barleyguy wrote on 2020-02-25, 04:38:

Quick piece of advice: DO NOT run anything older than XP with larger than a 128 GB partition. ... This goes for ... Windows 2000 […]
Show full quote

Quick piece of advice: DO NOT run anything older than XP with larger than a 128 GB partition.
...
This goes for ... Windows 2000.
...

This is not true.
You can install Windows 2000 without problems on a HDD that already has a NTFS partition > 128 GiB.
But you should apply SP4 as soon as possible and do the EnableBigLba registry entry.

Disruptor wrote on 2020-02-25, 18:46:

This is not true. You can install Windows 2000 without problems on a HDD that already has a NTFS partition > 128 GiB. But you sh […]
Show full quote

barleyguy wrote on 2020-02-25, 04:38:

Quick piece of advice: DO NOT run anything older than XP with larger than a 128 GB partition. ... This goes for ... Windows 2000 […]
Show full quote

Quick piece of advice: DO NOT run anything older than XP with larger than a 128 GB partition.
...
This goes for ... Windows 2000.
...

This is not true.
You can install Windows 2000 without problems on a HDD that already has a NTFS partition > 128 GiB.
But you should apply SP4 as soon as possible and do the EnableBigLba registry entry.

If the SP4 driver patch or registry key gets reverted and you have more than 128 GB of data on the drive, that data will be gone. I personally would not do this. I have lost data on Windows 2000 on a 200 GB drive partitioned as a single partition.

I've used this configuration for more than five years without any problems.

I always install Windows 2000 with SP4 slipstreamed in. Never had a problem with big disks, been doing it that way for almost 20 years (or however long it was since SP4 came out)

maxtherabbit wrote on 2020-02-26, 00:04:

I always install Windows 2000 with SP4 slipstreamed in. Never had a problem with big disks, been doing it that way for almost 20 years (or however long it was since SP4 came out)

This is by far the safest way to do it. You don't need to worry about an old version of the driver getting put back, because it was never there in the first place.

I must be just unlucky, because I actually lost a 200 Gig hard drive with important data on it. Hence my advice to others to be cautious. But maybe I'm the rare exception. When I lost the data, I was loading the CD (DVD?) version of Knights of the Old Republic, and it passed the 128 Gig and also loaded libraries, and next thing I know "poof!". Ever since that happened to me I've been cautious.

Also, I'm kinda curious why anyone would choose Windows 2000 over Windows XP to start with. With the exception of DRM that's been totally cracked by now, XP seems like a better OS. I'm speaking as someone who ran 2000 as my primary OS for about 5 years (2000-2005).

Though this is a retro forum, so there are of course people wanting to try things of all eras. But personally I stick to 98SE, XP, 7 and 10. And stay away from ME, 2000, Vista, 8 etc. And DOS 4 of course. So I realize that's a huge ball of wax, but genuinely curious why people run those OSs.

Cheers,

Harley.

2k runs marginally better on systems with less RAM. Other than that I agree with you, XP is pretty much better in every other way.

DOS 7.1 and winxp on a 160Gig drive, 1 partition fat32.
I made the drive boot-able with dos 1st so windows shows the startup menu of windows and previous windows.To get around the problem of xp using dos autoexec.bat and config.sys I boot off a floppy with those aimed at the various directories on C: for sound.I do have a bootable cd based on a 2.88 floppy image to give me more room,I may mod that to add the goods necessary to get sound working in dos and boot off of that.I am curious to see how long the fun lasts.

xtgold wrote on 2020-02-26, 11:55:

To get around the problem of xp using dos autoexec.bat and config.sys ...

There can not be such problem since XP never uses autoexec.bat and config.sys. XP is NT based so it uses its own boot process that has nothing to do with DOS boot files. While XP is running its internal virtual DOS environment provided by NTVDM uses autoexec.nt and config.nt in %SystemRoot%\System32.

maxtherabbit wrote on 2020-02-26, 00:04:

I always install Windows 2000 with SP4 slipstreamed in. Never had a problem with big disks, been doing it that way for almost 20 years (or however long it was since SP4 came out)

I used 2000pro sp3 for years (in the original days of xp), but every time i installed sp4 the internet became irreparably broken, and nothing short of a full rebuild would repair it. Never could figure out why.

I had another pc with osx86 on a partition and one with fat32 that osx86 made,it made a 156gig fat32.
Booting dos7.1 off a sata cd (no sata driver) just 2.88 meg worth of dos,xtgold detected the ahci fat32 partition but it was read-only.
Changing bios to ata I was able to play with the fat32 partition but that disables osx86.
I never tried xp on fat32 with dos at the same time before,so that makes it easier.win98 had them named autoexec.dos and config.dos.

barleyguy wrote on 2020-02-26, 03:07:

I must be just unlucky, because I actually lost a 200 Gig hard drive with important data on it. Hence my advice to others to be cautious. But maybe I'm the rare exception. When I lost the data, I was loading the CD (DVD?) version of Knights of the Old Republic, and it passed the 128 Gig and also loaded libraries, and next thing I know "poof!". Ever since that happened to me I've been cautious.

This is one of those things that works just fine right until it doesn't. If there's a known workaround without the risks, it's just silly to push your luck, IMO.

barleyguy wrote on 2020-02-26, 03:07:

Also, I'm kinda curious why anyone would choose Windows 2000 over Windows XP to start with. [..] Though this is a retro forum, so there are of course people wanting to try things of all eras. But personally I stick to 98SE, XP, 7 and 10. And stay away from ME, 2000, Vista, 8 etc. And DOS 4 of course. So I realize that's a huge ball of wax, but genuinely curious why people run those OSs.

For one, don't assume that someone is running 2000 "over XP". 😀 I run DOS 3.3, 5.0, 6.22, Win 3.0, Win 3.1, WFW 3.11, 95A, 95C, 98FE, ME, 2K, XP, Vista, and 7. Partly just to re-experience platforms come and gone, partly to appreciate the progression of technology over that time, and partly because I have aspirations of writing DOS and Windows code and like to have a big sandbox to test in. But mostly because I feel the collection isn't complete if I leave out OSes.

I'm leaving out 98SE at the moment, though I seem to have acquired yet another Pentium and don't need a third 95 box. If you're wondering "why would anyone pick FE over SE?" -- it was solely because I'm the kind of person that pours Pepsi into a Coke glass just to see what will happen. 😎

barleyguy wrote on 2020-02-26, 03:07:

With the exception of DRM that's been totally cracked by now, XP seems like a better OS.

Sadly this isn't a place where we can discuss solutions like this, because my retail copy of XP I bought circa 2003 with cash money hard-come-by has been giving me absolute FITS, periodically deciding it wants to come UN-activated, seemingly at random, after powering up my P4 with no changes to the hardware since the last time I used it. When I log in and accept the mandatory "you will activate this right now, capisce?" dialog, the activation wizard starts up and says "uh, bro, you're already activated". So I click OK, it logs out, and the cycle continues. I found a piece of advice to boot into safe mode and delete certain files and it "lets me" activate again (gee thanks), but forever? Or will I get to do this again in a month? Ugh. That's what I get for trying to be legit and paying for all my software I guess....

I'm really looking forward to this with my Vista and 7 builds *deadpan* *points to boxed software collection of all the above Windows versions*

xtgold wrote on 2020-02-26, 18:05:

...
I never tried xp on fat32 with dos at the same time before,so that makes it easier.win98 had them named autoexec.dos and config.dos.

Yes, since contrary to XP Win9x actually uses the same named files to boot as DOS. So when you install Win9x to the same partition as DOS, Win9x has to rename not only the original DOS autoexec.bat and config.sys but also Command.com, MsDos.Sys and Io.sys.

And when you boot the 'Previous Operating System' Win9x renames back:

command.dos,
autoexec.dos,
config.dos,
Io.dos,
msdos.dos

to

command.com,
autoexec.bat,
config.sys,
Io.sys,
msdos.sys

and beforehand renames its own boot files to

command.w40,
autoexec.w40,
config.w40,
msdos.w40.

There is no such problem with WinXP since as I have written it does not use DOS like boot files at all.

SirNickity wrote on 2020-02-26, 20:28:

For one, don't assume that someone is running 2000 "over XP". 😀 I run DOS 3.3, 5.0, 6.22, Win 3.0, Win 3.1, WFW 3.11, 95A, 95C, 98FE, ME, 2K, XP, Vista, and 7. Partly just to re-experience platforms come and gone, partly to appreciate the progression of technology over that time, and partly because I have aspirations of writing DOS and Windows code and like to have a big sandbox to test in. But mostly because I feel the collection isn't complete if I leave out OSes.

I'm leaving out 98SE at the moment, though I seem to have acquired yet another Pentium and don't need a third 95 box. If you're wondering "why would anyone pick FE over SE?" -- it was solely because I'm the kind of person that pours Pepsi into a Coke glass just to see what will happen. 😎

This makes a lot of sense. Reminds me of when I go to a forum and ask about gaming laptops, and people respond with "just build a desktop". To which my reply is "Please answer the question I asked, and I already have plenty of desktops."

SirNickity wrote on 2020-02-26, 20:28:

Sadly this isn't a place where we can discuss solutions like this, because my retail copy of XP I bought circa 2003 with cash money hard-come-by has been giving me absolute FITS, periodically deciding it wants to come UN-activated, seemingly at random, after powering up my P4 with no changes to the hardware since the last time I used it. When I log in and accept the mandatory "you will activate this right now, capisce?" dialog, the activation wizard starts up and says "uh, bro, you're already activated". So I click OK, it logs out, and the cycle continues. I found a piece of advice to boot into safe mode and delete certain files and it "lets me" activate again (gee thanks), but forever? Or will I get to do this again in a month? Ugh. That's what I get for trying to be legit and paying for all my software I guess....

I'm really looking forward to this with my Vista and 7 builds *deadpan* *points to boxed software collection of all the above Windows versions*

You can buy software legally and still crack it you know. 😀

vista the other day wouldn't activate online,if they are even doing that anymore.
I loaded a legit copy from cd and it gave me 3 days to activate.

I tried qcrack last night for old times sake but get the runtime error.
For old cracks you may have to actually use a retro machine ,unless you can patch it.

I've never looked into cracks since I always had the legal copy of it. Now, I guess I'm just a little wary of sorting out the useful tools and the stuff I really don't want to run on my computer. I would love to ask for advice here, because if I'm going to be treated like a criminal with software I bought and paid for, I have zero qualms hacking the DRM. But I don't want to run afoul of forum rules. Not sure where, exactly, that line is TBH, since some of this falls into "making it work on old computers" while also being a means to allow piracy.

getting back to win98 and the various .dos files,dos7.1 fools 98 into thinking win98 is already installed and doesn't rename anything.
When I kick into dos mode instead of exit it uses my .bat and .sys files from the previous dos 7.1.
On a drive with the old 1994 dos 7.0 it did rename the various files.