home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19 / NN_1992_19.iso / spool / comp / os / os2 / misc / 28816 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1992-08-31  |  1.1 KB
  1. Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!ucf1vm!cchew
  2. Organization: University of Central Florida--Computer Services
  3. Date: Monday, 31 Aug 1992 10:36:32 EST
  4. From: Chris Chew <CCHEW@UCF1VM.BITNET>
  5. Message-ID: <92244.103632CCHEW@UCF1VM.BITNET>
  6. Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
  7. Subject: Re: Difference between DOS upgrade and full version
  8. References: <1992Aug31.011021.15753@r-node.gts.org>
  9.  <1992Aug31.095400.13874@actrix.gen.nz>
  10. Lines: 17
  11.  
  12. In article <1992Aug31.095400.13874@actrix.gen.nz>,
  13. Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz says:
  14. >
  15. >In article <1992Aug31.011021.15753@r-node.gts.org> singh@r-node.gts.org
  16. >(Rajendra Singh) writes:
  17. >
  18. >With the DOS upgrade, it gets a bit silly. If you want to re-partition
  19. >your disk for OS/2, you have to do it first with DOS FDISK and re-install
  20. >DOS.....then install OS/2 over the top.......
  21. >
  22. I don't remember having to do this. I just used the FDISK from OS/2 that
  23. was part of the installation process. The FDISK step was an option, and
  24. was necessary if boot manager was used, as far as I recall.
  25.  
  26.  
  27. Chris Chew.
  28. cchew@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
  29.