On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Luke C Gavel wrote:
> Okay...
>
> As it was pointed out in an earlier reply, you would need a
> multi-OS expert, not just a Linux expert. Win98 is not as
> difficult to set up as WinNT or Win2k. One reason for this might
> be because Win98 uses the 'vfat' filesystem which is easier to
> access than WinNT's 'ntfs' filesystem for example. So, in a
> nutshell, what probably happened here was an over-estimation of
> Linux and an under-estimation of Win2k.
i don't buy the above. recall that the columnist wrote, and
i quote:
"Most of the mistakes were caused by trying to install Windows
2000 and Linux on the same machine."
without further explaining exactly what problems these were or
what steps he was using.
even if you're not familiar with LILO, red hat 7 has a "workstation"
install that takes care of all that for you, including automatically
configuring LILO to handle dual boot. how much easier can it get?
in addition (and i've had this conversation before, not sure if
it was on this mailing list), regardless of what the red hat
install guide says, win2k appears to be no more trouble to dual boot
than 95 or 98, NTFS or no NTFS. i'm typing this on a dell inspiron
that had three NTFS primary partitions devoted to win2k, and it
installed and dual boots just fine. and others have reported the
same ease of dual booting to win2k.
rday
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
