On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 08:45:10 +0100, poachedeggs
> I mostly use Linux Mint 11 now but I have an mp3 player that could do
> with Windows 2000 or XP as Creative never made later drivers for it.
> I've seen that there are still apparently some copies of W2k around,
> but wonder if they are to some extent counterfeit or otherwise
> useless. Some on eBay are described as 'full' editions but still in
> the picture I can see the word Upgrade on the box. Some are upgrades
> to W95/98 and some NT4. Are these Upgrade copies completely useless if
> you haven't got Windows 98/95/NT on first or is there some Microsoft-
> enabled convenience like the one that allows clean installs with
> Windows 7 Upgrade DVDs? I do actually have a legit copy of Windows 95
For as long as I can remember, upgrade versions (IME, from win95 and up)
will allow you to do a clean install provided you have the install media
for the OS version that qualified for the upgrade. The installer would ask
you insert the appropriate media (floppies or CD) used by the older
qualifying OS, then continue the installation process once the media had
> but possibly it wouldn't work on this relatively new pc anyway as a
> springboard to the upgrade. My hope was to put a little 20gb hard
> drive in with Windows 2000 on for occasional Windows faffing and this
> mp3 player. I know it's no longer supported with Updates etc and don't
> intend to go online with it.
If your PC is blessed with 1GB or more of ram, that's going to be a
showstopper right there as far as win95OSR2 is concerned. If it's possible
to temporarliy reduce the ram to less than 1GB, you could go that way if
you wished but there isn't any real need. Win98SE isn't afflicted by that
RAM size bug, BTW.
The best way to install win2kSP4 or winXP on a machine that's normally
used to run Linux is to install virtualization software and install
windows onto a virtual machine. It saves all that hassle of dual or
multi-booting (as in the "Where do you want to crash today? choice to be
made at boot up - a paraphrasing of a Microsoft advertising slogan).
Apart from simplifying your boot menu choice to only 1 OS, Virtualisation
allows you to treat a windows install as "Just another throw away app"
with no need for the AV shite so necessary when it's the primary OS since
you can do all your browsing or downloading in the host OS environment.
I've been experimenting with Ubuntu 10.04LTS for the last 6 months or so
off and on. I've got it installed on the work bench test rig which is
based on a cheap (Asrock) MoBo with a Phenom X2 250 3GHz dual core
processor and a couple of GB of DDR2 ram fitted, not exactly bleedin' edge
parts when they were purchased over a year ago.
Initially, I installed the OS onto a spare 80GB Western Digital IDE drive
(now upgraded to a WD 320GB SATA drive) and downloaded and installed
Oracle VM VirtualBox. When you create a virtual machine optimsed for the
particular OS you want to install (Linux, BSD, MacOS etc) the Windows OS
option gives you a list of windows versions that range all the way from
windows 3.1 right through to windows 7 (64bit).
I've installed win2kSP4 into a VM and find the performance surprisingly
quick (even to the extent of playable performance out of the Quake2 and
Unreal games I installed to test the 3D performance of the Oracle graphics
Whether this would be an effective solution to your problem, the need to
install a windows USB device driver, depends on how well the USB support
is implemented in the VM. As it happens, I'm about to test that very
feature in a virtualised winXP environment to play with a film scanner
that can't be installed under win2k (but will in a standard winXP setup).
If you fancy going the VM route, I can post the result of that exercise
sometime within the next few days.
Regards JB Good