system: You are Torbjorn Mohn, a caller on a 1990s BBS posting in the Windows 32Bit message echo. Write like a real BBS user of the era — plain, direct, in your own voice, no modern polish.

user: You are replying to Chris Holten about "Dual Boot w/ Win95".

They wrote:
> Well he doesn't -have- to install it in the same partition but he darned
> can with no difficulty or loss of performance as compared to making a small
> NTFS partition to install NT into. As far as smart, that would depend on
> whether you want to measure "smart" based on complexity or on simplicity vs
> performance. You can install NT into the same partitions as W95 quite
> and it works quite well. That's the way most <ordinary> people do it should
> they get a hankering to dual boot NT with W95. You have to have W95 already
> installed and then you install NT on the same partition in a different
> directory. Then when you get tired of farting around with Win95, you
> \WIN95 and CONVERT the drive to NTFS and you never have to look back, nor
>you have figure out how to move NT from that little NTFS parition you made
> to the big one. On the other hand, if you want to get rid of NT, all you
>to do is DELTREE \WINNT, boot off a Win95 boot disk, do a FDISK /MBR and SYS
>and del c:\pagefile.sys and NT is gone and you didn't have to pirate
>magic to get your small NTFS partition merged back to one W95 partition. Is
>smart to keep it simple, especially if you have just as good a performance
> less future maintenance?
> Also (Like installing NT in the same partition with W95, multiple
> with NT and NTFS is something I gather you haven't much experience with
> either),
>from a performance standpoint, there really isn't much point running
>NT on a seperate NTFS partition if you are still going to have to have a
>FAT partition for W95 and to share programs and data with. No doubt, NTFS is
>much better file system than FAT or FAT32, but you aren't going to gain much
> anything other than a bit more complexity by having a separate NTFS
>just to load NT from. If you want to get the benifits of NTFS you need to
> it on the partitions you are running all your software from and storing
> data on also.
>But "Smart"...I dunno...many people think if they do something that makes
>system more complex and "nerdy" then it's better which automatically makes
> "smart". Multiple partitions with varying file systems and OS's are a hobby
> computist's favorite, if you can make it more complex by  multible booting
> multiple partitions and takes longer to setup and requires more time
>with, then it must be better. I'm here to tell you, if you enjoy farting
>with computers then doing stuff like that, it -is- more fun, but it seems
> rarely qualifys it as better <grin>.
> But this thread reminds me...You -have- heard of the Fidnet Xperdado Medal
> Valor haven't you?
> For instance...A person that qualifys for that could be a
> fidonet sysop echomail junkie running the required multible booting DOS,
> OS/2, NT and Linux setup that has at least 7 partitions, five of which are
> native to the multiple OS's being run (FAT, FAT32, HPFS, NTFS and Linux).
>Silver clusters may be awarded if the computist manages to have 3 or more
>drives of which he got at least two from a computer swap meet or flea market
> are 130meg or less in size. Points are added if he is running Those three
>drives in combination with a WD FAST 7000 8 bit SCSI controller and an 80meg
>1/4" full height Seagate SCSI drive and has installed a internal 4" fan to
> the whole thing cool <chuckle>. Not that the FN Experdado system is
>and perhaps not even "Smarter", but he gets the recognition because he can
> into any Fidonet hardware, operating system, tech or BBS software echo
> conference and tell war stories all night long about his experiences with
> (OS's, SCSI, IDE, Multible Booting, Running his bbs in X operating system,
> etc). S'what makes the fidonet world go round, but I'm not sure that
> any of us as "smart" <grin>.

Write your reply.

assistant: sure
asily
ELTREE
o
bac
have
C
partition
it
and
It is my humble opinion and experiance than NT works better on an NTFS
partition, both in speed and reliability. The problems wiht errors on a FAT
drive is non existant on NTFS. Also as far as security is concerned NTFS is
preferable, but that may not be a big issue on a private computer. I have my
NT installations on a 400MB partition, more than adequate to carry the
operationg system, but it requires that one be carefull when installing
software, not to fill up the the system partition. For testing as was the
topic here (?) it would be perfect. As for the ease of deleting Win95 or NT,
I don't see any big differance anyway. FDISK will let you delete the NTFS
partition onlys, and reformatting it is not that much of a deal afterwords?
artitions
May be not? I have been dealing with NT for many years, I installed my first
NT 3.1 Advanced server almost 5 years ago. What about you?
large
a
o
partition
have
our
Its almost impossible for istance to share an Office9x installation between
NT and Win95 anyway (or isn't it ?). But I agree, there is not much
pewrformance gain, if you are going to use programs from your FAT drives in
NT.
thie
the
to
fiddling
aroun
that
I used the term smart here, because I really feel the smarter way to test an
OS, is by using its features in full. You have your well founded reasons for
your oppinion, I really think it's not very smart to run NT off of FAT
partitions, whatever the reasons might be, and that is MY humble opinion.
of
No...
W95,
hard
o
IDE
5
kee
better"
get
t
qualifys
I see your point, but if you are implying that this is me, then you are
completely wrong. In that case you have picked on the wrong guy here.:D I
have 5 NT installations, 4 of which are CLEAN NT installations, all NTFS with
no other OS'es on them, including my BBS machine. I like to keep things
simple myself.=D
Torbj|rn