Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Should I upgrade my win98se pc...........

Tags:
  • Partition
  • Windows XP
  • Windows
Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 10:57:47 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

So if I were to partition my hard drive you mean it could damage my
current windows or do you mean if I partition and then bung xp on one
side that would damage it(question mark). Sorry if I sound dim but I
have no experience concerning dual booting or creating partitions. I
have software to do the partition but it seems most are advising
against putting xp on my system. Can you tell me how do you convert
the fat32 to the ntfs needed for xp. I read that it does not do it
automatically. Basically I need a step by step guide to creating a
partition and on installing xp so that win98se runs on the other bit of
the hard drive.
Thanks

Stanislaw Flatto Wrote:
> Dan wrote:-
> The question I ponder is why Microsoft is so adament about trying to
> kill off
> the 9x line when consumers have clearly shown how they like 98SE.
> Even
> businesses like 98SE. I know supporting two lines of code is
> expensive but
> as a shareholder I ask myself is Microsoft willing to take the
> gamble-
> Consumers, who?
> About a generation ago, twenty something years, IBM came out with a
> "toy", free from patents (compared to Apple), so Formosa (today's
> Taiwan) flooded the market with "IBM compatibles".
> At the time one Bill Gates was still writing lines of code to make
> this
> toy usable and Disk Operating System was born. (Actually those were
> tripplets - IBM-DOS, MS-DOS and Digital Research - DOS).
> But Bill was writing and compiling on some mainframe which utilised
> some
> flavor of "multiuser, multitasking" OS and it stuck with him.
> So few years later Microsoft came out, with great fanfare, with New
> Technology OS and when introducing it Bill declared "NT is a weak
> Unix".
> It might have been a political decision not to follow the "Unix way"
> which declares "create an app that does ONE job, but does it well!",
> and
> to try to combine a whole sets of applications that interact in every
> possible way.
> So the finished system is prone to failures as users differ in their
> usages.
> And the dual line of codes is with us from Win3 to WinME for more than
> a
> decade.
> In the meantime some computer student wrote some code to copy the
> behaviour of his Unix universitaic mainframe on his desktop "IBM
> compatible" put the result on internet and Linux came to life.
> So life became difficult for accounting and marketing branches of
> Microsoft and they start cutting corners.
> Consumers, what about them?
>
> Have fun
>
> Stanislaw
> Linux user No.162760


--
PSYCHOPIXIE

More about : upgrade win98se

Anonymous
March 5, 2005 10:57:48 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

*Any* procedure, even just powering up your system (and some events that
occur when your system is turned off, even) have the potential for
mucking up your system and/or destroying data. That's what backups are
all about. So, Step One is to back up anything you can't bear to part
with. Backing up important, irreplaceable personal files to a CD or DVD
is the minimum. Imaging the entire system to a separate, detachable hard
drive is the fastest and best solution for backing up the entire system.

There are two decent ways to dual-boot Win98 and WinXP. One is to simply
create room on your hard disk(s) for the XP system, then install it.
Setup will see that there is another Windows system in place and install
a boot manager. It will place the boot management files on the Win9x
side (or one of the Win9x sides if there are more than one) so that...
Well, probably because you can always get to a Win9x partition using a
Windows Startup disk. Not necessarily true for the XP side.

The other way is to use a 3rd-party boot manager like Partition Magic or
BootIt NG. I prefer and use BootIt NG, so that's what I'll talk about
and refer to from here on out. If all you have now is one HDD, and it is
already filled with partitions, you'll have to make space for the XP
installation, and that means either deleting one of the partitions (if
there are now more than one) or shrinking the existing partition and
adding a new one in the resulting free space. Once free space is
available, Windows XP can add the partition and format it. But in order
to save your existing system, you'll probably need a third-party app--XP
Setup can destroy or create partitions, that's all. Of course, the
obvious best solution for all of the points I've made thus far is to get
a new hard drive to house the XP system. You leave your 98 system
entirely untouched, especially if you go with my next suggestion...

The other main reason to use a third-party boot manager is to Hide the
Win98 partition from the Windows XP side, and vice-versa. You may not
want to, but here's why I do it--Windows XP will simply *not* leave a
partition alone if it can recognize it. It adds various and sundry
little things that "help" in its management of your system. Vice-versa,
some utilities and other procedures in Windows 98, if you're not careful
and constantly vigilant, can muck up the XP side. Only a third-party
boot manager can effectively hide one from the other (well, Windows XP
disk management tools see the Hidden partitions, but don't recognize the
format and thus leave them alone.)

There's one obvious reason for not hiding one side from the other: You
may want to access files on one side from the other. The solution is to
make use of multiple partitions, putting everything but basic system and
applications files on one or more shared partitions. My standard setup,
even for a one-OS system, is a minimum of four partitions: One for the
OS and applications, one for TEMP folders, one for personal data, and
one for long-term storage of downloaded files, patches, etc., backups of
personal data, etc. (That's my minimum setup--I often create more,
dedicated to music and other multimedia files, for instance, or other
dedicated purposes.) Partitions that are not OS partitions should come
after any OS partition(s) on the HDD, and should be Volumes in an
Extended Partition.

One other thing I should clear up for you: XP can run on NTFS *or* FAT32
formatted partitions. FAT32 has two benefits for XP--you can get to its
files using a DOS startup floppy or from a Windows 9x system, and you
can use DOS and Win9x tools on the partition. For those same reason,
NTFS is the preferred solution if you are concerned about security. It's
rather difficult to get to files on an NTFS system without the password
and/or a lot of uninterrupted physical access time.

Now, once you have digested the above, post back with your choice of
solutions, and include your current setup--current hardware
configuration, particularly anything that the Upgrade Advisor suggests
may be a problem HDD size, free space, number of partitions in
existence, etc. *Then* I will commit to suggesting step-by-step
procedures. Until you have a clear understanding of what you want the
end product to do, it's fruitless, or at least very confusing, to offer
advice on specific procedures. (And, yes, I know you've probably posted
some of this before, but let's have it all in one place, OK?)

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"PSYCHOPIXIE" <PSYCHOPIXIE.1leyby@news.win98banter.com> wrote in message
news:p SYCHOPIXIE.1leyby@news.win98banter.com...
>
> So if I were to partition my hard drive you mean it could damage my
> current windows or do you mean if I partition and then bung xp on one
> side that would damage it(question mark). Sorry if I sound dim but I
> have no experience concerning dual booting or creating partitions. I
> have software to do the partition but it seems most are advising
> against putting xp on my system. Can you tell me how do you convert
> the fat32 to the ntfs needed for xp. I read that it does not do it
> automatically. Basically I need a step by step guide to creating a
> partition and on installing xp so that win98se runs on the other bit
of
> the hard drive.
> Thanks
>
> Stanislaw Flatto Wrote:
> > Dan wrote:-
> > The question I ponder is why Microsoft is so adament about trying to
> > kill off
> > the 9x line when consumers have clearly shown how they like 98SE.
> > Even
> > businesses like 98SE. I know supporting two lines of code is
> > expensive but
> > as a shareholder I ask myself is Microsoft willing to take the
> > gamble-
> > Consumers, who?
> > About a generation ago, twenty something years, IBM came out with a
> > "toy", free from patents (compared to Apple), so Formosa (today's
> > Taiwan) flooded the market with "IBM compatibles".
> > At the time one Bill Gates was still writing lines of code to make
> > this
> > toy usable and Disk Operating System was born. (Actually those were
> > tripplets - IBM-DOS, MS-DOS and Digital Research - DOS).
> > But Bill was writing and compiling on some mainframe which utilised
> > some
> > flavor of "multiuser, multitasking" OS and it stuck with him.
> > So few years later Microsoft came out, with great fanfare, with New
> > Technology OS and when introducing it Bill declared "NT is a weak
> > Unix".
> > It might have been a political decision not to follow the "Unix way"
> > which declares "create an app that does ONE job, but does it well!",
> > and
> > to try to combine a whole sets of applications that interact in
every
> > possible way.
> > So the finished system is prone to failures as users differ in their
> > usages.
> > And the dual line of codes is with us from Win3 to WinME for more
than
> > a
> > decade.
> > In the meantime some computer student wrote some code to copy the
> > behaviour of his Unix universitaic mainframe on his desktop "IBM
> > compatible" put the result on internet and Linux came to life.
> > So life became difficult for accounting and marketing branches of
> > Microsoft and they start cutting corners.
> > Consumers, what about them?
> >
> > Have fun
> >
> > Stanislaw
> > Linux user No.162760
>
>
> --
> PSYCHOPIXIE
March 5, 2005 1:11:29 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Great Advice, Gary. I am amazed and almost always learn something from
reading your posts. In the future, when I need to format and do it all again
I will definately go with a third party bootloader like BootItNG. Are there
any solutions in the industry for people who want the convenience of Fat32
regarding 9x and getting down to the core level and the security of NTFS?

"Gary S. Terhune" <grystnews@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:uOix06XIFHA.2648@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
: *Any* procedure, even just powering up your system (and some events that
: occur when your system is turned off, even) have the potential for
: mucking up your system and/or destroying data. That's what backups are
: all about. So, Step One is to back up anything you can't bear to part
: with. Backing up important, irreplaceable personal files to a CD or DVD
: is the minimum. Imaging the entire system to a separate, detachable hard
: drive is the fastest and best solution for backing up the entire system.
:
: There are two decent ways to dual-boot Win98 and WinXP. One is to simply
: create room on your hard disk(s) for the XP system, then install it.
: Setup will see that there is another Windows system in place and install
: a boot manager. It will place the boot management files on the Win9x
: side (or one of the Win9x sides if there are more than one) so that...
: Well, probably because you can always get to a Win9x partition using a
: Windows Startup disk. Not necessarily true for the XP side.
:
: The other way is to use a 3rd-party boot manager like Partition Magic or
: BootIt NG. I prefer and use BootIt NG, so that's what I'll talk about
: and refer to from here on out. If all you have now is one HDD, and it is
: already filled with partitions, you'll have to make space for the XP
: installation, and that means either deleting one of the partitions (if
: there are now more than one) or shrinking the existing partition and
: adding a new one in the resulting free space. Once free space is
: available, Windows XP can add the partition and format it. But in order
: to save your existing system, you'll probably need a third-party app--XP
: Setup can destroy or create partitions, that's all. Of course, the
: obvious best solution for all of the points I've made thus far is to get
: a new hard drive to house the XP system. You leave your 98 system
: entirely untouched, especially if you go with my next suggestion...
:
: The other main reason to use a third-party boot manager is to Hide the
: Win98 partition from the Windows XP side, and vice-versa. You may not
: want to, but here's why I do it--Windows XP will simply *not* leave a
: partition alone if it can recognize it. It adds various and sundry
: little things that "help" in its management of your system. Vice-versa,
: some utilities and other procedures in Windows 98, if you're not careful
: and constantly vigilant, can muck up the XP side. Only a third-party
: boot manager can effectively hide one from the other (well, Windows XP
: disk management tools see the Hidden partitions, but don't recognize the
: format and thus leave them alone.)
:
: There's one obvious reason for not hiding one side from the other: You
: may want to access files on one side from the other. The solution is to
: make use of multiple partitions, putting everything but basic system and
: applications files on one or more shared partitions. My standard setup,
: even for a one-OS system, is a minimum of four partitions: One for the
: OS and applications, one for TEMP folders, one for personal data, and
: one for long-term storage of downloaded files, patches, etc., backups of
: personal data, etc. (That's my minimum setup--I often create more,
: dedicated to music and other multimedia files, for instance, or other
: dedicated purposes.) Partitions that are not OS partitions should come
: after any OS partition(s) on the HDD, and should be Volumes in an
: Extended Partition.
:
: One other thing I should clear up for you: XP can run on NTFS *or* FAT32
: formatted partitions. FAT32 has two benefits for XP--you can get to its
: files using a DOS startup floppy or from a Windows 9x system, and you
: can use DOS and Win9x tools on the partition. For those same reason,
: NTFS is the preferred solution if you are concerned about security. It's
: rather difficult to get to files on an NTFS system without the password
: and/or a lot of uninterrupted physical access time.
:
: Now, once you have digested the above, post back with your choice of
: solutions, and include your current setup--current hardware
: configuration, particularly anything that the Upgrade Advisor suggests
: may be a problem HDD size, free space, number of partitions in
: existence, etc. *Then* I will commit to suggesting step-by-step
: procedures. Until you have a clear understanding of what you want the
: end product to do, it's fruitless, or at least very confusing, to offer
: advice on specific procedures. (And, yes, I know you've probably posted
: some of this before, but let's have it all in one place, OK?)
:
: --
: Gary S. Terhune
: MS MVP Shell/User
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
:
: "PSYCHOPIXIE" <PSYCHOPIXIE.1leyby@news.win98banter.com> wrote in message
: news:p SYCHOPIXIE.1leyby@news.win98banter.com...
: >
: > So if I were to partition my hard drive you mean it could damage my
: > current windows or do you mean if I partition and then bung xp on one
: > side that would damage it(question mark). Sorry if I sound dim but I
: > have no experience concerning dual booting or creating partitions. I
: > have software to do the partition but it seems most are advising
: > against putting xp on my system. Can you tell me how do you convert
: > the fat32 to the ntfs needed for xp. I read that it does not do it
: > automatically. Basically I need a step by step guide to creating a
: > partition and on installing xp so that win98se runs on the other bit
: of
: > the hard drive.
: > Thanks
: >
: > Stanislaw Flatto Wrote:
: > > Dan wrote:-
: > > The question I ponder is why Microsoft is so adament about trying to
: > > kill off
: > > the 9x line when consumers have clearly shown how they like 98SE.
: > > Even
: > > businesses like 98SE. I know supporting two lines of code is
: > > expensive but
: > > as a shareholder I ask myself is Microsoft willing to take the
: > > gamble-
: > > Consumers, who?
: > > About a generation ago, twenty something years, IBM came out with a
: > > "toy", free from patents (compared to Apple), so Formosa (today's
: > > Taiwan) flooded the market with "IBM compatibles".
: > > At the time one Bill Gates was still writing lines of code to make
: > > this
: > > toy usable and Disk Operating System was born. (Actually those were
: > > tripplets - IBM-DOS, MS-DOS and Digital Research - DOS).
: > > But Bill was writing and compiling on some mainframe which utilised
: > > some
: > > flavor of "multiuser, multitasking" OS and it stuck with him.
: > > So few years later Microsoft came out, with great fanfare, with New
: > > Technology OS and when introducing it Bill declared "NT is a weak
: > > Unix".
: > > It might have been a political decision not to follow the "Unix way"
: > > which declares "create an app that does ONE job, but does it well!",
: > > and
: > > to try to combine a whole sets of applications that interact in
: every
: > > possible way.
: > > So the finished system is prone to failures as users differ in their
: > > usages.
: > > And the dual line of codes is with us from Win3 to WinME for more
: than
: > > a
: > > decade.
: > > In the meantime some computer student wrote some code to copy the
: > > behaviour of his Unix universitaic mainframe on his desktop "IBM
: > > compatible" put the result on internet and Linux came to life.
: > > So life became difficult for accounting and marketing branches of
: > > Microsoft and they start cutting corners.
: > > Consumers, what about them?
: > >
: > > Have fun
: > >
: > > Stanislaw
: > > Linux user No.162760
: >
: >
: > --
: > PSYCHOPIXIE
:
Related resources
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 1:22:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

PSYCHOPIXIE wrote:
> So if I were to partition my hard drive you mean it could damage my
> current windows or do you mean if I partition and then bung xp on one
> side that would damage it(question mark). Sorry if I sound dim but I
> have no experience concerning dual booting or creating partitions. I
> have software to do the partition but it seems most are advising
> against putting xp on my system. Can you tell me how do you convert
> the fat32 to the ntfs needed for xp. I read that it does not do it
> automatically. Basically I need a step by step guide to creating a
> partition and on installing xp so that win98se runs on the other bit of
> the hard drive.
> Thanks

OK, lets do it VERY slowly.
Your set of questions confirm that from administrative point of view you
are at the starting point.
So there are two possibilities.
a) "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
b) Take a deep breath, cross yourself and dive in. Either everything
goes well or you face "steep learning slope" with the possible mistakes
on the way from minor to catastrofic.

It's your box so chose one of them.

HTH

Stanislaw
Slack user from Ulladulla.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 11:18:01 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

Dan wrote:

> Are there
> any solutions in the industry for people who want the convenience of Fat32
> regarding 9x and getting down to the core level and the security of NTFS?

Dan, what happened to you?
Convenience means getting home tired after day of work, switching on the
box to check e-mails and maybe playing few rounds of Patience.
Configuring security on ANY file system is "never-ending" job and on
single user boxen it usually ends with the Aussie call: "It will be OK,
mate!" hoping that it is true.
Lets face it, when beying both user and administrator on your own box
you play preferences which are NOT permissible on multiuser system.
So it is a vicious circle.

Have fun

Stanislaw.
March 7, 2005 11:57:33 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion (More info?)

It is a vicious circle and it remains a constant but enjoyable task of
managing 3 of 4 computers on our home/business network here in Tucson,
Arizona. I am ready to go on the offense as far as acquiring an active
firewall that will allow my network to annihilate any computer that may try
to enter it. To me this would be great fun because I could be using my
network, computers and expertise to fight the ever-complex task of destroying
hackers, spammers, and other people that try to make life miserable for the
little consumer. I wonder when these hackers will take their fight to the
enemy and try to stop people that are trying to hurt the U.S.A. and our
allies.

"Stanislaw Flatto" <compaid@shoalhaven.net.au> wrote in message
news:Z6UWd.145$Zn.15268@news.optus.net.au...
: Dan wrote:
:
: > Are there
: > any solutions in the industry for people who want the convenience of
Fat32
: > regarding 9x and getting down to the core level and the security of NTFS?
:
: Dan, what happened to you?
: Convenience means getting home tired after day of work, switching on the
: box to check e-mails and maybe playing few rounds of Patience.
: Configuring security on ANY file system is "never-ending" job and on
: single user boxen it usually ends with the Aussie call: "It will be OK,
: mate!" hoping that it is true.
: Lets face it, when beying both user and administrator on your own box
: you play preferences which are NOT permissible on multiuser system.
: So it is a vicious circle.
:
: Have fun
:
: Stanislaw.
!