XOSL, Win2K and XP?

[WoofWoof]

Based on someone's recommendation (here I think) I was considering
setting up a Win2K/WinXP dual-boot using XOSL (V 1.1.5)

However the doc's state the supported systems as:


2.1.3 XOSL is known to support
BeOS
MS-DOS
FreeDOS
Linux (with Lilo)
Solaris
VxWorks 5.x
Windows 95/98
Windows NT/2000
....and others...

XP isn't specifically mentioned.

Can anyone confirm that XP is, in fact, supported with this version (the
latest I could find) of XOSL?

 

[Mark R. Blain]

Based on someone's recommendation (here I think) I was considering
setting up a Win2K/WinXP dual-boot using XOSL (V 1.1.5)

However the doc's state the supported systems as:

2.1.3 XOSL is known to support
BeOS
MS-DOS
FreeDOS
Linux (with Lilo)
Solaris
VxWorks 5.x
Windows 95/98
Windows NT/2000
...and others...

XP isn't specifically mentioned.

Can anyone confirm that XP is, in fact, supported with this version (the
latest I could find) of XOSL?

Can't vouch for that... check at
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xosl/>
I'm already committed to GRUB, but I noticed that GAG includes a
special installer for XP, so those are two others you might consider.
<http://gag.sourceforge.net>
<http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/>

 

[WoofWoof]

Can't vouch for that... check at
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xosl/>
I'm already committed to GRUB, but I noticed that GAG includes a
special installer for XP, so those are two others you might consider.
<http://gag.sourceforge.net>
<http://www.gnu.org/software/grub/>

Thanks for this Mark. I checked Yahoo Groups and it seems that it's Ok
for XP. I'll check out the others you suggested too.

I'm also looking at BING (BootItNG) which I gether has a good reputation.

 

[I'm Dan]

I'm also looking at BING (BootItNG) which I gether has a good
reputation.

Both BING and XOSL are compatible with XP, including XP-SP2 NTFS partitions.

The reason the XOSL docs don't mention XP is because XOSL came out before
XP. I've heard people claim XOSL is obsolete because of that. The problem
with that argument is: what needs to be updated? To paraphrase, all these
OS's "put their pants on the same way", so there's nothing different about
the way a boot manager has to treat XP vs. earlier Windows systems. XOSL
doesn't have any problem with XP, and doesn't need to be updated just to
mention a new OS in the doc file.

XOSL has a few minor bugs, including some kind of keyboard bug that causes
it to be non-responsive on certain systems. It works fine on all my
desktops and my Latitude CPiA, but doesn't respond to the keyboard on a
Latitude C600 or Inspiron 600m. I like the XOSL user interface, and the
(free) price is right, so if a system doesn't exhibit the keyboard problem,
I use it. Otherwise, I use BING.

As you probably know, BING is more than just a boot manager, and includes
partitioning and drive imaging functions as well. If you're already covered
for those functions, XOSL will be cheaper than BING. Otherwise, get
BING--it's a bargain for a boot manager plus these must-have utilities.
BING is rock-solid, and more stable at everything--a more stable partition
manager than PartitionMagic, and a more reliable imager than
Ghost/DriveImage/et al.

 

[Colon Terminus]

Why do you need a 3rd party boot manager?
There's no need to overcomplicate things.
Just install Win2k, then Install XP.
At startup you'll be presented with a choice of which O/S to boot.
Real simple.

 

[WoofWoof]

As you probably know, BING is more than just a boot manager, and includes
partitioning and drive imaging functions as well. If you're already covered
for those functions, XOSL will be cheaper than BING. Otherwise, get
BING--it's a bargain for a boot manager plus these must-have utilities.
BING is rock-solid, and more stable at everything--a more stable partition
manager than PartitionMagic, and a more reliable imager than
Ghost/DriveImage/et al.

I'm leaning more and more towards Bing actually. Price isn't bad for
what you get and it has a good reputation. Also I find the docs on XOSL
a bit sketchy (a lot on installing it but not much on the subsequent
installation of OS's). Also the xosl docs are html which I find a
nuisance if I want to print stuff out.

 

[WoofWoof]

Yeah, I know and I'm doing that already with two copies of Win2K dual
booting. However, I would prefer to keep the OS partitions hidden from
each other. Call it paranoia. I don't trust windows installs to do what
I intend rather than what some programmmer thinks I need (and therefore
shall have).

And I particularly don't trust XP. I already (when XP first came out)
trashed a perfectly functional NT partition when trying to install XP as
a second OS. I'll be the first to admit that it was probably my finger
trouble that caused it (and if it makes me appear to be not the sharpest
knife in the drawer, so be it) but the point is it should have been next
to impossible to do that without serious and obvious warning.
(It was actually a re-release evaluation copy so perhaps they improved
the install for the release).

I've done it both ways over the years and it's easier (make that: I find
it easier) to add/delete extra os's with a boot manager.