It's 15 Aug 97  15:08:00,
We'll return to Frank Sexton and John Thompson's
discussion of Setting up dual boot
 FS> Different requirements, that's why.  With Dual boot you can
 FS> see and use the EXACT SAME partition with either OS/2 or
 FS> DOS.  With Boot manager you cannot see or use the OS/2
 FS> partition while in DOS and/or the DOS partition while in
 FS> OS/2.  Simple enough reason that some (maybe even many)
Yes you can, simply boot OS/2 from an extended partition (I use E:).  It
will still see your DOS C: drive.  The DOS drive is only hidden if you
use a primary partition for OS/2 (in which case you _would_ need dual
boot).
I'm running Boot Manager, booting OS/2 of E:.  I can still see and use
my FAT based C: and D: drives, which carry most of my DOS apps.  DOS
can't see E:, but that's only because I'm using HPFS.  No problem, as I
only keep OS/2 stuff there. :-)  I could have used FAT and made it
visible, but HPFS was too tempting. :)
 FS> I'm glad we have a choice.  I ran Dual Boot for years and
 FS> was much happier with it than I would have been with Boot
 FS> manager due to my requirements.  My requirements have now
 FS> changed and I now run Boot manager.  Choice is a good
 FS> thing.  I wish there weren't so many messages blindly
 FS> advising newbies to use Boot manager without even
 FS> attempting to properly evaluate the newcomers needs first.
 FS> The person's requirements should dictate what booting
 FS> system is used, not someone's OS religious beliefs :-).
I can only see one (important for a lot of people though) reason to dual
boot, namely to avoid repartitioning, especially on a smallish disk
(keep all the free space together).  As my installation was "planned" at
a time of a HDD purchase, I didn't have to worry about _re_partitioning.
:-)
... Madness takes its toll.  Please have exact change
--- FMail/386 1.02
---------------