Thank you for so kind attitude.
I attach SILVER.VDI's sector 1028160 both in its raw and MBR aspects.
In the very initial post I mention a non-typical layout of my physical disk; cf. a screen copy of disk layout and the 1st question at the en of the post.
According to my understanding of the layout, the 1st partition boots and loads (it contains NTDETECT.COM and NTLDR) the System carried by the 2nd partition (it contains WINDOWS, Document and Settings, Program Files). The 3rd partition contains stuff irrelevant for OS functioning but relevant for "data backup".
... in fact I'd appreciate if you posted a picture of that since I haven't seen logical partitions being used since DOS days.
I attach more complete layout info. Does it correspond to your idea of
picture?
Can you explain to me why this XP image had a separate boot partition?
Such "strange" layout, I've had set it in 2001 for Win2K and - being satisfied by (rather weak

) assurance it gave me against system failures - I reproduced it in 2005 for WinXP. It wasn't my invention but inspired by a Web-aquainted Windows deployment expert.
As far as I can remember, the disk was "FDISK'ed" into 2 very unequal partitions, the 1st (tiny) formatted as FAT16 (at the time felt by me as more reliable than NTFS) and the 2nd (huge) as NTFS, splitted into 2 logical drives.
Then XP install was done
without any boot manager. How? I don't remember well but I suppose: the install started on the 1st volume (drive C:) - putting there NTDETECT.COM, NTLDR, AUTOEXEC.BAT, CONFIG.SYS, IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS - and then, since (probably) there were not enough space for WinXp, the whole system was installed on the 2nd volume (drive D:).
The expected advantage of such layout was the following:
If the system refuses full OS boot but I can
- boot to DOS, and
- have DOS access to all other volumes
then I have a reliable (because of FAT16

) volume with specialized batches ready to produce the emergency backups of anything precious on any volume.
Today such "strategy" seems to me very immature. Fortunately, I had never real occasion to benefit from it. My present interest in VBox is related, among others, with my will to improve the situation.
It's very important for me to avoid any "tinkering" on the physical XP system. As I wrote before: "I am afraid that 2 programs running on the XP system I would like to virtualize, cannot be reinstalled from scratch on another hardware."
Kind regards,
JK