Hello All,

Does anyone have any experience with DSV on Windows 2000
Professional? I've got some new PC hardware on the way and I'm
thinking of going that route with the O/S. The alternate plan is to
stick with the tried and true: Windows NT Workstation 4.0. My sound
card will be a genuine Creative Labs SoundBlaster Live!, so I don't
anticipate trouble there.

Any experiences, good or bad, I'd love to hear them...

Paul

I talked with Charles about it and he said it should work fine unless you
have more than one partition, in which case he needs to do a workaround for
you if Win2K and DSV aren't going in the C:\ partition. I have a dual-boot
system, so Win2K is on D:\ and DSV is going on E:\. Haven't installed it
yet.

Gus

Thanks for the info, Gus. I've thought long and hard about the dual
boot option too. The classic trick is to have separate O/S partitions
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.

p


--- In ap-gto@egroups.com, "Paul Gustafson" <drgus@e...> wrote:

I talked with Charles about it and he said it should work fine

unless you

have more than one partition, in which case he needs to do a

workaround for

you if Win2K and DSV aren't going in the C:&#92; partition. I have a

dual-boot

system, so Win2K is on D:&#92; and DSV is going on E:&#92;. Haven't

installed it

yet.

Gus

Does anyone have any experience with DSV on Windows 2000
Professional? I've got some new PC hardware on the way and I'm
thinking of going that route with the O/S. The alternate plan is

to

stick with the tried and true: Windows NT Workstation 4.0. My

sound

card will be a genuine Creative Labs SoundBlaster Live!, so I

don't

anticipate trouble there.

Any experiences, good or bad, I'd love to hear them...

Paul


------------------------------------------------------------------

------

Free @Backup service! Click here for your free trial of @Backup.
@Backup is the most convenient way to securely protect and access
your files online. Try it now and receive 300 MyPoints.
http://click.egroups.com/1/5668/5/_/3615/_/961536185/
------------------------------------------------------------------

------

You're quite right. My previous system was a dual boot Win95/WinNT with
separate OS partitions and shared applications. Unfortunately, this
prevented me from using NTFS. Since hard drives have come down dramatically
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 gig
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 between
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 more
space than anyone could ever use."

Gus

Paul Wilson wrote:

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... ;-)

Paul



--- In ap-gto@egroups.com, "Paul Gustafson" <drgus@e...> wrote:

You're quite right. My previous system was a dual boot Win95/WinNT

with

separate OS partitions and shared applications. Unfortunately, this
prevented me from using NTFS. Since hard drives have come down

dramatically

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

gig

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

between

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

more

space than anyone could ever use."

Gus

Paul Wilson wrote:

Thanks for the info, Gus. I've thought long and hard about the

dual

boot option too. The classic trick is to have separate O/S

partitions

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.

DSV will work find with Windows 2000, but durring install you will see some
messages about certain files that are already present on the windows 2000
machine. Accept the current file, ie: do not overwrite the file with what my
install is trying to do.

Afterwhich all will work fine. DSV only needs to have the 'program files'
reside on 'c' as my registry info works from there. I can create a fix for
anyone requiring the registry info to point to another drive for program
files etc...ie: other then 'c'

- DSV Labs...
- Charles Sinsofsky
Author: DigitalSky Voice
www.digitalskyvoice.com
email: strfire@attglobal.net


p.s. will the next BETA 3.x07 ever come out?? ...YES very soon. I am sorry
for the long delay, but I have been getting many requests for changes on
certain parts of the DSV 3.x and want to basicly only have one more beta
(hopefully) so I want to be absolutly sure about it ...before I release.
Should not be long now....hopefull ;-)