currently it is preffered to install win 98 first (alright on D drive), then xp on C drive. But win xp (c drive) should be NTFS. Problem: If c: is to be formatted to NTFS all win 98 files on c: will be deleted. How to cope up with that? And win 98 will show the actuall D: as C: (because 98 cannot recognise NTFS). NOTE: I haven't ever seen CONVERTING to NTFS work.

For starters, there are no drive letters until a DOS/windows OS boots. If you want 98 and NT, the straightforward way is to install 98 first and let NT/XP be your boot manager. M2 If at first you don't succeed, you're about average.

Win 98 Must be installed first, no doubt there. I tried many times to do it the other way. Only problem is Win98 will ALWAYS be on C. WinXP will be installed on D. In the bios just choose to boot from the 01 hard drive. 00 is always the main (C) hard drive, and D works out to be the 01 hard drive. This is exactly how mine is set up. I have a 160G hard drive divided into 60G (C-Win98) and 100G (D-WinXP). Now as for making the Win98 Fat32 and WinXP NTFS, you could do that if you want. But the problem is that when you create an NTFS partition it is NOT accessible from a Fat32 partition or visa versa. Meaning that any file you want from the other partition you will have to reboot into the other partition and use the file from there, or burn it onto a cd and copy it from the cd onto the other partition. I am talking about things you might have on the other partition like music or pictures or videos you like to look at or listen too sometimes. One partion cannot access the other if they are not the same. WinXP works absolutely fine on a FAT32 partition. If your partitons are already created in FAT32 then upon install of WinXP just tell setup to leave the partitions as they are. It works fine this way and I have been running mine like this for a few months now. And actually as far a WinXP booting first, once you get it installed you can right click on the my computer icon, go to the advanced tab, then at the bottom there is a section for "startup recovery". Click on the [settings] button. Here it will say "system startup". It will then say: default operating system and there will be a pulldown box. In this box you will have an option of: Microsoft Windows XP (Home)(Professional) or Microsoft Windows Just put the WinXP into the box as your default operating system. Then even if you are away from the pc as it boots it will still boot into WinXP without you having to be there to choose which one to boot from. It's not that hard. I was very afraid of a dual boot for a long time, but if I can do it, anyone can. When at first you don't succeed... Ask at Computing.net... They always have the answers...

"Terri" I appreciate you may have had problems installing '98 after XP/W2K etc. but it can be done - I've done it many times, single and dual-drive configurations. It's just easier to do it with '98 in first. Putting '98 in second requires a repair routine (one or other variations...) to restore access to XP/W2K (or NT if present) and complete the dual-boot sequence. Also '98 does not "have" to go on c: . The actual OS itself - its system files can go elsehwere - as long as the required boot/start-up fileas are resident in the active Primary partition (and this applies be it single/dual/multi-boot system). That Primary has to be fat16 (2gig max) or fat32. (If NT4 is around then it must be fat16 (2Gig max). And I'm sure this was an unintentional (mis-)statement: "...But the problem is that when you create an NTFS partition it is NOT accessible from a Fat32 partition or visa versa..." Clearly you intended to say that '98 cannot see ntfs; it being the OS that can/cannot see a given file format... whilst XP/W2K can see both fat32/ntfs (and also fat16). Having appreciated (and occasionally benefited from) your experience over the years I see that as an unintentional... Nice to see you around again. Not having noted your posts for a while, I got the impression you was a doing other things these days??? "debugger" Echoing comments of others in response to your "XP must be ntfs...", it can happily run as fat32, and I can seee no general need to run ntfs for XP on a domestic situation. With drives the size they are (and the prices too) considerations re' cluster size are seldom an issue for the domestic arena to worried about? The only issue to be aware of is the inability of '9x/dos to read ntfs - unless suitable utils are included. This is why in a dual/multi-boot syustem with '9x around one uses fat16 (2Gig max) or fat32 "areas" for shared/commonly accessed data. If dos is around (some of us do still run dos...) then at least one data area must be fat16 (2Gig max). If NT is around then fat16, or ntfs (with SP4 or later installed) can be used: not forgettng the constraints re' dos/'9x and fat16 (the 2Gig limits). As regards dual-booting '9x and XP or '9x and W2K, have a read of post #5 at: http://www.computing.net/windows2000/wwwboard/forum/21665.html It's an "olde poste" and it details the how/why for the W2K/'98 combination: it applies equally to XP/'98 (just substitute XP for W2K...). When I posted that (ages ago...) drives were not so cheap, not so common as second/slaved units. However it is increasingly common to see a second drive installed and configured with a Primary. This can produce problems if dos'9x(ME) is installed in a logical-drive on the Master drive - as part of dual/multi-boot. (It does "not" produce any problems for dos/'9x(ME) installed into the Primary on the Master drive.) Installing an additional drive (with a Primary partition) will cause drive letter assignments to change on the Master drive as follows: the Primary will remain as c: but the logical-drives letter assignments will change (by at least one letter). Consequently the drive letter for '9x(ME) installation in a logical-drive (on the Master drive) will change by at least one letter (later). This will result in "problems" for that OS - its path statments will now be incorrect. They can be corrected (there are utils for this) but it's a pain and can be avoided as follows. To avoid this drive-letter re-assignment: i.e. installing a dual-boot to one drive (with '9x(ME) in a logical-drive) and then adding a second physical-drive with a Primary partition, change the way the Master is configured to the following arrangement: Master drive - active Primary partition: c: = fat32 = '9x = 2 Gig (or whatever you feel you need for '9x (2Gig should be more than enough?). Extended: d: = W2K (or XP) = fat32/ntfs (your choice) = 3-5-10Gig (as much as you feel appropriate). Other OS (XP) can installed into separate logical-drives too... Balance of Extended for data logical-drive(s). The fat32 Primary will hold both '98 boot and system-files (the OS itself) and the W2K/XP boot/startup files + the bootsect.dos for '9x/dos. All installed M$ OS will boot via the boot-loader on the Master drive. Now if/when add a second physical-drive to the system, and it has Primary partition, the drive letter for '98 (in c: ) will not change: thus its path statments will remain unaffected. The drive letter for W2K/XP and the data logical-drives in the Extended partition will shift along (sually) by one letter. However all path statments for W2K/XP (even NT if present) will remain OK. Path info for W2K/XP/NT is stored in the registry and that's consulted/read during W2K/XP/NT bootup. If the second drive is removed later then all path statments will still remain OK. The reason the drive letters change when a second physical drive is added is very succinctly explained in this M$ KB (saves me detailing it all here...) http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q51/9/78.ASP Otherwise the info in the above "older" posting is still valid. These two more recent posts discuss various issues that arise when adding in '98 after W2K/XP (be it to a single drive or via a pre-installed ('9x) additional drive). http://www.computing.net/windows2000/wwwboard/forum/60946.html http://www.computing.net/windowsxp/wwwboard/forum/124697.html They may be worth a browse too? One can of course use an add-in boot-manager, but if you understand the how/why etc. of dual/multi-boot (single/dual-drives etc.) it's seldom necesary to do so? There are other approaches too that have their place/value. Briefly one being: each OS installed independantly to its own Primary, and a common Extended partition for shared data. Each OS can be booted via an add-in boot-manager, or the (physically) first Primary on the drive has a boot-loader (from W2K/XP) that handles all installed M$ OS - much like the routine I detailed above. This approach makes use of the fact that NT/W2K/XP can handle upto four primaries, or 3 primaries + one Extended partition (on a given physical drive). There are pros and cons to each approach for a dual/multi-boot: it depends on circumstances and personal preferences? Hope I haven't confused/muddied the waters too much for you: enough of that already in the Indian Ocean just now...