System Commander. I let SC set itself up for Win2K install. Everything
has been working great for over a year. I just last night installed SC
7, now with a Windows install. I installed it from the E:\ partition
where Win2K lives, and it went perfectly. It now has a true graphical
interface, mouse support, and works very well. Now, if I can summon the
balls to do the MB swap that started this thread, get both OS's working,
then I might attempt to summon the balls to add WinXP in it's own
partition, with NTFS. I use FAT32 even with Win2k now because I want
access to all hard drive area. But....I just swapped in a 60GB, so now
space isn't much of a problem!
And I promised myself "No upgrades this computer season" Now....new EPoX
8KHA+/Athlon XP 1900+\512mb of Corsair PC2400\Alpha 8045 are on a FedEX
plane somewhere over mid America on their way to my doorstep! Sigh....I
love it!
><snip>
>> Care to elaborate on being careful with System Commander and 98se?
>> Worked great here for last year or so with 98se on C: and Win2k on E:
>hehe - probably not, i might might a complete fool out of myself.
>it's in the SysCommander doco that you can nuke Win98 installs
> very easily. sounds like you did it the right way. myself
>and a friend were drunk one night and thought we'd repartition
>our drives. needless to say, after one of us broke his system, the
>other (me) said "that should have worked" and broke his.
>It was good for a laugh, but it's made me paranoid of SC. We
>have since called it the SC Drunk Virus because it spreads from
>drive to drive in the presence of ***.
>That and 6 months later a friend went to boot his machine and
>the system commander partition which he though he'd deleted
>months ago pops up. He was sober so i reckon it's big brother...
>The caution is valid though - the SC documentation does list
>some specific steps to take care of when using with 98 or you
>can lose your system partition.
>iksteh
Tom Hesselman
Greenville, WI