> I recently built a Win2K system (Abit KT7A MB, AMD Athlon XP 1600,
> ATI All-Wonder Radeon video card and Sound Blaster Live 5.1 Sound
> Card) for a friend and configured it with Windows 2000 SP2. A VERY
> nice system; VERY stable.
> The system was set up as follows: Win2K in a C: Fat32 partition with
> two other partitions on the one and only hard disk containing a D:
> NTFS partition and an E: FAT32 partition.
> No boot managers were used (not needed) as only one OS is involved.
> However, I have now been requested to make the system 'dual boot' with
> a non-2K version of Windows, PREFERABLY Windows XP which I have NO
> experience with, the OBJECTIVE being to try and improve the STABILITY
> and COMPATIBILITY of the system with ***GAMES***.
> (Not being a PC Game fanatic/expert, I kind of wonder why XP would be
> better (more STABLE) with games that 2K inasmuch as XP has such strong
> Win2K underpinnings anyway; I would have thought that a Win9X system
> might be best but 'whatever'....)
> Anyone care to comment/voice an opinion on this specific point???
> ANYWAY: as stated, I've no experince with Windows XP at all, either in
> single or in dual boot modes. I HAVE set up MANY dual-boot Win9X-Win2K
> systems in the past installing EACH operating system in its own
> PRIMARY PARTITION and using VCOM's System Commander to select between
> them at boot time. I really like this approach since it REALLY keeps
> each OS isloated from each other and allows each to have/be installed
> in its own C; partition. Also, whenever I do this, I always install
> the Win9X system FIRST in its own and FIRST primary partition since
> sometimes the order in which things are installed can seriously
> complicate things....
> Anyway, in MY situation, anyone care to comment/advise if and how I
> might go about this?
> 1. Is there any reasojn to believe XP will be any better/more stable
> (or whatever) than Win2K when it comes to games?
Depends, is he looking for hardware/software support for some olderQuote:
> 2. Might an earlier version of Win9X be perferable?
hardware or games? If so maybe 98 SE/Me might be a better solution. In
that insatance, you would need to us a third party boot manager, because
you cannot install a Win 9x OS after Win 2K without going through hoops.
Win XP is a definiate upgrade to Win 2K, but not a major one, it does
require a higher end systerm to take advantage of the improvements, and
in some instances you will lose functionality of some devices. I suggest
you download the upgrade wizard.
and run it before purchaseing XP.
No, this the way a proper dual boot should be made. The older OS isQuote:
> 3. I WOULD VERY MUCH like to keep WinXP in its own primary partition
> (which I can create using PartitionMagic) but given that Win2K is
> already there, might WinXP object to not being in the first partition?
installed first and followed by the subsequent newer OS. You should
always install each OS to it's own partition.
This is not possible without using a third party bootmanager, and evenQuote:
> (AGAIN - I WANT to keep Win2K and WinXP as ISOLATED FROM EACH OTHER AS
> POSSIBLE. I do NOT want either OS to (for all practical purposes) even
> suspect that the other is installed which tends to mean separate
> primary partitions/no OS installs into D: (etc.) drives...
then, XP is very difficult to hide.
From Win2K's disk manager, you would be able to hide XP, after it is
installed, but from XP you would not be able to hide 2K.
> Anyone care to comment/offer advice???
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP