Re: Bootable vs non-bootable
- From: "Harry Ohrn" <harry---@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 23:23:14 -0600
Yes I think you are right Jon. The bootable versions were OEMs as I recall.
--
Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
"Jon_Hildrum" <Jon_Hildrum@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eIhQsCyUFHA.3544@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I never saw a retail version that was bootable - full or upgrade.
> I did see OEM versions that was bootable
>
> --
> Jon Hildrum
> DTS MVP
> Jon_Hildrum@xxxxxxx
> www.hildrum.com
> "Harry Ohrn" <harry---@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:uTsXi2wUFHA.3152@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>I recall seeing a few self booting Windows 98 SE Full versions. IIRC no
>>Upgrade versions were bootable.
>> --
>>
>> Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
>> www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
>>
>>
>> "Gordon Nelson" <popop3@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:UUOee.33$U01.26@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Am I correct that a full version of Win9X will boot, but an upgrade
>>> version will not?
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
.
- References:
- Bootable vs non-bootable
- From: Gordon Nelson
- Re: Bootable vs non-bootable
- From: Harry Ohrn
- Re: Bootable vs non-bootable
- From: Jon_Hildrum
- Bootable vs non-bootable
- Prev by Date: folder
- Next by Date: paint
- Previous by thread: Re: Bootable vs non-bootable
- Next by thread: SUDDEN SHUTDOWN OF PC
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
