where is the new meeting place?

[Gregory J. Neumann]

Personally, I think the best solution is one computer per OS! ;-)
Lacking that luxury ... I'd shoot for one HD per OS ...
Lacking that luxury ... dual boot.  Too bad Microsoft products are engineered to be 
hostile to other OS's!

-Greg

> Sounds like you're the expert.  Why don't you tell us?
> Tim Makai
> 
> So Many Things in Life Would Be Really Funny
> .... If They Were Actually Funny.
> 
> Robert Dege wrote:
> 
> >
> >I wasn't asking why you considered it beneficial for offers, but why you
> >personally find it easier that way.  So if I undertand you
> >correctly, if you wanted to dual boot Win9x & WinXP, or Win2000 & BeOS,
> >something non-Linux related, you'd encourage 1 OS per HD as well?
> >
> >
> >
> >>Well I'd think you would agree that we should never assume that everyone is
> >>at the same level of experience and
> >>that there is more then one way to approach an installation. The best way to
> >>get someone on the right track is by showing them the easyest way. To assume
> >>a higher level of expertise like a systems admin or such would be at first
> >>meeting the person a little much. My opinion stated that there are different
> >>ways of installing XP and RedHat together and since we are trying to get
> >>people accustomed to linux, I thought the easyest way is the best approach.
> >>Yes you can install both OS's on the same drive, but some have said at
> >>meetings and through this list that instead of trying to get both to live
> >>with each other on the same hard drive its easyer to install them on
> >>different drives. (ie: any windows/linux installation) Which I do agree
> >>with, but that is just an opinion not carved in stone!
> >>
> >>Ron
> >>
> >>>Dege
> >>>
> >>>So Many Things in Life Would Be Really Funny
> >>>.... If They Weren't Happening To Me
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >Dege
> >
> >So Many Things in Life Would Be Really Funny
> >.... If They Weren't Happening To Me
> >
> >
> 
>