From: "Mike Petrie" To: Cc: Subject: RE: opendos-support daily digest for 17 Jul 1999 Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 23:24:38 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2212 (4.71.2419.0) In-Reply-To: <199907180405.AAA14731@delorie.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Importance: Normal Reply-To: opendos-support AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: opendos-support AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk Hello again Richard, Unfortunately, as Microsoft won't let DR-DOS reside on the same partition as MS-DOS/Windows9x I pretty certain that they must be in separate Primary partitions. As only one primary partition can be active at any one time there is no way to allow one to see the other. Your best bet is to create that extra data/transfer partition using FAT(16) and place files here that you want accessible to both systems or that you want to transfer between them. Do remember to only use DOS style file names here though as writing to a long file name path/file using DR-DOS may break the LFN link that you had in Windows with unpredictable results! I have heard of a patch to allow DR-DOS to support Win9x but I've never seen it and don't know if it was part of the court case and never released. As far as I'm aware, there isn't a FAT32 support patch for DR-DOS either. By the way, there are at least two versions of FAT32! Regards Mike Petrie > Dear Mr. Petrie: > > Thanks for the advice on installing OpenDOS on a Windoze '95 > machine! As > a matter of fact, I just received my copy of PartitionMagic (with > BootMagic) on the chance that it would be needed. > > The one alternative that you didn't explain, in your most appreciated > posting, was how to install OpenDOS so that I can boot OpenDOS and > access my Win95 partition and boot Win95 and access my OpenDOS > partition. Any thoughts along those lines? > > Thanks again! > > > Cordially, > Richard Kanarek > > ------------------------------ >