If the bootloader doesn't work this time I'll lose my mind
 

I am currently running Xandros and it's so easy to use I think I am going to replace Windows with it. With Win gone I will have a huge drive to work with and then I'll still have my old Linux slave drive to do expiriments on. I'll take everything off and start clean, but first I am curious to see what FreeBSD will do with a clean slate. I've tried installing it five separate times but failed when nothing would boot. For this expiriment should I use 5.3 or 4.11? (Just downloaded 4.11). I will be very angered if FreeBSD doesn't load with a clean slate of nothingness on my computer. No previous bootloaders, no OS's - nothing will be on my computer. Thanks for the advice.

I installed FreeBSD 5.3 a couple of months ago and it works fine. 4.x should work fine, but some suggest that it may not work properly with newer hardware.

Mr. Hill,
I would continue your endeavor with 5.3. As reddazz said, you should have no problem with 5.3

I can tell you I've not had any problem with it booting. (I use my slackware lilo to pass control to
the /dev/hdb MBR -to use linux terminology) then let the FreeBSD bootloader continue as it normally
would. But like I told you in another post, when I'm installing FreeBSD, I disconnect my other
hard drives - just in case - and to make sure the bootloader gets written to the proper MBR.

I'm on my 4th reload of FreeBSD - but it was me who screwed it up (yes, all 3 previous times :) )
Hope your next attempt is a successful one. This one is for me is going well.
-tw

Yes! It worked! Starting off clean worked. Thanks for your advice with the versions.

In my experience, dual booting causes nearly all of the "fatal" issues new users experience. Dual booting is a complicated and involved process (although carefully hidden from most users) which creates several points of failure and confusion. In nearly every case, if it is an acceptable option, I discourage dual-booting for new users. Which is ironic because most people want new users to dual-boot for the obvious reasons.

But aside from the very real possibility (although not common) of having a computer with one or more non-booting operating systems -- which is a nice way to panic a new user and scare them off even if it is repariable -- it discourages proper configuration. Who wants to spend an hour building mplayer... when they can just reboot into Windows to play a video? [Although the time rebooting adds up over months, the immediate cost is much less.] And so on.

Anyway... rant mode, off. Single booting is the best way to get to know your operating system with the least possibility of killing two OS's with one blow.