🚀 go-pugleaf

Richard Ashton wrote:
> 
> In article <361551FF.A2764D9F@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>            chris@nospam.demon.co.uk "Chris Priest" writes:
> 
> } > } So: How do I persuade OS/2 and NT4 to install with ptn 3 as the active <C:>
> } > } primary partition?
> }
> } My question remains unanswered.
> 
> Then I am not sure I understand it, From first principles you can only
> have 4 primary partitions.

>From my first post, see that that's what I've got. My Win NT5 and Win 95
partitions are alternate C: partitions. The rest, NT4, OS2, OS2data and
Linux swap are logical ptns in the extended space, as are all the
partitions on the second drive.

> I have 2 C: one loads 95 which is actually installed on D, the other C:
> loads NT4 Workstation or NT4 Server on I: and K: both NTFS

Ahh, this is more interesting. What does you partition table look like,
and which C: boots which Windows? (Please.) Thinks...small C: ptns with
DOS 6 (or must it be 7?) and PQMagic, then BootMgr can select between
Windows versions without too many cascading boot selections(?)

> NT4 will install on any logical partition but needs a C: to seed from.
> OS/2 doesn't care where it loads

I know, but both seem to care where C: is physically, not logically. 

> May be a size issue with FAT16/VFAT16 I need to get the NT books out to
> see what the differences are, if any.

I had a look at the MS KB, and although many boot problems were
addressed, this was not one of them. None of my partitons is larger than
2GB, and both OSs recognised that the disks were larger than 1024 cyls.
What gets me is that the NT install had actually put the NT loader files
into the second C:, but on the reboot, NTLDR did not even get as far as
showing the selection menu. It just hung with the BIOS messages on
screen. No problem when using the first C: though. 

I saw a similar effect on my other big computer (which was C:Win95,
D:WinNT4, (E):Linux 2GB each) when I uninstalled NT and wiped Linux,
then tried to move Win95. The NT loader was still there, but hiding
itself. It worked again when I moved 95 back to its original position.
So I did SYS C: and it moved ok. Something in the NT and OS2 install
must be using absolute rather than partition relative sector addressing,
and getting the calculations wrong.

There is a point to all this. My work is on an IBM product called
MQSeries that makes program to program communication across different
platforms and networks 'easy'. So easy in fact that I needed to know
next to nothing about the different platforms and networks (except MVS).
I thought it was time to redress the balance, hence this project to get
my three computers networked using OS2, NT, 95 and Linux, and MQSeries
running on all of them. Rewriting CP/M was easier!

Your advice is appreciated, but don't spend too much time on it. If you
can't find an answer quickly, say so and I will drop the install issue
and move on. Getting OS2 networked is causing me grief now too.

TFAYHIA
-- 
Chris@idol.d.c.u
http://www.idol.d.c.u for a link to MQSeries. (A _very_ small web site
;-)