Hi again. :-) I apologize for my absence.

"Jeff Richards" wrote in message
...
With a dual boot setup only one OS is operating at any one time, so I
can't
think of any reason that having two partitions on one disk would be any
better or worse than having two disks.

OK. No diff as far as logic or 'safety' or any particular reason then ?
Great ! That makes that very easy. :-)

The reason that the choice depends on your needs is that the two options
provide very different functionality.

So I see.

By dual booting, you simply choose whether you want to run this or that.
When you change your mind you shut down one and start the other.

Yes. Simple enough.

By using a VM to install a second OS, you are committed to always booting
one OS (say, XP) and having that run all the time. Then, when needed, you
boot W98 as a VM, and switch between the two as required. Then exit W98,
terminate the VM, and continue to use XP until you shut down.

Explained very clearly. Thank you. :-)

For instance, someone providing technical support for a mixture of users
would definitely go for the VM arrangement, as they can have XP running
for
normal support and housekeeping, and start the W98 system as needed if a
W98
user calls in.

Perfectly logical reason and purpose. Since I have no call for such, its one
I don't need,. That's a relief.

OTOH, a serious gamer only starts the machine to play a
particular game, and wouldn't want any part of the system being used by an
OS they don't need at the moment. So dual booting would be the sensible
choice for them.

Again, you've very clearly made the point so that even I can understand it.

Thank you very much. s
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

"Roxana" wrote:
Thanks for your speedy reply. :-)

Yes, I have a Boot Manager already. (dual booting 98se/XP on two
separate
hard disks).

I've replied to Brian S, above. Therein I asked if its advantageous or
not
advantageous to have both OS' on the same hard disk, but obviously, in 2
separate volumes. (as opposed to employing some VM)

"Creating a Virtual Machine and installing different OS'..." . Oh... it
depends on my needs. hehe I guess I'm just wondering if there's any
advantage or real purpose to having a VM if one has two separate OS'
already.

But, I see that *if* I wanted/needed one, it'd have to be the other way
around.
i.e. - WinXP would become Primary and W98se, secondary. I'd have to
*install*, and not copy the w98se OS into the VM, which I'd fist install
into the WinXP Drive/Volume. Is that right ?

I'll look at the MS VM link you provided. Thanks.

I may be away for a day or two. Friends are due for a visit to my home.
I will return. Thanks again.

Roxana

"Jeff Richards" wrote in message:
To have more than one OS on a drive and select between them at startup,
you
need a boot manager. They definitely work and are very effective for
that
particular job. See a description he
http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/

Creating a Virtual Machine and installing a different operating system
into
it is also quite effective - the choice depends on your needs. There's
a
description he

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...c/default.mspx

The MS virtual machine won't work in W98, so you would need to install
XP
or
Vista, then create a virtual machine to install W98 in. You can't
simply
shift an existing installation of W98 into a virtual machine.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

"Roxana" wrote:
Anyone have experience with:

Putting a second operating system (such as WinXP) on a
multi-partitioned
hard disk already having an OS (W98se) on it ?

Is this possible?

What about these so called 'virtual operating systems' ?
Do they work ? If so, is there any advantage or disadvantage to using
one
of
these VOS'es instead of a real operating system ?

Sorry for the multiple questions, but thanking you for any answers.

Roxana