|
Home > Archive > alt.certification.a-plus > October 2002 > Which Two OS's
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Robert 2002-09-23, 11:28 pm |
| Just Curious.....I am building a computer....I know i am going to put
Linux on it ....along with probably 2 windows OS's......Which 2 Windows
OS's would you place on it ....One side will be for Games....and the
other side will be for Programming/Web Development (Work)
98 and 2000?
2000 and XP?
98 and XP?
--
Robert
______________________________
_________________
______________________________
_________________
A+ Certified
Working On {Network+ , I-Net+, Linux+, SCJP}
_Obtaining____________________
_________________
______________________________
_________________
| |
|
|
"Robert" <liamemaps@comcast.REMOVEcom> wrote in message
news:GUQj9.241898$z91.10327743@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> Just Curious.....I am building a computer....I know i am going to put
> Linux on it ....along with probably 2 windows OS's......Which 2 Windows
> OS's would you place on it ....One side will be for Games....and the
> other side will be for Programming/Web Development (Work)
>
> 98 and 2000?
>
> 2000 and XP?
>
> 98 and XP?
> --
> Robert
> ______________________________
_________________
> ______________________________
_________________
> A+ Certified
> Working On {Network+ , I-Net+, Linux+, SCJP}
> _Obtaining____________________
_________________
> ______________________________
_________________
If you're going to be gaming, particularly older games go for 98. 2000
would be good for the programming or even the Linux.
You'll need to put 98 on first then 2000. Linux will go on last and let
it's boot loader handle the OS selection.
If you're not experienced with Linux installation Mandrake is the easiest to
install.
AG
| |
| Russ S 2002-09-24, 12:28 am |
| Hey Robert
I would go for W98 and W2000. XP is great but if you have '98 for games,
W2000 is an awesome plarform for development and if you are looking at any
sort of advanced MS certification it is a necesary item.
You will need something like System Commander (my preference) or Partition
Magic to load the assorted systems.
RussS
A+, Net+
| |
| Russ S 2002-09-24, 1:29 am |
| Hey Robert
I would go for W98 and W2000. XP is great but if you have '98 for games,
W2000 is an awesome plarform for development and if you are looking at any
sort of advanced MS certification it is a necesary item.
You will need something like System Commander (my preference) or Partition
Magic to load the assorted systems.
RussS
A+, Net+
| |
| Barry Watzman 2002-09-24, 8:28 am |
| 98 and XP.
XP is an evolution of 2000, so 2000 and XP doesn't make much sense, they
are too similar and you don't get any unique capabilities. But if you
need to get into a "true" DOS mode, 98 will let you do that.
Robert wrote:
> Just Curious.....I am building a computer....I know i am going to put
> Linux on it ....along with probably 2 windows OS's......Which 2 Windows
> OS's would you place on it ....One side will be for Games....and the
> other side will be for Programming/Web Development (Work)
>
> 98 and 2000?
>
> 2000 and XP?
>
> 98 and XP?
| |
| Barry Watzman 2002-09-24, 9:28 am |
| 98 and XP.
XP is an evolution of 2000, so 2000 and XP doesn't make much sense, they
are too similar and you don't get any unique capabilities. But if you
need to get into a "true" DOS mode, 98 will let you do that.
Robert wrote:
> Just Curious.....I am building a computer....I know i am going to put
> Linux on it ....along with probably 2 windows OS's......Which 2 Windows
> OS's would you place on it ....One side will be for Games....and the
> other side will be for Programming/Web Development (Work)
>
> 98 and 2000?
>
> 2000 and XP?
>
> 98 and XP?
| |
| Jim Nugent 2002-09-24, 2:28 pm |
| It's great to find another System Commander fan. It's gotten me through one
MCSE and part way toward another. I did what my MCT said couldn't be
done --- Installed NT Server and Win 98 on the same machine. Now I have OS's
all over the place. Great program!
-----
Jim
"Russ S" <noway@nohow.com> wrote in message
news:LtSj9.9744$Y3.1878023@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Hey Robert
>
> I would go for W98 and W2000. XP is great but if you have '98 for games,
> W2000 is an awesome plarform for development and if you are looking at any
> sort of advanced MS certification it is a necesary item.
> You will need something like System Commander (my preference) or Partition
> Magic to load the assorted systems.
>
> RussS
> A+, Net+
>
>
| |
| Jim Nugent 2002-09-24, 3:28 pm |
| It's great to find another System Commander fan. It's gotten me through one
MCSE and part way toward another. I did what my MCT said couldn't be
done --- Installed NT Server and Win 98 on the same machine. Now I have OS's
all over the place. Great program!
-----
Jim
"Russ S" <noway@nohow.com> wrote in message
news:LtSj9.9744$Y3.1878023@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Hey Robert
>
> I would go for W98 and W2000. XP is great but if you have '98 for games,
> W2000 is an awesome plarform for development and if you are looking at any
> sort of advanced MS certification it is a necesary item.
> You will need something like System Commander (my preference) or Partition
> Magic to load the assorted systems.
>
> RussS
> A+, Net+
>
>
| |
| Tom MacIntyre 2002-09-24, 3:28 pm |
| On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:13:36 -0500, "Jim Nugent" <nuge@execpc.com>
wrote:
>It's great to find another System Commander fan. It's gotten me through one
>MCSE and part way toward another. I did what my MCT said couldn't be
>done --- Installed NT Server and Win 98 on the same machine. Now I have OS's
>all over the place. Great program!
>-----
>Jim
It's very comforting to hear how well MCT's know all this stuff... :-(
Tom
>
>"Russ S" <noway@nohow.com> wrote in message
>news:LtSj9.9744$Y3.1878023@news.xtra.co.nz...
>> Hey Robert
>>
>> I would go for W98 and W2000. XP is great but if you have '98 for games,
>> W2000 is an awesome plarform for development and if you are looking at any
>> sort of advanced MS certification it is a necesary item.
>> You will need something like System Commander (my preference) or Partition
>> Magic to load the assorted systems.
>>
>> RussS
>> A+, Net+
>>
>>
>
| |
| Tom MacIntyre 2002-09-24, 4:28 pm |
| On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:13:36 -0500, "Jim Nugent" <nuge@execpc.com>
wrote:
>It's great to find another System Commander fan. It's gotten me through one
>MCSE and part way toward another. I did what my MCT said couldn't be
>done --- Installed NT Server and Win 98 on the same machine. Now I have OS's
>all over the place. Great program!
>-----
>Jim
It's very comforting to hear how well MCT's know all this stuff... :-(
Tom
>
>"Russ S" <noway@nohow.com> wrote in message
>news:LtSj9.9744$Y3.1878023@news.xtra.co.nz...
>> Hey Robert
>>
>> I would go for W98 and W2000. XP is great but if you have '98 for games,
>> W2000 is an awesome plarform for development and if you are looking at any
>> sort of advanced MS certification it is a necesary item.
>> You will need something like System Commander (my preference) or Partition
>> Magic to load the assorted systems.
>>
>> RussS
>> A+, Net+
>>
>>
>
| |
|
| no need for system commander to do that
If you install 98 to a FAT16, then install NT server to a separate =
partition
Little more complicated if you want 98 on FAT32, either
-- have 3 partitions -- small FAT16 as active partition
-- put NT server on a FAT16=20
"Jim Nugent" <nuge@execpc.com> wrote in message =
news:3d90c337$0$1428$272ea4a1@
news.execpc.com...
> It's great to find another System Commander fan. It's gotten me =
through one
> MCSE and part way toward another. I did what my MCT said couldn't be
> done --- Installed NT Server and Win 98 on the same machine. Now I =
have OS's
> all over the place. Great program!
> -----
> Jim
>=20
> "Russ S" <noway@nohow.com> wrote in message
> news:LtSj9.9744$Y3.1878023@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > Hey Robert
> >
> > I would go for W98 and W2000. XP is great but if you have '98 for =
games,
> > W2000 is an awesome plarform for development and if you are looking =
at any
> > sort of advanced MS certification it is a necesary item.
> > You will need something like System Commander (my preference) or =
Partition
> > Magic to load the assorted systems.
> >
> > RussS
> > A+, Net+
> >
> >
>=20
>
| |
|
| no need for system commander to do that
If you install 98 to a FAT16, then install NT server to a separate =
partition
Little more complicated if you want 98 on FAT32, either
-- have 3 partitions -- small FAT16 as active partition
-- put NT server on a FAT16=20
"Jim Nugent" <nuge@execpc.com> wrote in message =
news:3d90c337$0$1428$272ea4a1@
news.execpc.com...
> It's great to find another System Commander fan. It's gotten me =
through one
> MCSE and part way toward another. I did what my MCT said couldn't be
> done --- Installed NT Server and Win 98 on the same machine. Now I =
have OS's
> all over the place. Great program!
> -----
> Jim
>=20
> "Russ S" <noway@nohow.com> wrote in message
> news:LtSj9.9744$Y3.1878023@news.xtra.co.nz...
> > Hey Robert
> >
> > I would go for W98 and W2000. XP is great but if you have '98 for =
games,
> > W2000 is an awesome plarform for development and if you are looking =
at any
> > sort of advanced MS certification it is a necesary item.
> > You will need something like System Commander (my preference) or =
Partition
> > Magic to load the assorted systems.
> >
> > RussS
> > A+, Net+
> >
> >
>=20
>
| |
| Russ S 2002-09-24, 10:29 pm |
| Hey Jim
That is true, but if you want a non M$ OS on your machine System Commander
or similar is a much better way to go. I have 3 swap trays all with muliti
boots using SC and rarely have a problem.
RussS
A+, Net+
| |
| Russ S 2002-09-24, 11:28 pm |
| Hey Jim
That is true, but if you want a non M$ OS on your machine System Commander
or similar is a much better way to go. I have 3 swap trays all with muliti
boots using SC and rarely have a problem.
RussS
A+, Net+
| |
| Jim Nugent 2002-09-25, 2:29 pm |
|
"JimW" <JimWae-NO-SPAM-NO-Wae@hootmail.pshawcable> wrote in message
news:2P5k9.407097$Ag2.17618030@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
no need for system commander to do that
If you install 98 to a FAT16, then install NT server to a separate partition
Little more complicated if you want 98 on FAT32, either
-- have 3 partitions -- small FAT16 as active partition
-- put NT server on a FAT16
Perhaps I wasn't specific enough. I have an existing Pentium III Machine
with a 19 GB drive formatted as FAT32 containing Windows 98. It is the
"family" computer, and has to remain in working order (at least to boot and
run windows 98). I had to set up Windows NT Server in a separate FAT16 (and
ultimately NTFS) partition so that I could boot into it with minimal risk of
affecting Win 98 should it get hosed up (I'm using it for training,
remember?).
My instructor said the only way was to "partition down" to FAT16 and
re-install windows 98, then NT server. I suppose if you only think
Microsoft, this is the official answer.
With System Commander, I could shrink the FAT 32 partition by a couple of
gig, put in a FAT16 parition, and install NT server there. System Commanders
Boot Manager automatically hides partitions you don't want the selected OS
to see, makes the right partition "active" and boots it. So NT could be
completely isolated form 98. Eventually I bought Winternals Fat32 for NT so
I could expose and share the fat 32 partition while NT was running (for the
sake of others on my home network).
Oh yeah, one lesson I did learn: NEVER let scandisk see an NTFS partition
(Win 98 crashes, runs scandisk on the way up....). It tried to "fix" the
NTFS partition and totally mangled it! So after that I just set up SC to
hide that partition from Win 98.
-----
Jim
| |
| Jim Nugent 2002-09-25, 3:28 pm |
|
"JimW" <JimWae-NO-SPAM-NO-Wae@hootmail.pshawcable> wrote in message
news:2P5k9.407097$Ag2.17618030@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
no need for system commander to do that
If you install 98 to a FAT16, then install NT server to a separate partition
Little more complicated if you want 98 on FAT32, either
-- have 3 partitions -- small FAT16 as active partition
-- put NT server on a FAT16
Perhaps I wasn't specific enough. I have an existing Pentium III Machine
with a 19 GB drive formatted as FAT32 containing Windows 98. It is the
"family" computer, and has to remain in working order (at least to boot and
run windows 98). I had to set up Windows NT Server in a separate FAT16 (and
ultimately NTFS) partition so that I could boot into it with minimal risk of
affecting Win 98 should it get hosed up (I'm using it for training,
remember?).
My instructor said the only way was to "partition down" to FAT16 and
re-install windows 98, then NT server. I suppose if you only think
Microsoft, this is the official answer.
With System Commander, I could shrink the FAT 32 partition by a couple of
gig, put in a FAT16 parition, and install NT server there. System Commanders
Boot Manager automatically hides partitions you don't want the selected OS
to see, makes the right partition "active" and boots it. So NT could be
completely isolated form 98. Eventually I bought Winternals Fat32 for NT so
I could expose and share the fat 32 partition while NT was running (for the
sake of others on my home network).
Oh yeah, one lesson I did learn: NEVER let scandisk see an NTFS partition
(Win 98 crashes, runs scandisk on the way up....). It tried to "fix" the
NTFS partition and totally mangled it! So after that I just set up SC to
hide that partition from Win 98.
-----
Jim
| |
| Russ S 2002-10-30, 6:23 pm |
| Xref: 127.0.0.1 alt.certification.a-plus:17280
Hey Jim
That is true, but if you want a non M$ OS on your machine System Commander
or similar is a much better way to go. I have 3 swap trays all with muliti
boots using SC and rarely have a problem.
RussS
A+, Net+
|
|
|
|
|