>
> in addition (and i've had this conversation before, not sure if
>it was on this mailing list), regardless of what the red hat
>install guide says, win2k appears to be no more trouble to dual boot
>than 95 or 98, NTFS or no NTFS. i'm typing this on a dell inspiron
>that had three NTFS primary partitions devoted to win2k, and it
>installed and dual boots just fine. and others have reported the
>same ease of dual booting to win2k.
It's all about doing things in the right order. Let M$ think it has
the whole sandbox to itself, then introduce the more sophisticated OS
and let it handle the boot loader.
Changing the subject just a bit ... in my experience (contrary to
jude.t's, it seems), evangelizing aside, Windows is losing what was
once one of its primary strengths compared to Linux, which is ease of
install. Lately, RH is child's play to install, and never gives me
the kind of grief I get from recalcitrant Windows drivers on the same
machines. RH just looks around, takes some notes, and gets to work.
Windows drivers have frequently cost me entire evenings, even for
something as simple as an ESS Maestro. As one example, on a single
machine -- dual-booted -- RH had no trouble with the Maestro; the
Windows driver took me 3 hours of downloading and troubleshooting.
This was brand-new hardware, RH6.2, and Win98 SE. Go figure.
-d
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
