Independent assessment of problems with Vista dual boot installer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

If you got Vista to install in dual boot configuration you are lucky. Here is
an assessment from V-com, publishers of System commander:


• Windows Vista installs its OS Loader into the active primary partition on
the first drive (this is what starts Windows Vista). The balance of Windows
Vista can be installed on any drive, in a primary or logical partition.

• System Commander 8.21 or later is recommended. SC8 can also be installed
into a NTFS partition. Older System Commander products are not recommended.

• Windows Vista installs its OS Loader into the active primary partition.

Special Warnings

• Vista will default to installing it boot files into an existing Windows
XP/2000 partition if found. In the process it will install its text-based
dual boot manager into XP/2000 and replaces the original XP boot files
(NTLDR/NTDETECT.COM) with Vista versions. It is difficult to get out of this
mess, once created. We are working on a tool to help restore XP/2000 to
normal after Vista (Q1-2007). Note that Vista will NOT warn you or give you a
choice about how it installs if it sees XP/2000.

We STRONGLY recommend you hide all primary partitions from Vista before it's
install using System Commander's unique "Super hiding" technology. Standard
hiding (changing the partition id) will NOT hide partitions from the VIsta
installer. To do this:

Use the OS Wizard in SC 8.21 or later to prepare for the Vista installation
(older versions will not handle it). When the OS Wizard completes, insert the
Windows Vista DVD and reboot directly from the DVD. Install VIsta. Note that
when it boots from the Vista CD, you have about 5 seconds to press any key
when it asks if you want to boot from the DVD. Once Vista is installed and
working, boot from the System Commander CD (or diskette). At the menu select
enable System Commander to restore our MBR that was erased by the Vista
installation.

Note the phrase, "It is difficult to get out of this mess once created." The
"mess" is created by following Microsoft's instructions for a dual boot
installation.

This is not me bashing Microsoft, this is an independent software maker that
recognizes that Microsoft has screwed the pooch on the Vista installer. The
computer press and certainly Microsoft have not mentioned this but the web
and this group are full of posts by users trying to create a dual boot system
following Microsoft's instructions.
 
Hi, bmoag.

A kernel of truth, followed by a lot of misinformation designed to sell
V-com's product.
• Windows Vista installs its OS Loader into the active primary partition
on
the first drive (this is what starts Windows Vista). The balance of
Windows
Vista can be installed on any drive, in a primary or logical partition.
Click to expand...

This much is true. Following longstanding - although counterintuitive -
industry terminology, Microsoft refers to the startup partition as the
System Partition and the volume where the bulk of Vista is installed as the
"boot volume". (See KB article: Definition of System Partition and Boot
Partition; http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314470/EN-US/)
• Vista will default to installing it boot files into an existing Windows
XP/2000 partition if found. In the process it will install its text-based
dual boot manager into XP/2000 and replaces the original XP boot files
(NTLDR/NTDETECT.COM) with Vista versions. It is difficult to get out of
this
mess, once created. We are working on a tool to help restore XP/2000 to
normal after Vista (Q1-2007). Note that Vista will NOT warn you or give
you a
choice about how it installs if it sees XP/2000.
Click to expand...

Mostly wrong. Remember that "boot files" are those in the \Windows folder,
NOT the startup files in the System Partition. Vista Setup will install the
boot files into any primary partition or logical drive you choose on any HD
in your computer, so long as there is enough unused disk space there. It
also will format an existing partition before installing, if you choose.
I'm not sure what "its text-based dual boot manager" means, unless it is
BCDedit.exe, which is a command-line tool for editing the BCD. BCDedit does
remind me of Linedit.exe of 20 years ago, but most users will never need to
deal with it; those who do can learn to use it in less than an hour.

Vista Setup does NOT replace NTLDR, etc. It does replace the WinXP boot
sector, but it saves a copy of it first in the Root of the System Partition,
then it creates a new \Boot folder and writes its Boot Configuration Data
(BCD) files there. It also writes its bootmgr.exe into the Root of that
partition.

After installation, each time you reboot, the BCD offers a menu from which
you can choose to run Vista or an "earlier" version of Windows. If you
choose "earlier", the BCD steps back out of the way and loads the saved
WinXP boot sector, which loads the untouched NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and
Boot.ini, which present the familiar menu of Windows choices. By this time,
the computer has forgotten that Vista was ever installed on that computer,
except for all those files taking up disk space.

You can choose a third-party dual-boot system such as System Commander, of
course, and that is the best solution for many users. But I've been
dual-booting (multi-booting up to 8 operating systems during the Vista beta
period) for nearly 10 years using only the method built into every NT-type
Windows since at least WinNT4.0. I've never had to use hidden partitions or
other such mumbo-jumbo.
This is not me bashing Microsoft, this is an independent software maker
that
recognizes that Microsoft has screwed the pooch on the Vista installer.
Click to expand...

This is a company with a product to sell. I've not used their product in
several years, but I assume it is still a good solution to some problems,
but it is not needed for most simple dual-booting situations.
The
computer press and certainly Microsoft have not mentioned this but the web
and this group are full of posts by users trying to create a dual boot
system
following Microsoft's instructions.
Click to expand...

There are also many posts reporting success with Microsoft's method. As
with any newsgroups, users who have problems often post here; those who are
successful seldom do.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Currently running Vista x64)
 
Actually because I was burned by the dual boot option for installing Vista
RC1 I have researched the issue extensively, experimented with dual boot
installations, and the core of the issue is indeed contained above.
In fact System Commander cannot consistently successfully install Vista with
a dual boot option even following their instructions. I am only presuming
that other multiboot programs are similarly hit or miss.
Vista can only be successfully installed as a dual boot in a particular type
of partition-it is now clear to me what that is, Microsoft knows what is, but
if RC1 is the final code many upgraders will suffer needlessly. Only
Microsoft can understand why the dual boot installer was not programmed
simply not to allow an attempt to install Vista on anything other than an
acceptable partition. It would also be quite easy to point users to
partitions acceptable to the Vista boot loader when they are choosing where
to install Vista.
Even worse is that Vista does not uninstall its boot loader, period. This
is a major, major bug in the program.
One has to manually do this by running the appropriate commands in the XP
recovery console. However doing this the user receives dire warnings of
irreparably harming partition tables and other horrors.
Vista intallation and, especially, deletion are so problematic that
Microsoft should push the release date back until they get it right.
 
Count me in on the list of multi-booters who don't use any 3rd party apps
and have had absolutely no problems with the Microsoft way ;-) Currently
triple-booting 2 instances of Vista, x64 and x86, alongside XP Pro x64.
Countless reinstalls/rebuilds for beta-testing purposes, no problems
whatsoever.
 
Hi, bmoag.
the core of the issue is indeed contained above.
Click to expand...

In your post? Or in mine?
Vista can only be successfully installed as a dual boot in a particular
type
of partition-it is now clear to me what that is,
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "a particular type of partition". I've
installed Vista (all the 9 beta builds I got, plus RTM - and both the x86
and x64 versions of each) . In my experience, Vista (like WinXP) will
install into almost any primary partition or logical drive in an extended
partition on just about any HD in the computer. (I've never tried to
install it on an optical drive or a removable drive or a USB key drive or a
network drive.) It will not install on a volume formatted FAT32 because it
uses many NTFS security features that FAT32 does not have. FAT (including
FAT32) was designed for the much smaller HDs of 20 years ago and is not the
best choice for most of today's drives.
if RC1 is the final code many upgraders will suffer needlessly.
Click to expand...

No, of course RC1 is not the final code. But I installed and ran RC1 in a
multi-boot configuration, using nothing but Vista's built-in Setup tools.
It would also be quite easy to point users to
partitions acceptable to the Vista boot loader when they are choosing
where
to install Vista.
Click to expand...

Vista Setup always showed me a list of volumes on all 3 of my hard drives
and let me choose from them. Some volumes were too small or had too little
unused space for Vista. The size of Vista has varied during the beta
process. A year ago, I could install it in a 10 GB volume; later it needed
20 GB to install, although it slimmed down to 8 GB or less after
installation - and before adding applications - and could be satisfied with
less if the page file and some other components were moved to a different
volume. Setup offered to format the partition I chose and, by using the
command line, would let me create a partition if I needed to.
Even worse is that Vista does not uninstall its boot loader, period.
Click to expand...

Right. Does any operating system do this? Isn't it a bit like doing open
heart surgery on yourself? Or at least like sawing off the branch you are
sitting on? Even back in MS-DOS days, to delete the operating system on C:,
we had to boot from a floppy disk in A:.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Currently running Vista x64)
 
bmoag said:
Actually because I was burned by the dual boot option for installing Vista
RC1 I have researched the issue extensively, experimented with dual boot
installations, and the core of the issue is indeed contained above.
In fact System Commander cannot consistently successfully install Vista with
a dual boot option even following their instructions. I am only presuming
that other multiboot programs are similarly hit or miss.
Vista can only be successfully installed as a dual boot in a particular type
of partition-it is now clear to me what that is, Microsoft knows what is, but
if RC1 is the final code many upgraders will suffer needlessly. Only
Microsoft can understand why the dual boot installer was not programmed
simply not to allow an attempt to install Vista on anything other than an
acceptable partition. It would also be quite easy to point users to
partitions acceptable to the Vista boot loader when they are choosing where
to install Vista.
Even worse is that Vista does not uninstall its boot loader, period. This
is a major, major bug in the program.
One has to manually do this by running the appropriate commands in the XP
recovery console. However doing this the user receives dire warnings of
irreparably harming partition tables and other horrors.
Vista intallation and, especially, deletion are so problematic that
Microsoft should push the release date back until they get it right.
Click to expand...

bmoag:

Before I started with Vista, I also researched the multi-boot issue and
decided on BootIt NG. An excellent and inexpensive program. I use it in
"unlimited primaries" mode, with each OS seeing only its own partition.

You can install and reinstall OS's in any order, and I have never had
any trouble with it. You do not need to know anything about how the
different Windows OS's boot themselves.

David Wilkinson
 
Hi,

The real issue (as I see it) is that Vista replaces the boot sector
without any warning and (as far as I know) there's no official way to
put it back to how it was.
 
Hi, Jane.

Thanks for the confirmation. (And, yes, I've seen your sig on many helpful
messages.)

In reviewing this thread, I realized that we've installed 2 versions each of
9 beta builds, plus RTM, and probably had to install a few of them more than
once. That's something like 2 dozen installs in a little over a year! Wow!
No wonder it seemed like we were starting over every month or two!

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Currently running Vista x64)
 
Hi, Gerry.

Yes, Vista replaces the boot sector. No warning should be required because
anybody installing an operating system should know that such action will be
required. And Vista doesn't just discard the WinXP boot sector, but
preserves it for use when you want to boot into a "previous version of
Windows".

And, yes, there is an "official" way to restore the boot sector:
bootsect.exe. In an Administrator:Command Prompt window, run "bootsect
/help" for instructions.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Currently running Vista x64)
 
Back
Top