Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC )

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Zeuspaul who wrote (4249)	12/15/1998 12:27:00 AM
From: Sean W. Smith	Read Replies (2) of 14778

Boot Managers vs Clarence's Machine. IMO boot managers are good for managing multiple operating systems. I understand the Clarence Machine to be a single OS NT based machine. I would design the NT install with that in mind and would not consider complicating the NT install with the NT pseudo boot manager or a third party boot manager. I think it really simplies the whole procedure rather than complicate it. Don't knock till you tried it. Considerations First Spots point is well taken. I agree the best way to install DOS without putting NT in jeopardy is to pull the plug on NT. I don't think there is a need to swap cables. If the second harddrive is on the slave channel it will be seen as the C drive as long as there are no other harddives attached to the controller. The bios would have to be set to boot the secondary drive....oops, pae indicated the ABIT BH6 Award bios can not boot floppy and slave IDE...if this is the case with the ASUS or AOPEN? one would have to swap cables for the install. The AMI bios on my IWILL mobo provides this option. The AMI bioses that I have investigated have more boot flexibility than the Award bioses I have seen. I personally would not even complicate it that much. Create a C big enough for dos and utilities. Say 20M. Put the rest on D: NTFS and use PQ BM to boot between DOS or OS/2. He could even do: DOS C: 20 M NTFS D: Gigs NTFS E: 200 M. Second install of NT for Native access to NTFS NTFS is a must IMO. Next point. What DOS do you want to use? As Sean indicated Win95/98 DOS is REAL DOS. The reference was to NT DOS not being REAL DOS. Dave's PQ DOS suggestion may be a good option too. If it works it would be the least expensive as it is available in the PQ package. Maybe it is as simple as copying the PQ rescue floppy to a harddrive that has been formatted using Partition Magic as that is what you have available? The PQ DOS is not really even a choice. The PQ boot diskette only includes command interpreter and MSCDEX. Its missing FDISK, FORMAT, XCOPY, etc. Its basically just a boot with command interpter. I would probably just do a minimal 95 install instead of buying DOS. There is no reason to unplug any hard disks. I have created systems like this countless time and with OS/2 BM and a good fdisk program there are no issues. Overwriting stuff is not a problem if you know what your doing. The end result will be an NT machine with a DOS/Win KOT Considerations If you format the Win98/DOS drive FAT32 you will not be able to see it in NT. This could be an advantage if you end up with two partitions on the NT drive and want to preserve the NT drive letters as C then D. (I know you can map drives in NT but prefer defaults if reasonable) JMHO Sounds good to me. Skip FAT32. You have BM for day to day application and can use the BIOS in case the main Physical Disk fails if you have 2 drives. Sean

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next