Sorry your browser is not supported!

ok... i got a computer... my windows xp died a horrible death but luckily for me i have windows 98 that ive been using... so here goes...

here's what it is
partition 1 = 2gb FAT32 for windows 98
partition 2 = 36gb NTFS for windows XP Pro

here's what I want
partition 1 = 2gb FAT32 for Windows 98
partition 2 = 5gb NTFS for windows XP Pro
partition 3 = 31gb FAT32 for swap between both OSes

ok.. is a FAT32 a good idea for primarily using it in XP
what is a good cluster size... i can choose anywhere from 1kb to 64kb i think..or something like that... I dont know the pros and cons of a lower vs higher cluster size though...

is 5gb enough in the long run for XP and utilities like adobe acrobat or winamp... and such programs that can be trashed if the OS dies and be easily recovered..

5GB would be fine, as long as you always have extra space easily available, your 31gb partition is a good place for all your programs and files.

For your OS partitions, go for a small cluster size - smaller clusters load quicker - so all those tiny .DLL's will load fast and your PC will be faster as a result. A lot of people make the mistake of using 1 partition at the maximum size - which costs them file access speeds and storage space. I would consider having 2x 5GB partitions for 98 and XP, then 2x 15gb partitions - a 31gb partition would be slower than 2x 15gb partitions for the reasons stated above.


Van-B

should set your cluster sizes to arould 4096, you'll loose some space but the added security is just far too valuable and it also speeds up searchs.

and i don't mean a little, if you've ever searched over even a small amount of used space on FAT32 on XP say 3-4gb that can talk upwards of an hour!
run the same search on NTFS and it'll perform it in 5minutes.
personally i don't understand why you'd want Windows98 even on your system, i know alot of people want that back compatibility but to be honest i've heard way too many stories from people with XP + Win9x OS installed and both have been buggy as hell.
Same goes for XP with Win2k.

if i were you forget about 98 because there is nothing that cannot run under a full installation (not upgrade they're more trouble than worth) using an NTFS system. It more stable, its as fast as WinMe and when you have a full intergrated version of XP on a system rather than a shared one it makes compatibility mode so much better.

and the only reaons i'd see you wanting Win98 is for DOS mode ... which in that case i'd suggest makine a bootdisk just for that

I dont agree, I have Win98 and XP Pro both on my PC and they are both very stable. And I had quite some compatibility problems with XP, CD-Burnind software, Anti-virus etc. and I'm not planning on getting them upgraded just because some stupid OS can handle them for some mysterious reason. Nice advice from both of you, just wondering which one is more usefull

Cheers,
Kentaree

If win98 and xp are installed on the same computer it will be as buggy in win98 as if only win98 was installed and as buggy in xp as if only xp was installed. Having them both installed is no problem.

Some hardware won't work in xp and win98 can be noticably faster on some computers. The only way to try is to install both and see which you prefer/works best.

I have 98 and 2000 Pro running together without issue. In fact, I'd say 98 runs quite a bit better.

I'm not a fan of XP, because all it really is is 2000 Pro (2k is version 5.0, XP is 5.1) with a bunch of junk that make it run worse. 3d Service Pack for 2000 Pro has made it as compatible as XP.

I keep 98 for two reasons: 1, it runs with a lot less RAM, and therefore gives me more for running games; 2, the occasional program that just won't on 2000/XP.

Old DOS stuff just won't work, and there are still no good, successful emulators/VMs for DOS.

The only decent one is VMWare, but it provides zero hardware support for pure DOS, and the video modes are limited in Windows (no 3D support). Not mention, VMWare is not cheap.

I found that, in order to have room for "My Documents" in 2000, I needed a 9 Gb partition. Then 98 has 30 Gb. I really did not see the need to keep a third one. But, then I regularly back-up my stuff on CD.

XP is nice for people who don't care how their computer runs... people who just watch sports, do a bit of writing, etc. It's much more user friendly than 2000, and it's more powerful than the 9x series. Just the right combo for them.

Very good point.

I think I have the beginning of a plan . . . If 98 and 2000 are "not user friendly", perhaps we could make an extra $500 (or Euros or pounds, or whatever the hell Monopoly money you sub-humans use) by installing LINUX on every desktop.

Then, people would PAY US at least $500 to take take Linux off and install XP.

And they'd spend the rest of their lives telling people about how they got pengiun cooties, and there were these moments when they had to type -- and not just emoticons and IM flirtations -- but real typing of "commands".

Man, they'd stutter all this to other people, and Bill Gates would eventually be appointed dictator for life.

i care very much how my computer runs and i use WinXP Pro 2003
also have Linux RedHat 7.3, Sun Solaris (kernel 6.2.3) & AmigaOS 4.5b currently installed and setup.

to be perfectly frank, XP is the most stable out of all of them and it can actually handle the 25odd devices i have attached to the computer either through USB or as internal extras including the extra PSU & SCSI Connector & Drives as well as being able to handle all of my Virtual Devices and Networking.
did not have to piss about ages to get it working, i don't have any form of slowdowns (contrary to what people say), i have far more compatible device drivers which are not prone to crash the system even when they do become unstable with the exception of the VIA Hyperon (but that is still a beta after all)

and as for Windows being not "user friendly"... HAVE YOU EVEN USED any other OS?
the only OS that is quite as easy to use is AmigaOS, and to be perfectly honest they have got alot of Windows Style options now - partically compatibility but mostly for ease.
Setting up devices is simple even for idiots, so is network setups, adding extra devices ... if XP doesn't have the driver you don't have to spend 6years looking on the net for a driver pages (or one thats in bloody english) just click on search-internet for drivers, and it'll find you some working drivers even if it is an update of thier base drivers to include the product type.

getting so sick of this Anti-Windows Attitude, but then i wouldn't expect anything less that someone who is also Anti-C++ ... just one very misguided fool 8truths, and mouse is just a plain moron.

Windows 9x with XP is a very buggy affair, and it is even documented within the help that it is recommended you migrate rather than installing a seperate version of WindowsXP. The reason being is that XP will screw around with the Drivers of Win9x based operating systems, which can make them more unstable and more incompatible than before ... perticularly when trying to do legacy operations.

That aside though why the hell would anyone want to reinstall 98? it doesn't even fully support DirectX9, bugs all over the shop not to mention the diskspace it takes up.
The best option for current games is WindowsXP
The best option for Legacy game is Windows95b OSR2

not to mention 95 will only take up around 250mb comparied to the 1gb that 98 takes up.

If you are worried about xp messing with a win98 partition use a decent boot manager to change the type of partition win98 is on and xp will leave well alone (not that it ever caused me a problem).

The fact that win98 has noticably increased speed and stability on some hardware and installs in under 500mb is reason enough for me to use it.

Raven, I wasn't anti-Windows, actually.

I'm on your side on this one.

I'm saying everyone would shut up all the MS bashing if they had to use anything else.

As for XP, it's good if you have tons of cash for RAM.

But, I already have too damn many systems (Win 98, 2000, 95 r2, Mac OS 8, 9.1, Mandrake and Slackware Linux) to sink too much into any one of them. Plus I have a whole gallery of freaks that still work and are fun for old times' sake. Even a b&w Mac with no HD.

I have a friend who tests stuff on XP for me, anyhow.

2000 Pro is my fav, because it delivers stability w/ half the RAM guzzling XP does. 3d SP made a world of difference for 2000. Before that, I'd never recommend it for typical home use.

It takes 512 Mb of RAM to run XP for crap. It takes 96-128 Mb for 2000 Pro to run well, and 2k will run on old Pentium 1s as long as you don't ask too much.