Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 09:58:30 -0400 From: "Michael Berlant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: overlay programs [LIB]
System Commander does just what you want. It lets you install two (or more) independent OSes and then choose which one to boot from a boot loader. For each OS you designate which partitions are visible and what their drive letters are. Long ago I used System Commander to have both English and Japanese Win95 on the same machine. Each OS had "its own" C: drive, but they shared a common D: drive. I kept OS-specific applications and files in each C: drive and common applications and files on the D: drive. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Libretto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 7:26 PM Subject: Re: overlay programs [LIB] > At 01:16 PM 2/05/2002 -0700, you wrote: > >Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 03:06:30 +0700 > >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: overlay programs [LIB] > > > > >> Would it be possible to have a Win'2K/Win'95 dual > > >> boot setup (or Win'2K/Win'98) where Win'2K has > > >> access to all the partitions on a "big" HDD, but > > >> Win'95/98 just sees the BIOS-accessible 8GB and > > >> is prevented from accessing the rest? > > >> > > >> I'm thinking the first 8Gb could be regarded as the > > >> space in which all "shared" data must go, the > > >> remainder would be Win'2K exclusive data (and you > > >> wouldn't need to do the overlay thing). > > > > > > It might be possible. I never tried it myself, but it > > > would seem to make sense. With no overlay Win9x should > > > be limited to just the 8gb portion, and never see the > > > Win2k install or the rest of the drive. > > > >Nope, it's not that simple. > > > >Win'98 can see my entire 30GB HDD without any overlay. > >If I used it to write to the partitions beyond 8GB, I'd expect them to > >become corrupt. > > Actually that too isn't *quite* correct. Even Win95OSR2 can *see* past > there but with the exception of partition editing tools, if you're likely > to corrupt things it won't let you write there. Either way though, how much > extra effort is it to put an overlay on given things can go pear shaped > with equal ease either way? At least an overlay has been tested to work > well with these dual boots (Win98SE/RedHat 6.2 here for instance, NT4 > coming soon). > > > >I'm asking if there's a way to deliberately prevent Win'95/98 seeing the > >partitions, but which would not prevent Win'2K seeing the whole drive (I'm > >thinking it ought to be automatic, whichever OS you choose to boot, gets to > >see what is appropriate). > > That would seem a little strange to me ... after all, the point of a dual > boot is to let 2 OS's access portions of the same data no? > > > - Raymond > ************************************************************** http://libretto.basiclink.com - Libretto mailing list http://www.silverace.com/libretto/ - Archives -------TO UNSUBSCRIBE------- Reply to any of the list messages. The reply mail should be addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Then replace any text on the message's subject line: cmd:unsubscribe --------TO UNSUBSCRIBE DIGEST------ Do above but with this on subject line: cmd:unsubscribe digest **************************************************************
