timidi
Max Output Level: -21 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5449
- Joined: 2006/04/11 12:55:15
- Location: SE Florida
- Status: offline
Dual Boot
Does anyone know if there are any potential problems or things to watch out for with a Dual Boot set up with:
Win98se on one partition and
WinXp homesp2 on the other?
The reason for this is to have Cakewalk9.03 on win98 and sonar4 on XP.
I've never had a dual boot set up.
thanks
Tim
|
axe
Max Output Level: -76 dBFS
- Total Posts : 733
- Joined: 2003/11/30 11:41:39
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/08 12:56:19
(permalink)
As long as you use separate partitions, you should be fine.
AXE
|
wogg
Max Output Level: -57 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1819
- Joined: 2003/11/14 16:07:44
- Location: Columbus, OH
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/08 13:16:58
(permalink)
You have to setup 98 first, as it wipes out the MBR without considering multiple operating systems. Do 98 first followed by XP and you'll be fine.
|
timidi
Max Output Level: -21 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5449
- Joined: 2006/04/11 12:55:15
- Location: SE Florida
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/08 13:34:04
(permalink)
Thanks Guys. I am waiting for a new MoBo to arrive. Would it be alright to do the reformat/repartition/install windows 98/xp now on my existing setup while I wait for the new board. Or, does all that stuff need the board I will be using to be installed first? (So I can just swap out the boards and go) And, isn't there something about Fat32 for 98 and NTSF for XP. I mean can they both cohabitate on the same physical drive without problems? Thanks a lot Tim
post edited by timidi - 2006/05/08 13:44:29
|
Abe
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
- Total Posts : 542
- Joined: 2006/05/02 05:26:49
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/08 13:45:50
(permalink)
Wait for the new mobo then reformat/reinstall. Otherwise you would most likely have to do the whole thing again (no boot or flaky install at best).
Fat32 and NTFS go well together, as you might even install XP on Fat32. Just make one Fat32 partition while installing 98, let XP claim the rest of the drive with NTFS.
|
Guitarpima
Max Output Level: -34 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4125
- Joined: 2005/11/19 23:53:59
- Location: Terra 3
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/08 16:27:07
(permalink)
I always thought dual booting was a pain. I always ended up just using only one os anyway. I stopped that a long time ago. For me, it was to much of a bother. Good luck.
|
timidi
Max Output Level: -21 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5449
- Joined: 2006/04/11 12:55:15
- Location: SE Florida
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/08 16:56:58
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Guitarpima
I always thought dual booting was a pain. I always ended up just using only one os anyway. I stopped that a long time ago. For me, it was to much of a bother. Good luck.
Thanks G. I understand. However, in my mind, Sonar is a real pain:). I know I have to learn it though. I get work done on CakewalkPA9.03. And, Cakewalk9.03 seems to not like XP. (At least on my machine). So in order to have and learn Sonar and have all the benefits of Rewire and XP, I need to be on XP. In order to actually make some music, I need Cakewalk on 98:) So, I've kind of come to this solution. If you've got a better idea, I'd love to hear it. Really. How do actually access each different OS when booting a dual boot system? Just push a key or something? Thanks Tim
|
wogg
Max Output Level: -57 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1819
- Joined: 2003/11/14 16:07:44
- Location: Columbus, OH
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/08 17:34:14
(permalink)
How do actually access each different OS when booting a dual boot system? Just push a key or something? Here's how it should go down. You'll install 98 in it's little FAT32 partition of the drive, leaving the rest of the space for XP to partition and format. Then when you install XP, it will detect the 98 installation. Leave it alone and point XP to a different partition, create one if necessary, and it will install just fine. As it does, it will add a boot loader to the system sectors of C: that Windows 98 is on. Every time you start up, there will be a menu that pops up to ask which operating system to start, choose one or wait for the time to expire and the default OS will load (the new XP installation by default). You may change the amount of time it waits from the longish 30 seconds and the default OS in XP by using the System Properties -> Advanced -> Startup and Recovery dialog box. One wierd part is that XP will not be installed on what it calls "C:", instead "C:" will be the Windows 98 partition. The drive letter it ends up with will depend on how many other logical drives it detects during installation. But don't worry... I've yet to run into software that cannot handle being installed on alternate drive letters so this should not be an issue for you. Just make sure when you install software in XP you double check it's install path to make sure it's not going to C:, but to the drive letter XP ended up with instead. I've also yet to run into a program that didn't grab the correct system path by default during install but I still check every time.
|
Frank Haas
Max Output Level: -50.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2490
- Joined: 2005/01/14 06:32:54
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/08 18:27:55
(permalink)
another thing you might wanna check is if your new mainboard will run under Win98.
there's a slight possibility that you or your pc will fail during installation of Win98. (softwareinkompatibility with new hardware - to give a short explanation)
I had that problem with my Asus P5WD2-E Premium Board.. it would only successfully install when using a WinXP SP1a or higher CD. (Service Pack had to be included in the Windows version!)
|
timidi
Max Output Level: -21 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5449
- Joined: 2006/04/11 12:55:15
- Location: SE Florida
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/08 18:51:46
(permalink)
Thanks Wogg and Frank. Wogg. Ok, you say "You'll install 98 in it's 'LITTLE' FAT32 partition of the drive". but you also said: "Just make one Fat32 partition while installing 98, let XP claim the rest of the drive with NTFS." So I start with win98 start up disk do fdisk and just let it do it's thing to the whole drive or I make a little, say, 30 gig partition for 98? Sorry, I'm a little confused here. Frank, I guess I'll look into that. thanks It's an ASUS A8V (not deluxe). thanks Tim
post edited by timidi - 2006/05/08 19:00:25
|
Frank Haas
Max Output Level: -50.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2490
- Joined: 2005/01/14 06:32:54
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/08 20:00:07
(permalink)
as far as i know.. you cant access an ntfs disc from win98..
so either you stay with fat32 (which isnt that much of a problem) or you choose a fat32-portion that is cabable of enough data/songs/so on..
as mentioned.. you cant access the ntfs partition from win98.
|
Sid Viscous 
Max Output Level: -60 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1532
- Joined: 2003/11/30 10:05:25
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/08 20:01:14
(permalink)
Single boot makes me walk funny.
|
wogg
Max Output Level: -57 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1819
- Joined: 2003/11/14 16:07:44
- Location: Columbus, OH
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/09 13:19:10
(permalink)
So I start with win98 start up disk
do fdisk and just let it do it's thing to the whole drive or I make a little, say, 30 gig partition for 98? You'll have to specifically make a smaller partition with fDisk. 30G is probably way overkill... my DAW partition for my XP dual boot setup is only 8G big and only 40% full, 98 takes even less space than that.
|
Frank Haas
Max Output Level: -50.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2490
- Joined: 2005/01/14 06:32:54
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/09 13:40:47
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: timidi
Does anyone know if there are any potential problems or things to watch out for with a Dual Boot set up with:
Win98se on one partition and
WinXp homesp2 on the other?
The reason for this is to have Cakewalk9.03 on win98 and sonar4 on XP.
I've never had a dual boot set up.
thanks
Tim
I sum up a bit.. hopefully I say the truth here.. a.) FAT32 supports a max partitionsize of 128GB ! b.) Win98 cant read/write to a ntfs formated disk (or partition) In fact it doesnt even "see" this partition. c.) modern mainboards require modern operating systems.. (WinXP f.e.) d.) do you really need Cakewalk 9, when you have Sonar 4 ? remember, if you chose a small fat32 partition for cakewalk 9 you CAN NOT access the remaining ntfs partition ! once you partitionend your drive and installed your os, its too late to do changes to your disc-partitions.
|
Steve_Karl
Max Output Level: -50 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2534
- Joined: 2003/11/06 20:53:26
- Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/09 17:10:48
(permalink)
9.03 runs great on XPSP2.
Got it right here on my work partition.
|
D K
Max Output Level: -66 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1237
- Joined: 2005/06/07 14:07:05
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/09 17:45:46
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: timidi
Does anyone know if there are any potential problems or things to watch out for with a Dual Boot set up with:
Win98se on one partition and
WinXp homesp2 on the other?
The reason for this is to have Cakewalk9.03 on win98 and sonar4 on XP.
I've never had a dual boot set up.
Timidi,
Have you considered a removable drive bay - You can get good kits at Comp USA and seems much less trouble than setting up a dual boot - I find dual boots to be troublesome- even using Partion Magic - May not be an option for you - Just though I would mention it
Edit: i guess this does not address your rewire needs - Sorry
thanks
Tim
www.ateliersound.com ADK Custom I7-2600 K Win 7 64bit /8 Gig Ram/WD-Seagate Drives(x3) Sonar 8.5.3 (32bit)/Sonar X3b(64bit)/Pro Tools 9 Lavry Blue/Black Lion Audio Mod Tango 24/RME Hammerfall Multiface II/UAD Duo
|
epillarbox
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 634
- Joined: 2003/12/01 15:48:45
- Location: Guildford, UK
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/10 06:52:04
(permalink)
I run two operating systems (XP home and XP x64) on two physical hard drives and select the one I want in the BIOS. This seems to work well for me.
Good Luck,
Laurence
|
timidi
Max Output Level: -21 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5449
- Joined: 2006/04/11 12:55:15
- Location: SE Florida
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/10 11:59:45
(permalink)
Hey Steve.
Did you do any special tweaks or anything to get Cake9 working right?
I've been trying to get a new system up and running. I finally replaced the board and finally got the the thing to post correctly. (it would only post with 1 stick of ram but not 2).
Anyway, I did have it running at one point, and when using Cakewalk, I had all kinds of timing problems on playback (midi and audio).
I'm hoping that since the first board was screwed up, maybe the new board will fix everything.
thanks
Tim
|
timidi
Max Output Level: -21 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5449
- Joined: 2006/04/11 12:55:15
- Location: SE Florida
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/10 12:34:20
(permalink)
I sum up a bit.. hopefully I say the truth here..
a.) FAT32 supports a max partitionsize of 128GB !
b.) Win98 cant read/write to a ntfs formated disk (or partition) In fact it doesnt even "see" this partition.
c.) modern mainboards require modern operating systems.. (WinXP f.e.)
d.) do you really need Cakewalk 9, when you have Sonar 4 ?
remember, if you chose a small fat32 partition for cakewalk 9 you CAN NOT access the remaining ntfs partition !
once you partitionend your drive and installed your os, its too late to do changes to your disc-partitions. UH HAH.. Thanks Frank. That makes sense I think. In other words, if I use FAt for the 98 partition and NTFS for the XP partition, when I boot to the 98 partition, I will not see or have available anything that it is on the XP partition? correct? So, in other other words, you can't really do a dula boot with 98 and xp if you want to use NTSF? But then, I have no idea if that's a bad or good thing? But, I guess everybody suggests using NTSF for an audio machine. Sonar just frustrates me. I think I had the same fuddy duddy attitude going from Cake3.1 to 5 or 6 though. So, I guess it's just me:) I just can't a handle on a proper workflow, especially without an 'audio view'. In Cake9 I can have multiple audio and midi editing windows open and zoomed to where I like them, and just ctrl/tab around to them. It seems with Sonar and audio editing you're just stuck with zooming in and out on the main view. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I would love to "see the light".
|
wogg
Max Output Level: -57 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1819
- Joined: 2003/11/14 16:07:44
- Location: Columbus, OH
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/10 15:17:09
(permalink)
if I use FAt for the 98 partition and NTFS for the XP partition, when I boot to the 98 partition, I will not see or have available anything that it is on the XP partition? correct? Exactly! But you proably wouldn't need the 98 installation to mess with the XP files anyway. Worst case, perhaps you have a common sample set or something you want to use. In that case you can setup a FAT32 partition for storage that both OS's can access. FAT32 is not recomended for partitions over 32GB by Microsoft, though if you use the DOS prompt you can format as large as 128G. After all this you seem to be struggling with a work flow and interface change that you're just not liking. I've been on Cakewalk since Pro Audio 5 and have alwas liked the new interfaces, after a little adjustment period. Maybe you just need to keep playing with Sonar and modifying your workflow a little to accomodate the new features. You may end up more efficient.
|
kz1m9w
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 211
- Joined: 2004/04/05 15:19:26
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/11 23:52:43
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: wogg
if I use FAt for the 98 partition and NTFS for the XP partition, when I boot to the 98 partition, I will not see or have available anything that it is on the XP partition? correct?
Exactly! But you proably wouldn't need the 98 installation to mess with the XP files anyway. Worst case, perhaps you have a common sample set or something you want to use. In that case you can setup a FAT32 partition for storage that both OS's can access. FAT32 is not recomended for partitions over 32GB by Microsoft, though if you use the DOS prompt you can format as large as 128G.
After all this you seem to be struggling with a work flow and interface change that you're just not liking. I've been on Cakewalk since Pro Audio 5 and have alwas liked the new interfaces, after a little adjustment period. Maybe you just need to keep playing with Sonar and modifying your workflow a little to accomodate the new features. You may end up more efficient.
Tim, I am sensitive to your desire to stay with what is working for you - and I too am an old Cakewalk user (since DOS 3). So, I do understand. And hopefully you will find a solution that works for you, maybe getting it to run on Windows XP (that would be nice for you). But I feel compelled to not only agree with what a few others have suggested, but to emphasize it further - that you seriously try your best to "move forward" to Sonar. I personally don't know how to suggest better workarounds so you can use Sonar similarly to using Pro Audio, but I bet there would be tons of people on this forum that "grew" through that process at some point in the past and continue to work efficiently - likely even MORE efficiently than what they used to do on Pro Audio. I'd suggest maybe starting up a thread saying "Help me upgrade my workflow from Pro-Audio to Sonar" - or something like that. The real reason I say that is two-fold: 1) As stated, there probably are even better ways to do the work, you just might need some type of investment in learning them. As uphill as it may originally seem - it would probably be worth it for the efficiency reasons alone. 2) Even if you do temporarily stave off upgrading your workflow, it is a battle of attrition that you will never win. Nobody will be going backwards to Window 98 or Pro Audio 9. The "supported" platform will continually move away from you like a ship leaving you on a deserted island. I mean this in all seriousness to be helpful and non-judgemental advice. I'm just thinking it might be helpful to remember its a losing battle anyway (to try to stay on Pro Audio 9) and you just might be able to justify the time spent on the learning curve with the obvious savings (less time trying to stay with the old, new work-flow improvments, etc.). Regardless, best of luck to you however you proceed. Randy P.S. I finally got away from dual-boot a few versions ago and like another poster, have now declared it to be way more trouble than it is worth - just an opinion though.
post edited by kz1m9w - 2006/05/12 00:03:14
|
timidi
Max Output Level: -21 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5449
- Joined: 2006/04/11 12:55:15
- Location: SE Florida
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/12 00:47:14
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: kz1m9w
Tim,
I am sensitive to your desire to stay with what is working for you - and I too am an old Cakewalk user (since DOS 3). So, I do understand. And hopefully you will find a solution that works for you, maybe getting it to run on Windows XP (that would be nice for you).
But I feel compelled to not only agree with what a few others have suggested, but to emphasize it further - that you seriously try your best to "move forward" to Sonar.
Thanks for the eloquent and passionate response Kz. I do want to move forward with Sonar. However, I just don't want to do it in a 'cold turkey' kind of way. I need to know what I'm doing with a DAW to be able to be creative and not have a learning curve get in the way and screw up the flow. I just would like Cakewalk up and running alongside of Sonar as I learn Sonar. I've also noticed that Sonar doesn't import *.wrk files very well. So that is an issue. I have a bunch of things I was working on that need to be finished in Cake.
I personally don't know how to suggest better workarounds so you can use Sonar similarly to using Pro Audio, but I bet there would be tons of people on this forum that "grew" through that process at some point in the past and continue to work efficiently - likely even MORE efficiently than what they used to do on Pro Audio. I'd suggest maybe starting up a thread saying "Help me upgrade my workflow from Pro-Audio to Sonar" - or something like that.
Come on. you must have some "workaround" tips:) That's a good idea about the new thread. I would be grateful for the help.
Nobody will be going backwards to Window 98 or Pro Audio 9. The "supported" platform will continually move away from you like a ship leaving you on a deserted island.
So true..
I mean this in all seriousness to be helpful and non-judgemental advice. I'm just thinking it might be helpful to remember its a losing battle anyway (to try to stay on Pro Audio 9) and you just might be able to justify the time spent on the learning curve with the obvious savings (less time trying to stay with the old, new work-flow improvments, etc.).
Regardless, best of luck to you however you proceed.
Randy
P.S. I finally got away from dual-boot a few versions ago and like another poster, have now declared it to be way more trouble than it is worth - just an opinion though.
I thank you again kind sir. And, I couldn't agree more with your assessment. And, was your dual boot arrangement so that you could have Cakewalk available? Thanks Kz. Tim
|
kz1m9w
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 211
- Joined: 2004/04/05 15:19:26
- Status: offline
RE: Dual Boot
2006/05/12 01:12:00
(permalink)
And, was your dual boot arrangement so that you could have Cakewalk available?
No, at the time, it was so I could run Windows 98 and eventually ease myself into Windows 2000. But, like one other poster suggested, I got into Windows 2000 and never really used the Windows 98 installation like I though I would. It was just more of a hassle than worth it. But of course, your situation is different.
post edited by kz1m9w - 2006/05/12 01:19:39
|