🚀 go-pugleaf

KenMacLeod@onyx.octacon.co.uk (Ken MacLeod) wrote:

>Peter Hucker <p.m.hucker@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>>KenMacLeod@onyx.octagon.co.uk wrote:
>>> Hello everyone,
>>> many thanks to everyone who helped me and gave me suggestions on
>>> setting my computer up to run the two versionsof windows.
>>> For everyone else who would like to do the same here's how I've done
>>> it.

>>Is it really that complicated?  I had 95 on, then installed 3.1 on top.  
>>It asked me if I wanted to upgrade to 3.1!!!!  I said no, put it in 
>>c:\win31, which it did.  Now both work fine.  I just boot to dos (a pause 
>>at the end of autoexec.bat allows me to press break to get to dos) the 
>>type cd win31.....win

>I did try installing 3.11 on top of '95 in the past and it simply
>installed over it, either I missed the the prompt regarding the
>upgrade option (entirely possible) or my system configuration is
>somewhat different. 
>Either way I now have 3.11 working which means I can use the SPSS
>programme that would not work in '95.

>I think that in future any time i set up a computer i will simply
>install '95 in a different directory and save all the hassle.

In my opinion that way of installing two different Versions of Windows
is not really a clean way, because of the long filenames Win95 uses
and Win3.xx doesn't understand. All file-utilities you are using under
Win 3.xx can destroy you long filenames for Win95.
I am using two different partitions selecting them from a
boot-manager. Now I'm using the boot-manager and fdisk from OS/2 (the
only really good thing of it).

That way I can use all my "old" programs for DOS and Windows 3.xx as
ever and just rebooting and selecting Win95 using it Programs without
interfearence between them...


Just get a net on your Window to keep away the bugs

e-mail: Andreas.Koenigsdorf@t-online.de