From owner-freebsd-newbies Wed May 19 12: 9:13 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-newbies@freebsd.org Received: from kalypso.cybercom.net (kalypso.cybercom.net [209.21.136.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68A231562C for ; Wed, 19 May 1999 12:09:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ksmm@threespace.com) Received: from localhost (ksmm@localhost) by kalypso.cybercom.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA07086; Wed, 19 May 1999 15:09:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 15:09:02 -0400 (EDT) From: The Classiest Man Alive X-Sender: ksmm@kalypso.cybercom.net To: Nitebirdz Cc: newbies@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Installing 2 OS's on seperate drives? In-Reply-To: <37430A3B.DF484B6C@uswest.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org You assume incorrectly. Windows 98 does NOT behave the same as Windows 95 in that context (which accounts for why you were able to find no information on it at the System Commander web site). Of course, I fail to understand the difficulty you have digesting my empirical experience, but I guess that's on you. I'd just hate to see your conjecture turned into misinformation on the Newbies mailing list. Also, it's worth pointing out that Windows doesn't need to be installed on the first partition of the first drive, it just needs to be able to write boot information there. That just requires that the first partition have a filesystem that's readable/writable by the OS in question. Again, WINDOWS 98 DOES NOT HAVE THIS DEFICIENCY. K.-- On Wed, 19 May 1999, Nitebirdz wrote: : The Classiest Man Alive wrote: : > : > Interestingly enough, I don't think Windows 98 suffers from that same : > problem. I have a setup where Windows NT and Windows 98 share a drive (in : > that order), and Windows 98 is able to boot even though it doesn't use the : > first partition on the first drive. I do believe 95 has problems starting : > on the second disk/partition though. : > : > K.S. : > : > On Wed, 19 May 1999, Jukka Simila wrote: : > : > : Yes, but I believe Windows has to be on the first drive, I'm not : > : absolutely sure but I have a feeling that when I some time ago did that : > : kind of install, windows didn't boot if it weren't the first. : > : > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org : > with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message : : : : I just checked the documentation for System Commander, and it seems to : me that both Win95 and WinNT require to be installed in the first : physical hard drive. Check these pages: : : http://www.v-com.com/support/osinstalls/notes/95notes.html : http://www.v-com.com/support/osinstalls/notes/ntnotes.html : http://www.v-com.com/support/osinstalls/osinstall.html : : : Sorry, they did not offer any information on Win98, but I would assume : that it behaves the same way as both Win95 and WinNT. : : : : : : : Nitebirdz : : : : -- : It's not too late to turn back from the "Gates" of Hell... : Linux: the free 32-bit operating system, available NOW. : Why waaaaaait for NT? (Brandon S. Allbery) : To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message