Re: Can I set up dual boot this way

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

From: GTT (gthorley_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/22/04 

Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 23:46:04 GMT

Sharon you have been a tremendous help. Thanks

I am going to think about all this and then within the next week,
after returning from a trip, open that xp box that I have had sitting
under my desk for almost a year now. Right now my thinking is to set
up one more partition and use this for all my word, excel, music and
photo galleries as this partition should be accessible easily to both
systems.

If I run into problems and post on here ATTN: Sharon do you read all
the posts?

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 16:00:08 -0500, Sharon F <sharonfDEL@ETEmvps.org>
wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:55:20 GMT, GTT wrote:
>
>> You mention the upgrade option. I wouldn't use this if I chose to set
>> up a new partion on my d; drive section for the XP system and use a
>> dual boot would I?
>
>No, you wouldn't. "Upgrade" would be something to consider after you have a
>better idea of how your hardware and programs are going to work with XP.
>
>> Is it better to have your program files set up on the xp systems
>> partion or on their own partition.
>
>For local access, you could do either. When I ran dual boot, I had drive
>devoted to applications. While in one version of Windows, I would install
>the application. Then switch to the other operating system and install
>again to the same folder. This worked in *most* cases but occasionally
>there would be a program that needed to be installed on each Windows
>partition (two installations instead of one shared).
>
>Some folks prefer to always install programs on each Windows partition and
>skip the shared app partition completely.
>
>>I have noticed while using a
>> friends laptop with XP pro on it that when I am networked to my
>> computer I was unable to access the program files on the xp computer
>> even though we set up to share everything.
>
>Were you trying to run the programs? Are they programs that are designed to
>run in a network (one installation accessed by multiple system)? Not all
>programs support this kind of operation. Some will require portions of a
>program to be installed locally and others will require complete local
>copies.
>
>If you were just trying to poke around in the Program Files folder and were
>denied access, then that's a permissions problem. Either adjust the
>permissions or install the program into a folder outside the Program Files
>umbrella and define it as a network share on the XP machine.
>
>>I was able to access my
>> program files under 98 from the laptop.
>
>Win98 does not have the same security functions and does not have
>permissions.
>
>>I wonder if when setting up a
>> computer with XP whether you are better to have at least 3 partions,
>> one for the system files, another for program files and another for
>> Documents and settings.
>
>Optional configuration but not necessary.
>
>> As I understand it if I was to allocate the approxiamately 30 g left
>> on my D to say 10 for the system partition and 15 for programs with
>> the balance for documents that software could change these partitions
>> if necessary in the future.
>
>Yes, third party partitioning software could redistribute space if
>necessary.

Quantcast