Options
2 OS on one partition is ok ?
Cambridge
Member Posts: 11 ■□□□□□□□□□
I am puzzled by the answer to the following question in the official 70-270 book (p 23-7):
1. Which of the following multiboot scenarios results in each operating system listed
being fully functional with access to at least one hard disk? Choose two correct
answers.
A. Hard disk 1 configured as a basic disk with a single partition formatted as the NT
File System (NTFS) with Windows XP Professional and Windows Me installed on
it. Hard disk 2 configured as a basic disk with a single partition formatted as the
32-bit version of File Allocation Table (FAT32).
B. Hard disk 1 configured as a basic disk with a single partition formatted as FAT32
with Windows XP Professional and Windows Me installed on it. Hard disk 2 configured
as a basic disk with a single partition formatted as NTFS.
C. Hard disk 1 configured as a dynamic disk with a single volume formatted as NTFS
with Windows XP Professional installed on it. Hard disk 2 configured as a dynamic
disk with a single volume formatted as NTFS with Windows 2000 Professional
installed on it.
D. Hard disk 1 configured as a dynamic disk with a single volume formatted as NTFS
with Windows XP Professional and Windows 2000 Professional installed on it.
Hard disk 2 configured as a basic disk with a single volume formatted as NTFS.
E. Hard disk 1 configured as a dynamic disk with a single partition formatted as NTFS
with Windows XP Professional and Windows XP Home Edition installed on it.
Hard disk 2 configured as a basic disk with a single partition formatted as FAT32.
Answer:
1. Correct Answers: B and C
A. Incorrect: Windows Me cannot read NTFS volumes; therefore, formatting hard
disk 1 as NTFS would make it impossible to run the operating system on that
computer.
B. Correct: Both Windows Me and Windows XP Professional recognize partitions
formatted with the FAT32 file system; therefore, both operating systems can be
installed onto hard disk 1 in this scenario. Although Windows XP Professional can
read NTFS drives, Windows Me cannot do so. Although Windows Me does not
recognize hard disk 2 in this scenario, the requirement was for each operating system
to be able to recognize at least one disk, not necessarily both disks.
C. Correct: Both Windows XP Professional and Windows 2000 Professional support
dynamic disks, but they store information about the disks in their Registry. If both
operating systems are installed on the same disk and you use one to convert the
disk to dynamic, the Registry of the other operating system becomes out-of-date
and no longer boots. The proper method to use dynamic disks in a multiboot configuration
with these operating systems is to install them on separate disks. For
example, install Windows XP Professional on hard disk 1 and Windows 2000 Professional
on hard disk 2. Use Windows XP Professional to convert hard disk 1 to
dynamic, and then use Windows 2000 Professional to convert hard disk 2 to
dynamic.
D. Incorrect: Although both Windows XP Professional and Windows 2000 Professional
support dynamic disks, they store information about the disks in their Registry.
If both operating systems are installed on the same disk and you use one to
convert the disk to dynamic, the Registry of the other operating system becomes
out-of-date and no longer boots.
E. Incorrect: Windows XP Home Edition does not recognize dynamic disks, so it
cannot be installed on a dynamic disk.
I would have eliminated any answer mentionning 2 OS on the same partition, such as answer B, which cannot be "correct" as none of the OS will be "fully functional". I know this for having tried it myself, but I also have read in several occasions Microsoft documentation stating it.
What do you think?
1. Which of the following multiboot scenarios results in each operating system listed
being fully functional with access to at least one hard disk? Choose two correct
answers.
A. Hard disk 1 configured as a basic disk with a single partition formatted as the NT
File System (NTFS) with Windows XP Professional and Windows Me installed on
it. Hard disk 2 configured as a basic disk with a single partition formatted as the
32-bit version of File Allocation Table (FAT32).
B. Hard disk 1 configured as a basic disk with a single partition formatted as FAT32
with Windows XP Professional and Windows Me installed on it. Hard disk 2 configured
as a basic disk with a single partition formatted as NTFS.
C. Hard disk 1 configured as a dynamic disk with a single volume formatted as NTFS
with Windows XP Professional installed on it. Hard disk 2 configured as a dynamic
disk with a single volume formatted as NTFS with Windows 2000 Professional
installed on it.
D. Hard disk 1 configured as a dynamic disk with a single volume formatted as NTFS
with Windows XP Professional and Windows 2000 Professional installed on it.
Hard disk 2 configured as a basic disk with a single volume formatted as NTFS.
E. Hard disk 1 configured as a dynamic disk with a single partition formatted as NTFS
with Windows XP Professional and Windows XP Home Edition installed on it.
Hard disk 2 configured as a basic disk with a single partition formatted as FAT32.
Answer:
1. Correct Answers: B and C
A. Incorrect: Windows Me cannot read NTFS volumes; therefore, formatting hard
disk 1 as NTFS would make it impossible to run the operating system on that
computer.
B. Correct: Both Windows Me and Windows XP Professional recognize partitions
formatted with the FAT32 file system; therefore, both operating systems can be
installed onto hard disk 1 in this scenario. Although Windows XP Professional can
read NTFS drives, Windows Me cannot do so. Although Windows Me does not
recognize hard disk 2 in this scenario, the requirement was for each operating system
to be able to recognize at least one disk, not necessarily both disks.
C. Correct: Both Windows XP Professional and Windows 2000 Professional support
dynamic disks, but they store information about the disks in their Registry. If both
operating systems are installed on the same disk and you use one to convert the
disk to dynamic, the Registry of the other operating system becomes out-of-date
and no longer boots. The proper method to use dynamic disks in a multiboot configuration
with these operating systems is to install them on separate disks. For
example, install Windows XP Professional on hard disk 1 and Windows 2000 Professional
on hard disk 2. Use Windows XP Professional to convert hard disk 1 to
dynamic, and then use Windows 2000 Professional to convert hard disk 2 to
dynamic.
D. Incorrect: Although both Windows XP Professional and Windows 2000 Professional
support dynamic disks, they store information about the disks in their Registry.
If both operating systems are installed on the same disk and you use one to
convert the disk to dynamic, the Registry of the other operating system becomes
out-of-date and no longer boots.
E. Incorrect: Windows XP Home Edition does not recognize dynamic disks, so it
cannot be installed on a dynamic disk.
I would have eliminated any answer mentionning 2 OS on the same partition, such as answer B, which cannot be "correct" as none of the OS will be "fully functional". I know this for having tried it myself, but I also have read in several occasions Microsoft documentation stating it.
What do you think?
Comments
-
Options
undomiel
Member Posts: 2,818
But you can have 2 OS on the same partition. Just put them in different directories and make sure your boot.ini is configured appropriately. When taking calls for broken OS I've seen a number of situations where the client had tried to fix the problem himself only to have installed a new copy of the OS into a different directory and now they have multiple boot options on start-up and don't know what to do.Jumping on the IT blogging band wagon -- http://www.jefferyland.com/ -
Options
royal
Member Posts: 3,352 ■■■■□□□□□□
I know this is 70-270, but I was reading through 70-620 book and noticed that with Vista, you can't dual boot using the same partition. But with XP, you can dual boot it in the same partition. Is this true or an error in the 70-620 Sybex book? Anybody try it?“For success, attitude is equally as important as ability.” - Harry F. Banks -
OptionsCambridge
Member Posts: 11 ■□□□□□□□□□
Like I said, I know it is feasible, but it's just not "fully functional" as the question requires. I started running into problems after less than 24 hours after trying it. That was of course starting with a completely virgin, freshly formatted drive. Internet Explorer, registry, it is just bound to screw up. And again, Microsoft itself discourages it in its own online documentation.
Has anyone here been running 2 Windows on a partition for a long time without problems?
Unless someone proves me wrong, I think the answer to that question is wrong. -
Optionsundomiel
Member Posts: 2,818
They didn't ask for optimal, they didn't ask for your definition of fully functional either, they asked for fully functional. They didn't define fully functional for you though so you have to guess what Microsoft meant by fully functional, since it is their question you are having to play by their rules after all. Both ME and XP would store their registery information separately from each other. General usage of the hard drives would not corrupt their ability to still be able to boot. This looks to be the definition of fully functional that Microsoft is looking for, that both OS will boot.Jumping on the IT blogging band wagon -- http://www.jefferyland.com/
-
Options
dynamik
Banned Posts: 12,312 ■■■■■■■■■□
Has anyone ever done this? Each version of Windows would have it's own directory, but they'd both use common directories like c:\Program Files, right? The second installation would theoretically be fine (at least until you went back and started using the original one again), but I'd have to imagine that the original one would be trashed for the most part.
I suppose that might useful as a last-ditch migration option or something, but I can't see it being practical in any way. -
Optionsundomiel
Member Posts: 2,818
I did it for a short while with 98 and 2000, both would still boot and run. I don't recall any particular issues with it. I didn't do too much testing on it just because I was doing it to test that 2000 would actually install on that machine without trashing it. Or some reason like that, it was a long time ago. After playing with it for a while and deciding I liked 2000 and didn't need 98 any longer I blew out everything and started from scratch.Jumping on the IT blogging band wagon -- http://www.jefferyland.com/
-
OptionsCambridge
Member Posts: 11 ■□□□□□□□□□
Unfortunately, I find it is often an issue with Microsoft. They tend to be ultra-picky on terms and phrasing, but not in a consistent way. The day you think you finally got used to their "thinking" with questions, you fall on another surprising one.
Regarding this particular question though, I must admit that I was probably wrong because I just remembered that the test I made was with 2 Windows XP on the same partition, not 2 different versions of Windows. It makes sense that 2 different versions would cohabitate better than 2 XP's for example. -
OptionsSmallguy
Member Posts: 597
dynamik wrote:Has anyone ever done this? Each version of Windows would have it's own directory, but they'd both use common directories like c:\Program Files, right? The second installation would theoretically be fine (at least until you went back and started using the original one again), but I'd have to imagine that the original one would be trashed for the most part.
I suppose that might useful as a last-ditch migration option or something, but I can't see it being practical in any way.
We used to do it when I worked for them as an out source partner with PSS
we'd do it to get data from a broken OS backed up before wiping the system
purely as something temporary -
Optionsandysmeg
Member Posts: 12 ■□□□□□□□□□
I personally would have said that same as you Cambridge but would have only got 1 answer.
At that point it's a case of illiminating what it can't be and 9 times out of 10 it'll leave you with the only other possible answer, whether or not you think it's right in the first instance. -
Optionsfishnchips
Member Posts: 1 ■□□□□□□□□□
I have both versions installed on one partition. the only problem is that only one xp can use internet explorer. because if xp 64 uses IE, then the xp 32 can not use as it comes up with error saying this is not a vlaid 32bit program.. i had ace holes trying to reinstall it on the 32bit one.
anyone else had the same problem and able to over come it?
