>
> I don't think **[NTcan boot an extended partition]**. If you do this you
will
> actually be booting from a single partition, just that your system
This can be achieved, with NT on a second primary partion
and the latest version of lilo controlling the MBR, or by using
the OS2 boot manager.
But when NT is started, that drive will be refered to as C and the other
fat partition will be refered to as D, but you have no advantage
making this FAT other than having a small partition size, other wise
you may as well go for *ntfs*, since when booting from Win95 you
will not see this second primary atall.
> directory will be on the extended partition. That is, the Win95
> partition will be C: for _both_ NT and 95 and NT's system directory
> will be on D:. I'm not sure how good an idea this is, since some apps
> (even bits of the OS itself) assume that the system directory will be
> on the boot partition. IMHO, you'd be ***[safer installing '95 and NT on
> the same primary partition]***.
>
what u said is not exactly correct, having supported many a multiple configs
always i would suggest putting NT and Win95 in two partitions, since both
have a system folder named 'Program Files' and some other things are also
common, this may screw up some common programs, like for example if
you install WinAmp in one OS and go for a higher version in the other os,
you are sure to screw up the one havin the older version. Now this is not
much of a problem if it is WinAmp or WinZip, but in the case of IE, if you
install a higher version in NT, the next boot into Win95 will never
complete,
and you will get a corrupt system in Win95, the same is the case for Out
look
also.
**For my documentation on Multiple os installation refer to my faqs at
http://members.xoom.com/DigitelNet/
Jiju Thomas Mathew
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The LIH mailing list archives are available at:
http://lists.linux-india.org/cgi-bin/wilma/linux-india-help
