I wish they'd set the reply-to: back . . .

At 04/25/2002 05:57 AM, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:

 >Think of it this way: Suppose you had a Windows machine with three
 >hard disks. On one disk you might have three "Windows" folders:
 >Windows 98, Windows XP and Windows 95. On the second disk you might
 >have just one "Windows" folder (though for consistency I think I have
 >to make this a Linux boot folder...). On disk three you have a
 >"Windows" folder for Windows 3.x and yet another "Windows" folder
 >which was a copy of Windows 98, but one which no installer had ever
 >perverted by modifying its registry and stuffing messed-up DLLs down
 >its throat.

That's almost the way it works.

There is a limitation for OS before WinNT, that they have to be on the C: 
drive.

So Win3.1, Win95, and Win98 would have to be in subdirectories on the C: drive.

WinNT, Win2000 and WinXP could be on other drives, in other subdirectories.

 >Now imagine that you could choose any one of them as your
 >boot system and that, no matter what you installed or messed about
 >with while under a particular system, only your boot system would be
 >affected -- all of the others would remain as they were.

Yes, that's how it works on Windows.

I don't think I got what your point was?
Phil Daley          < AutoDesk >
http://www.conknet.com/~p_daley

_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Reply via email to