C
Chad Harris
Not to be superficial, but why can't they? Is there a code barrier to doing
it? It's not as if XP isn't still supported.
CH
it? It's not as if XP isn't still supported.
CH
C
Colin Barnhorst
The Vista CompletePC Backup team gave the most detailed description of the
problem in a TechBeta chat about six months ago. The issue arises because
of considerable enhancements to VSS in Vista in order to implement shadow
copy files (previous versions), CompletePC Backup, the new backup.exe, and I
don't know what else. The result is that Vista VSS snapshots are
incompatible with XP's VSS driver.
The fix is to backport Vista's VSS to XP. VSS is a very pervasive service
so the resulting rewrite to XP, while probably not to the scale of the
security rewrite for SP2, is nevertheless extensive both in coding and
testing. The testing required may in fact be the real killer.
Given that MS is reluctant to introduce new features in a service pack it
might mean turning XP SP3 into some kind of XP R2. I cannot imagine that
happening now that Vista is out so it looks grim but we may get lucky
(unfortunately at others' expense) and some real horror stories emerge. I
sincerly hope not, but there are some free wheeling users out there who have
a propensity to do just about anything to themselves.
I don't see a lot of folks using (e-mail address removed) (few seem aware of it)
to voice thier sentiments, but every comment helps. Especially if the
comments are based on actual bad experiences.
I have only found one kb article that mentions that dual booting can result
in the loss of system restore point functionality and it carefully avoids
mentioning it in any broad sense. It only says how to restart system
restore manually if the problem has already occurred. I have seen one small
paragraph buried far down in the body of a second kb article that addresses
the issue almost in passing. Both kb articles refer to the user having
"recently booted into another version of Windows." Another version of
Windows my foot! It is only XP (and Server 2003) and they jolly well know
it. And, of course, system restore points are just the tip of the iceberg.
The issue has not been addressed with candor yet, but I'm waiting to see the
kb articles that come out this month.
What works against us getting such a backport is that dual-booting is done
by only a tiny tiny fraction of the user base. We are the few, the proud,
the dual-booters. We technology enthusiasts may be important to MS but we
are not be THAT important. Of course there is much more interest among
those who post in the newsgroups, but that is already a select group.
Dual-booters represent a small fraction of one percent of the overall
Windows installed base. The economics just aren't there for us to leverage.
Does this help you?
problem in a TechBeta chat about six months ago. The issue arises because
of considerable enhancements to VSS in Vista in order to implement shadow
copy files (previous versions), CompletePC Backup, the new backup.exe, and I
don't know what else. The result is that Vista VSS snapshots are
incompatible with XP's VSS driver.
The fix is to backport Vista's VSS to XP. VSS is a very pervasive service
so the resulting rewrite to XP, while probably not to the scale of the
security rewrite for SP2, is nevertheless extensive both in coding and
testing. The testing required may in fact be the real killer.
Given that MS is reluctant to introduce new features in a service pack it
might mean turning XP SP3 into some kind of XP R2. I cannot imagine that
happening now that Vista is out so it looks grim but we may get lucky
(unfortunately at others' expense) and some real horror stories emerge. I
sincerly hope not, but there are some free wheeling users out there who have
a propensity to do just about anything to themselves.
I don't see a lot of folks using (e-mail address removed) (few seem aware of it)
to voice thier sentiments, but every comment helps. Especially if the
comments are based on actual bad experiences.
I have only found one kb article that mentions that dual booting can result
in the loss of system restore point functionality and it carefully avoids
mentioning it in any broad sense. It only says how to restart system
restore manually if the problem has already occurred. I have seen one small
paragraph buried far down in the body of a second kb article that addresses
the issue almost in passing. Both kb articles refer to the user having
"recently booted into another version of Windows." Another version of
Windows my foot! It is only XP (and Server 2003) and they jolly well know
it. And, of course, system restore points are just the tip of the iceberg.
The issue has not been addressed with candor yet, but I'm waiting to see the
kb articles that come out this month.
What works against us getting such a backport is that dual-booting is done
by only a tiny tiny fraction of the user base. We are the few, the proud,
the dual-booters. We technology enthusiasts may be important to MS but we
are not be THAT important. Of course there is much more interest among
those who post in the newsgroups, but that is already a select group.
Dual-booters represent a small fraction of one percent of the overall
Windows installed base. The economics just aren't there for us to leverage.
Does this help you?
Chad Harris said:
C
Colin Barnhorst
It isn't a system restore issue. System restore points are merely some of
the victims because SR happens to use the VSS driver to takes the snapshots
for new SR points. Otherwise, it has nothing to do with SR itself. It is
the incompatibility of the the XP and Vista VSS drivers that is the issue
and that is a much, much larger issue. Michael is undoubtedly correct.
Dual booters are very few and far between in the overall user base and
backporting Vista's version of VSS appears to be very expensive, especially
when we're talking about the changes being to a legacy system (XP) rather
than the current OS (Vista). Fortunately it is only a local machine issue.
It does not affect shadow copies in a networking environment.
the victims because SR happens to use the VSS driver to takes the snapshots
for new SR points. Otherwise, it has nothing to do with SR itself. It is
the incompatibility of the the XP and Vista VSS drivers that is the issue
and that is a much, much larger issue. Michael is undoubtedly correct.
Dual booters are very few and far between in the overall user base and
backporting Vista's version of VSS appears to be very expensive, especially
when we're talking about the changes being to a legacy system (XP) rather
than the current OS (Vista). Fortunately it is only a local machine issue.
It does not affect shadow copies in a networking environment.
C
Colin Barnhorst
The problem is caused by XP, not Vista.
michail iakovou yos said:
C
Chad Harris
I appreciate that in the scheme of things, multiboots or dual boots may be
relatively uncommon than I thought if you consider the mass market for
Vista, not to mention its volume license, mid-range business and enterprise
markets and government markets. It's easy to get skewed when most of the
Fix/tweak Vista time you spend is reading people who are enthusiast/geeks.
I just wonder how much time and expertise fixing this would involve, because
MSFT engineers/etc. dual boot a reasonable amount of time as do a lot of
people in the business. Maybe their viewpoint is not enough to matter, but
it won't stop a lot of people from dual booting. We have scores of
alternative ways to backup Vista and dual boots save a lot of time and hard
drive space and these issues aside seem to be very stable with XP and Vista.
I can't comment what happens when you multiboot these two with Linux in the
mix but a lot of people could.
CH
I have no idea what a reasonable estimate of dual boot
relatively uncommon than I thought if you consider the mass market for
Vista, not to mention its volume license, mid-range business and enterprise
markets and government markets. It's easy to get skewed when most of the
Fix/tweak Vista time you spend is reading people who are enthusiast/geeks.
I just wonder how much time and expertise fixing this would involve, because
MSFT engineers/etc. dual boot a reasonable amount of time as do a lot of
people in the business. Maybe their viewpoint is not enough to matter, but
it won't stop a lot of people from dual booting. We have scores of
alternative ways to backup Vista and dual boots save a lot of time and hard
drive space and these issues aside seem to be very stable with XP and Vista.
I can't comment what happens when you multiboot these two with Linux in the
mix but a lot of people could.
CH
I have no idea what a reasonable estimate of dual boot
C
Chad Harris
Michail --
The explanations you've been given are dead on correct, and it's been well
explained. What I don't know is how hard it would be to backport XP--maybe
some of the developers here have a better idea. The relative amount of
people who dual boot is also a very improtant consideration, but I'd like to
see MSFT fix XP to workaround this if it were possible. I think you're
getting the main reason why they have probably written it off, but maybe
it's still possible for it to be fixed.
CH
The explanations you've been given are dead on correct, and it's been well
explained. What I don't know is how hard it would be to backport XP--maybe
some of the developers here have a better idea. The relative amount of
people who dual boot is also a very improtant consideration, but I'd like to
see MSFT fix XP to workaround this if it were possible. I think you're
getting the main reason why they have probably written it off, but maybe
it's still possible for it to be fixed.
CH
M
MICHAEL
I continue to be hopeful, although, not very.
There was a big enough uproar over the license
and how many times a user could transfer a retail
copy of Vista, and that really would have only affected
a small amount of users, percentage wise.
I will say, I have been told on two different occasions
by Microsoft employees that not fixing the problem isn't
a done deal. It is still being discussed, but some of those
needed to start the process of doing something about it,
are still busy with Vista. If something does get done about
it, you are more than likely correct- it would be part of SP3.
I hope so.
-Michael
There was a big enough uproar over the license
and how many times a user could transfer a retail
copy of Vista, and that really would have only affected
a small amount of users, percentage wise.
I will say, I have been told on two different occasions
by Microsoft employees that not fixing the problem isn't
a done deal. It is still being discussed, but some of those
needed to start the process of doing something about it,
are still busy with Vista. If something does get done about
it, you are more than likely correct- it would be part of SP3.
I hope so.
-Michael
M
Michael Jennings
XP must go in first, then Vista which controls Windows booting.
I confined Grub to the Linux partition and use BootItNG to decide
between Windows and Linux. Vista gets huffy if you don't let it
manage the Windowses - I have 3: HP's recovery partition, XP
and Vista. Since Vista wipes out BootItNG, its floppy has to
restore the MBR after the Vista install is complete - a quickie.
I confined Grub to the Linux partition and use BootItNG to decide
between Windows and Linux. Vista gets huffy if you don't let it
manage the Windowses - I have 3: HP's recovery partition, XP
and Vista. Since Vista wipes out BootItNG, its floppy has to
restore the MBR after the Vista install is complete - a quickie.
C
Chad Harris
Yes it helps--a very good explanation (as usual) thanks. I just looked at
that chat. There's very good info in there. But right now, it seems that
the workaround John Barnett posed is a good one as long as you have a Vista
edition that has Bit Locker encryption. That means Enterprise or Ultimate
to the best of my recollection. I'll have to look at that threads we had a
few months/and weeks ago, but I think that the workarounds whose objective
is to hide Vista from XP 1) Bit Locker encryption--one involving 2) using
Acronis True Image I believe 3) Using a 3rd party boot loader BootItNG (aka
BING), 4) booting XP in Safe Mode, The XP VSS driver does not run in Safe
Mode as you pointed out recently).
http://www.bootitng.com/
http://members.shaw.ca/bootitng/
and 5) Tweak UI. Correct me if I have the 5 basic type workarounds wrong
here. A fifth was one you mentioned which was that VistaBoot Pro may be
able to add a drive-hiding feature in a future release.
http://www.pro-networks.org/forum/about86248.html
I don't want to hide XP from Vista, because I find it too convenient to work
on the Vista desktop when I'm booted into XP and constantly access the XP
desktop via a shortcut while on Vista.
Edwin made some good points on December 8, 2006. There is a compelling
reason to dual boot for many people given the amount of legacy hardware out
there--although I think that more XP compatible hdw drivers can be made to
work on Vista than people are making work on Vista. I've seen the
difficulty of making some older printers or scanners or sound cards work,
but it can be done with many of them and before the RTM DVD's 19, 500
drivers and what's being added via MSFT update currently and in the future.
I'm really surprised they didn't fold Bit Locker encryption into the
Business edition as well--it would seem like a relevant feature and selling
point for Business. I'm not sure how much of a percent market share they
have projected they will gain with each edition, (I'm sure Gartner has
their figures and MSFT has their figures as well), but no doubt they have
firm projection figures and a lot of focus group time.
Thanks,
CH
that chat. There's very good info in there. But right now, it seems that
the workaround John Barnett posed is a good one as long as you have a Vista
edition that has Bit Locker encryption. That means Enterprise or Ultimate
to the best of my recollection. I'll have to look at that threads we had a
few months/and weeks ago, but I think that the workarounds whose objective
is to hide Vista from XP 1) Bit Locker encryption--one involving 2) using
Acronis True Image I believe 3) Using a 3rd party boot loader BootItNG (aka
BING), 4) booting XP in Safe Mode, The XP VSS driver does not run in Safe
Mode as you pointed out recently).
http://www.bootitng.com/
http://members.shaw.ca/bootitng/
and 5) Tweak UI. Correct me if I have the 5 basic type workarounds wrong
here. A fifth was one you mentioned which was that VistaBoot Pro may be
able to add a drive-hiding feature in a future release.
http://www.pro-networks.org/forum/about86248.html
I don't want to hide XP from Vista, because I find it too convenient to work
on the Vista desktop when I'm booted into XP and constantly access the XP
desktop via a shortcut while on Vista.
Edwin made some good points on December 8, 2006. There is a compelling
reason to dual boot for many people given the amount of legacy hardware out
there--although I think that more XP compatible hdw drivers can be made to
work on Vista than people are making work on Vista. I've seen the
difficulty of making some older printers or scanners or sound cards work,
but it can be done with many of them and before the RTM DVD's 19, 500
drivers and what's being added via MSFT update currently and in the future.
I'm really surprised they didn't fold Bit Locker encryption into the
Business edition as well--it would seem like a relevant feature and selling
point for Business. I'm not sure how much of a percent market share they
have projected they will gain with each edition, (I'm sure Gartner has
their figures and MSFT has their figures as well), but no doubt they have
firm projection figures and a lot of focus group time.
Thanks,
CH
Colin Barnhorst said:
J
John Barnett MVP
Michail, you don't even have bitlocker enabled. if you don't have TPM then a
standard USB key will do. My machine is not TPM compatible and i use
bitlocker via a USB key. For more details on enabling Bitlocker see the link
below from my website:
http://vistasupport.mvps.org/enable_bitlocker_encryption.htm
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Shell/User
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
standard USB key will do. My machine is not TPM compatible and i use
bitlocker via a USB key. For more details on enabling Bitlocker see the link
below from my website:
http://vistasupport.mvps.org/enable_bitlocker_encryption.htm
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Shell/User
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
C
Chad Harris
Thanks Michael. Interesting info and I guess it does not matter for
multibooting which Linux you are using. I noticed a lot on groups etc.
when people had a dual boot with XP and Linux that the bootloaders Grub or
Lilo and they tried to do a repair install with Windows XP booting from the
XP CD, that the Linux bootloaders would block the repair install setup
consistently.
I wonder if there is any interference of the Linux bootloaders with Startup
Repair on a dual or multiboot which I have been using also to fix Vista in
situations where I can still boot to it?
CH
multibooting which Linux you are using. I noticed a lot on groups etc.
when people had a dual boot with XP and Linux that the bootloaders Grub or
Lilo and they tried to do a repair install with Windows XP booting from the
XP CD, that the Linux bootloaders would block the repair install setup
consistently.
I wonder if there is any interference of the Linux bootloaders with Startup
Repair on a dual or multiboot which I have been using also to fix Vista in
situations where I can still boot to it?
CH
M
michail iakovou yos
you dont know how to read do you? lol
John Barnett MVP said:
D
Dennis Pack
John:
I gave Michail the step-by-step guide,
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa905089.aspx, earlier in
this post and in an earlier post. I hadn't seen your blog listing which is
easier than scenario 3 in the guide. I have 2 like computers with AMD 4400x2
processors, Asus A8N-E motherboards, 2GB ram without TPM. I'm using
BitLocker to hide my Vista partition from the XP x64 partition in a
multi-boot scenario. On the first computer I followed the step-by-step guide
in scenario 1 to the letter then scenario 3 to enable BitLocker. With the
USB key installed BitLocker is enabled but encryption stays at 0%, when
booted into x64 the Vista partition is hidden but the "S" partition is
accessible. On the second computer I changed scenario 1 step 10 to
size=1700, drive encryption is 100% on both "C" and "S" and neither
partition in accessible in x64. I know that the first computer isn't setup
properly but I can't figure out how to correct it without starting over
fresh. Is there a way to increase the "S" partition to 1.7GB without
destroying data on the "C" partition? I tried shrinking the "C" partition
but it added the free space to the end not the beginning of the partition.
Have a great day.
I gave Michail the step-by-step guide,
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa905089.aspx, earlier in
this post and in an earlier post. I hadn't seen your blog listing which is
easier than scenario 3 in the guide. I have 2 like computers with AMD 4400x2
processors, Asus A8N-E motherboards, 2GB ram without TPM. I'm using
BitLocker to hide my Vista partition from the XP x64 partition in a
multi-boot scenario. On the first computer I followed the step-by-step guide
in scenario 1 to the letter then scenario 3 to enable BitLocker. With the
USB key installed BitLocker is enabled but encryption stays at 0%, when
booted into x64 the Vista partition is hidden but the "S" partition is
accessible. On the second computer I changed scenario 1 step 10 to
size=1700, drive encryption is 100% on both "C" and "S" and neither
partition in accessible in x64. I know that the first computer isn't setup
properly but I can't figure out how to correct it without starting over
fresh. Is there a way to increase the "S" partition to 1.7GB without
destroying data on the "C" partition? I tried shrinking the "C" partition
but it added the free space to the end not the beginning of the partition.
Have a great day.
M
Michael Jennings
I do not have Susse Linux Enterprise Desktop 10's Grub installed
in the boot sector - it is uselessly installed in an upper partition from
which it offers to boot Windows when, at boot, I select Linux from
BootItNG's menu. Since BootItNG makes and restores partition
images as well as managing boot options, I don't use Windows' Repair.
Instead, I select a previously saved image and restore it. I had to do
this when I succeeded in depriving Vista of its role in managing which
Windows to boot. XP didn't notice, but Vista then claimed never to
have been updated even though its updates were clearly showing.
I should mention that for this trick I swapped in a pre-Vista XP,
and (obviously, but I must say) that it's work that didn't pay off.
Beyond preferring fedora core 6 to SLED10, I'm not into Linux,
so I can't answer your questions about its bootloaders. Lilo seems
to be history. The distros generally go with Grub. If you're curious
about BootItNG take a look at its newsgroup. Clicking on the link
will kick that up, but you'll have to go to the Account's Advanced
tab and change the port from 119 to 1198:
news://terabyteunlimited.com/public.apps.bootitng
in the boot sector - it is uselessly installed in an upper partition from
which it offers to boot Windows when, at boot, I select Linux from
BootItNG's menu. Since BootItNG makes and restores partition
images as well as managing boot options, I don't use Windows' Repair.
Instead, I select a previously saved image and restore it. I had to do
this when I succeeded in depriving Vista of its role in managing which
Windows to boot. XP didn't notice, but Vista then claimed never to
have been updated even though its updates were clearly showing.
I should mention that for this trick I swapped in a pre-Vista XP,
and (obviously, but I must say) that it's work that didn't pay off.
Beyond preferring fedora core 6 to SLED10, I'm not into Linux,
so I can't answer your questions about its bootloaders. Lilo seems
to be history. The distros generally go with Grub. If you're curious
about BootItNG take a look at its newsgroup. Clicking on the link
will kick that up, but you'll have to go to the Account's Advanced
tab and change the port from 119 to 1198:
news://terabyteunlimited.com/public.apps.bootitng
C
Chad Harris
michail--
I believe you could have used startup repair also. Keep in mind it does not
need to be a no boot to use StR.
CH
I believe you could have used startup repair also. Keep in mind it does not
need to be a no boot to use StR.
CH
J
John Barnett MVP
Michail, if i don't know how to read then it is pointless me wasting my
valuable time trying to assist you. Obviously my previous posts regarding
your problem have been a waste of time!
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Shell/User
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
valuable time trying to assist you. Obviously my previous posts regarding
your problem have been a waste of time!
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Shell/User
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
J
John Barnett MVP
Hi Dennis,
As it appears i can't read i may get this totally wrong, so please feel free
to correct me.
You say your PC doesn't support TPM. Why do you have a partition S that you
want to increase the size of to 1.7GB? Creating a separate partition is
necessary if you have a TPM compaitble machine, but not if you use a USB
key.
I don't have a separate partition on my machine. I just enabled bitlocker as
per the instructions on my website, clicked the option to 'turn on
bitlocker' in control panel, slipped in the USB key for Bitlocker to copy
over the security password details and then bitlocker encrypted the hard
drive. Each time i boot the machien i just slip the USB key into the USB
port prior to turning the machine on. After turning the machine on i select
the Vista operatign system from the dual boot menu, a message pops up
telling me that bitlocker has read the USB key and to remove the media and
then Vista boots.
Yesterday i decrypted the drive becasue Nero InCD isn't able to load. I
notified Nero and decided to decrypt to try to get things back to normal.
InCD still doesn't load, so i hope Nero tech support can come up with a
solution.
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Shell/User
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
As it appears i can't read i may get this totally wrong, so please feel free
to correct me.
You say your PC doesn't support TPM. Why do you have a partition S that you
want to increase the size of to 1.7GB? Creating a separate partition is
necessary if you have a TPM compaitble machine, but not if you use a USB
key.
I don't have a separate partition on my machine. I just enabled bitlocker as
per the instructions on my website, clicked the option to 'turn on
bitlocker' in control panel, slipped in the USB key for Bitlocker to copy
over the security password details and then bitlocker encrypted the hard
drive. Each time i boot the machien i just slip the USB key into the USB
port prior to turning the machine on. After turning the machine on i select
the Vista operatign system from the dual boot menu, a message pops up
telling me that bitlocker has read the USB key and to remove the media and
then Vista boots.
Yesterday i decrypted the drive becasue Nero InCD isn't able to load. I
notified Nero and decided to decrypt to try to get things back to normal.
InCD still doesn't load, so i hope Nero tech support can come up with a
solution.
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Shell/User
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
D
Dennis Pack
John:
Thank you for the reply. I didn't know that a second partition was
needed without a TPM compatible machine. The reason that I wanted to expand
the second partition to 1.7GB is that it's the only difference between the 2
installations and 1 works properly but the other doesn't. I'm just trying to
figure out what I did wrong or different between the two installations.
Thank you for the reply. I didn't know that a second partition was
needed without a TPM compatible machine. The reason that I wanted to expand
the second partition to 1.7GB is that it's the only difference between the 2
installations and 1 works properly but the other doesn't. I'm just trying to
figure out what I did wrong or different between the two installations.
J
John Barnett MVP
Hi Dennis,
I'm not sure whether third party partitioning software would do the job for
you. i know a lot of people have had problems with the partitioning
application in vista - expanding, shrinking etc; it isn't as simple as one
first suspects. I'm currently reviewing Paragon hard Disk manager 8.0
personal and, on my second hard drive, i have 3 partitions:
1) Contained Vista beta - but has now been deleted, thus leaving free space
2) Backup document partition
3) Acronis image backup partition
So now i have free space at the beginning of the drive (after removing Vista
Beta) then a abckup partition followed by an acronis partition. Do you think
Paragon hard Disk manager will create a partition in the free sapce where
Vista Beta was once installed? No way, it want to create a partition at the
edn of my hard drive where there is a small amount of free space. Windows XP
and Vista will create a partition in this first free space section, but not
Paragon. there must be an esaier life than this one
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Shell/User
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
I'm not sure whether third party partitioning software would do the job for
you. i know a lot of people have had problems with the partitioning
application in vista - expanding, shrinking etc; it isn't as simple as one
first suspects. I'm currently reviewing Paragon hard Disk manager 8.0
personal and, on my second hard drive, i have 3 partitions:
1) Contained Vista beta - but has now been deleted, thus leaving free space
2) Backup document partition
3) Acronis image backup partition
So now i have free space at the beginning of the drive (after removing Vista
Beta) then a abckup partition followed by an acronis partition. Do you think
Paragon hard Disk manager will create a partition in the free sapce where
Vista Beta was once installed? No way, it want to create a partition at the
edn of my hard drive where there is a small amount of free space. Windows XP
and Vista will create a partition in this first free space section, but not
Paragon. there must be an esaier life than this one
--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Shell/User
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
D
Dennis Pack
John:
I thank you for your time and effort. At this point BitLocker is
hiding the Vista partition from XP whether it's functioning fully or not so
I'll leave it alone before I break it.
I thank you for your time and effort. At this point BitLocker is
hiding the Vista partition from XP whether it's functioning fully or not so
I'll leave it alone before I break it.