Dualboot question (slightly OT)

[Sciascia]

I am considering running a dualboot machine (98SE and 2000). I was wondering what the best method was. I have a 13G system disc and a 80G Ultra 100 array.

I have heard the I would have to install 98 first and then 2000. Should they be on seperate partitions?

I would like to have the 80G array NTFS, but will 98 recognize it?

How good are the 2000 drivers for the Marvel G400? I saw some posts that the HW codec can be made to work. I have tried SW codecs, but I still prefer to use the HW. PicVideo just looks a little funny to me and MSP6 just works better with the old HW in my experience.

Any tips?

[JTurner]

Hi there...
I don't have W2K myself, but I am running 4 bootable partitions on my machine... (each OS will need a separate partition).
2 Win98
1 Linux
1 MS-DOS 5 (so I can run some old Win 3.1 programs I wrote)

Partition Magic's BootMagic has been essential for me, and allows me to boot a Win98 partition that is WAY past the 1024 cylinder barrier.

I have a 13Gb drive with the partitions in this order:
1. Main Win98 -- 8 Gb
2. Linux Main -- 2 Gb
3. Linux Swap -- 500Kb
4. Emergency Video Editing Win98 -- 500Mb
(the DOS 5 partition is on a separate drive -- and BootMagic allows you to have bootable partitions on multiple drives)

The emergency video editing partition has been a real life saver. Let's say you install some junk software on your main Windows partition and it cripples your video editing drivers. Don't have time to fix the problem? Boot the emergency partition. Better yet, burn a CD of a minimal Windows setup, so the emergency partition can be re-created in 10 minutes if it ever gets mucked up. (all you need is Windows, Matrox Drivers, MediaStudio, and maybe a few other essential apps).

I can't comment on whether you should install W2K first or last, but BootMagic allows you to boot Win98 when it's near the end of the drive. You will have to do some experimentation -- which means you'll lose all data on the drives (don't expect PartitionMagic to push stuff around for you and have it work the first time. It takes several tries to figure out the correct formula, and by then sometimes your data gets garbled).

As well, I'm 99% certain Win98 can't read NTFS.

Oh, and just for fun, try outputting the PicVideo stream to a TV. You may not notice a difference in output from hardware MJPEG. The reason is that on the computer screen, Matrox's driver only plays back one field, yet PicVideo's plays back both. So you get an interlaced fuzzy look especially in high motion scenes when using PicVideo. But even the Matrox driver outputs in interlaced for the TV -- which is designed for interlaced video.

L8R,
JT

[moreau]

Well, the cleanest way I've found is this:
If your motherboard is relatively recent, it will allow you to not only select IDE HD drive as the boot device, but it will allow you to specify which ide drive to boot from.

So, purchase yourself a second drive (I realize you didn't intend to buy more, but I'll explain why later) to use as another boot device.

Install Win98 on one drive, FAT32.
Install Win2K on the second drive, NTFS.
Format your RAID array in FAT32 (no need to redo this if it is already done).

Now you use your motherboard bios as a boot selector. Upon boot up you just F1 or del or whatever, go into bios, switch drives if need be, and off you go.

The only real drawback to this (other than needing two drives) is that the 98 install cannot mount the Win2K disk, unless you use FAT32 for the 2K install. But, if you keep your files on the other FAT32 disks, it won't matter.

The benefit is that you don't have to mess around with boot loaders, which modify your master boot record and such. This way, each OS install is independent. You can physically pull one drive out and still boot the other OS. If one install lunches, you just format the drive and start over. No worrying about it ruining your other install. Again: NO WEIRDNESS with those subtle MBR problems.

FWIW, this is the ONLY method I have ever used to boot select, and believe stronly in it.

Cheers,
Charles

[Sciascia]

OK, I do have the option of going either way. I just remembered that I have a few HD's laying around (faster even) . I even have a few IDE removable drive thingys. The big question though is, is the 2G filesize limit a FAT32 or Win9x issue? In other words if i partition my RAID0 array to FAT32 will it still be subject to 2G limitations when using Win2k?

[Greebe]

the 2 gig limit is a Win9x issue... also Win9x cannot read an NTSF partition. I'd suggest using a seperate HD for each OS install... would be much safer and would reduce the chance of one OS from messing up the other (I've had my bad day of the happening).

[JTurner]

Hi all,

The 2Gb limit is a FAT16 limitation.
I haven't run into problems with an upper limit for FAT32.
Direct calculation would suggest it is around 17 terabytes, but my math might be flawed.

I figure 2^32 address locations * 4K clusters.

But you can definitely format your 100Gb RAID as FAT32 without a hitch.

I run Win98 and had a 60Gb RAID0 set up formatted as FAT32 for awhile.

I'd agree that installing one OS per drive is probably the best way to go, so you can easily change your setup in the future.
I'm locked in with my multiple boot partitions, since deleting one/changing one may render the rest garbled or unbootable.
As long as I do nothing and a virus doesn't attack my MBR, I'm just dandy, though. I wonder what would happen if NAV tried to repair my complex MBR...?

L8R,
JT

[johnpr98]

http://pub9.ezboard.com/fpyro1394faqs.showMessage?topicID=52.topic

From my FAQ's

Win 95 FAT = 2GB file size limit

Win 98\ME FAT 32 = 4GB file size limit

Win 2000 NTFS = 2TB (Terabytes) file size limit

Direct Show AVI's have virtually no file size limit except for the limit imposed by the Operating System.

The older Video for Windows AVI has a 2GB limit irrespective of Operating System.

4GB = 19+minutes DirectShow AVI in FAT32

My Dual Boot System

C:\ Win 98SE FAT 32
F:\ Win 2000 NTFS

Partions created with Partition Magic

John Price

http://www.johnpr98.com

[Sciascia]

Thanks guys.

I thought that it was a OS limitation, but wasn't 100%. I plan to use the RAID0 for capture and pretty much all of my video so I wanted to make sure that it would work without the 2G barrier.

Here is what I think would be my best scenario from your posts:

2 Removable HDs
1 with Win2k-NTFS
1 with Win98SE-FAT32
RAID0-FAT32

The removable drives are probably necessary since I have power concerns, my box is FULL and I tink that 4HDs is just asking for trouble. I may be alittle paranoid, but it's jujst a gut feeling. My case is 6 years old now, but I just can't part with it. I have a pretty sweet MB, an AT type Slot1 with tons of slots. It took 2 months to find it and it just does everything that I want. I'm only run a PIII 700, but it does everything that I need and it does it well. I would like to upgrade to 1G+, but it would require new case, PS, MB, RAM, and who knows so I figure that I could just run this config into the ground. Besides I just bought a new laptop 2 weeks ago and the wife would kill me or worse...

Thanks for the info

[JTurner]

John Price is correct,

I was thinking of partition size limit, not file size limit.

If you format your RAID0 as FAT32, then no file will be able to be over 4GB. Of course, AVI_IO gets around that problem by capturing nearly seamlessly across multiple files. And I don't think you'll be capturing scenes over a couple minutes long anyways (typically speaking).

But since the Matrox drivers don't work in W2K, you pretty much don't have a choice. You must use FAT32 for the RAID.

L8R,
JT

[Sciascia]

JTurner

So the drivers DO NOT work? I am getting some mixed feelings about even bothering with this now. The whole point of installing Win2k is to get past the 2 or 4G filesize limit. I know that avi_io does segmenting, but it would be nice to upgrade. If the drivers don't work then what is the point?

Thanks

[JTurner]

Well, Matrox doesn't support MJPEG in W2K.
I don't know what the success rates are with the hacks that have been posted by T-Rex, but why make your video editing system unstable by using an unsupported setup?
Hopefully a W2K MJPEG user can step in and comment, since I don't actually have W2K.

As for getting around the 4GB limit, that is dependent on the file system, not the OS. So you'd have to format your RAID as NTFS to save files over 4GB in size. But then the files wouldn't be accessable under Win98, since Win98 can't read the NTFS file system.

One question to ask yourself is "When will I need files greater than 4GB in size?"

Compressing to MPEG2 comes to mind. But then you might want to do all captures in HuffyYuv as small clips (either in Win98 or W2K). Then go into W2K and render to a LARGE HuffyYuv file on a NTFS partition. Then use TMPGEnc to compress the HuffyYuv file to MPEG2. I haven't done this myself, but maybe someone can jump in and let us know if there's a better way to produce, say, an MPEG2 from an hour-long video project in MSP (13GB or so of small clips).

JT

[Sciascia]

Yeah, I was just talking at work today about the filesize benefit of Win2k and he kind of looked at me with the "how big of a file do you need???" I started thinking about it and decided that I do want to play with Win2k, but I do not need NTFS.

Another question, what about WinME with the Marvel G400? I know about all of the resource hog stuff, but it seems to be a little bit more stable with some of my peripherals. What is the best driver to use with it. Preferably one that the YUY2 hack would work with.

Thanks

[wkulecz]

How big a file do you need?

For DV ~13GB/hr, almost three times that for full frame HuffYUV.
It's really nice to not have to fight with 2/4GB clip size limits.

Much of the improved reliability of W2k stems from using NTFS which is far less prone to corruption from crashes and improper shutdowns. IMHO its a waste of time to use W2K without NTFS -- might as well stay with what you have now.

Its a bummer to have lost MJPEG on my Marvel on W2K but I'd rather junk it than go back to win9x! YMMV.

--wally.

[JTurner]

Sciascia,

Ask the guy at your work whether he thinks a 80GB RAID is overkill on a home PC. :-)

Only you know your true requirements.
Maybe the 4GB limit will be an issue for you.

If you've done enough video editing in the past, you probably can estimate quite easily how often the 4GB barrier will be a problem.

Some people like to use AVI_IO and capture a large file, then chop it up into smaller clips, discarding the waste. This prevents some wear and tear on the ol' camcorder.
I, on the other hand, am more selective when I capture clips from tape, so I only capture what I need in the first place.
Plus, the videos I make don't have extremely long (5min+) scenes in them.

With my video capturing habits, the only time the 4GB barrier would impose a problem would be if my final output of a long project needs to be rendered to a large file. In that case, I wouldn't want to be restricted by the plug-in filters in MSP, and may want to output a large file for recompression by TMPGEnc.

So why not estimate the largest size of project you'd ever work on as the size of one final HuffyYuv file. At, um, 9Mb/s, you'd need 32Mb of space to store an hour-long video. Of course, this file is an intermediate "work file" and doesn't need to be on the RAID, since fast I/O is not required.

So the way I see it, you could format your RAID as FAT32.

Then, in the future, if you want to render to a large HuffyYuv file as an intermediate step to compressing to MPEG2, you could always add another 40GB HD to your system as temporary storage space and format it in NTFS.

JT

[Rob100]

Would just like to add that Win2K cannot format FAT32 partitions larger than 32gb - this is good old M$ trying to force NTFS on you. However if you format in Win98, Win2K can "inherit" the partition.

You could always partition your RAID array and make a 30gb NTFS partition for those occasions when you need the large file. Make the remainder FAT32. You can make Win98 read NTFS partitions using "NTFS for Windows 98" by Sysinternals - see http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/fr...tfswin98.shtml - this is free. You have to pay for a read/write version. I haven't used it recently, but have used it before when I use to dual boot NT4/Win98 (pre Win2k days...). Not really good for capturing, but at least you can get at your files if you need to.

Rob.