Re: DSV and Windows 2000

Paul Wilson <plw@...>

54 Gig, wow! SCSI hard drives will have to come down even more
dramatically in price if I'm going to get that much storage in my
home PC ;-)

I went with the 18G SCSI 160 too, but since I'm not much of a gamer
(hence not much need for Win98) I'm going to skip the dual boot
setup. Of course if ME (Millennium Edition) shows some chops... ;-)


--- In ap-gto@..., "Paul Gustafson" <drgus@e...> wrote:
You're quite right. My previous system was a dual boot Win95/WinNT
separate OS partitions and shared applications. Unfortunately, this
prevented me from using NTFS. Since hard drives have come down
in price, I went for a different setup this time, with an 18 gig
scsi160 in
two partitions, C: is 12 gig and is Win98 OS and games, and D: is 5
Win2000 for the OS alone. Then I took two more 18 gig scsi160's
(striped as
one 36 gig for speed), 32 gig NTFS for my Win2000 applications use
alone and
the rest as FAT for a paging file. I gave up on shared applications
the OS's, and it works like a dream (fast, too). Even if I wind up
duplicating installation of some key applications, I should have
more than
enough hard drive space. :-) Of course, I remember hearing the same
a few
years back when I picked up a monster 20 _meg_ hard drive -- "It's
space than anyone could ever use."


Paul Wilson wrote:
Thanks for the info, Gus. I've thought long and hard about the
boot option too. The classic trick is to have separate O/S
and a common partition for shared applications. It sounds like DSV
should be happy as long as it lives on the same partition as the
(boot) O/S.

The real drag (IMHO) about the dual boot is having to swallow the
least common denominator in filesystems, if you plan to share.

Join to automatically receive all group messages.