NT should have a problem with this setup. At one time I had DOS and NT on one disk and 95 on another. I don't know if you could make it work with just separate partitions. NT should handle it ok but 95/98 only know how to install to the first partition of the first disk. What I did to make it work was install DOS(for you 95 or 98) to a clean disk. Then I put another clean disk into the primary master position, and installed 95. Then I installed NT onto that same partition as one of the other OS's, but you can use a different partition of drive. When NT's bootloader came up, it had an entry for DOS(or whatever is on the first partition of the first disk). I think I had to add the second OS into the boot.ini manually, but it'd be the same line as for the first with only the disk/partition references changed. I think the only restriction DOS/95/98 have to be on separate disks because they boot from the root partition, whereas NT boots from anywhere you tell it. It's been a while since I did this so I may not have remembered everything accurately, so if you run into problems, "oops"
Finally! I've been reading all these posts just waiting for someone to point this out. What AOL has been doing has been kind of childish, but then again, it's the computer industry! It's been childing since infancy! But what MS has been doing is even worse. Basically they are stealing AOL's proprietary protocol. And this whole thing about buffer overflow being a security hole... MS should worry about it's own flaws before going off on someone elses... And besides, AIM has always been about 200 times more reliable and secure that ICQ for me... I've never lost a message for been spoofed on AIM like on ICQ... so what if I can't send e-mail w/ it? that's what all the other email clients I have are for!
How the can you say ICQ is a better protocol? I find this to be even more unbelievable than AOL trying to pull it's GPL on TOC! I've used both AIM and ICQ for a while now, and all I get from ICQ is lost or severly delayed messages, porn ads, bizzare behavior, and security flaws. AIM's protocol on the other hand is quick, slim(not bloatware), and reliable. Not to mention very portable. Am I the only one who sees this?
Slashdot Mirror
NT should have a problem with this setup. At one time I had DOS and NT on one disk and 95 on another. I don't know if you could make it work with just separate partitions. NT should handle it ok but 95/98 only know how to install to the first partition of the first disk. What I did to make it work was install DOS(for you 95 or 98) to a clean disk. Then I put another clean disk into the primary master position, and installed 95. Then I installed NT onto that same partition as one of the other OS's, but you can use a different partition of drive. When NT's bootloader came up, it had an entry for DOS(or whatever is on the first partition of the first disk). I think I had to add the second OS into the boot.ini manually, but it'd be the same line as for the first with only the disk/partition references changed. I think the only restriction DOS/95/98 have to be on separate disks because they boot from the root partition, whereas NT boots from anywhere you tell it. It's been a while since I did this so I may not have remembered everything accurately, so if you run into problems, "oops"
Finally! I've been reading all these posts just waiting for someone to point this out. What AOL has been doing has been kind of childish, but then again, it's the computer industry! It's been childing since infancy! But what MS has been doing is even worse. Basically they are stealing AOL's proprietary protocol. And this whole thing about buffer overflow being a security hole... MS should worry about it's own flaws before going off on someone elses... And besides, AIM has always been about 200 times more reliable and secure that ICQ for me... I've never lost a message for been spoofed on AIM like on ICQ... so what if I can't send e-mail w/ it? that's what all the other email clients I have are for!
How the can you say ICQ is a better protocol? I find this to be even more unbelievable than AOL trying to pull it's GPL on TOC! I've used both AIM and ICQ for a while now, and all I get from ICQ is lost or severly delayed messages, porn ads, bizzare behavior, and security flaws. AIM's protocol on the other hand is quick, slim(not bloatware), and reliable. Not to mention very portable.
Am I the only one who sees this?