Guest Buffalo Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 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. 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. :)
Guest glee Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message news:6IGdnXxQJeon6zLVnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@comcast.com... > 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. > 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 assume you mean you want to remove Win2K, then replace it with WinXP, while leaving Win98SE intact. I also assume you installed 98SE and 2000 on separate partitions, you installed Win98 SE first, and are using the Win2K boot manager. Remove Windows 2000/XP/2003 but Keep Windows 98 http://www.petri.co.il/remove_windows_2000_xp_2003.htm Also see: Format an NTFS XP http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/format_XP.htm Remove a Dual Boot http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/xpfaq.html#019 You don't mention if the Win2K partition is FAT32 or NTFS. The http://www.michaelstevenstech.com links above may help with the different possible scenarios. -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+ http://dts-l.net/ http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
Guest dadiOH Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot Buffalo 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. > If so, what are the steps? Leave Win98, dump Win2000, install XP -- dadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Guest Buffalo Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot glee wrote: > "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message > news:6IGdnXxQJeon6zLVnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@comcast.com... >> 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. >> 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 assume you mean you want to remove Win2K, then replace it with > WinXP, while leaving Win98SE intact. I also assume you installed > 98SE and 2000 on separate partitions, you installed Win98 SE first, > and are using the Win2K boot manager. That is correct. > > Remove Windows 2000/XP/2003 but Keep Windows 98 > http://www.petri.co.il/remove_windows_2000_xp_2003.htm > > Also see: > > Format an NTFS XP > http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/format_XP.htm > > Remove a Dual Boot > http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/xpfaq.html#019 > > You don't mention if the Win2K partition is FAT32 or NTFS. The > http://www.michaelstevenstech.com links above may help with the different > possible scenarios. Yes, I had Win98SE first (FAT32) and then I installed Win2k on a separate NTFS partition. I am using the Win2k boot manager. I'll check out those links. Thanks again, Buffalo PS: I was amazed at how stable both 98 and 2k ended up.
Guest philo Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message news:6IGdnXxQJeon6zLVnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@comcast.com... > 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. > 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. :) > > You can simply boot to Win2k, hit control-alt-delete and shut down apps running in the background... insert your XP cd and opt to upgrade your Win2k ==> XP
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot Clean install is by far the better route. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message news:uhBvI3SBJHA.4724@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message > news:6IGdnXxQJeon6zLVnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@comcast.com... >> 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. >> 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. :) >> >> > > You can simply boot to Win2k, > hit control-alt-delete and shut down apps running in the background... > insert your XP cd and opt to upgrade your Win2k ==> XP > >
Guest philo Posted August 23, 2008 Posted August 23, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message news:uF9lhNXBJHA.1180@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Clean install is by far the better route. > 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 > -- > Gary S. Terhune > MS-MVP Shell/User > http://grystmill.com > > "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message > news:uhBvI3SBJHA.4724@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > > > "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message > > news:6IGdnXxQJeon6zLVnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@comcast.com... > >> 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. > >> 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. :) > >> > >> > > > > You can simply boot to Win2k, > > hit control-alt-delete and shut down apps running in the background... > > insert your XP cd and opt to upgrade your Win2k ==> XP > > > > > >
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot Agreed. I was being an absolutist, <g>. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message news:1tydnYgytOMTBC3VnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@ntd.net... > > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message > news:uF9lhNXBJHA.1180@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Clean install is by far the better route. >> > > 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 > > >> -- >> Gary S. Terhune >> MS-MVP Shell/User >> http://grystmill.com >> >> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message >> news:uhBvI3SBJHA.4724@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> > >> > "Buffalo" <Eric@nada.com.invalid> wrote in message >> > news:6IGdnXxQJeon6zLVnZ2dnUVZ_r7inZ2d@comcast.com... >> >> 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. >> >> 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. :) >> >> >> >> >> > >> > You can simply boot to Win2k, >> > hit control-alt-delete and shut down apps running in the background... >> > insert your XP cd and opt to upgrade your Win2k ==> XP >> > >> > >> >> > >
Guest letterman@invalid.com Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot 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. >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,
Guest letterman@invalid.com Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot 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?
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot 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,
Guest philo Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot <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 )
Guest philo Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot <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,
Guest letterman@invalid.com Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot 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.
Guest MEB Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot <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 -- _________
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot 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 ) > >
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot 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, > >
Guest philo Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot <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
Guest Jeff Richards Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot 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
Guest philo Posted August 24, 2008 Posted August 24, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot "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 > >
Guest Jeff Richards Posted August 25, 2008 Posted August 25, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot That's what I said - a clean install is recommended. But it's not REQUIRED, which was your claim Quote "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" Unquote W2k does NOT require a clean install. There is an upgrade patch from Windows 98. -- Jeff Richards MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User) "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message news:e01WjCkBJHA.4368@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > > "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 >> >> > >
Guest glee Posted August 25, 2008 Posted August 25, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message news:exdOdFmBJHA.4340@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > snip > W2k does NOT require a clean install. There is an upgrade patch from Windows 98. ....and before everyone starts asking for a link to this 'patch', I do believe Jeff's typo was meant to be 'path'. :-) -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+ http://dts-l.net/ http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm
Guest Curt Christianson Posted August 25, 2008 Posted August 25, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot <Quote> <letterman@invalid.com> wrote in message > 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. <End of Quote> You're assuming Apple will never change *their* code?? -- Curt http://dundats.mvps.org/ http://www.aumha.org/ http://dundats.mvps.org/AutoIt/default.aspx ,
Guest letterman@invalid.com Posted August 25, 2008 Posted August 25, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:03:44 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote: > > ><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 Thanks for the info. I was not aware of the program problems. Maybe thats enough to make me avoid it. But I dont understand the lack of DOS. Ok, I have only played with ME for a couple hours one time. That was several years ago, so I cant recall what occurred as far as Dos. On the other hand, I have Win2000 on my laptop. I heard that both ME and Win2K and XP lack dos. If this is the case, how come I have a "command" prompt icon in Win2K (Dos icon). However, this might be the way I installed it. Here is what I have. I ran fdisk and formatted the drive to Fat32, using a dos boot disk. Then I made the drive bootable, using the SYS command. Then I copied all the Dos files to a directory called Dos. (using the dos files from Win98se). After doing that, I installed Win2000, and made it dual boot. So, I can either boot to dos, or boot to Win2000. After I got Win2K installed, I found that it has a Dos Window icon. That's where I get confused. I was told that Win2K did not have dos, and that is why I created the dual booting. Is this just because I already had dos installed, or because I chose the Fat32 formatting? Or, did a later version of Win2K put this back in the OS? PS. in brief, what are the modifications that allow access to dos in WinME?
Guest letterman@invalid.com Posted August 25, 2008 Posted August 25, 2008 Re: Changing Dual Boot On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 17:03:36 -0500, "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote: > ><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 > Since I already am somewhat familiar with Win2K from having it on my laptop, I might consider upgrading to 2K, even though I like the looks and feel of win9x better. I suppose I could get used to 2K. My main reason for not wanting to go all the way with 2K is because I dont want to reinstall everything. I've got 8 years of programs installed. On the other hand, I suppose it might be time to get rid of unused stuff and get a fresh start. However, aside from having two computers, is it possible to install Win2K as a second boot (dual boot), without ruining my present Win98 installation? That way I can slowly build the 2K installation without losing access to my "regular" system. By the way. I would use a Fat32 format on the 2K partition. I always want full dos access to all files. By the way, if ME and 2K use the same power, how much less (percent) does 98Se use? Thanks
Recommended Posts