First to clarify my own post: the OS's will load system files into the
C:\ drive *IF* C:\ is set as the Active Primary Partition, and the OS's
are being loaded into [their own] logical partitions. Like so:
c: DOS OS FAT16 Primary - Active
d: Win98 FAT32 Logical \
e: XP FAT32 Logical \ Extended DOS Partition
f: applications FAT32 Logical /
g: data FAT32 Logical /
There are pros and cons to every setup. A benefit here is that you can
always get your system to boot no matter what happens to your OS's, as
DOS is pretty reliable.
Also, you don't have Win98 or XP in C:\ which
is a security benefit. Too, you can see all volumes and manipulate all
files from any OS b/c it is all in FAT32/16. (NOTE: If you wanted XP
NTFS, you should make it G:\ and move back the apps and data drives to
E: and F: b/c Win98 won't see the NTFS drive. This way both XP and Win98
would "point" to the same drive letters for apps and data.)
What you propose [and what many others do] is to make the first three
partitions each primary. Then make one at a time active and the others,
hidden. Installing the OS into its own primary, active partition in this
way will make each load all systems files etc into it's own partition
and each partition will be seen as "C:\", [when active] with the other
primary partitions, invisible/inactive. With this setup data and
application partitions are configured as logical drives, available at
all times to all OS's, no matter which OS is active. Like so:
c: DOS FAT16 Primary C: when active
d: WIN98 FAT32 Primary C: when active
e: XP NTFS or FAT32 Primary C: when active
f: apps FAT32 Logical D: (seen as...)
g: data FAT32 Logical E: (seen as...)
With this setup the OS is always available in C:\ (less secure, some
would say) and you cannot access the other OS's with a file manager,
because those volumes will be hidden. However you can use NTFS and there
*is* an elegance about this setup.
The reason I didn't want to do this, is that I don't like having the
other volumes hidden when I'm in an OS. I like opening 'file manager'
and seeing a tree of all drives, and being able to go copy a file
quickly or check something in any of the other drives.
It depends on your boot loader. My preferred boot loader lets
me load any OS into its own partition: Boot files, system files,
everything.
It is my understanding a boot loader only passes you to one OS or
another. But system files (when you install an OS) will load into the
active C:\ root no matter what... so it depends on the setup [i.e. which
partition is active and primary and if your OS is being loaded into that
drive or into a logical drive].
Each OS is therefore completely independent of every other OS,
and can be moved about any way I like (which becomes important
when discarding old OSs in future and loading new ones).
Good point... and this would be the case with scenario #2 above... A
"pro" to that scenario.
I would never use your proposed setup, for these reasons.
- An OS installed in drive D: must always reside in drive D: - it
cannot be moved.
What reasons do you have for moving an OS around? (Not challenging --
curiously asking to see if it might apply to me or not.)
In the case
above, (the first scenario) if I eventually wanted to ride myself of
Win98, I would simply delete the OS and its few system files residing in
C:\. I could then use that volume for some other OS or anything else.
- Your drive C: must always be a FAT32 partition, because of Win98.
But the drive C:\ would only be for DOS and a few system files, and
would be created very small, (10MB would be more than enough, but if you
wanted to play DOS games, even 100MB would be plenty) so why would that
matter? The big advantage with this again, is that you can always boot
to C:\. (Some of us who have been around since the 80s don't like
letting our DOS options go, dontcha know?)
- You must Win98 first, then WinXP.
? A boot loader would let me load whatever I want. My system would boot,
and a screen would appear (XOSL for instance) and I would choose which
OS I wanted to boot into -- DOS, Win98, or XP.
I don't like any of these restrictions.
I use XOSL as a boot loader. It's free. What do you use?
I haven't set this up yet -- am still deciding how I want to partition
the drive. But I looked at several boot loaders to see what I might use,
and liked the look of XOSL best.
I have read extensively on the Web, many people's opinions on setups.
Everyone has their own reasons why they like their setup or would do it
different. There is of course no wrong or right way. And there *are*
pros and cons to each. I'm still in the air about it... which is why I
haven't formatted my 120 yet!!
JKR
