which is easier? please advise.

I need to get estimates on several machines that will need to dual boot into W2k and win98 and I have several questions.

Would it be easier to start with w2k and then install W98. or would it be easier to start with W98 and then install W2k.

There is a difference in price. and I just like to know which route to take.

The rest of the specs are simple. 10 GB hdd,any video card, nic card, no cdrom, floppy drive, simple tower, 233 mhz or higher, 64 mb at least and sounblaster sc as well as modem that is v.90 as well as v.80.

No monitor.

thanks for your any info.

It is usally better to first install windows 98 and then 2k this also lets 2k properlly set your comp for dual booting.
For running win2k I would highly recomend 96-128 mb though 64 is enough.
And definatly a stronger processor somthing more around the 400mhz or more. https://forums.windrivers.com/

I agree. Install 98 first, then NT or 2000, and they will install the boot manager.

Also, a swappable HD bay with each OS isntalled on a different HD makes for a nice option too, and allows for less confusion if is for an end-user or a novice.

------------------
I have no recollection of any set of words, that when grouped together, form a favorite saying!

Thanks for the replies guys.

What I will do is go ahead and order the systems with win98 and then just order the W2k seperately. I do intend to use cpus that are faster than 233. As far as the memory, I will go ahead and order 128 on each. I mean there is only about 20 dollars diff.

Thanks again guys.

Yep, agreed...especially 3fingersalute...swap drives make for a trouble free and safe way to take advantage of W2K's NTFS [5] capabilities, security, compression on the fly and so on...