General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2080026

    Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

    Locked

    by ebott ·

    Is dual-booting worth it? When does it make sense to run two (or more) operating systems on one PC? What are the do’s and don’ts of dual-booting? Post your best suggestions for making Windows 2000 cooperate with Windows 95, Windows 98, and Linux.

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3901817

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by jesselou ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      in my opinion it is both worth and academic in nature on the part of IT students and new
      entry professionals in this field since we
      could pinpoint their respective defects and learn to overcome them or even discover an
      effective resolution in which these operating
      system is showing fatal error and gpf’s.in short while we have all the os in our supermachine we can also master their respective weaknesses and their treatment.it
      is also advantageous to the fun loving gamers
      in that they couldchoose which operating system their old games program could well fit into maybe their program’s software has been made 8 years ago and earlier in which the new os is incompatible.
      about the do’s and dont’s of dual booting i did not yet experience any difficulty dualbooting win95c with win 98 because i am
      using a third party dual boot manager and it
      is very elegant to see when it will reach
      at your startup menu it will show you windows
      98 version 4.10.98 in the other line win95
      version so and so it’s just like

    • #3901816

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by asecret ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      dual-booting can be worth it, it really depends on the user, if you have a genuine need for two (or more) OS’s at your disposal then it is definatly alot cheaper then buying extra computers. Dual booting NT with Windows 9x is fairly easy, you can even get NT’s OS loader to list 95/98 as an option and have Windows 95/98 use NT’s pagefile as well as share most apps between the two which makes this a very clean dual boot posibility. One limitation to keep in mind is that in alot of cases various OS’s will use diffrent filing systems so you may have to create seperate partitions of each OS, if this is the case keep in mind also that you will not be able to see other partitions from within a given OS.

    • #3901815

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by asecret ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      (continued post)

      Linux can dual boot with Windows 95/98 through a Linux application called Lilo by adding;
      _________________________
      other=/dev/hda1
      table=/dev/hda
      label=win95
      _________________________
      into the file, howeverit must be installed after win 95 rewrites the master boot record.

    • #3901813

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by rindi1 ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      In my opinion it is deffinateley worth installing more than one OS an a machine. That way you can test the pros and cons of the different OS. Win9x for instance is better for games and using older software (dos). Win NT and 2000 on the other hand ismore stable, like linux, too. One difficulty in using more than one OS is the support of your filessytems. At this time NT only supports fat and ntfs, win2000 supports ntfs, fat32 and fat, linux supports fat, fat32 and can read ntfs, win 98 supportsfat and fat32, win95 depends on the version, older ones don’t support fat32. So if you need to read all data of all OS installed, your confined to fat and 2GB max size for your partitions.

    • #3901812

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by gary ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      my 2c worth
      Obviously there are pro’s and cons. Dual booting MS os’s are relatively simple, booting with others like linux are not for the faint hearted, probably use a 3rd party boot manager?
      As end-user probably the only advantage would be to run older or legacy applications. hardware is inexpensive, rather get another cpu with a switch box. As sysadmin/itpro dual booting has advantages. You can have winnt for the daily chores, security, admin etc, and of course win95/8 for network games (oops, did i say that out loud?) Once you have got the boot menu sorted out the only other hassle is access to the different file systems.

    • #3901796

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by stanf ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      One method that I use to attack dual-(or multiple) boot environments is to run an MS combination off an IDE controller/hard drive combo. LINUX is then installed on a SCSI controller/hard drive combo (after removing the IDE drive via BIOS settings). Switching between OS’s or different combinations of OS’s can then be controlled by the BIOS determination if the IDE drives are seen by the system or not.

    • #3901795

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by rblanche ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      Duel booting can be worth wial if you are on a fixed buget and you can not afford another machine for your other operating system(s).

      Duel booting is not worth wial though if you use the other operating system(s) repeatedly throughout the day because you have to wait for your system to reboot and the OS(s) to load.

      To get Windows NT/2000, Windows 9x, and Linux to work together fist you have to install Win 9x, then you install Linux and make sure that lilo is put in the /boot directory and not the MBR, then configure lilo to boot to either Win 9x or Linux, after this is done you can install Windows NT/2000 and tell it where the Linux boot partition/dir is and where the win 9x partition is. After Windows NT/2000 is finished installingthe system should boot into the NT/2000 boot manager and you should be able to pick from NT/2000, 9x, or Linux.

    • #3901790

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by captnron ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      If you already have win95/98 or linux on a disk, the easiest way to add Win 2000 is to instal a second disk, and install Win 2000 on the second drive. This will leave the OS on the first drive in tact, and Win 2000 will add that OS to its Boot manager. This will work for up to 4 OS’s including Win 2000. Just remember that Win 2000 needs to be the Last OS installed, so that it can find all other OS’s installed. Win 2000 will recognize both fat 16 and fat 32 as well as a variety of other OS’s.

    • #3901784

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by eboyd ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      Not really. If you have a great need for multiple OS’s, use a machine with removable HD’s. While 2 of my admins have dual boot NT/95 machines, it allows them to do some administration of our NT servers from a single machine. They have the knowledge to repair the system when it takes a dump, which it will. There are compromises when you dual boot that aren’t generally worth the trouble. HD’s are cheap.

    • #3903558

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by gicu artistu’ ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      Obviously this depends… Especially by the purpose of that machine.

      If your machine is a PRODUCTION SERVER than problably is best NOT to put 2 operating systems on the same machine unless that server is a development server and we want to test different functionalities.

      If the machine is a workstation or a development server the best combination would be in my opinion DOS/WIN95/NT4.0. In this order. I had a machine like this once because I had to deal with legacy DOS apps which created me some problems when I tried to run them on Windows95 or NT. The only problem in this case is that we are limited at 2GB for the system partion and other applications have to be installed on a separate partion. In rest works fine and it’s worth it. Itried this also with 2000 and it worked.

      It’s a pain if you want to make dual boot with Windows 98 and 2000. It’s not worth it because of the problems that you have when a work a bit on 2000 then you boot on 98 (with all kinds of solutions) the blue screen appears fi

    • #3903546

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by asecret ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      Hey Ed, I can’t find Microsoft Challenge #2, where did you hide it….. your not holding out on me are you ?

    • #3903533

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by stevenclementi ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      Let’s start off by saying that dual-booting has its advantages and its disadvantages. In some cases it is definitely worth it. It all really depends on the applications you need to run at any particular time. For instance, a developer has a laptop and works vigorously to complete a Windows 2000/98 program. He/she develops and tests his/her application while running Windows 2000. Now he/she needs to test the application under Windows 98. Reboot and voila, a Windows 98 testbed. It only makes sense to dual(tri,quad)-boot when you haven’t another PC available for use.
      As far as cooperation between the 4 OS’s, first of all, DO make sure all your current hardware is compatabile with ALL the OS’s and with the type of PC your are using. If you have to install all 4 OS’s, DO make sure you install in the correct order. Though I do not think Windows 95 will dual-boot with Windows 98, the order of installation I would choose is Win95(fat32), Win98(fat32), Win2000 and finally Linux. Good luck toall.

    • #3903473

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by bridgens ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      Im running Win98, NT4.0 & Win2000 on two different PC’s and using PowerQuest BootMagic to dual/triple-boot. I have a partition for each OS and an extra FAT-partition for data. This way my dcuments are available from all OSs. BootMagiceven copes withLinux & netware partitions!

    • #3903440

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by amurphy ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      In my option, dual-booting is good for testing multiple operating systems and configurations. Generally should not be used for the normal end user. If there is a specific application that requires them to use another OS then let them use it otherwise try to stick to 1 OS.

      The best method to put multiple operating systems on is to use separate hard drives. At home I use removable drive drawers. 1 Operating system on a drive. Of course I have a small 2nd drive in the machine to transfer data.

      If drive drawers are not an option, use Lilo a boot manager to switch operating systems. It comes with Linux. However I prefer not to use Lilo because it resides in the Master Boot Record and if the MBR gets damaged you won’t be able to getback in easily. I only know one fix for reviving the MBR for Lilo, if you have to use the MBR. Make sure you make a spare Linux Boot Disk and Win95 boot disk. Boot with the Win95 run fdisk /mbr and then reboot with the linux boot disk putting in /dev/hd?? (whichever

    • #3903416

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by corey5 ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      In my honest opinion, dual booting is a good idea. I currently dual boot because I share the computer at home and need to make sure that everyone is happy. I have recently found a product called vmware that allows this to be done without partitions and is great for people who like to play with the newest technologies and operating systems. There is a version for NT and Linux and it has potential to take the hassle out of partitioning. It is great for those of us who support multiple operating systems at work because you can dedicate a window to each and replicate problems in order to solve them without giving up your good desktop.

    • #3903385

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by mikulush ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      I think it is. I dual boot my NT Workstation 4.0 and TurboLinux Worksation 4.0. The reason I do it is because Linux is more stable and allows me to do many thing with it that are accessible running Windows. On the other hand, I have programs that will only run on Windows. Hence, I dual-boot. If you don’t like the idea of having to shutdown computer and restart it to be able to boot in the other OS, you can buy a product call VMWARE. It allows you to run several OSs at the same time in virtual machines. You will have to own a licence for each OS you install. There is a version of VMWARE for both Linux and Windows. A friend of mine is running NT, 98 and Linux at the same time! However, don’t even think about installing VMWARE unless you haveat least P300 and 128MB of RAM.
      If you decide to dual boot and don’t want to use Linux’s LILO Boot Manager (which isn’t very pretty but does the job great) you might want to invest into getting a graphical Boot Manager, such as System Commander. The Deluxe version will

    • #3903308

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by zbrain75 ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      Dual booting is worth it since it saves the cost of buying two computers to learn two or more operating systems. Also operating systems have various strengths and weaknesses that you might want to exploit depending on the services required at the time. For instance Linux can be configured remotely without rebooting and Windows cannot, and additional SW must be purchased to configure it remotely.
      I like to use partition magic to set up partitions, for each operating system before beginning any install. Also I will always set up a large drive or partition, all other systems can see to make it easy to port files. When installing Windows with Linux, install Windows first, then Linux and I use LILO to select the one to boot. If installingmore than one Windows system, I use System Commander to keep one Windows system from seing the other during the install.

    • #3900351

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by bambam ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      The main reason I found for dual booting is worth the trouble. It’s called “Economics”.

      From DOS to 95A you are in a 16-bit system.

      From 95B and up you are in a 32-bit system.

      Because 16 & 32-bit are not always compatible and users only need (or want) certain software applications to be upgraded or replaced, this poses a problem.
      Instead of making them go way over budget by having them replace all the software, or purchase new systems, boot loaders allows them to purchase only what they need or want in the way of software.
      This allows the use of older and newer programs to exist on the same system until relacing everything becomes affordable.

    • #3900205

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by pedroliver ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      Dual booting is worth while if you have programs that are specific to particular versions of windows but do the majority of work on another. For instance we have a customer who uses a specific program that requires Windows 95 but all of the rest ofthe network is a Windows NT system. It makes sense for them to run 95 when he needs it but to normally boot to NT. The question of whether the program they use is worth the effort is one that they have apparently answered in their own minds.

      I also use a dual boot machine for teaching a Windows 98 Class. I normally use NT for the added stability when doing presentations etc but use Windows 98 when teaching the intro Class. It would be too confusing to have to explain all the minor differences to the novice.

      If you dual boot, make sure that you keep all of the formats compatible. You loose some of the security functions by not using NTFS but the improved visibility and happiness of both operating systems is worth it. With Windows 2000 you should

    • #3903104

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by gary cooper ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      Dual-booting is not necessarily a question of choice, but of necessity if you are planning to maintain applications that do function properly under Windows 2000. In a test of Win2000 an in house application developed in VB4 required a dual boot withDOS (installed automatically when Win95 was upgraded to Win2000 Pro), but the DOS boot option provided no help in running the app. Windows 9X dual booting would appear to be essential if older apps using earlier run-time libraries than VB5.
      Viewingthe list (or rather lack of it)of Win2000 applications certified by Veritest at present leads me to believe that dual booting may be required in OUs that have bespoke apps.

    • #3897060

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by merlin the wiz ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      Dual Booting is mandatory in some situations. The first need for dual booting is when you have software that will run in only one mode ie DOS only not Windows of any flavor. Ther is no choice and there are many porgrams that are OS specific and the computer user needs to run the OTHER software. Testing a new OS with your existing software is a second

    • #3897053

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by shot9times ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      UNLESS YOU HAVE A HDRIVES FOR EACH OPERATING SYSTEM YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE SO MANY PROBLEMS WITH CONFLICTS TO YOUR SYSTEM AND PARTICTIONING WILL NOT HELP. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DO THIS ANYWAY

    • #3895501

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by razor ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      Is dual-booting worth it? Not any more. The software offering obviate our geekdom of past and make it EASIER to run these programs at the same time.

      With Partition Magic and VMware, why would you dual boot? Partition for each OS, crank up 2000, then VMware and install all the others. You can even do stuff like cut and paste between them.

      When does it make sense to run two (or more) operating systems on one PC?
      Business needs and Geek power.

    • #3779300

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by yruhere ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      I’ve found that multi-booting is not an option, but an necessity, not just for different operating systems, but for different language versions. I have never encountered any problems with multi-booting, except when trying to share applications between different language versions of Win98. Third party boot managers have already been mentioned, but there is another alternative that I have seen that differs significantly: One small Korean company offers a hardware solution. It is a small box that allows you to select different physical hard drives prior to boot-up. It only supports three physical hard drives, but for those that balk at partitioning, it may be a comfortable alternative.

    • #3785778

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by 9878445 ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      Do’s: You needn’t purchase a new machine for each o/s

      Dont’s: have a small hard drive.

      Basically you can run win 95 win 98 and win 2k on the same hard drive jus tmake 3 seperate partitions and install windows 2000 first and you won’t have any problems as to linux it will require its own drive. You have to use the disk druid to make a swap partition and its a non dos (primary partition) and when you make the linux native partition it makes a ext non dos partition and after that you cannot fdisk the drive conventionally through dos and you cannot install linux on a ext dos partition.

      Sure its worth it if you own the o/s I don’t see why it wouldnt be I run windows 2k win 98 and mandrake 7 on my machine and it works fine and I’ll be real honest here I dont use win 2k and linux much but it helps if you are in a tech support position and you talk to people with multiple os’s you can boot into their os and see what they see if you get lost. Or you can go to http://www.vmware.com and install a virtual machine into your machine and run any o/s from inside win2k or nt or linux. for example you could run win 2k as the primary and use vmware to boot dos linux win 9x nt4 or anything else in a virtual machine inside win2k. Very fascinating but the draw back is speed vmware doesn’t run as fast as dual booting and rebooting into the desired os because it has to share the hardware.

    • #3792744

      Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      by ebott ·

      In reply to Ed Bott’s Microsoft Challenge #3

      This question was auto closed due to inactivity

Viewing 25 reply threads