disk Signature
> before proceeding. Boot using the UBCD and run the PTS DiskEditor tool.
> Right near the start of the drive (which is the MBR section), you need
> to note the 4 byte hex disk signature code located at 0x01b8-0x01bb. For
> example, on my computer these were "ED 66 35 8D". For those that don't
> understand hex, just go to the row called "01B0" and the 9th, 10th,
> 11th, & 12th numbers (of 16) in the row are what you want. It might be a
> good idea to save a copy of the entire MBR at this point.
>
> 7) Boot from the UBCD and install XOSL to the 32MB partition you created
> and formatted for it. You do not need smart boot manager. Explanation of
> the options can be found in the XOSL documenation.
>
> 8) This step is optional, but it's nice to know things are working.
> Create a boot option for your Vista install in XOSL, then reboot with
> the UBCD and use the PTS DiskEditor to rewrite the 4 byte disk signature
> that XOSL unfortunately blanks out during it's install. Take out the CD,
> and you should now be able to boot Vista from XOSL.
>
> 9) Now we are ready for our next install. First run the UB CD and run
> Ranish to hide the Vista partition. Then reboot with XP installation CD
> and begin the install. The XP partition will show up as C: drive. Format
> it to NTFS and complete the install process. Again do the drivers,
> updates, etc. XP over-writes the XOSL so it is temporarily gone.
>
> 10) Boot from the UBCD, run XOSL and choose to "restore" XOSL. Setup
> your Vista and XP boot options, making sure you hide them from each
> other (this is very important!).
>
> 11) Boot from the UBCD, again run the PTS DiskEditor, and restore the
> Vista Disk Signature. You should now have a fully functional dual boot
> Vista-XP system! Format the shared NTFS partition from windows and it
> should appear to both windows installs.
>
> 12) Now you can add Ubuntu Linux into the mix. At this point, take this
> guide with a grain of salt because I know nothing about Linux. First I
> made some back ups, saving on a flash drive:
>
> - A copy of my current MBR.
> - A cop y of my Ranish parition table (this one was a bit tricky since I
> had no floppy drive... I just took pictures with my digital camera...
> meh it works).
>
> 13) Put in the Ubuntu CD and choose install. It might be a good idea to
> try hiding the windows partitions, but I think Ubuntu will find them
> anyways.
> - Choose to specify your partitions manually.
> - Don't miss the small "Advanced" box at the last step to choose where
> the GRUB bootloader will go. If left to its own devices GRUB will kill
> XOSL. Stick it into the same partition as your root (/)
>
> 14) Add the root (/) partition to XOSL and you should now have a fully
> functionally triple boot system. There is probably some tinkering around
> with GRUB and Ubuntu necessary here to hide windows fully, but I don't
> know enough yet to do this.
>
> 15) Rejoice that I wasted so much time on this so that you don't have to :)
>
>   >'-')> <('-'<) ^('-')^ v('-')v <('-'<) ^( )^ (> '-')> ^(^-^)>
>
> +=================================================================+
> |  Feel free to share this guide - all I ask is that you leave it |
> |  intact and don't steal credit for it.                          |
> +=================================================================+
>
> Listen to the man who seeks the truth. Ignore the man who has already
> found it.
>
>

Hi

Installation failed on SATA Raid 5 on a new mobo (msi790fx-gd70/amd@SB750).
Installation gets stuck at "reading disk structure". When setting SATA mode in
bios at ACHI or IDE (nonraid) installation was successful. But I need the raid
option. Is this a hardware issue or limitation of Xosl due to hardware spec.?

I have tried installing BootIt NG which went flawless. However, BootIt sees a
bit cumbersome next to Xosl. I would surely miss Xosl if I had to change!

I have used Xosl for almost 10 years now without any problems. Having used SATA
raid on two former mobos with success (Asus and Asrock).

Any ideas.


regards,
Michael

--- In xosl@yahoogroups.com, "m_ostergaard2000" <modelairplane@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Installation failed on SATA Raid 5 on a new mobo (msi790fx-gd70/amd@SB750).
Installation gets stuck at "reading disk structure". When setting SATA mode in
bios at ACHI or IDE (nonraid) installation was successful. But I need the raid
option. Is this a hardware issue or limitation of Xosl due to hardware spec.?
>
> I have tried installing BootIt NG which went flawless. However, BootIt sees a
bit cumbersome next to Xosl. I would surely miss Xosl if I had to change!
>
> I have used Xosl for almost 10 years now without any problems. Having used
SATA raid on two former mobos with success (Asus and Asrock).
>
> Any ideas.
>
>
> regards,
> Michael
>


Update....

I was able to install the basic boot manager in Ranish Partman. However, it was
to basic. Then I installed SBM (smart boot manager) which I use now. It's okay,
but lacks the selected boot item hiding configuration. I have also tried Boot-us
from floppy which seems very pleasing. It can also be configured under Windows!

Still, I have not solved the problem as to installing my beloved Xosl.

regards,
Michael

I've got a machine which xosl wouldn't run on
- it hung at the signon message.
It's not recent -  an MSI K8MM3-V  Socket 754
or MS-7181-050
I ended buying bootit-ng - which runs fine and
has the bonus of doing partition backups.
But xosl runs fine on a more recent portable,
booting xp & dos.
sezor


m_ostergaard2000 wrote:
>
>
> --- In xosl@yahoogroups.com <mailto:xosl%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "m_ostergaard2000" <modelairplane@...> wrote:
>  >
>  > Hi
>  >
>  > Installation failed on SATA Raid 5 on a new mobo
> (msi790fx-gd70/amd@SB750). Installation gets stuck at "reading disk
> structure". When setting SATA mode in bios at ACHI or IDE (nonraid)
> installation was successful. But I need the raid option. Is this a
> hardware issue or limitation of Xosl due to hardware spec.?
>  >
>  > I have tried installing BootIt NG which went flawless. However,
> BootIt sees a bit cumbersome next to Xosl. I would surely miss Xosl if I
> had to change!
>  >
>  > I have used Xosl for almost 10 years now without any problems. Having
> used SATA raid on two former mobos with success (Asus and Asrock).
>  >
>  > Any ideas.
>  >
>  >
>  > regards,
>  > Michael
>  >
>
> Update....
>
> I was able to install the basic boot manager in Ranish Partman. However,
> it was to basic. Then I installed SBM (smart boot manager) which I use
> now. It's okay, but lacks the selected boot item hiding configuration. I
> have also tried Boot-us from floppy which seems very pleasing. It can
> also be configured under Windows!
>
> Still, I have not solved the problem as to installing my beloved Xosl.
>
> regards,
> Michael
>
>

did anyone install xosl in virtualbox to configure multiboot (windows xp &
vista/7). The boot window is not stable and skips automatically to boot into OS.

Hi

I've installed a SATA hard disk into an old motherboard.
The motherboard doesn't support SATA so doesn't offer the disk to boot.
I also have a small slow IDE disk that i can boot. Once an OS is loaded (ie
Ubuntu) the SATA disk can be seen.

Would it be possible to just install XOSL on the ide drive and boot an OS (Win
XP) on the SATA drive?

Thanks
dan

Hello Dan,

> I've installed a SATA hard disk into an old motherboard.
> The motherboard doesn't support SATA so doesn't offer the disk to boot.

Firstly double check the BIOS settings. There may well be an option for
"other devices" but this is not always the case.

I would recommend that you remove/disconnect your IDE hard drive first and
try to install XOSL onto the SATA.  You may find that this works, although
it will depend on a number of things, including your Mobo's BIOS and the
BIOS on the SATA expansion card that you have installed.

I have seen this work in the past.  I have also seen it fail on a card
bought by a friend.

> I also have a small slow IDE disk that i can boot. Once an OS is loaded
> (ie Ubuntu) the SATA disk can be seen.

> Would it be possible to just install XOSL on the ide drive and boot an OS
> (Win XP) on the SATA drive?

This sould work. You'll need to select the "swap" drives" option in the XOSL
settings.  Although I would advise caution if one of your reasons for
getting the SATA drive is because the older IDE drive is starting to die.

Whilst you can access the SATA drive, try partitioning it something like
below:

Primary 1 - 30Mb
Primary 2 - O/S 1 (you choose the size)
Primary 3 - O/S 2 (you choose the size)
Remainder as required

By the way, although the SATA card may say it is capable of 150Mb/s or
300Mb/s transfer rate, your bus will reduce this further if it is not
capable of sustaining this rate.

Good luck,
Robyn

I assume you installed a PCI card to attach the SATA drive to.  I did the same
thing.  Check if your BIOS offers a boot to SCSI, my 2001 Award BIOS has that
option and will boot the SATA drive.  I know, SCSI and SATA are not the same
thing, but it works.  I needed to make SCSI the first boot option (ahead of CD
and floppy) to get it to work.  I successfully installed XOSL on my (SCSI) SATA
drive.  If there are no IDE drives connected to the system, the SATA drive boots
automatically even if it is not in the boot sequence at all, but if there is an
IDE drive connected to the system,  SCSI must be FIRST in the boot sequence or
the IDE drive will boot instead.

Bill


Hi

I've installed a SATA hard disk into an old motherboard.
The motherboard doesn't support SATA so doesn't offer the disk to boot.
I also have a small slow IDE disk that i can boot. Once an OS is loaded (ie
Ubuntu) the SATA disk can be seen.

Would it be possible to just install XOSL on the ide drive and boot an OS (Win
XP) on the SATA drive?

Thanks
dan

I might add a couple of notes and observations to this discussion from my own
experience with XOSL on an older system with a newer hard drive.

I believe the reason the Ubuntu sees the drive is that the Linux kernel bypasses
the BIOS code, using its own code to directly handle devices.  I am not 100% on
this but had read this somewhere when researching oddities on an older system I
was fiddling with to get a Linux distro to run.  I would disable the hard drive
access entirely in the BIOS, yet the Linux kernel would still "see" it.

My own system is rather old with a new 250GB drive recently added.  I have found
that XOSL will not see the partitions I have created beyond those in the first
64GB of addresses.  So I am limited to using boot partitions.

However, with Linux's GRUB and LILO, they see the partitions fine.  I attribute
this to limitations with my BIOS version which is from the original motherboard
and quite old.

Given the above, you might want to look into purchasing an aftermarket BIOS
replacement that will properly see the drive.  I had done this back in 1998 to
allow a very old pentium II system see a "new" 6GB hard drive and was very
impressed with the aftermarket BIOS I got from a company called Mr. BIOS.  There
are a number of companies that can provide BIOS replacements for you.

--- In xosl@yahoogroups.com, "ocalld" <ocalld@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I've installed a SATA hard disk into an old motherboard.
> The motherboard doesn't support SATA so doesn't offer the disk to boot.
> I also have a small slow IDE disk that i can boot. Once an OS is loaded (ie
Ubuntu) the SATA disk can be seen.
>
> Would it be possible to just install XOSL on the ide drive and boot an OS (Win
XP) on the SATA drive?
>
> Thanks
> dan
>

>>I believe the reason the Ubuntu sees the drive is that the Linux kernel
bypasses the BIOS code, using its own code to directly handle devices.<<

That's correct.  The more recent BIOS limit is commonly known as the 137 GB
limit (by the more generous way manufacturers calculate GB) which requires a
48-bit LBA BIOS to get past the limit.  You can download a 48LBACHK program from
Intel's website to test your BIOS to see if it is 48-bit LBA capable.

Windows 2000 and XP also bypass the BIOS to access hard drives directly, so on
my late 2001 system on which I installed a 160GB drive, the BIOS only sees 128
GB, but XP and ubuntu (gparted) see all 149 GB.  Windows 98/Me requires a BIOS
update to see the whole drive.

If XOSL just goes by what the BIOS reports, but Linux's GRUB and LILO see the
whole drive, then it may be better to use the latter if OS partitions are
installed above 128 MB.  I haven't tried to install any that high.  And if the
BIOS doesn't see your SATA drive, then I guess XOSL won't either.

A warning on updating your BIOS.  If you have a major OEM system on which
Windows came preinstalled, your OS key may be encoded into the BIOS (called SLP
- system prelocked activation).  In which case you would need to get BIOS
updates from the manufacturer to avoid invalidating your Windows license..  I
downloaded a BIOS update to get past the 137GB limit from my motherboard's
website, but have to back it off after I found that Windows was no longer
activated with the new BIOS.  Alas, the manufacturer has no BIOS updates for my
system, all they offer is original BIOS restoration.

Bill

--- In xosl@yahoogroups. com, "ocalld" <ocalld@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I've installed a SATA hard disk into an old motherboard.
> The motherboard doesn't support SATA so doesn't offer the disk to boot.
> I also have a small slow IDE disk that i can boot. Once an OS is loaded (ie
Ubuntu) the SATA disk can be seen.
>
> Would it be possible to just install XOSL on the ide drive and boot an OS (Win
XP) on the SATA drive?
>
> Thanks
> dan
>