Gary S. Terhune

With BootIt NG, you can create and boot to ~200 OS partitions.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:38h1b4detul4vqdk1obejhcn0mvgvo3cku@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:32:06 -0600, "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
<SNIP RANT>
>
> Which reminds me. Can a computer TRIPLE boot? For example, Win98,
> XP, and Linux? Just curious,

philo

<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:8th1b4530tnkrmnijd1nvqkjgetee1ij16@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:19:02 -0500, "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >
> >Yes
> >
> >I agree. Clean install is the best option...
> >
> >But ugrading from Win2k to XP generally works .
> >
> >OTOH: I always advise not to attempt upgrading Win98 ==> XP
> >
>
> What about upgrading Win98 to WinME?
>


Never tried that one as I've only used WinME for evaluation purposes...
but my guess is that though it may work, there would also be a chance for a
number of minor problems.

(But I've never tried it, so do not know.)


The thing is , Win95, Win98 and WinME are all in the same "family" so to
speak...essentially DOS based.

While the NT "family ...NT4, Win2000 and XP are not DOS-based as they use a
hardware abstraction layer.

Though MS has designed (for example) Win2000 to be able to upgrade a Win98
system...

It has been my experience that attempting to upgrade a "win9x" os to an "NT"
based os,
generally leads to problems.

In most instances the best option is a clean installation.

About the only upgrades I don't think I've ever seen fail to work is the one
from win95 to win98.

(and of course win98 ==>win98se )

philo

<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:38h1b4detul4vqdk1obejhcn0mvgvo3cku@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:32:06 -0600, "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Can I change my dual boot Win90Se-Win2000Pro to a dual boot
Win98SE-WinXP?
> >The reason I'm asking is that some of my games and newer vid cards
require
> >XP as the minimum, as do other programs.
>
> Don't that suck !!!!
> I hate XP, I can not see myself using it, EVER. I can tolerate
> Win2000, but not XP. Worse yet, eventually Vista will be required. I
> guess that's when we will all be buying Mac computers. Unless someone
> develops a new OS that anyone can use. I dont see that happening with
> Linux, which is now only for the experienced users.
>

Vista would only be required if buying a new computer,
but there is nothing to stop one from building their own machine or buying a
new one with no operating system...
then loading the OS of one's choice.

No real sense in buying a MAC as now they use the same hardware as a PC and
the MAC operating system is based on BSD
which is readily available.

As to Linux, it's getting to the point where it is actually easier to
install that Windows...
PCLinuxOS is one such example.

Of course since the real world uses mainly MS applications (or so it seems)
running them on a Linux system
requires them to be run using the WINE application. I tried it and it works,
but when I come down to it
and need to do some real work...I still mainly use Win2k!


> >If so, what are the steps?
> >Perhaps I would be better off wiping my HDD (after creating an image by
> >Ghost) and then proceeding?????
> >If I do a format, which OS should be installed first?
> >Hell, I am just considering this.
> >
>
> I cant answer your question, although I made my laptop dual boot to
> MSDos, and Win2000. I installed dos first.
>
> Which reminds me. Can a computer TRIPLE boot? For example, Win98,
> XP, and Linux? Just curious,

letterman@invalid.com

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 06:13:09 -0500, "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote:

>
><letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:8th1b4530tnkrmnijd1nvqkjgetee1ij16@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:19:02 -0500, "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes
>> >
>> >I agree. Clean install is the best option...
>> >
>> >But ugrading from Win2k to XP generally works .
>> >
>> >OTOH: I always advise not to attempt upgrading Win98 ==> XP
>> >
>>
>> What about upgrading Win98 to WinME?
>>
>
>
>Never tried that one as I've only used WinME for evaluation purposes...
>but my guess is that though it may work, there would also be a chance for a
>number of minor problems.
>
>(But I've never tried it, so do not know.)
>
>
>The thing is , Win95, Win98 and WinME are all in the same "family" so to
>speak...essentially DOS based.
>
>While the NT "family ...NT4, Win2000 and XP are not DOS-based as they use a
>hardware abstraction layer.
>
>Though MS has designed (for example) Win2000 to be able to upgrade a Win98
>system...
>
>It has been my experience that attempting to upgrade a "win9x" os to an "NT"
>based os,
>generally leads to problems.
>
>In most instances the best option is a clean installation.
>
>About the only upgrades I don't think I've ever seen fail to work is the one
>from win95 to win98.
>
>(and of course win98 ==>win98se )
>

This is why I asked this question. Your last statement that Win98
==>Win98se generally works. I know this.....
There was a time that I thought WinME was a whole new OS (the MS
advertising suggested that). But I've grown to learn that WinME is
just an upgrade to Win98se, and little more. This makes me wonder why
I never upgraded to ME already. (especially since I have a licensed
copy). I have no intention to upgrade to XP or Vista. I use Win2K on
my laptop, but am not all that happy with it. Yet, if I'm running
98se, why not upgrade to ME. ME looks and works identically. The USB
support of ME would be most welcome, since all the drivers needed for
USB in 98 are a pain in the ass.

MEB

<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:u3p2b49j0133up1nhj8b38hoch7b1mfdt6@4ax.com...
| On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 06:13:09 -0500, "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
|
| >
| ><letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
| >news:8th1b4530tnkrmnijd1nvqkjgetee1ij16@4ax.com.. .
| >> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:19:02 -0500, "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
| >>
| >>
| >> >>
| >> >
| >> >Yes
| >> >
| >> >I agree. Clean install is the best option...
| >> >
| >> >But ugrading from Win2k to XP generally works .
| >> >
| >> >OTOH: I always advise not to attempt upgrading Win98 ==> XP
| >> >
| >>
| >> What about upgrading Win98 to WinME?
| >>
| >
| >
| >Never tried that one as I've only used WinME for evaluation purposes...
| >but my guess is that though it may work, there would also be a chance for
a
| >number of minor problems.
| >
| >(But I've never tried it, so do not know.)
| >
| >
| >The thing is , Win95, Win98 and WinME are all in the same "family" so to
| >speak...essentially DOS based.
| >
| >While the NT "family ...NT4, Win2000 and XP are not DOS-based as they use
a
| >hardware abstraction layer.
| >
| >Though MS has designed (for example) Win2000 to be able to upgrade a
Win98
| >system...
| >
| >It has been my experience that attempting to upgrade a "win9x" os to an
"NT"
| >based os,
| >generally leads to problems.
| >
| >In most instances the best option is a clean installation.
| >
| >About the only upgrades I don't think I've ever seen fail to work is the
one
| >from win95 to win98.
| >
| >(and of course win98 ==>win98se )
| >
|
| This is why I asked this question. Your last statement that Win98
| ==>Win98se generally works. I know this.....
| There was a time that I thought WinME was a whole new OS (the MS
| advertising suggested that). But I've grown to learn that WinME is
| just an upgrade to Win98se, and little more. This makes me wonder why
| I never upgraded to ME already. (especially since I have a licensed
| copy). I have no intention to upgrade to XP or Vista. I use Win2K on
| my laptop, but am not all that happy with it. Yet, if I'm running
| 98se, why not upgrade to ME. ME looks and works identically. The USB
| support of ME would be most welcome, since all the drivers needed for
| USB in 98 are a pain in the ass.
|

The statement regarding ME is somewhat misleading. ME is not the same as
98SE. ME was the first consumer based OS to use restore points and other
aspects now carried through into the newer NT OSs.
ME also hid the DOS based aspects by using a layer of deception and removal
of DOS access from the common user [there are modifications available to
return those aspects].
It would be reasonable to consider ME [consumer] and 2000 [business] as the
transitional OSs created and designed to push users over into the [new
style] NT based environment, something that had been resisted until their
creation.

You should also note that not all programs created for 9X work in ME due to
certain system file changes and other modifications.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________

Gary S. Terhune

I've never seen an Upgrade that worked perfectly. I often saw from Win95 to
Win98 cause lots of problems, even when it was a perfectly clean install of
95, drivers installed, etc., and working perfectly. (Yes, I could have done
a clean install of 98, but this was an experiment. In the cases where clean
install was the lesser of two evils, it's always resulted in weeks of fix
this or that problem as it crops up, and I've seen some many that were
abortions from the start, no matter from what OS to what OS. In fact, 98 =>
98SE was just as bad as any other, if the original had been fully updated,
due to 98SE files actually being older than the updated 98 files and the
lack of intelligence in 98 systems that recognize broken Updates and
re-offers them at WU (like WinXP and Vista do in many cases.)

The things they did to ME make it less alike to Win98 than you might think.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:uF$4YmdBJHA.1228@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:8th1b4530tnkrmnijd1nvqkjgetee1ij16@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:19:02 -0500, "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes
>> >
>> >I agree. Clean install is the best option...
>> >
>> >But ugrading from Win2k to XP generally works .
>> >
>> >OTOH: I always advise not to attempt upgrading Win98 ==> XP
>> >
>>
>> What about upgrading Win98 to WinME?
>>
>
>
> Never tried that one as I've only used WinME for evaluation purposes...
> but my guess is that though it may work, there would also be a chance for
> a
> number of minor problems.
>
> (But I've never tried it, so do not know.)
>
>
> The thing is , Win95, Win98 and WinME are all in the same "family" so to
> speak...essentially DOS based.
>
> While the NT "family ...NT4, Win2000 and XP are not DOS-based as they use
> a
> hardware abstraction layer.
>
> Though MS has designed (for example) Win2000 to be able to upgrade a Win98
> system...
>
> It has been my experience that attempting to upgrade a "win9x" os to an
> "NT"
> based os,
> generally leads to problems.
>
> In most instances the best option is a clean installation.
>
> About the only upgrades I don't think I've ever seen fail to work is the
> one
> from win95 to win98.
>
> (and of course win98 ==>win98se )
>
>

Gary S. Terhune

You can still buy new computers with XP installed.
Dell: http://tinyurl.com/5rg5qv (Link at left bottom)

And, of course, any whitebox vendor can install XP.
http://tinyurl.com/6dsbtn

And, as you said, you can build your own. I can guarantee you that Windows
XP, Pro or Home, will be available for sale for a LOOOOOOONG time to come.
Heck, you can still buy reconditioned machines with Win98, and Windows 95
Full Retail disks.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:uDMt84dBJHA.3484@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:38h1b4detul4vqdk1obejhcn0mvgvo3cku@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:32:06 -0600, "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Can I change my dual boot Win90Se-Win2000Pro to a dual boot
> Win98SE-WinXP?
>> >The reason I'm asking is that some of my games and newer vid cards
> require
>> >XP as the minimum, as do other programs.
>>
>> Don't that suck !!!!
>> I hate XP, I can not see myself using it, EVER. I can tolerate
>> Win2000, but not XP. Worse yet, eventually Vista will be required. I
>> guess that's when we will all be buying Mac computers. Unless someone
>> develops a new OS that anyone can use. I dont see that happening with
>> Linux, which is now only for the experienced users.
>>
>
> Vista would only be required if buying a new computer,
> but there is nothing to stop one from building their own machine or buying
> a
> new one with no operating system...
> then loading the OS of one's choice.
>
> No real sense in buying a MAC as now they use the same hardware as a PC
> and
> the MAC operating system is based on BSD
> which is readily available.
>
> As to Linux, it's getting to the point where it is actually easier to
> install that Windows...
> PCLinuxOS is one such example.
>
> Of course since the real world uses mainly MS applications (or so it
> seems)
> running them on a Linux system
> requires them to be run using the WINE application. I tried it and it
> works,
> but when I come down to it
> and need to do some real work...I still mainly use Win2k!
>
>
>> >If so, what are the steps?
>> >Perhaps I would be better off wiping my HDD (after creating an image by
>> >Ghost) and then proceeding?????
>> >If I do a format, which OS should be installed first?
>> >Hell, I am just considering this.
>> >
>>
>> I cant answer your question, although I made my laptop dual boot to
>> MSDos, and Win2000. I installed dos first.
>>
>> Which reminds me. Can a computer TRIPLE boot? For example, Win98,
>> XP, and Linux? Just curious,
>
>

philo

<letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:u3p2b49j0133up1nhj8b38hoch7b1mfdt6@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 06:13:09 -0500, "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >
> ><letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message
> >news:8th1b4530tnkrmnijd1nvqkjgetee1ij16@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:19:02 -0500, "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Yes
> >> >
> >> >I agree. Clean install is the best option...
> >> >
> >> >But ugrading from Win2k to XP generally works .
> >> >
> >> >OTOH: I always advise not to attempt upgrading Win98 ==> XP
> >> >
> >>
> >> What about upgrading Win98 to WinME?
> >>
> >
> >
> >Never tried that one as I've only used WinME for evaluation purposes...
> >but my guess is that though it may work, there would also be a chance for
a
> >number of minor problems.
> >
> >(But I've never tried it, so do not know.)
> >
> >
> >The thing is , Win95, Win98 and WinME are all in the same "family" so to
> >speak...essentially DOS based.
> >
> >While the NT "family ...NT4, Win2000 and XP are not DOS-based as they use
a
> >hardware abstraction layer.
> >
> >Though MS has designed (for example) Win2000 to be able to upgrade a
Win98
> >system...
> >
> >It has been my experience that attempting to upgrade a "win9x" os to an
"NT"
> >based os,
> >generally leads to problems.
> >
> >In most instances the best option is a clean installation.
> >
> >About the only upgrades I don't think I've ever seen fail to work is the
one
> >from win95 to win98.
> >
> >(and of course win98 ==>win98se )
> >
>
> This is why I asked this question. Your last statement that Win98
> ==>Win98se generally works. I know this.....
> There was a time that I thought WinME was a whole new OS (the MS
> advertising suggested that). But I've grown to learn that WinME is
> just an upgrade to Win98se, and little more. This makes me wonder why
> I never upgraded to ME already. (especially since I have a licensed
> copy). I have no intention to upgrade to XP or Vista. I use Win2K on
> my laptop, but am not all that happy with it. Yet, if I'm running
> 98se, why not upgrade to ME. ME looks and works identically. The USB
> support of ME would be most welcome, since all the drivers needed for
> USB in 98 are a pain in the ass.
>

I would not bother at all with WinME really.

I'd use Win2k as it takes about the same resources as WinME but is
considerably more stable.

It will of course require a clean install though

Jeff Richards

Installing Windows 2000 would not require a clean install. Windows 98 can
be upgraded to W2K without any particular problems.

A clean install might be recommended, but it is certainly not required.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/250297
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ukJb1RjBJHA.4700@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> snip <
>
> I would not bother at all with WinME really.
>
> I'd use Win2k as it takes about the same resources as WinME but is
> considerably more stable.
>
> It will of course require a clean install though

philo

"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message
news:OeZXbtjBJHA.2060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Installing Windows 2000 would not require a clean install. Windows 98 can
> be upgraded to W2K without any particular problems.
>
> A clean install might be recommended, but it is certainly not required.
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/250297


That's what MS says but I happen to live in the real world.

Though I have tried upgrading a number of times and the upgrades did take
place,
the systems always had problems. Some major, others more subtle , but in no
case
as good as a clean install.

True, some say a properly prepped Win98 system can be upgraded OK...
and that may be true, but a clean install is usually a better bet...
and faster than the so-called "preps" .


As an experiment, I have done a fresh install of Win98,
then before I did anything else...immediately performed and upgrade...
and yep, it worked fine...
but the Win98 installation was pristine. In the real world, there is no such
thing as a pristine Win98 installation!




> Jeff Richards
> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:ukJb1RjBJHA.4700@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >
> > snip <
> >
> > I would not bother at all with WinME really.
> >
> > I'd use Win2k as it takes about the same resources as WinME but is
> > considerably more stable.
> >
> > It will of course require a clean install though
>
>