Multiboot XP Pro, 2 times same Disk, different partitions

This is what I would like to accomplish
1) Have 1 partition to cruise the net with, minimal programs
2) A back up partition for that
3) A partition where Most of my programs are located and where I work when not on the web.
Other partitions to store data etc. No problem with that part of this.

Would like to boot into either C:\WebDrive
Or C:\WorkDrive

What is the best way to accomplish this?

 

THe easiest thing to do is to create a separate partition, call this, say, E, into which you install a second OS.

You will then be able to choose whether to boot to C or to E.

 

Thanks for you're suggestions

Okay, I have one brand new copy of Windows XP Professional that I have currently installed but not yet gone online to get my Windows Blessing. So will this work if I partition the drive and reinstall the same Windows XP Professional? Then go online and get two Windows Blessings? Or are we talking about my buying another copy of Windows Xp? and installing that? I'm not too fond of that plan.

I think it should be perfectly legal to have two copies of the same OS on the same machine. I only plan to use them one at a time and so should not be running afoul of anything in any moral sense.

 

Legally, you can only install Windows XP once on a single computer.
However, you might get lucky when you call MSFT. They might allow more than 1 install on the same PC, but they need not do so.

 

Howard,
Thank you for the reply.
If it's true that it's only legal to install a single copy of the os on a single computer. And I'm not saying it's not, because like most other people I don't take the time to actually read the things I agree to when I install software. Then it absolutely ridiculous. If I had the resources, the time and the inclination I'd be tempted to challenge this policy in court.

 

I don't know the T & C's small print, but I do know that I have 4 x Win XP Pro independant installs, all activated on my system using my genuine XP CD.

I don't think that even Bill can contemplate charging per install on the same machine. I thought that was the whole point of activation - it's a hardware signature. Well the hardware doesn't change!

Anyway, I use Partition Magic to create the partitions and then make each in turn active and install XP. I then install OSS so I can choose which one to boot to. It works great, I did have some problems with OSS - it needed some tweaking, but it was easy to do with the help of this forum.

 

Yes, I expect that many folkes do that, but MSFT has been increasingly clamping down, as it sees fit. It's their choice, not ours.

I would agree that most every software license should allow for multriple installs on the SAME PC, but not all licenses permit this. It's solely up to the software developer/company.

Part of the problem is how to enforce.

THere are/have been a number of well known software products that have no way of enforcing how may times the product is installed, or even on how many comp0uters.

A license is a contract.

It's rather interesting that MSFT allows development products, e.g., Visual Basic, to be installed as many times as desired, and on multiple machines. MSFT realizes that this is necessary so developers can test the software.

There needs to be a compromise in the OS licenses, as it is oft necessary to install separate copies of an OS for development testing.

Large companies are able to reap the benefits of volume licenses, but we little folkes do not get the benefit of volume pricing.

Heck, a few daze ago, I needed to buy a license for a product. Best retail price was $36.99 at Newegg. I called the software company and was able to buy a 3-license upgrade pack for $34.99.

In the case of an OS, since it is possible to use ONLY 1 OS at a time, there's nothing to prevent the user from uninstalling an OS and re-installing in a different configuration.

But why make the user go thru all that, allow multiple installs on the same PC, and crack down harder on those try to use a license on more than one PC.

 

Okay this is getting interesting. I've spent many hours now studying up on this and found Dan Goodells information great. Understanding how to do it leagally is understanding everything that needs to be understood. I.e. win 98, partition 1, win xp, partition two, etc.

http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/tools.htm
http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/editbini.htm
http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm

Just out of curiosity, Question for the PROF: Is it You install 4 times, each time you then input the activation key that comes with the disk, and then four times you go online with microsoft and get the activation confirmation code?

Howard, I really think this would make a great court case. There is a principal in the law that goes something like this. If you sign a contract that has an illegal clause in it, then that part of the contract is not valid. I'd be willing to bet that any lawyer that was halfway competent could challenge the legality of Microsofts position, if in fact it's their position that it's only legal to install a single copy of the OS on a computer.
Not that I'm advocating suing Microsoft. If this weren't a relatively obscure concern compared to the overall scheme of things, I'd probably start with a letter writing campaing, or e-mail campaign to let Microsoft know I think that this policy is a little on the nonsensical side. Okay make that, a lot on the nonsensical side.

 

All such articles do is instruct on the mechanics of multibooting, that dos NOT obviate the need to have sufficient licenses, or permission from the software developer to do so.

Yes.
But you really need to call them.

If one manages to trick the activation, there are two potential nasty consequences:

1. At some point MSFT might detect this and cut off updates, or even lock the software.
2. Worse yet, MSFT might decide to take legal action.

Limiting use of software to 1 PC is a perfectly valid term in a contract.
Whether a license has such a limit is strictly a marketing issue, and is solely at the discretion of the software company.

The real issue (from my previous post) is:

Additionally, and I expect that MSFT realizes this, if we could more freely install an OS, then we'd have to purchase more software to stock each installed OS.

 

We have some agreement. You say there should be some flexibility in multiple instances of the same OS on the same PC. I say, we should write/e-mail MSFT and ask for that / express displeasure at current state of things.

Not arguing about the legality of a companies right to sell software for a single PC. Where I think there is room for interpretation is said companies rights to say just how that software can be used on the pc that it was purchased for. And, if I didn't have more important things to do with my life than spend it arguing a relatively trivial issue, I would most certainly firstly try to get MSFT to change their policiy. Then if they didn't take them to court.

Considering just how much damage is done to peoples computers online by hackers, viruses, adware, IDentiy theft etc. It makes damn good sense to limit what people can see on your computer when you're surfing.
Which might be another suggestion I have for Microsoft. Make it so windows sets up a separate secure surfing environment where all of the rest of the computer is hidden, and the only thing that's visible on the web are whatever applications the person is using at the time. They could call this something like WinSurf, and it would be a minimized version of windows just for surfing. It would be super small so that if hackers destroy it it can be restored from a single DVD with all the browser setting, identities, emoticons and everything else a person builds up in chatrooms restored in the blink of an Eye.


Oh yes, and your right, there is no harm in asking for permission from Microsoft to do a multi install of the same OS.

 

The implementation of IE7 on Vista comes pretty close to this. It operates in a special Protected Mode that is isolated from the rest of the PC.

I've gotten in the habit of using IE7 when visiting suspicious sites or doing important stuff like online banking, but still prefer Firefox (better UI and better ability to customize to personal taste) for general web browsing. Note that this is the opposite of conventional wisdom. Most people still believe that Firefox is a "safer" browser, but Vista has turned that thinking upside down. Now IE7 on Vista is safer.

 

I like FireFox quite a bit myself.
I followed the link you posted. It was a little beyond my understanding of things. However, I understood enough from the link that I'll start using I.E. 7 for things like Online banking.

Thanks,

 

Yep that's correct! Always worked in this way and always intend to. If Bill and his heavies don't like it - tough!! Knock my door!! It's a legitimate purchase being used in a legitimate way IMO. If I was installing onto 4 different machines then fair enough - that's wrong.

I like to have independant installs so I can optimise each accordng to it's use. ie. games, music production etc. It keeps everything seperate and overall dramatically improves the way the computer runs. Maintenance is also a sinch.

 

Had to look up what IMO stood for. I had seen it around quite a few times, but before this wasn't curious/clever enough to figure out what it meant. In my opinion. Great.
I had anticipated trouble from MSFT trying to install it four times. Seems like that's the simplest way to go about this.

Thanks for your help.

 

As I say N2K, I've always done things that way from Win98 days. OK, it's a pain to install / setup etc, but works great. I recently updated one partition to SP3 and it screwed that install (due to problem with SP3, AMD and my mobo). I had to re-install. BUT I still had 3 working partitions, so it wasn't an issue. I had no actual downtime.