Re: new computer with large hard drive

[J R FOX jr_fox@xxxxxxxxxx]

--- Robert Holmgren  wrote:

> I'm *only* talking about dual-booting 9x and NT
> Windows. I've dual-booted
> non-Windows for years, and no problems (at least,
> not until OS/2's Logical
> Volume Manager rolled in).

Yes, that can be a complication. It helps to use the
right tools. (We've discussed DFSEE before.) I'm not
using JFS file system, which might be a further
complication. HPFS, NTFS, and FAT-32. They don't see
each other, by design, even though I know some folks
like to arrange Read access, or even Write access.
(The latter strikes me as a bad idea.)

> But boot loaders can and
> do get messed up.
> Cylinder 0 Sector 63 is the MBR; non-Windows OSes
> can mess with it, and render
> Windows unbootable. I concede, I may be overly
> pessimistic here; I am
> constantly messing with operating systems,
> repartitioning, resizing logical
> drives, etc etc, and I have problems (or would, if I
> hadn't learned how to work
> around them). If you NEVER tinker with any of that,
> and you install in the
> right order to begin with, the issue might never
> arise. But it can and does
> arise if, for example, one of your OSes fails and
> you need to fix it from a
> boot diskette or CD. Or if your partitioning tool
> doesn't understand that you
> are multi-booting and rewrites the wrong MBR data.

I haven't really run into any of these problems
myself. Maybe I've been lucky, or don't push the
envelope as much as you have. (I did have two NT4 and
-- much later -- two W2K partitions die and become
unbootable and unrepairable. But I'm very close to
certain these incidents were caused by failed Win
Service Pack installs. Nowadays I'd clone the
partitions first, or more likely the whole drive, so
I'd have a good fallback position.)

> I still contend that the two-computer solution is a
> much better option. You
> can have concurrency in two environments. You can
> communicate between
> machines. And most important, when one machine has
> a problem, you can Google
> the fix with the other machine.

A meritorious idea, provided one has the room and the
infrastructure.

> Rebooting all the
> time to switch OSes is
> ridiculous. If you really do need two operating
> systems, then you probably
> need them all the time.

I think the short answer is 'It depends.' Depends on
how you use what you use. Many days go by when I
don't boot Win at all. Other days I may be doing
stuff you can't do too well on OS/2, and not boot that
for a stretch. (Xy is available under both, of
course, though I prefer the DOS-like lack of
complications using it in the latter.)


Jordan