Dual-Booting Linux/Windows 7/Windows 2000 - two gotchas (OT for uk.tech.digital-tv)

OT for uk.tech.digital-tv, but cross-posting there as recently there
have been a couple of related threads there ...

I have the following arrangement:
Disk 1:
P1: NTFS Windows 2000 (bootable)
P2: NTFS Data
P3: ext4 Ubuntu 14 /
P4: ext4 Ubuntu 14 /home
Disk 2:
P1: NTFS Windows 7 (bootable)

Although it's not strictly necessary, it may also be useful to
understand that I have an Emergency FAT32 USB Stick setup as follows:
Windows 2000 boot sector
Windows 2000 boot.ini
Windows 2000 NTLDR
Windows 2000 NTDETECT.COM
Windows XP Recovery Console
Windows 98 installed on the actual boot disk

This may seem an odd emergency USB system, but it has several useful
functions which others do not:
Can boot into W98 to run FDisk, Ghost, etc.
Can boot a W2k partition on a HD as long as it's:
On one of the first two hard disks
On one of the first two partitions
Is installed in C:\Windows or C:\WINNT
Can run the XP recovery console, which works perfectly well with
Windows 2000 but with the added advantage that it supports
large HDs, which the 2000 RC does not.

Gotcha #1:

Windows 2000 hibernates correctly, but Windows 7 won't hibernate, it
turns out it's because it's installed on the second hard disk.

Proving test procedu
1 Booted into W7, Disk Manager shows the correct disk order
described above, choose Hibernate from shut down menu,
W7 bounces you back to the screen lock login prompt.
2 Login and reboot.
3 In the BIOS, change the order of the HDs.
4 Booted into Windows 7, Disk Manager still shows the same disk
order described above (ie the original, not the present), but
choose Hibernate from shut down menu, and the PC hibernates.
5 Resume, restart and use the Emergency USB to boot into W2k,
now on the second hard disk. Again Disk Manager shows the
original disk order described above, but, unlike W7, W2k still
hibernates, even though it's now on the second HD.
6 After resuming, reboot and in the BIOS, change the disk order
back to the correct settings. Now again W7 won't hibernate.

Although the hibernation file is correctly set to C:\hiberfil.sys, I'm
wondering if actually W7 is trying to use the W2k partition on HD1,P1
to save its resume data, and failing because it doesn't have the
necessary permissions for the C:\hiberfil.sys file there, and that
perhaps it would work if I could change the SSIDs on the W7
installation to match those of the W2k installation. But, although it
would be an interesting and possibly informative test, it wouldn't be
a desirable permanent arrangement to have two OSs using the same file
to store their resume data. The potential for loss of data is
obvious.

Gotcha #2:

While investigating the first gotcha, I decided to uninstall the
Ubuntu grub loader and try Lilo instead. However, I found that the
NTFS Data partition kept disappearing in W7. It turned out that Lilo
was marking it as hidden every time I booted into W2k.

Proving test procedu
1 In Linux Disks utility, ensure that the Data partition is
marked as 0x07 NTFS rather than 0x17 Hidden NTFS.
2 Reboot into W7, Data partition is visible as D: drive.
3 Reboot into Linux, partition is still marked as NTFS.
4 Reboot into W2k, partition is visible as D: drive, but
Diskprobe shows partition type as 'Unknown Type'.
5 Reboot into W7, no D: drive.
6 Reboot into Linux, partition now hidden, unhide it.
7 Reboot into W2k, partition is visible as D: drive, but
Diskprobe shows partition type as 'Unknown Type'.
Use Diskprobe to change it back to NTFS.
8 Reboot into W7, now there is a D: drive.
9 Reboot into Linux, partition is still marked as NTFS.
10 Reboot into W2k, but do Ctrl-Alt-Del at the point
where you'd normally do F8 to go into Safe Mode.
11 Reboot into Linux, partition now hidden, unhide it.
12 Reboot and use the Emergency USB to boot into W2k,
partition is visible as D: drive, and Diskprobe shows
partition type as 'NTFS'.
13 Reboot into W7, now there is a D: drive.
14 Reboot into Linux, partition is still marked as NTFS.

Therefore Lilo, and only Lilo, is marking the partition as hidden.

Trouble is, now I can't reinstall grub. I get ...

root:~# grub-install /dev/sda
/dev/root does not have any corresponding BIOS drive

.... and no-one seems to know how to fix this.

Anyone got any ideas for fixing either the W7 hibernation problem
(without swapping the W2k and W7 partitions, they are where they are
for a reason) and/or the grub reinstallation problem?
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 21:48:25 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

====snip convoluted tale of multibooting woes terminating in...====

Trouble is, now I can't reinstall grub. I get ...

root:~# grub-install /dev/sda /dev/root does not have any
corresponding
BIOS drive

... and no-one seems to know how to fix this.

Anyone got any ideas for fixing either the W7 hibernation problem
(without swapping the W2k and W7 partitions, they are where they are for
a reason) and/or the grub reinstallation problem?

OOI, can we assume running your windows setups as guest VMs under a
Linux host isn't going "to cut it" for you?

The idea of multibooting into a choice of OSen has never appealed to me,
not just for the excellent example you've given of one bunch of issues
that can arise in such a scenario, but for the cumbersome approach of
"Slurping from whatever happens to be your favourite "Poisoned Chalice"
of the moment on a strict 'timeshare' basis.

I'm not decrying what you're trying to achieve (whatever that may be),
just that, to paraphrase an already paraphrased MSFT 'Tagline' "Where do
you want to crash today?" type of choice at switch on time has never
really appealed (not even when the hardware was a significant expense in
the total cost of ownership equation). I'm simply curious as to why your
goal can't be achieved using guest VMs.

Personally speaking, especially since the hardware costs are now a much
smaller fraction of the total costs of ownership, if I couldn't find a
guest VM based solution, I'd be looking to use an additional PC (or two)
to save the dual/triple booting hassles and 'have done with it'.

Although I don't have any experience using the dual boot route, others
may be able to offer useful advice if you can give us some idea why you
feel the choice of dual booting over a guest VMs solution is a better one
in your particular usage case.

BTW, after reviewing your post, I picked up on a problem you mentioned
regarding win2kRC's lack of large disk support. Mind you, you also
mentioned win98 in the same sentence so there might be some confusion
creeping in (plus I assumed your use of the phrase "2000RC" means win2k
and not winME).

It's true enough that until you edit the EnableLargeLBA registry entry
in an SP3 or SP4 version of win2k, it won't detect more than 127.9999GB
of a disk's storage space but that's readily fixed by the aforementioned
registry edit (best done before creating the additional partitions on the
unused space in a standalone installation where you'd want to limit the
win2k boot partition to well under that initial 127.9999GB limit anyway).

I only mention this registry fix just in case you weren't already aware
of it. Without knowing what you're trying to achieve, it's just possible
that this 'fix' might be the key to your problems.

--
Johnny B Good

On 19/01/16 21:48, Java Jive wrote:

(snipped to save electrons)

I wonder if W2k is perhaps using a different partition type numerical id
for NTFS?


Trouble is, now I can't reinstall grub. I get ...

root:~# grub-install /dev/sda
/dev/root does not have any corresponding BIOS drive

... and no-one seems to know how to fix this.


Backup and then use a live CD

http://howtoubuntu.org/how-to-repair...ubuntu-live-cd

I'd find another PC to run linux on, and leave this one for Window 7 and
w2k to fight out to death. It's totally non-compliant, I bet Microsoft
never dreamt of such a strange environment ...

--
Adrian C

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 23:34:19 GMT, Johnny B Good
wrote:

OOI, can we assume running your windows setups as guest VMs under a
Linux host isn't going "to cut it" for you?

See other replies, the hardware is too old to be able to run VMs
usefully.

Personally speaking, especially since the hardware costs are now a much
smaller fraction of the total costs of ownership, if I couldn't find a
guest VM based solution, I'd be looking to use an additional PC (or two)
to save the dual/triple booting hassles and 'have done with it'.

I've just paid out a terrifying sum on a new roof, and can't afford
new hardware just now.

BTW, after reviewing your post, I picked up on a problem you mentioned
regarding win2kRC's lack of large disk support. Mind you, you also
mentioned win98 in the same sentence so there might be some confusion
creeping in (plus I assumed your use of the phrase "2000RC" means win2k
and not winME).

I would've thought that it was clear enough. In connection with the
USB Emergency stick, I've never mentioned ME, only Win98 and W2k. You
can dual-boot W98 and W2k. Also, you can install 2k/XP boot files on
a floppy or USB stick, just as you can on a HD, and thereby have an
alternative boot path if disaster strikes. I've installed them to
this USB stick. I've also installed the XP RC, because large HDs were
not supported in 2k until SP3 (IIRC), and consequently the 2k RC
doesn't support them, while the XP RC does. Thus, the XP RC rather
than the 2k RC is installed as a boot option, not just on this USB
stick, but also on the 2k partition as well.

I only mention this registry fix just in case you weren't already aware
of it. Without knowing what you're trying to achieve, it's just possible
that this 'fix' might be the key to your problems.

No, no, keep up at the back there. The sole problem with the current
arrangement is that W7 won't hibernate. There are absolutely no
problems with the W2k installation, which has been working pretty much
as is since 2007 (that is to say, other than it doesn't support my
phone and more modern browsers, if it did I wouldn't even be needing
W7).
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 01:13:18 +0000, Adrian Caspersz
wrote:

I wonder if W2k is perhaps using a different partition type numerical id
for NTFS?

No, but, unlike W7, it ignores the hidden bit flag in the numerical
id, and so provides it as a potential drive letter whether it's hidden
or not.

Backup and then use a live CD

http://howtoubuntu.org/how-to-repair...ubuntu-live-cd

I'd find another PC to run linux on, and leave this one for Window 7 and
w2k to fight out to death. It's totally non-compliant, I bet Microsoft
never dreamt of such a strange environment ...

Well, yes, it's looking like it's coming down to that now, but really
it should be possible to repair/reinstall grub from the installation
itself, but, despite a number of wail-mails out there no-one seems
actually to understand how and why in a small number of cases this
particular error message is being generated. I suppose the
grub-install source files would tell us something ...
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 20/01/16 10:35, Java Jive wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 01:13:18 +0000, Adrian Caspersz
wrote:

I wonder if W2k is perhaps using a different partition type numerical id
for NTFS?

No, but, unlike W7, it ignores the hidden bit flag in the numerical
id, and so provides it as a potential drive letter whether it's hidden
or not.

Backup and then use a live CD

http://howtoubuntu.org/how-to-repair...ubuntu-live-cd

I'd find another PC to run linux on, and leave this one for Window 7 and
w2k to fight out to death. It's totally non-compliant, I bet Microsoft
never dreamt of such a strange environment ...

Well, yes, it's looking like it's coming down to that now, but really
it should be possible to repair/reinstall grub from the installation
itself, but, despite a number of wail-mails out there no-one seems
actually to understand how and why in a small number of cases this
particular error message is being generated. I suppose the
grub-install source files would tell us something ...


Does /dev/root even exist?

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugr...cgi?bug=776481

--
Adrian C

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:52:32 +0000, Adrian Caspersz
wrote:

Does /dev/root even exist?

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugr...cgi?bug=776481

Thanks, that's interesting, but yes, it does.

I've also tried (and previously posted, but job's worths keep removing
the cross-posts, thus destroying the integrity of the thread):

root:~# grub-install /dev/disk/by-label/root
/dev/disk/by-label/../../sda3 does not have any corresponding BIOS
drive

This suggests that /dev/root is being correctly assigned to /dev/sda3,
but doesn't tell us why the message is being generated. It seems to
me that in the grub-install code there possibly might be an ambiguity
between a drive and a partition which is normally resolved by some
configuration setting, which setting was removed when I uninstalled
grub, and wasn't replaced when I reinstalled it.
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

On 2016-01-19, Java Jive wrote:
snip.

Trouble is, now I can't reinstall grub. I get ...

root:~# grub-install /dev/sda
/dev/root does not have any corresponding BIOS drive

... and no-one seems to know how to fix this.
snip

Check your device.map file for proper BIOS names for block
devices per kernel you are using.

Running this should fix:
grub-install --recheck /dev/sda

check /boot/grub/device.map file
Example:

(fd0) /dev/fd0
(hd0) /dev/sda
(hd1) /dev/sdb
(hd2) /dev/sdc
(hd3) /dev/sdd

Example if using older kernel:
IDE PATA:

(fd0) /dev/fd0
(hd0) /dev/hda
(hd1) /dev/hdb
(hd2) /dev/hdc
(hd3) /dev/hdd

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:25:12 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 23:34:19 GMT, Johnny B Good
wrote:

OOI, can we assume running your windows setups as guest VMs under a
Linux host isn't going "to cut it" for you?

See other replies, the hardware is too old to be able to run VMs
usefully.

I have *now*! I can also see why the VM solution isn't going to 'cut it'
for you, presumably no virtualisation support in the old CPU (and
probably a 4GB ram limit to boot).


Personally speaking, especially since the hardware costs are now a
much
smaller fraction of the total costs of ownership, if I couldn't find a
guest VM based solution, I'd be looking to use an additional PC (or
two)
to save the dual/triple booting hassles and 'have done with it'.

I've just paid out a terrifying sum on a new roof, and can't afford new
hardware just now.

Ok then, that helps explain your struggles with multibooting. :-(


BTW, after reviewing your post, I picked up on a problem you mentioned
regarding win2kRC's lack of large disk support. Mind you, you also
mentioned win98 in the same sentence so there might be some confusion
creeping in (plus I assumed your use of the phrase "2000RC" means win2k
and not winME).

I would've thought that it was clear enough. In connection with the USB
Emergency stick, I've never mentioned ME, only Win98 and W2k. You can
dual-boot W98 and W2k. Also, you can install 2k/XP boot files on a
floppy or USB stick, just as you can on a HD, and thereby have an
alternative boot path if disaster strikes. I've installed them to this
USB stick. I've also installed the XP RC, because large HDs were not
supported in 2k until SP3 (IIRC), and consequently the 2k RC doesn't
support them, while the XP RC does. Thus, the XP RC rather than the 2k
RC is installed as a boot option, not just on this USB stick, but also
on the 2k partition as well.

I only mention this registry fix just in case you weren't already
aware
of it. Without knowing what you're trying to achieve, it's just
possible that this 'fix' might be the key to your problems.

No, no, keep up at the back there. The sole problem with the current
arrangement is that W7 won't hibernate. There are absolutely no
problems with the W2k installation, which has been working pretty much
as is since 2007 (that is to say, other than it doesn't support my phone
and more modern browsers, if it did I wouldn't even be needing W7).

Ok, understood *now*. My bad for getting confused. BTW, is there any
reason why you're still using the RC version rather than the SP4 version
(with EnableLargeLBA enabled in the registry)? It's not as if you
couldn't have installed an SP4 slipstreamed version of win2k way back in
2007. Speaking of which, 2007, has the hardware not received any major
MoBo/CPU/RAM upgrades since then? If not, it would certainly explain your
lack of satisfaction with a VM solution.

Anyhow, it strikes me that the only reason you're in the mess you're now
in stems from a desire to get win7's hibernation feature to work (Gotcha
#1) which has led to the current, self inflicted Gotcha #2. If you can
get back to "Square One", I'd be inclined to "Let sleeping dogs lie." and
take the more pragmatic approach and forget all about fixing the win7
hibernate issue. Sure, it'll add a tiny bit extra onto the household
electricity bill but this will be far less than the hardware investment
required to achieve a more workable (and desirable) VM solution to your
current problem.

One step at a time. Right now, I'd be inclined to concentrate on getting
back to "Square One" before having another go (if you must) at the win7
hibernation issue. Unfortunately, as I made clear to begin with, I'm not
in a position to advise you on GRUB or LILO fixes so it'll be down to
others to help you sort your "Gotcha #1" problem out. Your win7
Hibernation issue, it seems to me, is deserving of a post all of its very
own.

--
Johnny B Good

On 19/01/2016 21:48, Java Jive wrote:
OT for uk.tech.digital-tv, but cross-posting there as recently there
have been a couple of related threads there ...


I can boot several OSs but I keep them all on one SSD. I use Bootit
Bare Metal to select what OS to boot and to manage the disk
partitioning, and to make OS backups.

The Terrabyte forum contains details of a setting for Windows 8 and 10
which you need if multibooting to avoid disk corruption.

Booting other OS in Virtual Machines is an alternative approach.


--
Michael Chare