dualbooting Linux & Microsoft platforms (Win 98, NT, Win 2000)

dualbooting Linux & Microsoft platforms (Win 98, NT, Win 2000)

Post by Faheem Mit » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



Dear People,

My parents are in the process of buying a computer in Bombay. I told
them they should use Linux, but the chap we are getting the computer
from (built according to specifications) suggests that we should
perhaps have a Microsoft partition as well. I agreed with him, for the
reason that my parents might at some point wish to run software not
available for Linux. The question is which.

He (the chap) suggested Win 98, saying (I quote) "I still feel win98
better because the software support for Graphics and antivirus is
available latest , and more upto date. Otherwise we can go for Windows
2000 Professional for the Password Security reasons"

However, I have Win 95 on my computer, though I never use it and run
SuSE 6.2 instead. Win 95 regarded as an operating system is a joke (no
user accounts, no security, no multitasking, and those are only the
obvious deficiencies I am aware of), and I am concerned that Win 98
may not be much better (though I have never used Win 98). I have NT on
my home office, and I know that at least NT has user accounts and some
rudimentary security. And I believe that Win 2000 is an extension of
NT so hopefully will be less awful than Win 95/98.

The computer chap suggested Win 2000 as an alterative to Win 98 (see
above). This seems to make sense. However, I am also concerned about
how difficult it would be to dualboot Win 2000 and Linux. One of my
books (Kofler's Linux: Installation, Configuration, Use) goes into
some detail about setting up Linux to dualboot with NT, by getting the
Windows NT boot manager to start Lilo. Can Win 2000 be set up in
similar fashion?

So, I have two questions.

1) If you have a choice between Win 98, NT, Win 2000, which would you
   pick and why? Please don't say none. :-)

2) I assume it is possible to set up Win 2000 and Linux to
   dualboot. So, there must be info on the net for this. Could you
a) point me to it?
b) tell me how difficult you found the setting up?


much appreciated.

                      Sincerely, Faheem Mitha.

 
 
 

dualbooting Linux & Microsoft platforms (Win 98, NT, Win 2000)

Post by Faheem Mit » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Dear People,

My parents are in the process of buying a computer in Bombay. I told
them they should use Linux, but the chap we are getting the computer
from (built according to specifications) suggests that we should
perhaps have a Microsoft partition as well. I agreed with him, for the
reason that my parents might at some point wish to run software not
available for Linux. The question is which.

He (the chap) suggested Win 98, saying (I quote) "I still feel win98
better because the software support for Graphics and antivirus is
available latest , and more upto date. Otherwise we can go for Windows
2000 Professional for the Password Security reasons"

However, I have Win 95 on my computer, though I never use it and run
SuSE 6.2 instead. Win 95 regarded as an operating system is a joke (no
user accounts, no security, no multitasking, and those are only the
obvious deficiencies I am aware of), and I am concerned that Win 98
may not be much better (though I have never used Win 98). I have NT on
my home office, and I know that at least NT has user accounts and some
rudimentary security. And I believe that Win 2000 is an extension of
NT so hopefully will be less awful than Win 95/98.

The computer chap suggested Win 2000 as an alterative to Win 98 (see
above). This seems to make sense. However, I am also concerned about
how difficult it would be to dualboot Win 2000 and Linux. One of my
books (Kofler's Linux: Installation, Configuration, Use) goes into
some detail about setting up Linux to dualboot with NT, by getting the
Windows NT boot manager to start Lilo. Can Win 2000 be set up in
similar fashion?

So, I have two questions.

1) If you have a choice between Win 98, NT, Win 2000, which would you
   pick and why? Please don't say none. :-)

2) I assume it is possible to set up Win 2000 and Linux to
   dualboot. So, there must be info on the net for this. Could you
a) point me to it?
b) tell me how difficult you found the setting up?


much appreciated.

                      Sincerely, Faheem Mitha.

 
 
 

dualbooting Linux & Microsoft platforms (Win 98, NT, Win 2000)

Post by Sam Hay » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


1) If you have a choice between Win 98, NT, Win 2000, which would you
   pick and why? Please don't say none. :-)

Win 2000, very stable - much better than NT as far as hardware support
goes -
win98 sucks  - and i'm serious.
win95 is a better product than 98...

2) I assume it is possible to set up Win 2000 and Linux to
   dualboot. So, there must be info on the net for this. Could you
a) point me to it?

I'm doing it at home - read the WinNT / Linux booting FAQ - its the same,
(2000 and NT use the same
boot methods) --
www.linuxdoc.com (?) -- i don't remeber

b) tell me how difficult you found the setting up?
Win2000 as long as you know something about windows stuff - is no more
difficult than any of the
other microsoft products - all point & clicky... accept for the partitioning
but thats a breeze too..
i doubt you'd have any problems..

-Sam

> Dear People,

> My parents are in the process of buying a computer in Bombay. I told
> them they should use Linux, but the chap we are getting the computer
> from (built according to specifications) suggests that we should
> perhaps have a Microsoft partition as well. I agreed with him, for the
> reason that my parents might at some point wish to run software not
> available for Linux. The question is which.

> He (the chap) suggested Win 98, saying (I quote) "I still feel win98
> better because the software support for Graphics and antivirus is
> available latest , and more upto date. Otherwise we can go for Windows
> 2000 Professional for the Password Security reasons"

> However, I have Win 95 on my computer, though I never use it and run
> SuSE 6.2 instead. Win 95 regarded as an operating system is a joke (no
> user accounts, no security, no multitasking, and those are only the
> obvious deficiencies I am aware of), and I am concerned that Win 98
> may not be much better (though I have never used Win 98). I have NT on
> my home office, and I know that at least NT has user accounts and some
> rudimentary security. And I believe that Win 2000 is an extension of
> NT so hopefully will be less awful than Win 95/98.

> The computer chap suggested Win 2000 as an alterative to Win 98 (see
> above). This seems to make sense. However, I am also concerned about
> how difficult it would be to dualboot Win 2000 and Linux. One of my
> books (Kofler's Linux: Installation, Configuration, Use) goes into
> some detail about setting up Linux to dualboot with NT, by getting the
> Windows NT boot manager to start Lilo. Can Win 2000 be set up in
> similar fashion?

> So, I have two questions.

> 1) If you have a choice between Win 98, NT, Win 2000, which would you
>    pick and why? Please don't say none. :-)

> 2) I assume it is possible to set up Win 2000 and Linux to
>    dualboot. So, there must be info on the net for this. Could you
> a) point me to it?
> b) tell me how difficult you found the setting up?


> much appreciated.

>                       Sincerely, Faheem Mitha.

 
 
 

dualbooting Linux & Microsoft platforms (Win 98, NT, Win 2000)

Post by Faheem Mit » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



>b) tell me how difficult you found the setting up?
>Win2000 as long as you know something about windows stuff - is no more
>difficult than any of the
>other microsoft products - all point & clicky... accept for the partitioning
>but thats a breeze too..
>i doubt you'd have any problems..

Hi Sam, I see my question was a little ambiguous, and perhaps a little
redundant. Sorry. I meant to say: how difficult was it to set up the
dualboot in practice? If it is the same as NT that is cool, because
this is well documented. There is even a Mini-Howto on this at the LDP
site.
                                          Faheem.
 
 
 

dualbooting Linux & Microsoft platforms (Win 98, NT, Win 2000)

Post by Sam Hay » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Generally, this is how it goes...

My situation a)  Had 98, installed LILO (lilo and all the window 95/98
products work fine w/ no work at all) -- then simply upgraded to 2k and
the bootloader stayed lilo so i had to make no changes..

my situation b)
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/mini/Linux+NT-Loader.html
:)
enjoy

-Sam




> >b) tell me how difficult you found the setting up?
> >Win2000 as long as you know something about windows stuff - is no more
> >difficult than any of the
> >other microsoft products - all point & clicky... accept for the
partitioning
> >but thats a breeze too..
> >i doubt you'd have any problems..

> Hi Sam, I see my question was a little ambiguous, and perhaps a little
> redundant. Sorry. I meant to say: how difficult was it to set up the
> dualboot in practice? If it is the same as NT that is cool, because
> this is well documented. There is even a Mini-Howto on this at the LDP
> site.
>                                           Faheem.

 
 
 

dualbooting Linux & Microsoft platforms (Win 98, NT, Win 2000)

Post by Ron Ros » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


[...]

Quote:> He (the chap) suggested Win 98, saying (I quote) "I still feel win98
> better because the software support for Graphics and antivirus is
> available latest , and more upto date. Otherwise we can go for Windows
> 2000 Professional for the Password Security reasons"

> However, I have Win 95 on my computer, though I never use it and run
> SuSE 6.2 instead. Win 95 regarded as an operating system is a joke (no
> user accounts, no security, no multitasking, and those are only the
> obvious deficiencies I am aware of), and I am concerned that Win 98
> may not be much better (though I have never used Win 98). I have NT on
> my home office, and I know that at least NT has user accounts and some
> rudimentary security. And I believe that Win 2000 is an extension of
> NT so hopefully will be less awful than Win 95/98.

[...]

I have no experience with W2k or NT, but you've already got good advice
in that area. I'm just writing to say that if you go for Windows9x,
don't bother with anything but Windows98 SE (Second Edition). I've had
it installed for about a month now, installed over 50 programs and a GB
and half, and it has crashed exactly once, a personal record in nearly
5 years of working with Win95, 95a, 98! -- of course I'm more
knowledgeable and careful now (there isn't a DLL in the system the
installation and modification of which I haven't monitored one way or
another, same for the Registry). Not that this deminishes my enthusiasm
for Linux, but it does up the ante... and Linux is playing fine, thank
you:-)

Ron

 
 
 

dualbooting Linux & Microsoft platforms (Win 98, NT, Win 2000)

Post by Marc » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


To me, it really depends on what you  want out of your Win OS.
If its just a toy for games and such then stick with W95.
If you want greater control, then W2000 is the better choice.

As for the multi boot, that is pretty simple too. Even if you want Wintendo,
W2000 and Linux.
The next question is: How would you like the boot managed?
If you don't mind the LILO boot then the install is straight forward. As
long as you install in the proper order (95, 2K then Linux) you're done.
LILO will boot and sent you to Linux unless you type 'dos'. Typing 'dos'
will send you to the W2000 boot loader where you can choose either Windows
OS.
I have a third preference and that is to boot it all using the W2000 boot
loader (I still tend to use W2000P more often). My machine boots directly to
Win where I have an entry in the boot.ini file that allows me to choose RHL.
Making that selection sends me from the Windows boot loader to LILO.
If you would like more info on setting this up, just let me know.

-Hope this has been of some help.


> 1) If you have a choice between Win 98, NT, Win 2000, which would you
>    pick and why? Please don't say none. :-)

> Win 2000, very stable - much better than NT as far as hardware support
> goes -
> win98 sucks  - and i'm serious.
> win95 is a better product than 98...

> 2) I assume it is possible to set up Win 2000 and Linux to
>    dualboot. So, there must be info on the net for this. Could you
> a) point me to it?

> I'm doing it at home - read the WinNT / Linux booting FAQ - its the same,
> (2000 and NT use the same
> boot methods) --
> www.linuxdoc.com (?) -- i don't remeber

> b) tell me how difficult you found the setting up?
> Win2000 as long as you know something about windows stuff - is no more
> difficult than any of the
> other microsoft products - all point & clicky... accept for the
partitioning
> but thats a breeze too..
> i doubt you'd have any problems..

> -Sam

> > Dear People,

> > My parents are in the process of buying a computer in Bombay. I told
> > them they should use Linux, but the chap we are getting the computer
> > from (built according to specifications) suggests that we should
> > perhaps have a Microsoft partition as well. I agreed with him, for the
> > reason that my parents might at some point wish to run software not
> > available for Linux. The question is which.

> > He (the chap) suggested Win 98, saying (I quote) "I still feel win98
> > better because the software support for Graphics and antivirus is
> > available latest , and more upto date. Otherwise we can go for Windows
> > 2000 Professional for the Password Security reasons"

> > However, I have Win 95 on my computer, though I never use it and run
> > SuSE 6.2 instead. Win 95 regarded as an operating system is a joke (no
> > user accounts, no security, no multitasking, and those are only the
> > obvious deficiencies I am aware of), and I am concerned that Win 98
> > may not be much better (though I have never used Win 98). I have NT on
> > my home office, and I know that at least NT has user accounts and some
> > rudimentary security. And I believe that Win 2000 is an extension of
> > NT so hopefully will be less awful than Win 95/98.

> > The computer chap suggested Win 2000 as an alterative to Win 98 (see
> > above). This seems to make sense. However, I am also concerned about
> > how difficult it would be to dualboot Win 2000 and Linux. One of my
> > books (Kofler's Linux: Installation, Configuration, Use) goes into
> > some detail about setting up Linux to dualboot with NT, by getting the
> > Windows NT boot manager to start Lilo. Can Win 2000 be set up in
> > similar fashion?

> > So, I have two questions.

> > 1) If you have a choice between Win 98, NT, Win 2000, which would you
> >    pick and why? Please don't say none. :-)

> > 2) I assume it is possible to set up Win 2000 and Linux to
> >    dualboot. So, there must be info on the net for this. Could you
> > a) point me to it?
> > b) tell me how difficult you found the setting up?


> > much appreciated.

> >                       Sincerely, Faheem Mitha.

 
 
 

1. Win 98 Win NT and Linux triple boot

I have a machine with Win 98 and Win NT in a dual boot configuration.

what is the procedeure for adding Linux (a free version) to this
configuration?

I am interested in adding linux to be able to run the Apache webserver
and use Java Servelets.

Alternatively, is there any wat to run Apache and Java Servelets
simultaneously in Win NT with IIS and ASP?

I would assume it would be to put the two servers on different HTTP
ports.

How then would I get a browser to see one and not the other?

Thanks for the help....

2. SOLVED: Strange fstab entries...

3. New install of Linux, Win NT and Win 98 on same machine?

4. Solverd: Masquerading and Netscape

5. Linux (text) files to Win 98/2000 via floppy?

6. Secure USB Flash Device for Linux and other OSes

7. Win 98, 2000 and Linux on one computer

8. 2.1.6 CD-ROM -- xemacs still mislinked!

9. Passwd Server for Win-NT,95,98 & Linux

10. Dualbooting a laptop Red Hat 7.1/Win 98 or ME

11. no sound on redhat 6.1 dualboot with win.98

12. smbmount problem with Win NT and Win 2000

13. How can I access drive of Win NT and Win 2000 machines from Solaris 8?