|
The
following is based on similar experience, but not exactly the
same versions (and relies on "common sense", which no one has ever accused
Microsoft of having).
I
would suggest installing Windows 2000 first, then XP. Since XP is the
newer version of the two, it should recognize its older brother and play nice
with him. I have successfully install Windows NT and Windows 2000 on the
same machine, and I did NT first and then 2000 after, working on the same
assumption. The one problem you might have (I did with the NT/2000
combination) is the two Windows might not agree on what letters to assign
to each partition. I installed NT on the "C:" drive, and 2000 on
the "D:" drive, but then there was also a third partition, the "E:" drive
as NT called it, which got swapped with the "C:" drive (the NT partition) when
booted into 2000. (Has anyone ever given Bill a good, solid spanking for
coming up with the "drive letter" concept? And why can't his own staff
figure out how to handle it properly?)
Ian
|
- (clug-talk) XP, Win2k Advanced Server and Linux Johnny Stork
- Re: (clug-talk) XP, Win2k Advanced Server and Linux S�bastien Taylor
- RE: (clug-talk) XP, Win2k Advanced Server and Linux Ian Bruseker
- RE: (clug-talk) XP, Win2k Advanced Server and Li... Dave Lee
- Re: (clug-talk) XP, Win2k Advanced Server an... Kevin Anderson
- Re: (clug-talk) XP, Win2k Advanced Serve... Dave Lee
- Re: (clug-talk) XP, Win2k Advanced ... Kevin Anderson
- Re: (clug-talk) XP, Win2k Advan... Dave Lee
- Re: (clug-talk) XP, Win2k A... Kevin Anderson
- RE: (clug-talk) XP, Win2k A... Ian Bruseker
- Re: (clug-talk) XP, Win2k A... Kevin Anderson
- RE: (clug-talk) XP, Win2k A... Ian Bruseker
- Re: (clug-talk) XP, Win2k A... Kevin Anderson
