I just recently set up a Windows 98/XP multiboot, and IMO the advice to install the oldest OS first is not the best idea. The problem is XP (and likely Win 2K) will install itself to drive D:, meaning that whenever using XP or 2K, you have to remember not to install stuff to C: as is common convention. So my solution was to install XP first, and 98 second. That way each OS thinks it's on C:, even though residing on separate partitions. Win98SE installer will leave the XP partition alone, but make its own partition bootable instead. So you need a partition managment tool to mark which partition will be bootable (aka Active), of which there can only be one at a time on an MBR disk.

I used UBCD with build in partition tools to set the XP partition as Active, and that makes only XP boot. Afterwards I used a hex editor HxD and saved the first sector of the Win98 partition to a file called bootsect.dos, placing the file in the C: root directory of the Windows XP partition. Then add the following entry to boot.ini of your XP install to use the XP boot manager:

C:\="Windows 98 or whatever"

The XP boot manager will show a menu of options when you restart, and if you select the second item, it will look for bootsect.dos on its C drive, and boot Windows 98.

As for file systems, I prefer NTFS for NT systems, simply because it's more robust against corruption. I can copy files between partitions when running XP. Win98 can't see the XP partiton, and that's the way I intend to keep it.

It's not really a prob;em I could remember different that windows install always assigns drive letter C to the Active partition during install. Could be wrong about that, but it should not matter which order with formatted partitions and active partitions set before running install..If you run independent disks or independent primary partitions it also shouldn't matter again I could be wrong it's been awhile.

I would unhook the drives you are not currently installing to when installing Windows.

Some of the versions of Windows have a habit of sticking stuff on drives other than the drive the OS itself is installed on.

A boot manager after the fact is a good idea as well.

cyclone3d wrote:

I would unhook the drives you are not currently installing to when installing Windows.

Some of the versions of Windows have a habit of sticking stuff on drives other than the drive the OS itself is installed on.

A boot manager after the fact is a good idea as well.

I thought the latter OS's you install needed to "see" the previous disks as the master boot record would always be updated with each new OS? If I disconnect my Win98SE "C" drive, won't Win2000 think it is installing as a "C" drive as well (and not know about the other OS/partition)

I'd use some loader like XFDisk for this to work since W9x always will want a primary partition of its own and a bootloader's necessary to hide the other primaries to get the other to boot. 2000 however can live happily on an extended partition with the loader put on a primary.

pixel_workbench wrote:

The problem is XP (and likely Win 2K) will install itself to drive D:, meaning that whenever using XP or 2K, you have to remember not to install stuff to C: as is common convention.

That's not a problem, and you don't have to remember anything. Windows (any Windows) knows where its "Program Files" directory is and will default there, whether it's C, D or E.

pixel_workbench wrote:

Win98SE installer will leave the XP partition alone, but make its own partition bootable instead.

No, it won't. It will trash and overwrite the MBR and you won't be able to boot XP until you do something to fix it (or unless you do something preventative like "hiding" the active partition from it.
I think I remembered it wrong; it may not trash the MBR except in some cases.

pixel_workbench wrote:

So you need a partition managment tool to mark which partition will be bootable (aka Active), of which there can only be one at a time on an MBR disk.

Exactly. In other words, your solution (which to be honest, is often touted around here) solves an imaginary problem and creates a real one. Not a good tradeoff in my book.

However, in this particular case, there may be no other way around it, since OP wants to install two different "9x" operating systems (98 and ME), and I have no idea whether the 9x/ME installer can handle such a situation cleanly. So one may have to manually put different variants of BOOTSECT.DOS (one for 98, one for ME) on multiple partitions and use a third party loader to juggle the 'active' flag, or whatever.

leileilol wrote:

I'd use some loader like XFDisk for this to work since W9x always will want a primary partition of its own and a bootloader's necessary to hide the other primaries to get the other to boot. 2000 however can live happily on an extended partition with the loader put on a primary.

That's not quite right. Win98, just like Win2K, can live on a logical volume inside an extended partition just fine, provided that the bootloader is on a primary one.

Warlord wrote:

It's not really a prob;em I could remember different that windows install always assigns drive letter C to the Active partition during install.

I think it's only true starting from Vista.

System Commander

The oldest to newest rule is installing in this order:
Dos/Win3.x family
Win9x family
NT family (This includes NT4, Win2k, XP,etc)

Catch is the built in boot manager can only support 1 version of dos and Win9x family. It can do as many NT family as you like though.
So if you really do want 98 and ME you'll need a 3rd party boot manager
Re NTFS. It's nice but not necessary.
I usually have my final partition as NTFS and install NT/2k on that. NT versions really dont care whice drive they are installed on, and having it on the last drive letter stops the letters changing between the different versions.

Back in the day I used OS/2 Warp 3's Boot Manager to allow me to boot between DOS 6.22 and Windows 95 (in this case, you'll need one for your PC3 build).

If you don't want to use a third party Boot Manager, then you need to choose between Windows 98SE and Windows ME.

If you still wish to play DOS games on PC3, then go with Windows 98SE. I think you will find that, on such a type of build where you have both Windows 98SE and Windows ME installed, you'll hardly ever use one of the two.

This http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/ covers just about everything.

Also, on PC4, be aware that XP will destroy all system restore points on Vista and 7 every time you boot it!

Just make sure you have all of these OSes on their own primary partition each, that are hidden from each other at boot, which always lets you boot the desired OS stress-free.
A simple boot manager will suffice.
Hiding them from each other will also let you install these in any order you want. And it will make sure that the existing bootloaders are not destroyed by the new system you install.

I used to unhook a drive doing this, and then at the end plug them all in, and use the bios to switch which drive i booted to. If you do too many OSes simultaneously I could see it getting messy.
Keep in mind DOS must be on the first partition of the primary master drive, 2gb max unless you're doing a dos 7.1 or something (which doesn't make sense alongside a win9x install on another hdd).

Assuming PCs 1-2 will have ISA sound cards, you will likely run most DOS software there, and little on the PC3.
WinMe/2000pro seems like a good split fornthat system.

I format all my HDDs Fat32 unless Im planning purposely to make them Dos accessible. Or if they are 8gb or less.
On huge drives (160gb or larger) I will make a separate partition for the 121+ section and make it ntfs since win9x wont like it anyway.

I'm doing (working on) something similar to the OP.
Long ago my main system had DOS, NT4, W3.1, both W9.x and W2k.
I used System Commander to pull it off.

In aid of reducing the number of boxes sitting around here I've been looking a several ways to do that again.
For my needs the best solution I've found is to:
- Use bootable CF cards for the various OS's in a front accessible CF reader.
- Use a Promise RAID card in RAID 1 (DOS compatible) for a non-bootable archive drive with partitions as required for the various OS's.
- I will probably use laptop drives to reduce power, noise, weight and the needed space for drives in the case.
Rebooting to change OS's is not that much different that shutting down to swap CF cards.
The cards can easily be backed up and maintained on a modern system with a CF reader.
No issues with one OS screwing up another or drive letters switching around.
.
I never even tried CF cards until this year. Now that I have I wish I'd started using them YEARS ago.
They make things SO much easier.
.
Same-same with those Floppy Emulators that take USB sticks.
No more futzing with floppies that are going bad.
.
Between the two - I'm in Retro Heaven!
.