XP installation options

[LumenLux]

One of the side effects of my love for PTE is the evergrowing number of graphic files, mainly jpg's that live on my hard drives. I have tried many photo catalogue or organization programs over the years. Recently I played around a little with Adobe Photo Album and decided (somewhat to my surprise) that it might be very useful for my needs. A week ago I purchased Adobe Photo Abum 2. As I tried to install the program, I learned that Version 2 will not install on a Windows98 pc! (Version 1, did.)

IF I want to install Windows XP Home on this Win09SE computer, what are my options? (I also have a purchased, unused, but open XP home complete, not upgrade, CD)

Is there a way to install the XP on my computer without losing all or much of my current setup? Would the task be made easier or possible if I am willing to free up an existing, or install a new hard drive? Or is a dual-boot system feasible, or is the file structure difference a major obstacle. All the jpg files that are currently on the HD's are all under Fat32(?) but would need to be accessed with Adobe Photo Album 2, which will only run if I install XP somehow.

I have spent a fair amount of time searching various web sites but have not been able to find simple answers to the specific questions above. I guess, the other question, is - am I even asking the right questions for what I want to accomplish?

[JRR]

This won't help much, but I seem to recall a MicroSoft webpage (who knows where in their millions of pages...) that would take an internal look at your computer and let you know if it it was up to "snuff" in terms of installing XP.

I seem to recall that not many computers were if they did not come with XP loaded.

Not sure what it is that XP wants...

[Ken Cox]

Robert

did you search this group

http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/WIN-HOME.html

and

http://members.cox.net/scotterpops/article...nxp/winxp1.html

ken

[Tripstrilles]

Hi, you can install WinXP over an existing Win98 installation. You´ll get the question for dual-boot or to change the existing system. If you want dual-boot, you cannot convert your harddisk to ntfs-file-system, but this is the better one. Or you have to install into an other partition. For me is the best way to overwrite win98 and when the system runs stable, convert your harddisk to ntfs.

Greetings T.

[Ken Cox]

Robert has a full editon of XP, not the upgrade, so i think he has to make special plans -- maybe the partition, dual boot route

ken

[LumenLux]

Ken, T, & Jim -

Thank you for the help. I think I am leaning to trying the dual boot method. Do I understand correctly that I can set up the full version XP (not the upgrade XP) on a separate drive. And if I choose the XP option to use Fat instead of NTFS, both XP and Win98SE will be able to see and access all files on all drives?

[Lloegyr]

Hi Lumen

you can only have one bootable drive, that drive may have different bootable systems but only one drive is bootable(active)

Mike

Mersea Island

[Ken Cox]

dont do anything till after xmas

easiest way is to buy the upgrade xp

if you want to keep stuff

ken

[Marcovelo]

Mike,

you can only have one bootable drive, that drive may have different bootable systems but only one drive is bootable(active)

This is not really true. It depends on hardware configuration (disk controller).

For example, I have SCSI disks and adapter, and I can choose to boot on separated disk (not partition), at SCSI Bios level (I have W2000 on Disk 0, and Win NT4 on disk 1).

Also, some specific IDE controllers allow this feature.

Robert,

If your hardware does not allow to boot on separated drive, I suggest you to consider to not install 2 different OS on same drive AND same partition. You will have to reinstall all your application and get in a big mess...

If it is just to run one application (Adobe Photo Album 2, BTW it's strange it is not compatible with W98...), this is not worth the future mess on your hard drive and file organisation...

This is very difficulut to maintain correctly dual boot configuration on same disk (especially if main OS is W98).

I suggest you either:

1) stay with Adobe Photo Album v1

or

2) remodel your PC by a fresh XP installation (and reformat your disk), and reinstalling all your applications and settings. Anyway, you will have to do it one day or another (for informatation, W98 is not maintained anymore by Microsoft, since September 2003).

I see no big advantage in your case to have dual boot configuration.

If you plan to buy new PC soon, I suggest you to stay with your current W98 configuration and your Adobe Photo Album v1.

Marco

[LumenLux]

Who was the wise old man who once said " Once you understand it, nothing is simple!

I think Marco, you summarize the situation. At least until I understand better, it is not worth the whole opperation. I suspect that Adobe either felt Album version 1 had too many problems on Win 98, or that Album 2 has features that can't be easily implemented in Win98 SE.

If my conclusion is to wait until a new pc or motherboard/processor, is XP the preferred way to go for a home setup with fairly serious audio/visual usage? Also, the other networked pc in the home is already running XP Home, should that be a consideration for future purchase or modification of "main" machine (the one with Win98 currently?)

[Marcovelo]

Robert,

If my conclusion is to wait until a new pc or motherboard/processor, is XP the preferred way to go for a home setup with fairly serious audio/visual usage?

Without any doubt ! (and I suggest you to keep your current working configuration until you buy a new PC/motherboard/CPU).

W98 is 7 years old now (SE and Me are just "patches"), based on former W95 architecture (10 years old !). It was the "prehistoric" era of graphical multitasking OS for Microsoft...

After that we had Windows NT, and 2000 and XP (based on NT technology), with totaly new architecture, 32 and 64 bits applications support, more powerfull and efficient file system (NTFS), real mutlitasking, advanced networking, etc... Nothing compared to W98 ! (Microsoft put a very bigger effort in developping NTand 2000 than 95/98/Me ! even if many more of these 3 have been sold in the world for home usage...)

But because "nothing is free", latest OS (2000/XP) require always more physical memory (I would say 256 MB is a minimum, and 512KB is Ok for intensive audio/video usage)...

In my opinion, the OS installed should be adapted to the hardware (memory, CPU, disks...):

-> for "old" PCs (low CPU speed and memory), it's better to stay with W98SE (which is efficient on "small" configuration)

-> for "up to date" machines (or "big" configuration), you're better to go in newer OS (like W2K or XP).

There is no need to upgrade your OS on your PC, which has been sold and tested with original OS delivered... (unless you are very skilled in all this stuff, or "brave"...).

At the end, this is not so complex...

Marco