Discussion:
Dual Boot Pure Win7 Pro & Pure Xp Pro
(too old to reply)
BeeJ
2011-12-17 23:38:57 UTC
Permalink
I have a new PC with a blank 500G hard disk.
I have legal copies of Win7 pro and XP Pro.
I want to create a dual boot PC, 250G and 250G on the 500G hard disk.

Can someone give me step by step procedure to create this dual boot PC
or a link that explains.

NO I do not want a Win7 with Virtual XP so do not bother with that.
NO I do not want to use Win7 compatibility so do not bother with that!
Why, I an doing direct hardware interfacing and want no additional OS
code in the way so I want pure XP Pro and pure Win7 Pro.

Thanks in advance.
GlowingBlueMist
2011-12-17 23:59:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by BeeJ
I have a new PC with a blank 500G hard disk.
I have legal copies of Win7 pro and XP Pro.
I want to create a dual boot PC, 250G and 250G on the 500G hard disk.
Can someone give me step by step procedure to create this dual boot PC
or a link that explains.
NO I do not want a Win7 with Virtual XP so do not bother with that.
NO I do not want to use Win7 compatibility so do not bother with that!
Why, I an doing direct hardware interfacing and want no additional OS
code in the way so I want pure XP Pro and pure Win7 Pro.
Thanks in advance.
Give the following link a viewing and see if it leads you to what you
are looking for...

http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/8057-dual-boot-installation-windows-7-xp.html
BeeJ
2011-12-18 08:28:56 UTC
Permalink
I saw that before but it seems complex.
And in my case I have neither installed and need the easiest path.
Stewart
2011-12-18 14:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by BeeJ
I saw that before but it seems complex.
And in my case I have neither installed and need the easiest path.
It's not as complex as it seems. Once you install one, there will be
an OS installed and then you can install the other. You get to take
your pick as to the order of the installs. I don't think it gets much
easier than that......
Paul
2011-12-18 15:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stewart
Post by BeeJ
I saw that before but it seems complex.
And in my case I have neither installed and need the easiest path.
It's not as complex as it seems. Once you install one, there will be
an OS installed and then you can install the other. You get to take
your pick as to the order of the installs. I don't think it gets much
easier than that......
You can take your pick...

as long as you install the more modern Windows OS second.

That allows the Boot Manager of the more modern OS, to detect
the previously installed, older OS. WinXP won't know what Win7 is,
while Win7 knows what WinXP is. So installing Win7 second is a bit
easier.

If you screw it up, there are tools and methods for fixing whatever
is the current boot manager. You could even use something like
Grub (or even, a commercial boot manager), to take the place of
the Win7 boot manager. There are many choices.

But the simplest recipe, is install WinXP first, Win7 second, and
hope the installer and Boot Manager of Win7 does everything it is
supposed to do, without intervention.

If it still doesn't work, there is always EasyBCD from Neosmart,
to make edits. Assuming you can get Win7 to boot, but still
can't see the WinXP option, this is how you can add it to the
Win7 Boot Manager.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EasyBCD

http://neosmart.net/download.php?id=1

Since this is an installation of two OSes on a single disk, there
is no ambiguity as to how the BIOS boot order should be set. Just
point it at the disk with the two OSes installed on it.

When you want to separate the OSes, or uninstall one of them, there
are tools like fixmbr, fixboot, bootsect and the like, and both
the WinXP installer CD and the Win7 installer DVD, will have
command prompt options available.

Since WinXP interferes with Win7 with respect to things like
System Restore, you'd probably want to disable WinXP System
Restore. One web site, recommends making Win7 "invisible" from
the WinXP partition (by doing something to the registry entry
for MountedDevices or the like), but I don't think that's what
most users will want. You'd want to access both partitions,
whether either OS is booted, so it's just easier to install WinXP,
disable WinXP System Restore, then install Windows 7, and hope they play
nice together. I've broken my Win 7 install a couple times,
screwing around with it, and having System Restore disabled
in WinXP (when I slave up the Win7 disk), is just that
much safer.

Paul
Alias
2011-12-18 00:51:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by BeeJ
I have a new PC with a blank 500G hard disk.
I have legal copies of Win7 pro and XP Pro.
I want to create a dual boot PC, 250G and 250G on the 500G hard disk.
Can someone give me step by step procedure to create this dual boot PC
or a link that explains.
NO I do not want a Win7 with Virtual XP so do not bother with that.
NO I do not want to use Win7 compatibility so do not bother with that!
Why, I an doing direct hardware interfacing and want no additional OS
code in the way so I want pure XP Pro and pure Win7 Pro.
Thanks in advance.
Use two hard drives and the BIOS to switch between the two. If one OS or
one of the drives goes south, you don't have to reinstall both OSes. I
have four, one Win 7, one Mint 10, one Mint 12 and one XP Pro. My
motherboard has a feature when F8 is pressed at the beginning of the
post, I get a menu to choose to which hard drive/cd/dvd rom/pen drive or
floppy to boot. Very convenient.
--
Alias
BeeJ
2011-12-18 08:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Not sure if the BIOS will see the two and request a selection of Win7
or XP. Is that universal or just some motherboards.
My new motherboard documentation makes no mention of dual boot
capability.
Alias
2011-12-18 10:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Not sure if the BIOS will see the two and request a selection of Win7 or
XP. Is that universal or just some motherboards.
My new motherboard documentation makes no mention of dual boot capability.
Make and model of motherboard? The BIOS doesn't request a selection. You
have to press a key at boot to get the boot order selection choice. When
you fire up the PC is there anything like "boot order prompt, hit F*" in
the white text you see when it first boots?
--
Alias
Wolf K
2011-12-18 19:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Not sure if the BIOS will see the two and request a selection of Win7 or
XP. Is that universal or just some motherboards.
My new motherboard documentation makes no mention of dual boot capability.
Dual boot is taken care of by the W7 boot manager (automatically
installed when you install W7 when another OS is present). It will show
W7 as the default and "Older version of Windows" as a choice. Just
mouse/arrow to XP and Enter will boot it instead.

And kindly quote what you are answering, eh? Otherwise nobody know what
"this" or "that" is. (If you had been in any of my composition classes,
you'd have been given an automatic fail (--> rewrite) with the first
non-existent, unclear, or ambiguous pronoun reference. I wouldn't even
have bothered reading the rest of your work. Really. I was a a real
hard-nosed bastard that. ;-))

HTH,
Wolf K.
Wolf K
2011-12-18 21:29:33 UTC
Permalink
On 18/12/2011 3:26 AM, BeeJ wrote:
[...]
My new motherboard documentation makes no mention of dual boot capability.
[...]

This isn't a mobo issue. "Dual boot" merely means that MBR must contain
data and software that the BIOS will use to boot from whatever source
you specify. Originally, that meant only HDDs, but nowadays it means
anything the BIOS can recognise as an attached source of data. By
default, the BIOS will look for this on hard disk zero first, then
other devices in the specified order.

To see whether your mobo can boot from devices other than the HDDs, go
into Setup, and check the boot-order options. You should see more than
just the HDDs.

BTW, once you've installed one OS, you'll want to change the boot order
so that you can boot from the second OS's install DVD.

HTH
Wolf K.
Allen Drake
2011-12-18 01:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by BeeJ
I have a new PC with a blank 500G hard disk.
I have legal copies of Win7 pro and XP Pro.
I want to create a dual boot PC, 250G and 250G on the 500G hard disk.
Can someone give me step by step procedure to create this dual boot PC
or a link that explains.
NO I do not want a Win7 with Virtual XP so do not bother with that.
NO I do not want to use Win7 compatibility so do not bother with that!
Why, I an doing direct hardware interfacing and want no additional OS
code in the way so I want pure XP Pro and pure Win7 Pro.
Thanks in advance.
If you have both OSes on two partitions you can use EasyBCD to give
you the option you want.

It's free

http://neosmart.net/EasyBCD/

Al.
BeeJ
2011-12-18 08:24:47 UTC
Permalink
That seems more complex or am I missing something?
Allen Drake
2011-12-18 12:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by BeeJ
That seems more complex or am I missing something?
I thought it was rather the simplest solution. I didn't go into
detail about how to install windows but the application is easy to use
and boots to a window that offers a choice of what OS you care to go
to first. Then you can install iReboot to get to another OS after you
have launched.
R. C. White
2011-12-18 02:45:55 UTC
Permalink
Hi, BeeJ.

It's easiest if you do it the straightforward way. Not so easy if you take
shortcuts.

1. Put the WinXP DVD in the drive and boot from it. Have it create the
250 GB partition as Drive C: and install WinXP there.

2. Then put the Win7 DVD in the drive and reboot from it. Tell Setup to
create the second 250 GB partition and install Win7 there.

All done - with the installation of the dual-boot system. Then, of course,
you will need to update each of them and install all of your applications
twice, one on each system.

Each time you reboot in the future, after the computer POST (Power-On
Self-Test), you will see a menu from which you can choose either Win7 or an
"Earlier Version of Windows", which means WinXP, of course. If you choose
"earlier", Win7's "bootmgr" will step back out of the way and load WinXP's
NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and Boot.ini and present the familiar Boot.ini menu - or
default to loading WinXP, just as though WinXP were the only OS installed.
If you choose Win7, then bootmgr will use the BCD (Boot Configuration Data)
to find and load Win7; those WinXP files will simply be ignored.

One thing that might take some getting used to: WinXP will see that first
partition as Drive C:, just as it always has; Win7 will be on the second
partition, Drive D:. But when you reboot into Win7, the SECOND partition,
where Win7 is installed, will be seen as Drive C:, and the FIRST partition
will be seen as Drive D:. None of this will confuse either version of
Windows, but it might confuse you.

There are several other ways to create the dual-boot arrangement you want,
BeeJ. You can, if you want, insert the Win7 DVD while WinXP is running and
run Setup to install Win7. If you do that, Win7 Setup will see that you've
already assigned the letter D: to the second partition and will keep that
letter in Win7. Your Win7 Boot volume will be D:, its Boot folder will be
D:\Windows and your apps will install by default into D:\Program Files.
Again, this might confuse YOU, but both Win7 and WinXP will be happy.

You can install Win7 first and then add WinXP later, but that involves some
extra steps, because WinXP's Setup.exe does not know how to handle an
existing Win7, so you'll have to "repair" the boot process later. Quite
doable, but it takes a little more effort. What I call the Golden Rule of
Dual-Booting is to Always Install the Newest Windows LAST. Win7's Setup
does know how to handle an existing WinXP.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
***@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2011 (Build 15.4.3538.0513) in Win7 Ultimate x64 SP1


"BeeJ" wrote in message news:jcj96h$e5s$***@speranza.aioe.org...

I have a new PC with a blank 500G hard disk.
I have legal copies of Win7 pro and XP Pro.
I want to create a dual boot PC, 250G and 250G on the 500G hard disk.

Can someone give me step by step procedure to create this dual boot PC
or a link that explains.

NO I do not want a Win7 with Virtual XP so do not bother with that.
NO I do not want to use Win7 compatibility so do not bother with that!
Why, I an doing direct hardware interfacing and want no additional OS
code in the way so I want pure XP Pro and pure Win7 Pro.

Thanks in advance.
BeeJ
2011-12-18 08:23:57 UTC
Permalink
That is what I was looking for ... which one to install first.

So do XP then Win7.

And I could use two hard disks or create two partitions when I first
install XP and use the second partition when I install Win7.

Correct?
John Williamson
2011-12-18 08:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by BeeJ
That is what I was looking for ... which one to install first.
So do XP then Win7.
And I could use two hard disks or create two partitions when I first
install XP and use the second partition when I install Win7.
Correct?
Yes. There is also the ultimate bomb proof option of using your large HD
as a data store, and using two small (Maybe 32 Gig SSD?) hard drives in
caddies as boot drives, one for 7 and one for XP, assuming you're not
using a laptop.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
Allen Drake
2011-12-18 12:30:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:32:51 +0000, John Williamson
Post by John Williamson
Post by BeeJ
That is what I was looking for ... which one to install first.
So do XP then Win7.
And I could use two hard disks or create two partitions when I first
install XP and use the second partition when I install Win7.
Correct?
Yes. There is also the ultimate bomb proof option of using your large HD
as a data store, and using two small (Maybe 32 Gig SSD?) hard drives in
caddies as boot drives, one for 7 and one for XP, assuming you're not
using a laptop.
That's exactly what I use. I installed Win7 on a system that had been
running WinXP and kept them both. I use that setup on three systems
now all two 256Gig SSDs and 1 TB SATA III as backup and data. I also
have a 3 TB USB 3 that I move between systems. I installed two apps
and didn't have to do anything else.
R. C. White
2011-12-18 18:38:30 UTC
Permalink
Hi, BeeJ.
And I could...create two partitions when I first install XP and use the
second partition when I install Win7.
Yes; the second partition can be created by either WinXP or Win7; both have
Disk Management, which is THE tool to use for creating and managing
partitions. And you could first install WinXP on the second partition,
reserving the first one for Win7; then, if you decide to delete WinXP some
day, you could just remove that second partition and re-use that space,
perhaps extending the first partition to include some or all of it.

Ever since Disk Management first appeared in Win2K back in the year 2000
(and has been improved in each upgrade since), Win2K/XP/Vista/7 have offered
many options for managing physical disks and their partitions (and optical
drives, memory cards, USB flash drives - just about anything that can be
assigned a "drive" letter). The only "drives" that require special handling
are the "System Partition" and the "Boot Volume". These terms are
counterintuitive (we BOOT from the SYSTEM partition and keep the operating
SYSTEM files in the BOOT volume); look at the labels in Disk Management's
Status column to see which partitions are which in whatever Windows you
happen to be running at the moment, and don't be surprised when they are on
different partitions after you reboot into the other Windows version. See
KB314470, Definitions for system volume and boot volume; it has not been
updated for Win7, but the main concepts described have not changed.

You certainly can use multiple hard disks (I have, for years), but you
mentioned "a new PC with a blank 500G hard disk" and you said you wanted to
keep it simple and straightforward, so I didn't get into all the other
possibilities. One simple method is to have a single System Partition on
the first HDD and have that point to Boot Volumes for WinXP on Disk 0 and
for Win7 on Disk 1 (or vice-versa, or on Disk 2 or 3 or...). Another
method, mentioned in this thread, is to have multiple System Partitions on
different HDDs and use features in the BIOS to choose among the HDDs at boot
time; if you have more than one HDD, you might prefer this setup. To
consider all the variations would make this message (and this thread) much
too long - and too complicated.

For a specific, focused question, just ask here. For more details, study
the Help file in Disk Management, or a good reference book like the Windows
Inside Out series by MVP Ed Bott and colleagues. An afternoon invested in
these resources can pay dividends, not just for this project, but for as
long as you keep using computers - which might be for the rest of your life.
;<)

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
***@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2011 (Build 15.4.3538.0513) in Win7 Ultimate x64 SP1


"BeeJ" wrote in message news:jck7uf$2mn$***@speranza.aioe.org...

That is what I was looking for ... which one to install first.

So do XP then Win7.

And I could use two hard disks or create two partitions when I first
install XP and use the second partition when I install Win7.

Correct?
Char Jackson
2011-12-18 19:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. C. White
Yes; the second partition can be created by either WinXP or Win7; both have
Disk Management, which is THE tool to use for creating and managing
partitions.
I shudder a bit when I hear that. Disk Management is just one of the
built-in tools for creating and managing partitions, but it's the
least capable. What it does, it does well, but it's extremely limited
in what it can do and is therefore NOT "THE" tool. Diskpart is another
built-in disk management tool and is much more capable. Third party
disk management tools take it up yet another notch.

In summary, go ahead and use Disk Management if it can do what you
need to do. It has a GUI and is very easy to use. If you get
frustrated by its many shortcomings, consider using the command line
tool, diskpart. If you need even more capability and would like to
have it delivered with a GUI, keep in mind that third party tools are
available that go above and beyond what diskpart can do, and of course
leave Disk Management in the dust.

Disk Management should be fine for the OP, and I agree with the advice
to use it in this case, but I can't agree that it's THE tool for
performing disk management. It's simply way too limited to deserve
that title.
--
Char Jackson
Wolf K
2011-12-18 19:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Char Jackson
Post by R. C. White
Yes; the second partition can be created by either WinXP or Win7; both have
Disk Management, which is THE tool to use for creating and managing
partitions.
I shudder a bit when I hear that. Disk Management is just one of the
built-in tools for creating and managing partitions, but it's the
least capable. What it does, it does well, but it's extremely limited
in what it can do and is therefore NOT "THE" tool. Diskpart is another
built-in disk management tool and is much more capable. Third party
disk management tools take it up yet another notch.
In summary, go ahead and use Disk Management if it can do what you
need to do. It has a GUI and is very easy to use. If you get
frustrated by its many shortcomings, consider using the command line
tool, diskpart. If you need even more capability and would like to
have it delivered with a GUI, keep in mind that third party tools are
available that go above and beyond what diskpart can do, and of course
leave Disk Management in the dust.
Disk Management should be fine for the OP, and I agree with the advice
to use it in this case, but I can't agree that it's THE tool for
performing disk management. It's simply way too limited to deserve
that title.
Seconded,
Wolf K.
Char Jackson
2011-12-18 20:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf K
Post by Char Jackson
Post by R. C. White
Yes; the second partition can be created by either WinXP or Win7; both have
Disk Management, which is THE tool to use for creating and managing
partitions.
I shudder a bit when I hear that. Disk Management is just one of the
built-in tools for creating and managing partitions, but it's the
least capable. What it does, it does well, but it's extremely limited
in what it can do and is therefore NOT "THE" tool. Diskpart is another
built-in disk management tool and is much more capable. Third party
disk management tools take it up yet another notch.
In summary, go ahead and use Disk Management if it can do what you
need to do. It has a GUI and is very easy to use. If you get
frustrated by its many shortcomings, consider using the command line
tool, diskpart. If you need even more capability and would like to
have it delivered with a GUI, keep in mind that third party tools are
available that go above and beyond what diskpart can do, and of course
leave Disk Management in the dust.
Disk Management should be fine for the OP, and I agree with the advice
to use it in this case, but I can't agree that it's THE tool for
performing disk management. It's simply way too limited to deserve
that title.
Seconded,
Wolf K.
I thought I was a little over the top... :-)
--
Char Jackson
Wolf K
2011-12-18 21:45:30 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Char Jackson
Post by Wolf K
Post by Char Jackson
Disk Management should be fine for the OP, and I agree with the advice
to use it in this case, but I can't agree that it's THE tool for
performing disk management. It's simply way too limited to deserve
that title.
Seconded,
Wolf K.
I thought I was a little over the top... :-)
Oh, I don't know. I would have been a deal less polite than you if I'd
been moved to express the same sentiments. ;-)

Wolf K.
...winston
2011-12-21 07:14:41 UTC
Permalink
BeeJ,
Hopefully you've already achieved success in dual booting WinXP and Win7.
I've glanced over the thread...if late or the below has already been
covered/resolved excuse the jumping into the middle of the thread.

1. Correct, RC's instructions are top notch. I can personally attest to his
method having followed his advice to triple boot a recent entire system
redo....i.e. they work
2. Not sure if its been asked though and I've seen a few partially non
functional dual boot (XP/Win7) systems where the newest hardware (these days
mostly designed for Win7) required some effort to obtain the specific
drivers for XP (most notably Chipset, Network, Sata drivers)..i.e. current
drivers for the onboard/add-on hardware may not always be available for XP.

Thus... If you've not started you dual boot install....ensure you have the
necessary drivers. If your need drive is SATA, iirc, you may need to install
the SATA driver prior to installing the XP.
--
...winston
msft mvp mail
"BeeJ" wrote in message news:jck7uf$2mn$***@speranza.aioe.org...

That is what I was looking for ... which one to install first.

So do XP then Win7.

And I could use two hard disks or create two partitions when I first
install XP and use the second partition when I install Win7.

Correct?
Ed Cryer
2011-12-18 13:53:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. C. White
Hi, BeeJ.
It's easiest if you do it the straightforward way. Not so easy if you
take shortcuts.
1. Put the WinXP DVD in the drive and boot from it. Have it create the
250 GB partition as Drive C: and install WinXP there.
2. Then put the Win7 DVD in the drive and reboot from it. Tell Setup to
create the second 250 GB partition and install Win7 there.
All done - with the installation of the dual-boot system. Then, of
course, you will need to update each of them and install all of your
applications twice, one on each system.
Each time you reboot in the future, after the computer POST (Power-On
Self-Test), you will see a menu from which you can choose either Win7 or
an "Earlier Version of Windows", which means WinXP, of course. If you
choose "earlier", Win7's "bootmgr" will step back out of the way and
load WinXP's NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and Boot.ini and present the familiar
Boot.ini menu - or default to loading WinXP, just as though WinXP were
the only OS installed. If you choose Win7, then bootmgr will use the BCD
(Boot Configuration Data) to find and load Win7; those WinXP files will
simply be ignored.
One thing that might take some getting used to: WinXP will see that
first partition as Drive C:, just as it always has; Win7 will be on the
second partition, Drive D:. But when you reboot into Win7, the SECOND
partition, where Win7 is installed, will be seen as Drive C:, and the
FIRST partition will be seen as Drive D:. None of this will confuse
either version of Windows, but it might confuse you.
There are several other ways to create the dual-boot arrangement you
want, BeeJ. You can, if you want, insert the Win7 DVD while WinXP is
running and run Setup to install Win7. If you do that, Win7 Setup will
see that you've already assigned the letter D: to the second partition
and will keep that letter in Win7. Your Win7 Boot volume will be D:, its
Boot folder will be D:\Windows and your apps will install by default
into D:\Program Files. Again, this might confuse YOU, but both Win7 and
WinXP will be happy.
You can install Win7 first and then add WinXP later, but that involves
some extra steps, because WinXP's Setup.exe does not know how to handle
an existing Win7, so you'll have to "repair" the boot process later.
Quite doable, but it takes a little more effort. What I call the Golden
Rule of Dual-Booting is to Always Install the Newest Windows LAST.
Win7's Setup does know how to handle an existing WinXP.
RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2011 (Build 15.4.3538.0513) in Win7 Ultimate x64 SP1
I have a new PC with a blank 500G hard disk.
I have legal copies of Win7 pro and XP Pro.
I want to create a dual boot PC, 250G and 250G on the 500G hard disk.
Can someone give me step by step procedure to create this dual boot PC
or a link that explains.
NO I do not want a Win7 with Virtual XP so do not bother with that.
NO I do not want to use Win7 compatibility so do not bother with that!
Why, I an doing direct hardware interfacing and want no additional OS
code in the way so I want pure XP Pro and pure Win7 Pro.
Thanks in advance.
You're an excellent teacher, R C. This is first rate. It's the sort of
clear, well laid out type of exposition I aim at but don't often reach.
And yes, I did used to be a teacher.

Ed
Jack
2011-12-24 01:15:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Cryer
Post by R. C. White
Hi, BeeJ.
It's easiest if you do it the straightforward way. Not so easy if you
take shortcuts.
1. Put the WinXP DVD in the drive and boot from it. Have it create the
250 GB partition as Drive C: and install WinXP there.
2. Then put the Win7 DVD in the drive and reboot from it. Tell Setup to
create the second 250 GB partition and install Win7 there.
All done - with the installation of the dual-boot system. Then, of
course, you will need to update each of them and install all of your
applications twice, one on each system.
Each time you reboot in the future, after the computer POST (Power-On
Self-Test), you will see a menu from which you can choose either Win7 or
an "Earlier Version of Windows", which means WinXP, of course. If you
choose "earlier", Win7's "bootmgr" will step back out of the way and
load WinXP's NTLDR, NTDETECT.COM and Boot.ini and present the familiar
Boot.ini menu - or default to loading WinXP, just as though WinXP were
the only OS installed. If you choose Win7, then bootmgr will use the BCD
(Boot Configuration Data) to find and load Win7; those WinXP files will
simply be ignored.
One thing that might take some getting used to: WinXP will see that
first partition as Drive C:, just as it always has; Win7 will be on the
second partition, Drive D:. But when you reboot into Win7, the SECOND
partition, where Win7 is installed, will be seen as Drive C:, and the
FIRST partition will be seen as Drive D:. None of this will confuse
either version of Windows, but it might confuse you.
There are several other ways to create the dual-boot arrangement you
want, BeeJ. You can, if you want, insert the Win7 DVD while WinXP is
running and run Setup to install Win7. If you do that, Win7 Setup will
see that you've already assigned the letter D: to the second partition
and will keep that letter in Win7. Your Win7 Boot volume will be D:, its
Boot folder will be D:\Windows and your apps will install by default
into D:\Program Files. Again, this might confuse YOU, but both Win7 and
WinXP will be happy.
You can install Win7 first and then add WinXP later, but that involves
some extra steps, because WinXP's Setup.exe does not know how to handle
an existing Win7, so you'll have to "repair" the boot process later.
Quite doable, but it takes a little more effort. What I call the Golden
Rule of Dual-Booting is to Always Install the Newest Windows LAST.
Win7's Setup does know how to handle an existing WinXP.
RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2011 (Build 15.4.3538.0513) in Win7 Ultimate x64 SP1
I have a new PC with a blank 500G hard disk.
I have legal copies of Win7 pro and XP Pro.
I want to create a dual boot PC, 250G and 250G on the 500G hard disk.
Can someone give me step by step procedure to create this dual boot PC
or a link that explains.
NO I do not want a Win7 with Virtual XP so do not bother with that.
NO I do not want to use Win7 compatibility so do not bother with that!
Why, I an doing direct hardware interfacing and want no additional OS
code in the way so I want pure XP Pro and pure Win7 Pro.
Thanks in advance.
You're an excellent teacher, R C. This is first rate. It's the sort of
clear, well laid out type of exposition I aim at but don't often reach.
And yes, I did used to be a teacher.
Ed
I second, third and so on that. Excellent and clear advice and the exact
same way I did my own..
--
The dead know only one thing
It is better to alive than dead
John Morrison
2011-12-18 04:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by BeeJ
I have a new PC with a blank 500G hard disk.
I have legal copies of Win7 pro and XP Pro.
I want to create a dual boot PC, 250G and 250G on the 500G hard disk.
Can someone give me step by step procedure to create this dual boot PC
or a link that explains.
NO I do not want a Win7 with Virtual XP so do not bother with that.
You received an excellent reply from "R. C. White" I can't add to.
--
John
Jan Alter
2011-12-18 11:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Morrison
Post by BeeJ
I have a new PC with a blank 500G hard disk.
I have legal copies of Win7 pro and XP Pro.
I want to create a dual boot PC, 250G and 250G on the 500G hard disk.
Can someone give me step by step procedure to create this dual boot PC
or a link that explains.
NO I do not want a Win7 with Virtual XP so do not bother with that.
You received an excellent reply from "R. C. White" I can't add to.
--
John
I have a question here about tieing in both OS's to a Win 7 boot menu. If
the OP installs XP first and then Win7 both OS's will use a Win 7 boot menu
on the MBR. If in the future one of the OS's becomes corrupt will the boot
menu still allow the other OS to start?
--
Jan Alter
***@verizon.net
Allen Drake
2011-12-18 12:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Alter
Post by John Morrison
Post by BeeJ
I have a new PC with a blank 500G hard disk.
I have legal copies of Win7 pro and XP Pro.
I want to create a dual boot PC, 250G and 250G on the 500G hard disk.
Can someone give me step by step procedure to create this dual boot PC
or a link that explains.
NO I do not want a Win7 with Virtual XP so do not bother with that.
You received an excellent reply from "R. C. White" I can't add to.
--
John
I have a question here about tieing in both OS's to a Win 7 boot menu. If
the OP installs XP first and then Win7 both OS's will use a Win 7 boot menu
on the MBR. If in the future one of the OS's becomes corrupt will the boot
menu still allow the other OS to start?
In my thread I suggested the use of third party SW that requires
nothing special and if you simply remove one drive it boots right to
the other. It doesn't matter what OS is installed first. You can use
as many OSes as you like on one drive or several.

Al.
BeeJ
2011-12-18 18:36:02 UTC
Permalink
OK, I have taken all of that in as best I can.
Now that I have put together (it boots to the BIOS, whew!) the PC and
am ready to install SW can I get a consensus.

What is best?
Best for reworking system crashes?
Best for no OS interaction.

Hardware
1) use one HD for each OS, Win7 Pro & XP Pro?
2) use one HD for both OSes?

Boot
1) Install XP Pro first and use Win7 boot manager
2) Use EasyBCD to boot.

So far I think I am hearing
install XP Pro first
use one HD for each OS
use EasyBCD to boot.

Am I confused? Maybe but I hope you all will clarify for a final
solution.

I now have two HDs, 500G each. That is all the room in my mini-pc
using a MATX motherboard with all the bells and whistles I want and
need.
8G-1600 Ram, Serial port, parallel port, 4 USB3, 4 USB, built in Video
and 7.1 sound with analog and S/PDIF+Optical output. VGA, DMI, HDMI
output and dual monitor. Blu-Ray DVD writer. All in a low profile
mini-case. I am hardware happy. MSI A75MA-G55
Alias
2011-12-18 18:44:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by BeeJ
OK, I have taken all of that in as best I can.
Now that I have put together (it boots to the BIOS, whew!) the PC and am
ready to install SW can I get a consensus.
What is best?
Best for reworking system crashes?
Best for no OS interaction.
Hardware
1) use one HD for each OS, Win7 Pro & XP Pro?
2) use one HD for both OSes?
Boot
1) Install XP Pro first and use Win7 boot manager
2) Use EasyBCD to boot.
So far I think I am hearing
install XP Pro first
use one HD for each OS
use EasyBCD to boot.
Am I confused? Maybe but I hope you all will clarify for a final solution.
I now have two HDs, 500G each. That is all the room in my mini-pc using
a MATX motherboard with all the bells and whistles I want and need.
8G-1600 Ram, Serial port, parallel port, 4 USB3, 4 USB, built in Video
and 7.1 sound with analog and S/PDIF+Optical output. VGA, DMI, HDMI
output and dual monitor. Blu-Ray DVD writer. All in a low profile
mini-case. I am hardware happy. MSI A75MA-G55
If you choose to install an OS to each hard drive, you can install them
in any order. Just make sure only the hard drive you are installing to
is connected to the MB. Once you have both installed, you can connect
both drives to the MB and use the BIOS boot preference prompt to decide
which to boot to. It will assume you want to boot to the last one you
installed unless you tell it otherwise. You can change the default boot
drive in the BIOS. With this set up if either hard drive or OS goes
south, the other one isn't affected.
--
Alias
Jan Alter
2011-12-18 20:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by BeeJ
OK, I have taken all of that in as best I can.
Now that I have put together (it boots to the BIOS, whew!) the PC and am
ready to install SW can I get a consensus.
What is best?
Best for reworking system crashes?
Best for no OS interaction.
Hardware
1) use one HD for each OS, Win7 Pro & XP Pro?
2) use one HD for both OSes?
Boot
1) Install XP Pro first and use Win7 boot manager
2) Use EasyBCD to boot.
So far I think I am hearing
install XP Pro first
use one HD for each OS
use EasyBCD to boot.
Am I confused? Maybe but I hope you all will clarify for a final solution.
I now have two HDs, 500G each. That is all the room in my mini-pc using
a MATX motherboard with all the bells and whistles I want and need.
8G-1600 Ram, Serial port, parallel port, 4 USB3, 4 USB, built in Video
and 7.1 sound with analog and S/PDIF+Optical output. VGA, DMI, HDMI
output and dual monitor. Blu-Ray DVD writer. All in a low profile
mini-case. I am hardware happy. MSI A75MA-G55
If you choose to install an OS to each hard drive, you can install them in
any order. Just make sure only the hard drive you are installing to is
connected to the MB. Once you have both installed, you can connect both
drives to the MB and use the BIOS boot preference prompt to decide which
to boot to. It will assume you want to boot to the last one you installed
unless you tell it otherwise. You can change the default boot drive in the
BIOS. With this set up if either hard drive or OS goes south, the other
one isn't affected.
--
Alias
I agree with Alias in that respect. Many motherboards show a screen during
startup and indicate a F key to push to choose the boot drive. Even if it
doesn't you can locate the information in the manual for the motherboard.

If you do decide to go with this type of installation then after you
have installed the first OS disconnect that hard drive and connect the
second hard drive to install the second OS. When the second hard drive is
installed reconnect the first hard drive with whatever OS you installed.
That way no Windows boot manager will have been installed in the mbr sector
of the second installation.
--
Jan Alter
***@verizon.net
Wolf K
2011-12-18 21:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Alter
If you choose to install an OS to each hard drive, you can install them in
any order. Just make sure only the hard drive you are installing to is
connected to the MB. Once you have both installed, you can connect both
drives to the MB and use the BIOS boot preference prompt to decide which
to boot to. It will assume you want to boot to the last one you installed
unless you tell it otherwise. You can change the default boot drive in the
BIOS. With this set up if either hard drive or OS goes south, the other
one isn't affected.
--
Alias
I agree with Alias in that respect. Many motherboards show a screen during
startup
Only if set to do so via BIOS Setup.
Post by Jan Alter
and indicate a F key to push to choose the boot drive. Even if it
doesn't you can locate the information in the manual for the motherboard.
[snip]

If that information has to be found in the manual, it more than likely
refers to how to change the boot order. This is not the easiest way to
dual boot. There's a reason boot managers have been created!

IMO, Alias's advice is unnecessarily complicated. It also creates a
problem: OP would have to install a 3rd party boot manager to provide a
convenient choice of boot options. Why do that if W7 provides one
automatically?

To install the second OS, change the boot order in the BIOS Setup so the
machine will boot from the optical drive. That drive may be specified by
manufacturer and model, so be sure to look at _all_ boot options before
deciding which one to place first.

After installing W7, chnage the boot order so that BIOS accesses HD-0
first. The machine will otherwise attempt to boot from the optical drive
every time, which slows down the boot while it searches for a bootable
CD/DVD. The boot may hang if there's an unbootable disk left in the drive.

If the MBR on the first boot drive gets trashed, use Setup to change the
boot order back to the optical drive, and use the install disk to Repair
Win7.

HTH
Wiolf K.
Paul
2011-12-18 22:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf K
Post by Jan Alter
If you choose to install an OS to each hard drive, you can install them in
Post by Alias
any order. Just make sure only the hard drive you are installing
to is
Post by Alias
connected to the MB. Once you have both installed, you can connect
both
Post by Alias
drives to the MB and use the BIOS boot preference prompt to decide
which
Post by Alias
to boot to. It will assume you want to boot to the last one you
installed
Post by Alias
unless you tell it otherwise. You can change the default boot
drive in the
Post by Alias
BIOS. With this set up if either hard drive or OS goes south, the
other
Post by Alias
one isn't affected.
--
Alias
I agree with Alias in that respect. Many motherboards show a screen during
startup
Only if set to do so via BIOS Setup.
Post by Jan Alter
and indicate a F key to push to choose the boot drive. Even if it
doesn't you can locate the information in the manual for the motherboard.
[snip]
If that information has to be found in the manual, it more than likely
refers to how to change the boot order. This is not the easiest way to
dual boot. There's a reason boot managers have been created!
IMO, Alias's advice is unnecessarily complicated. It also creates a
problem: OP would have to install a 3rd party boot manager to provide a
convenient choice of boot options. Why do that if W7 provides one
automatically?
To install the second OS, change the boot order in the BIOS Setup so the
machine will boot from the optical drive. That drive may be specified by
manufacturer and model, so be sure to look at _all_ boot options before
deciding which one to place first.
After installing W7, chnage the boot order so that BIOS accesses HD-0
first. The machine will otherwise attempt to boot from the optical drive
every time, which slows down the boot while it searches for a bootable
CD/DVD. The boot may hang if there's an unbootable disk left in the drive.
If the MBR on the first boot drive gets trashed, use Setup to change the
boot order back to the optical drive, and use the install disk to Repair
Win7.
HTH
Wiolf K.
I have a couple computers here, where there is a function key you
can press at POST, to cause a "popup BIOS boot menu" to appear.
In it, is a list of drives detected during POST. You can make
a temporary boot selection from that menu, and booting
starts immediately afterwards.

(This isn't a very good example, in terms of the devices listed, but
it shows the exact appearance of the list. And this is drawn by the BIOS.)

Loading Image...

That's how I control a two disk, Win2K/WinXP, one OS per disk system.
I select one drive from that menu, if I want WinXP, and the other
drive if I want Win2K. By doing so, there is no need to modify any
Boot Managers (BCD or boot.ini).

On the Asus motherboard, I press the F8 key to get the menu. There
should be at least some hint that the key is available (like the
reference to "BBS" here).

Loading Image...

On the Asrock motherboard, I press the F11 key.

Pressing "Pause" when the first BIOS screen appears, will allow
reviewing the various options. So if some function keys are
mentioned there, there may be a popup boot menu.

My older motherboards don't have that function.

In terms of timing the function key press, there is a window of opportunity
during the painting of the first BIOS page of output. If I wait too long,
the key press won't get accepted. On my laptop, the interval is
ridiculously short (1 to 2 seconds). If I need to make an alternate
boot choice on the laptop, usually I screw up the first time, have
to reboot and try again. The Asus and Asrock motherboards give longer than that,
and the function is actually useful on them.

That method doesn't affect the "normal" boot order. On those computers,
if I walk away from the computer and let it boot, it uses the default
boot order stored in the BIOS. On my Win2K/WinXP machine, that means
WinXP will boot. So I don't have to stand there every time and tap
a key. But if I want Win2K to boot, then I need F8.

Paul
Alias
2011-12-18 23:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Wolf K
Post by Jan Alter
If you choose to install an OS to each hard drive, you can install them in
Post by Alias
any order. Just make sure only the hard drive you are installing
to is
Post by Alias
connected to the MB. Once you have both installed, you can connect
both
Post by Alias
drives to the MB and use the BIOS boot preference prompt to decide
which
Post by Alias
to boot to. It will assume you want to boot to the last one you
installed
Post by Alias
unless you tell it otherwise. You can change the default boot
drive in the
Post by Alias
BIOS. With this set up if either hard drive or OS goes south, the
other
Post by Alias
one isn't affected.
--
Alias
I agree with Alias in that respect. Many motherboards show a screen during
startup
Only if set to do so via BIOS Setup.
Post by Jan Alter
and indicate a F key to push to choose the boot drive. Even if it
doesn't you can locate the information in the manual for the
motherboard.
[snip]
If that information has to be found in the manual, it more than likely
refers to how to change the boot order. This is not the easiest way to
dual boot. There's a reason boot managers have been created!
IMO, Alias's advice is unnecessarily complicated. It also creates a
problem: OP would have to install a 3rd party boot manager to provide
a convenient choice of boot options. Why do that if W7 provides one
automatically?
To install the second OS, change the boot order in the BIOS Setup so
the machine will boot from the optical drive. That drive may be
specified by manufacturer and model, so be sure to look at _all_ boot
options before deciding which one to place first.
After installing W7, chnage the boot order so that BIOS accesses HD-0
first. The machine will otherwise attempt to boot from the optical
drive every time, which slows down the boot while it searches for a
bootable CD/DVD. The boot may hang if there's an unbootable disk left
in the drive.
If the MBR on the first boot drive gets trashed, use Setup to change
the boot order back to the optical drive, and use the install disk to
Repair Win7.
HTH
Wiolf K.
I have a couple computers here, where there is a function key you
can press at POST, to cause a "popup BIOS boot menu" to appear.
In it, is a list of drives detected during POST. You can make
a temporary boot selection from that menu, and booting
starts immediately afterwards.
(This isn't a very good example, in terms of the devices listed, but
it shows the exact appearance of the list. And this is drawn by the BIOS.)
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19127-01/ultra27.ws/821-0166/images/7-2-Boot-Device-Menu.gif
That's how I control a two disk, Win2K/WinXP, one OS per disk system.
I select one drive from that menu, if I want WinXP, and the other
drive if I want Win2K. By doing so, there is no need to modify any
Boot Managers (BCD or boot.ini).
On the Asus motherboard, I press the F8 key to get the menu. There
should be at least some hint that the key is available (like the
reference to "BBS" here).
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19127-01/ultra27.ws/821-0166/images/7-1-F8-Prompt.gif
On the Asrock motherboard, I press the F11 key.
Pressing "Pause" when the first BIOS screen appears, will allow
reviewing the various options. So if some function keys are
mentioned there, there may be a popup boot menu.
My older motherboards don't have that function.
In terms of timing the function key press, there is a window of opportunity
during the painting of the first BIOS page of output. If I wait too long,
the key press won't get accepted. On my laptop, the interval is
ridiculously short (1 to 2 seconds). If I need to make an alternate
boot choice on the laptop, usually I screw up the first time, have
to reboot and try again. The Asus and Asrock motherboards give longer than that,
and the function is actually useful on them.
That method doesn't affect the "normal" boot order. On those computers,
if I walk away from the computer and let it boot, it uses the default
boot order stored in the BIOS. On my Win2K/WinXP machine, that means
WinXP will boot. So I don't have to stand there every time and tap
a key. But if I want Win2K to boot, then I need F8.
Paul
Exactly what I do.
--
Alias
Wolf K
2011-12-19 00:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
I have a couple computers here, where there is a function key you
can press at POST, to cause a "popup BIOS boot menu" to appear.
In it, is a list of drives detected during POST. You can make
a temporary boot selection from that menu, and booting
starts immediately afterwards.
(This isn't a very good example, in terms of the devices listed, but
it shows the exact appearance of the list. And this is drawn by the BIOS.)
Thanks for this,
Wolf K.
Char Jackson
2011-12-19 00:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Lots of good discussion in this thread, with several different
approaches spelled out.

Personally, I have no need to dual boot, but if I did, and if I had
two drives available, I would definitely follow this approach:

Install the first drive and install the first OS on it. Remove that
drive, install the second drive and install the second OS on it.
Finally, reinstall the first drive (so that both drives are installed)
and allow the BIOS boot order code to select which OS to boot.

Each drive (each OS) has its own boot loader code, with no
interdependencies between them. That's a significant advantage and
removes the scenario where a damaged boot loader disables both OS's,
requiring repair tools to recover. In addition, the two OS's can be
installed in any order and either OS can be removed without affecting
the other. It's pretty slick, actually.
--
Char Jackson
choro
2011-12-19 11:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Char Jackson
Lots of good discussion in this thread, with several different
approaches spelled out.
Personally, I have no need to dual boot, but if I did, and if I had
Install the first drive and install the first OS on it. Remove that
drive, install the second drive and install the second OS on it.
Finally, reinstall the first drive (so that both drives are installed)
and allow the BIOS boot order code to select which OS to boot.
Each drive (each OS) has its own boot loader code, with no
interdependencies between them. That's a significant advantage and
removes the scenario where a damaged boot loader disables both OS's,
requiring repair tools to recover. In addition, the two OS's can be
installed in any order and either OS can be removed without affecting
the other. It's pretty slick, actually.
To me this sounds the best solution thus far. But I have another
suggestion. Why not use a KVM box and let the two computers share the
same Keyboard, Monitor and the Mouse?

This way you can switch instantly between the two OS's as they could
both be up and running at the same time. None of the drawbacks of having
two OS's on the same computer with all the advantages of two separate
discrete computers?

Surely more or less anybody switching over to Windows 7 will either buy
or build a new computer for themselves. Or am I wrong on this point?

If one of the computers is a laptop just configure it NOT to go to sleep
with the lid closed and Bob's your uncle. Moreover with a special USB
link cable one can transfer any user file on one of the computers to the
other in a jiffy. Or you can even email the damn user file to yourself
and pick it up on the other computer. The possibilities are endless, one
might say.

And why should one opt for a more complicated system where one has to
switch off the computer and switch it back on again just to access the
other OS when with a very small outlay one can have both computers and
thus both OS's up and running at the same time and with a simple click
of the keyboard start monitoring and working on the other computer?

After all, KVMs for 2 computers with all the connecting cables built in
can be had for a song these days.

The only thing that refused to install on my Win 7 machine was the
driver for my old scanner. With a cheap KVM, I solved the problem.

I fail to understand all these more complicated ways of doing things or
do people update their old Windows XP machines to Windows 7? To be
honest I can't see the logic in that either.
-- choro
John Morrison
2011-12-19 12:44:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by choro
Post by Char Jackson
Lots of good discussion in this thread, with several different
approaches spelled out.
Personally, I have no need to dual boot, but if I did, and if I had
Install the first drive and install the first OS on it. Remove that
drive, install the second drive and install the second OS on it.
Finally, reinstall the first drive (so that both drives are installed)
and allow the BIOS boot order code to select which OS to boot.
Each drive (each OS) has its own boot loader code, with no
interdependencies between them. That's a significant advantage and
removes the scenario where a damaged boot loader disables both OS's,
requiring repair tools to recover. In addition, the two OS's can be
installed in any order and either OS can be removed without affecting
the other. It's pretty slick, actually.
To me this sounds the best solution thus far. But I have another
suggestion. Why not use a KVM box and let the two computers share the
same Keyboard, Monitor and the Mouse?
This way you can switch instantly between the two OS's as they could
both be up and running at the same time. None of the drawbacks of having
two OS's on the same computer with all the advantages of two separate
discrete computers?
Surely more or less anybody switching over to Windows 7 will either buy
or build a new computer for themselves. Or am I wrong on this point?
If one of the computers is a laptop just configure it NOT to go to sleep
with the lid closed and Bob's your uncle. Moreover with a special USB
link cable one can transfer any user file on one of the computers to the
other in a jiffy. Or you can even email the damn user file to yourself
and pick it up on the other computer. The possibilities are endless, one
might say.
And why should one opt for a more complicated system where one has to
switch off the computer and switch it back on again just to access the
other OS when with a very small outlay one can have both computers and
thus both OS's up and running at the same time and with a simple click
of the keyboard start monitoring and working on the other computer?
After all, KVMs for 2 computers with all the connecting cables built in
can be had for a song these days.
The only thing that refused to install on my Win 7 machine was the
driver for my old scanner. With a cheap KVM, I solved the problem.
I fail to understand all these more complicated ways of doing things or
do people update their old Windows XP machines to Windows 7? To be
honest I can't see the logic in that either.
Virtual XP lets a user use Win XP while checking email using an email
program and other programs running under Win 7. <g,d & r>
--
John
choro
2011-12-19 15:23:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Morrison
Post by choro
Post by Char Jackson
Lots of good discussion in this thread, with several different
approaches spelled out.
Personally, I have no need to dual boot, but if I did, and if I had
Install the first drive and install the first OS on it. Remove that
drive, install the second drive and install the second OS on it.
Finally, reinstall the first drive (so that both drives are installed)
and allow the BIOS boot order code to select which OS to boot.
Each drive (each OS) has its own boot loader code, with no
interdependencies between them. That's a significant advantage and
removes the scenario where a damaged boot loader disables both OS's,
requiring repair tools to recover. In addition, the two OS's can be
installed in any order and either OS can be removed without affecting
the other. It's pretty slick, actually.
To me this sounds the best solution thus far. But I have another
suggestion. Why not use a KVM box and let the two computers share the
same Keyboard, Monitor and the Mouse?
This way you can switch instantly between the two OS's as they could
both be up and running at the same time. None of the drawbacks of having
two OS's on the same computer with all the advantages of two separate
discrete computers?
Surely more or less anybody switching over to Windows 7 will either buy
or build a new computer for themselves. Or am I wrong on this point?
If one of the computers is a laptop just configure it NOT to go to sleep
with the lid closed and Bob's your uncle. Moreover with a special USB
link cable one can transfer any user file on one of the computers to the
other in a jiffy. Or you can even email the damn user file to yourself
and pick it up on the other computer. The possibilities are endless, one
might say.
And why should one opt for a more complicated system where one has to
switch off the computer and switch it back on again just to access the
other OS when with a very small outlay one can have both computers and
thus both OS's up and running at the same time and with a simple click
of the keyboard start monitoring and working on the other computer?
After all, KVMs for 2 computers with all the connecting cables built in
can be had for a song these days.
The only thing that refused to install on my Win 7 machine was the
driver for my old scanner. With a cheap KVM, I solved the problem.
I fail to understand all these more complicated ways of doing things or
do people update their old Windows XP machines to Windows 7? To be
honest I can't see the logic in that either.
Virtual XP lets a user use Win XP while checking email using an email
program and other programs running under Win 7.<g,d& r>
But my solution with both computers going simultaneously and linked
together with a KVM, would do that and more besides. Far more in fact.
And you don't have to switch from one operating system to another since
both are running simultaneously. You are obviously talking about OE. Why
bother with OE when Thunderbird will run on a Win7 machine?!
I honestly can't see any advantages to having 2 OS's on the same machine
except saving the footprint of the 2nd machine. But if the 2nd machine
is a laptop it could even be sitting in a drawer. Just make sure it
doesn't get too hot in a confined space! ;-)
-- choro
Gene E. Bloch
2011-12-19 18:46:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Morrison
Post by choro
Post by Char Jackson
Lots of good discussion in this thread, with several different
approaches spelled out.
Personally, I have no need to dual boot, but if I did, and if I had
Install the first drive and install the first OS on it. Remove that
drive, install the second drive and install the second OS on it.
Finally, reinstall the first drive (so that both drives are installed)
and allow the BIOS boot order code to select which OS to boot.
Each drive (each OS) has its own boot loader code, with no
interdependencies between them. That's a significant advantage and
removes the scenario where a damaged boot loader disables both OS's,
requiring repair tools to recover. In addition, the two OS's can be
installed in any order and either OS can be removed without affecting
the other. It's pretty slick, actually.
To me this sounds the best solution thus far. But I have another
suggestion. Why not use a KVM box and let the two computers share the
same Keyboard, Monitor and the Mouse?
This way you can switch instantly between the two OS's as they could
both be up and running at the same time. None of the drawbacks of having
two OS's on the same computer with all the advantages of two separate
discrete computers?
Surely more or less anybody switching over to Windows 7 will either buy
or build a new computer for themselves. Or am I wrong on this point?
If one of the computers is a laptop just configure it NOT to go to sleep
with the lid closed and Bob's your uncle. Moreover with a special USB
link cable one can transfer any user file on one of the computers to the
other in a jiffy. Or you can even email the damn user file to yourself
and pick it up on the other computer. The possibilities are endless, one
might say.
And why should one opt for a more complicated system where one has to
switch off the computer and switch it back on again just to access the
other OS when with a very small outlay one can have both computers and
thus both OS's up and running at the same time and with a simple click
of the keyboard start monitoring and working on the other computer?
After all, KVMs for 2 computers with all the connecting cables built in
can be had for a song these days.
The only thing that refused to install on my Win 7 machine was the
driver for my old scanner. With a cheap KVM, I solved the problem.
I fail to understand all these more complicated ways of doing things or
do people update their old Windows XP machines to Windows 7? To be
honest I can't see the logic in that either.
Virtual XP lets a user use Win XP while checking email using an email
program and other programs running under Win 7.<g,d& r>
But my solution with both computers going simultaneously and linked together
with a KVM, would do that and more besides. Far more in fact. And you don't
have to switch from one operating system to another since both are running
simultaneously. You are obviously talking about OE. Why bother with OE when
Thunderbird will run on a Win7 machine?!
I honestly can't see any advantages to having 2 OS's on the same machine
except saving the footprint of the 2nd machine. But if the 2nd machine is a
laptop it could even be sitting in a drawer. Just make sure it doesn't get
too hot in a confined space! ;-)
-- choro
Some advantages to having two OSes on one machine:
1. Easy access between file systems
2. No need to have two computers occupying space (and costing money)
3. No tangle of cables with KVM
4. With a virtual machine, simultaneous visibility of both OSes (two
separate computers w/o KVM does this too)
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
choro
2011-12-19 20:59:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gene E. Bloch
Post by choro
Post by John Morrison
Post by choro
Post by Char Jackson
Lots of good discussion in this thread, with several different
approaches spelled out.
Personally, I have no need to dual boot, but if I did, and if I had
Install the first drive and install the first OS on it. Remove that
drive, install the second drive and install the second OS on it.
Finally, reinstall the first drive (so that both drives are installed)
and allow the BIOS boot order code to select which OS to boot.
Each drive (each OS) has its own boot loader code, with no
interdependencies between them. That's a significant advantage and
removes the scenario where a damaged boot loader disables both OS's,
requiring repair tools to recover. In addition, the two OS's can be
installed in any order and either OS can be removed without affecting
the other. It's pretty slick, actually.
To me this sounds the best solution thus far. But I have another
suggestion. Why not use a KVM box and let the two computers share the
same Keyboard, Monitor and the Mouse?
This way you can switch instantly between the two OS's as they could
both be up and running at the same time. None of the drawbacks of having
two OS's on the same computer with all the advantages of two separate
discrete computers?
Surely more or less anybody switching over to Windows 7 will either buy
or build a new computer for themselves. Or am I wrong on this point?
If one of the computers is a laptop just configure it NOT to go to sleep
with the lid closed and Bob's your uncle. Moreover with a special USB
link cable one can transfer any user file on one of the computers to the
other in a jiffy. Or you can even email the damn user file to yourself
and pick it up on the other computer. The possibilities are endless, one
might say.
And why should one opt for a more complicated system where one has to
switch off the computer and switch it back on again just to access the
other OS when with a very small outlay one can have both computers and
thus both OS's up and running at the same time and with a simple click
of the keyboard start monitoring and working on the other computer?
After all, KVMs for 2 computers with all the connecting cables built in
can be had for a song these days.
The only thing that refused to install on my Win 7 machine was the
driver for my old scanner. With a cheap KVM, I solved the problem.
I fail to understand all these more complicated ways of doing things or
do people update their old Windows XP machines to Windows 7? To be
honest I can't see the logic in that either.
Virtual XP lets a user use Win XP while checking email using an email
program and other programs running under Win 7.<g,d& r>
But my solution with both computers going simultaneously and linked
together with a KVM, would do that and more besides. Far more in fact.
And you don't have to switch from one operating system to another
since both are running simultaneously. You are obviously talking about
OE. Why bother with OE when Thunderbird will run on a Win7 machine?!
I honestly can't see any advantages to having 2 OS's on the same
machine except saving the footprint of the 2nd machine. But if the 2nd
machine is a laptop it could even be sitting in a drawer. Just make
sure it doesn't get too hot in a confined space! ;-)
-- choro
1. Easy access between file systems
2. No need to have two computers occupying space (and costing money)
3. No tangle of cables with KVM
4. With a virtual machine, simultaneous visibility of both OSes (two
separate computers w/o KVM does this too)
I agree but if you want to use Win XP software on the machine you have
to get out of Win7 and start WinXP (with all the waiting that that
implies), don't you?

Sorry but the KVM route is the one for me, the main advantage being that
both systems can be simultaneously up and running and accessing the one
of the other computer is only a Hot-Key away.

And with a USB link cable connecting the two computers, user files on
any one computer are accessible on the other computer. Just drag and
drop! I've even got one such cable that includes the software on a chip
in that it doesn't need to be "installed" on any of the computers before
it can be used. You just plug it in and it works. It will even link a
Windows and an Apple computer. Brilliant! You can't beat that, can you?

As far as I am concerned a Virtual XP machine is about as attractive as
a virtual woman! But I am willing to learn if I have failed to grasp how
this virtual machine works. Though my understanding is that there ARE
drawbacks. With a KVM there ARE no drawbacks.
-- choro
Char Jackson
2011-12-19 22:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by choro
And with a USB link cable connecting the two computers, user files on
any one computer are accessible on the other computer. Just drag and
drop! I've even got one such cable that includes the software on a chip
in that it doesn't need to be "installed" on any of the computers before
it can be used. You just plug it in and it works. It will even link a
Windows and an Apple computer. Brilliant! You can't beat that, can you?
I think I can beat that. It's called Ethernet. ;-)
Post by choro
As far as I am concerned a Virtual XP machine is about as attractive as
a virtual woman! But I am willing to learn if I have failed to grasp how
this virtual machine works. Though my understanding is that there ARE
drawbacks. With a KVM there ARE no drawbacks.
Yes, there are drawbacks to a KVM. Gene listed several in the post you
replied to.
--
Char Jackson
Gene E. Bloch
2011-12-20 02:56:49 UTC
Permalink
<BIG SNIP>
Post by Gene E. Bloch
Post by choro
Post by John Morrison
Virtual XP lets a user use Win XP while checking email using an email
program and other programs running under Win 7.<g,d& r>
But my solution with both computers going simultaneously and linked
together with a KVM, would do that and more besides. Far more in fact.
And you don't have to switch from one operating system to another
since both are running simultaneously. You are obviously talking about
OE. Why bother with OE when Thunderbird will run on a Win7 machine?!
I honestly can't see any advantages to having 2 OS's on the same
machine except saving the footprint of the 2nd machine. But if the 2nd
machine is a laptop it could even be sitting in a drawer. Just make
sure it doesn't get too hot in a confined space! ;-)
-- choro
1. Easy access between file systems
2. No need to have two computers occupying space (and costing money)
3. No tangle of cables with KVM
4. With a virtual machine, simultaneous visibility of both OSes (two
separate computers w/o KVM does this too)
I agree but if you want to use Win XP software on the machine you have to get
out of Win7 and start WinXP (with all the waiting that that implies), don't
you?
Not in the least. I run XP in a virtual machine and it no more hides
Windows 7 than running a browser in Windows 7 would.

I just click on the XP window to get back to it from Windows 7 and vice
versa, no sweat.

I also just drag a file from an XP directory to a Windows 7 directory
and vice versa, and again no sweat.
Sorry but the KVM route is the one for me, the main advantage being that both
systems can be simultaneously up and running and accessing the one of the
other computer is only a Hot-Key away.
In the VM, they are even closer together and they are simultaneously
visible.
And with a USB link cable connecting the two computers, user files on any one
computer are accessible on the other computer. Just drag and drop! I've even
got one such cable that includes the software on a chip in that it doesn't
need to be "installed" on any of the computers before it can be used. You
just plug it in and it works. It will even link a Windows and an Apple
computer. Brilliant! You can't beat that, can you?
Yes I can. The VM will do all that, even with Windows in a VM on a Mac
(I used to run a Windows VM under Mac OS).
As far as I am concerned a Virtual XP machine is about as attractive as a
virtual woman! But I am willing to learn if I have failed to grasp how this
virtual machine works. Though my understanding is that there ARE drawbacks.
With a KVM there ARE no drawbacks.
-- choro
No drawbacks! Hah! I've used a KVM, and I simply can not agree with
you.

I once used a KVM when I was setting up a new machine to help me figure
out what was on the old machine and get things properly set up on the
new one.

Based on that experience, I can say, in proper engineering technical
lingo, KVM sucks. Now if I can't have the two computers side by side
and separately supplied with peripherals, I do it by putting the old
drive into a USB dock.

But if you wish to continue to torture yourself, I have no intention of
trying to stop you.

The above summary of my experience is for those who are in a position
to decide, not those whose minds are made up (either way!).
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
Char Jackson
2011-12-20 04:33:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:56:49 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
Post by Gene E. Bloch
As far as I am concerned a Virtual XP machine is about as attractive as a
virtual woman! But I am willing to learn if I have failed to grasp how this
virtual machine works. Though my understanding is that there ARE drawbacks.
With a KVM there ARE no drawbacks.
-- choro
No drawbacks! Hah! I've used a KVM, and I simply can not agree with
you.
I once used a KVM when I was setting up a new machine to help me figure
out what was on the old machine and get things properly set up on the
new one.
Based on that experience, I can say, in proper engineering technical
lingo, KVM sucks. Now if I can't have the two computers side by side
and separately supplied with peripherals, I do it by putting the old
drive into a USB dock.
But if you wish to continue to torture yourself, I have no intention of
trying to stop you.
The above summary of my experience is for those who are in a position
to decide, not those whose minds are made up (either way!).
Like you, I have some experience with the KVM situation. I consider it
another tool in my virtual toolbox, to be trotted out when necessary,
but it's never going to be my first choice. I don't find it convenient
at all. Obviously, the mileage of others may vary.
--
Char Jackson
BeeJ
2011-12-20 07:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Virtual is OK for some things but not for others:

1) interfacing hardware (not printers or scanners) - what I do
2) timing considerations - what I do.
3) verify apps I develop run in native XP properly.

The apps I develop are not eMail programs or word processors or spreadsheets
or such that have little timing consequences.

I have hardware devices that require tight timing and direct as possible
hardware interfacing.

My apps run multiple threads and need to get as close the CPU as possible.

It is bad enough to try to troubleshoot apps on XP or Win7 without having to
go through both Win7 and XP.


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ***@netfront.net ---
Gene E. Bloch
2011-12-20 21:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by BeeJ
1) interfacing hardware (not printers or scanners) - what I do
2) timing considerations - what I do.
3) verify apps I develop run in native XP properly.
The apps I develop are not eMail programs or word processors or spreadsheets
or such that have little timing consequences.
I have hardware devices that require tight timing and direct as possible
hardware interfacing.
My apps run multiple threads and need to get as close the CPU as possible.
It is bad enough to try to troubleshoot apps on XP or Win7 without having to
go through both Win7 and XP.
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to
You confused me a bit, but I finally figured out that you *need* items
1, 2, and 3...I first read it that you were listing the OK items, then
realized you were pointing out the others, the ones that are *not* OK
with a VM :-).

Of course, I accept what you say, given your needs, so it looks like I
need to broaden my horizons a bit :-)
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
John Morrison
2011-12-19 23:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by choro
Post by John Morrison
Post by choro
I fail to understand all these more complicated ways of doing things or
do people update their old Windows XP machines to Windows 7? To be
honest I can't see the logic in that either.
Virtual XP lets a user use Win XP while checking email using an email
program and other programs running under Win 7.<g,d& r>
But my solution with both computers going simultaneously and linked
together with a KVM, would do that and more besides. Far more in fact.
And you don't have to switch from one operating system to another since
both are running simultaneously. You are obviously talking about OE. Why
bother with OE when Thunderbird will run on a Win7 machine?!
I use Eudora for email on my Win 7 Ultimate. ;-)
--
John
Alias
2011-12-18 23:49:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf K
IMO, Alias's advice is unnecessarily complicated. It also creates a
problem: OP would have to install a 3rd party boot manager to provide a
convenient choice of boot options. Why do that if W7 provides one
automatically?
No need. I just boot my machine, hit F8, select the drive I want, hit
Enter and that's it. I don't find that to be very complicated or
inconvenient.
--
Alias
Muad'Dib
2011-12-20 22:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alias
Post by Wolf K
IMO, Alias's advice is unnecessarily complicated. It also creates a
problem: OP would have to install a 3rd party boot manager to provide a
convenient choice of boot options. Why do that if W7 provides one
automatically?
No need. I just boot my machine, hit F8, select the drive I want, hit
Enter and that's it. I don't find that to be very complicated or
inconvenient.
I did that with my main computer for a long time before I replaced it.
Just put both drives in the case, only hooked up one, installed the OS I
wanted, disconnected, and connected the second drive and installed the
other OS, reconnect the first drive. Set the default drive I wanted in
Bios to boot first. Later just hitting the F8 key during boot which was
quick I could then choose the secondary drive to boot if I so choose. I
don't see anything complicated about that.

Cheers
Alias
2011-12-21 01:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Muad'Dib
Post by Alias
Post by Wolf K
IMO, Alias's advice is unnecessarily complicated. It also creates a
problem: OP would have to install a 3rd party boot manager to provide a
convenient choice of boot options. Why do that if W7 provides one
automatically?
No need. I just boot my machine, hit F8, select the drive I want, hit
Enter and that's it. I don't find that to be very complicated or
inconvenient.
I did that with my main computer for a long time before I replaced it.
Just put both drives in the case, only hooked up one, installed the OS I
wanted, disconnected, and connected the second drive and installed the
other OS, reconnect the first drive. Set the default drive I wanted in
Bios to boot first. Later just hitting the F8 key during boot which was
quick I could then choose the secondary drive to boot if I so choose. I
don't see anything complicated about that.
Cheers
Well, if you have one or more drives with Linux, it's a good idea to
disconnect all other drives when there's a Grub or Kernel update.
--
Alias
Muad'Dib
2011-12-23 02:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alias
Post by Muad'Dib
Post by Alias
Post by Wolf K
IMO, Alias's advice is unnecessarily complicated. It also creates a
problem: OP would have to install a 3rd party boot manager to provide a
convenient choice of boot options. Why do that if W7 provides one
automatically?
No need. I just boot my machine, hit F8, select the drive I want, hit
Enter and that's it. I don't find that to be very complicated or
inconvenient.
I did that with my main computer for a long time before I replaced it.
Just put both drives in the case, only hooked up one, installed the OS I
wanted, disconnected, and connected the second drive and installed the
other OS, reconnect the first drive. Set the default drive I wanted in
Bios to boot first. Later just hitting the F8 key during boot which was
quick I could then choose the secondary drive to boot if I so choose. I
don't see anything complicated about that.
Cheers
Well, if you have one or more drives with Linux, it's a good idea to
disconnect all other drives when there's a Grub or Kernel update.
Actually I had XP and Vista dual booting on one drive, and Linux all
to it's self on the other. Worked out great. Had a huge failure with, of
course, Vista and that drive, was able to reboot to the Linux drive,
save recent files that hadn't been backed up yet, redo the Winders drive
and restore files. Later after installing Win7 and triple booting I
foolishly wasn't paying attention and allowed Win7 updates to update a
video driver and wound up with the black screen of death which was
unrecoverable. Again booted to the Linux drive, saved files and redid
Win7. I don't multi boot Linux Distros, I run any other Distro in a VM
for evaluation, or install on a test machine if I want real world testing.

On the new main machine I just dual boot Win7 and Linux, and run XP in a
VM in Linux. I just do image backups now and should I have a failure can
just re-image. Lol, yeah got lazy lately, but then I have been so very
busy with other things. I can't tell you when I booted to Win7 last as
if I need to do something only Windows related, I just boot the XP VM,
like when I have to log onto the company business site. Yeah the morons
wrote pages for only MS browsers. Can't even use Firefox when booted to
Winders to view the pages. Goes to show you the lack of, or one sided
training they got. Ah well, at least I don't need to log onto the
site(s) very often.

Cheers
Wolf K
2011-12-18 19:52:32 UTC
Permalink
On 18/12/2011 1:36 PM, BeeJ wrote:
[...]
Post by BeeJ
So far I think I am hearing
install XP Pro first
use one HD for each OS
Yes, that's what I'd recommend. HDDs are cheap. Since you're starting
with a blank box, I'd also recommend RAID 1, which you have to set up
before installing any OS, and which requires a RAID-capable BIOS.

But you can put XP and W7 on different partitions and use the second HD
for backups. NB that the backup utility that comes with W7 refuses to
backup the system to a partition on the same physical drive.
Post by BeeJ
use EasyBCD to boot.
[...]

You don't need it if you have a pure Windows box. Easy BCD is helpful
(but _not_ bullet proof) if you add non-Windows OS.

HTH
Wolf K.
PS: I've now had three desktops with two or more OSs on them.
Dual/multi-boot is a lot simpler than many people think. I also briefly
dual-booted a laptop.
BeeJ
2011-12-18 23:59:20 UTC
Permalink
My BIOS does allow Raid but what is the difference between not using
that and Raid 1?

How difficult is it to set up?
Why use Raid 1?

Thanks!
Wolf K
2011-12-19 00:18:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by BeeJ
My BIOS does allow Raid but what is the difference between not using
that and Raid 1?
How difficult is it to set up?
Why use Raid 1?
Thanks!
Raid is designed to reduce the odds of data loss.

Raid 0: uses a single disk, makes a copy. If the disk fails, you lose
both copies of the data. I don't know why it even exists, it's useless
as mammary equipment on a male bovine.

Raid 1: requires two physical disks, one is a mirror of the other. If
one fails, the OS simply uses the other one. NB that the whole system is
mirrored, OS data and all. This is the one to use if you have a single
machine.

Raid 2 to 5: other schemes of duplicating data over many disks/machines.

Reasoning: if the odds of disk failure are, say, 1:1,000,000, then the
odds of two disks failing simultaneously are 1: 1,000,000,000,000. (This
is basic probability theory). So if you use two (or more) cheap
(=relatively failure prone) disks instead of one (or a few) expensive
(=failure resistant) disk, you have a better chance of preserving your data.

So if you automatically write the same data to two disks, you vastly
improve the odds of saving your data. All server farms use variants of
this scheme (plus hot-swappable disks, so that failed hardware can be
replaced without shutting down the system.)

For more, check Wikipedia. Raid = Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks.

HTH
Wolf K.
Char Jackson
2011-12-19 02:16:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf K
Post by BeeJ
My BIOS does allow Raid but what is the difference between not using
that and Raid 1?
How difficult is it to set up?
Why use Raid 1?
Thanks!
Raid is designed to reduce the odds of data loss.
That, or to provide increased performance.
Post by Wolf K
Raid 0: uses a single disk, makes a copy. If the disk fails, you lose
both copies of the data. I don't know why it even exists, it's useless
as mammary equipment on a male bovine.
<snip>

RAID 0, mirroring or striping blocks of data across multiple drives,
provides improved read/write performance, but it comes at the cost of
higher risk of data loss, as you mentioned above.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID>

I've built many systems, (these are always for others, never for
myself) with RAID 0 arrays for improved system performance. Similar
tricks for maximizing system performance include using 10k RPM drives,
(rather than 7200 or 5400 RPM), and in more recent times, replacing
spinning media with SSD devices.
--
Char Jackson
Wolf K
2011-12-19 03:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Char Jackson
RAID 0, mirroring or striping blocks of data across multiple drives,
provides improved read/write performance, but it comes at the cost of
higher risk of data loss, as you mentioned above.
Oops, my bad, I forgot that Raid 0 can use more than one
drive.Logically, all drives are a single disk, however. If I Recall
Correctly, that is. (I really should read up on this again. ;-o )

Wolf K.
choro
2011-12-19 12:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf K
Post by BeeJ
My BIOS does allow Raid but what is the difference between not using
that and Raid 1?
How difficult is it to set up?
Why use Raid 1?
Thanks!
Raid is designed to reduce the odds of data loss.
Raid 0: uses a single disk, makes a copy. If the disk fails, you lose
both copies of the data. I don't know why it even exists, it's useless
as mammary equipment on a male bovine.
Raid 1: requires two physical disks, one is a mirror of the other. If
one fails, the OS simply uses the other one. NB that the whole system is
mirrored, OS data and all. This is the one to use if you have a single
machine.
Raid 2 to 5: other schemes of duplicating data over many disks/machines.
Reasoning: if the odds of disk failure are, say, 1:1,000,000, then the
odds of two disks failing simultaneously are 1: 1,000,000,000,000. (This
is basic probability theory). So if you use two (or more) cheap
(=relatively failure prone) disks instead of one (or a few) expensive
(=failure resistant) disk, you have a better chance of preserving your data.
So if you automatically write the same data to two disks, you vastly
improve the odds of saving your data. All server farms use variants of
this scheme (plus hot-swappable disks, so that failed hardware can be
replaced without shutting down the system.)
For more, check Wikipedia. Raid = Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks.
HTH
Wolf K.
Excuse me but RAID of any variety is asking for trouble, if you ask me.
The only time RAID can come in useful is if the second HD is a copy of
the first HD. Why not instead clone a copy of your OS and other software
once everything is fully installed (and may be periodic cloning or
backing up to cover yourself for updates) and use xcopy or xxcopy to
copy all your user files to an external 2.5" HD which you just connect
with a USB cable without any resort to mains adaptors etc and which, if
need be, you can pop in your pocket and carry with you?

RAID of all colors is utterly pointless in any case. Just clone your HD
or make a proper back up of it and use the xcopy or xxcopy command to
copy your user files to an external disk drive. Hey, your "external" HD
could even be a 3.5" HD mounted inside a desktop but of course you then
lose the advantage of popping it into your pocket and taking it with
you. You can't have your cake and it it too, you know!

Our motto in life should always be "KIS" or "Keep It Simple"...
-- choro
Gene E. Bloch
2011-12-19 18:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Raid 1: requires two physical disks, one is a mirror of the other. If one
fails, the OS simply uses the other one. NB that the whole system is
mirrored, OS data and all. This is the one to use if you have a single
machine.
Raid 2 to 5: other schemes of duplicating data over many disks/machines.
Reasoning: if the odds of disk failure are, say, 1:1,000,000, then the odds
of two disks failing simultaneously are 1: 1,000,000,000,000. (This is basic
probability theory). So if you use two (or more) cheap (=relatively failure
prone) disks instead of one (or a few) expensive (=failure resistant) disk,
you have a better chance of preserving your data.
That is only true if the failures are truly random. However, in
addition to random drive failures, lightning strikes, power surges,
fires, theft, and malware will affect both drives. Not to mention
seizure by the police :-)

Especially malware. Under mirroring, anything written to drive 0 is
simultaneously written to drive 1. Thus the infection is propagated...

So the odds are better, but not nearly as much as you state. As for
calculating the difference: I'm OK at probabliity, but my skills fail
me here :-)
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
Char Jackson
2011-12-19 19:28:38 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:58:14 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
Post by Gene E. Bloch
Reasoning: if the odds of disk failure are, say, 1:1,000,000, then the odds
of two disks failing simultaneously are 1: 1,000,000,000,000. (This is basic
probability theory). So if you use two (or more) cheap (=relatively failure
prone) disks instead of one (or a few) expensive (=failure resistant) disk,
you have a better chance of preserving your data.
That is only true if the failures are truly random. However, in
addition to random drive failures, lightning strikes, power surges,
fires, theft, and malware will affect both drives. Not to mention
seizure by the police :-)
Wait, what? The police won't let me break the RAID mirror and keep one
of the drives while they seize everything else? I better get a new
strategy... :-)
--
Char Jackson
Gene E. Bloch
2011-12-20 02:58:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Char Jackson
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:58:14 -0800, Gene E. Bloch
Post by Gene E. Bloch
Reasoning: if the odds of disk failure are, say, 1:1,000,000, then the odds
of two disks failing simultaneously are 1: 1,000,000,000,000. (This is
basic probability theory). So if you use two (or more) cheap (=relatively
failure prone) disks instead of one (or a few) expensive (=failure
resistant) disk, you have a better chance of preserving your data.
That is only true if the failures are truly random. However, in
addition to random drive failures, lightning strikes, power surges,
fires, theft, and malware will affect both drives. Not to mention
seizure by the police :-)
Wait, what? The police won't let me break the RAID mirror and keep one
of the drives while they seize everything else? I better get a new
strategy... :-)
Paint the second drive wiht invisible ink...
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
choro
2011-12-19 21:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf K
Raid 1: requires two physical disks, one is a mirror of the other. If
one fails, the OS simply uses the other one. NB that the whole system
is mirrored, OS data and all. This is the one to use if you have a
single machine.
Raid 2 to 5: other schemes of duplicating data over many disks/machines.
Reasoning: if the odds of disk failure are, say, 1:1,000,000, then the
odds of two disks failing simultaneously are 1: 1,000,000,000,000.
(This is basic probability theory). So if you use two (or more) cheap
(=relatively failure prone) disks instead of one (or a few) expensive
(=failure resistant) disk, you have a better chance of preserving your data.
That is only true if the failures are truly random. However, in addition
to random drive failures, lightning strikes, power surges, fires, theft,
and malware will affect both drives. Not to mention seizure by the
police :-)
Especially malware. Under mirroring, anything written to drive 0 is
simultaneously written to drive 1. Thus the infection is propagated...
So the odds are better, but not nearly as much as you state. As for
calculating the difference: I'm OK at probabliity, but my skills fail me
here :-)
I thought RAID was just a passing fad at least for home computers. I see
that it is still around. Give me an external disk any day even if it is
mounted inside the case! I didn't even bother to find out whether my new
Win7 machine's mobo has got the RAID facility. Bloody waste of time, if
you ask me.

My advice to people, for what it's worth, is to make use of xxcopy, a
freeware that is far more flexible than xcopy that comes with Windows.

Remember to KIS = Keep It Simple!
-- choro
R. C. White
2011-12-19 03:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Hi, BeeJ.

RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive - or Independent - Disks) always
requires two or more HDDs, and it's best if all disks in the array are
identical, or at least have the same capacities.

My experience with RAID is limited to RAID 1, which is essentially the
hardware equivalent of a software "mirror": Everything that the operating
system writes to the first disk is also written immediately to the second
disk. If either disk fails, it can be replaced and the system will rebuild
the array from the contents of the good disk. After the one disk fails, you
can continue to use the files on the good disk as a single disk as before
until - and while - the array is rebuilt. (Yes, this happened to me and it
validated - for me - the strategy of having the redundant disks. This was
less traumatic - almost painless - compared to my loss of a single disk full
of files several years ago.)

After using RAID 1 on a pair of 300 GB disks for a couple of years, I bought
a second 1 TB disk to match one that I was already using and tried to move
my RAID to the pair of big disks. But I got a new mobo with a new BIOS at
about the same time; the new BIOS supported RAID, but making the transition
got so complicated that I gave up. I moved the contents of one 300 GB disk
to one of the TB disks and had Disk Management create a software mirror on
the second TB disk. In the olden days (I've heard), the hardware RAID
mirror was better, but with Win7, the software mirror works fine.

While I haven't used RAID 0, I've read about it in many places; just Bingle
for RAID and you'll find more than you can digest in a month! RAID 0
("striping") writes only HALF of each file to each disk, so if you lose one
disk, you've lost the whole file. Striping writes the first sector of a
file to Disk 0, the second sector to Disk 1, the third sector back to Disk
0, the fourth to Disk 1...etc. This makes reading/writing go faster because
the two sets of read/write heads on the two disks can both be reading and
writing at the same time, dramatically improving performance. But if you
lose either disk, you have only disjointed segments of a program or data
file - or of the operating system itself. In other words, if one disk dies,
both are worthless and their contents have to be rebuilt from scratch - ALL
of it!

In short, striping (RAID 0) doubles disk read/write speeds - but also
doubles risk of losing everything. Mirroring (RAID 1 or software) provides
significant (but not complete!) protection from data loss, but doubles the
cost of storage.

Other RAID schemes (RAID 5, for example) combine these concepts, but I've
never used them and can't comment on them.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
***@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2011 (Build 15.4.3538.0513) in Win7 Ultimate x64 SP1


"BeeJ" wrote in message news:jcluop$v06$***@speranza.aioe.org...

My BIOS does allow Raid but what is the difference between not using
that and Raid 1?

How difficult is it to set up?
Why use Raid 1?

Thanks!
Allen Drake
2011-12-19 09:00:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf K
[...]
Post by BeeJ
So far I think I am hearing
install XP Pro first
use one HD for each OS
Yes, that's what I'd recommend. HDDs are cheap. Since you're starting
with a blank box, I'd also recommend RAID 1, which you have to set up
before installing any OS, and which requires a RAID-capable BIOS.
But you can put XP and W7 on different partitions and use the second HD
for backups. NB that the backup utility that comes with W7 refuses to
backup the system to a partition on the same physical drive.
Post by BeeJ
use EasyBCD to boot.
[...]
You don't need it if you have a pure Windows box. Easy BCD is helpful
(but _not_ bullet proof) if you add non-Windows OS.
HTH
Wolf K.
PS: I've now had three desktops with two or more OSs on them.
Dual/multi-boot is a lot simpler than many people think. I also briefly
dual-booted a laptop.
What does "not bullet proof" mean". Does it have any bugs? The OP
asked about booting into two Windows OSes and nothing about
non-Windows. My guess it no one in this tread has deven tried EasyBCD.
If they had they would see the ease and simplicity. It boots to a menu
and waits as long as you tell it to for you to hit one key.

I have it on 3 systems and who said it doesn't boot to non-Windows?

http://neosmart.net/wiki/display/EBCD/EasyBCD+Documentation+Home;jsessionid=D999A9AED09BDF14EE6EF8C0AB0979AF


What is EasyBCD ®Anyway?

It all depends on who you ask or what you want to get done, but
•EasyBCD is NeoSmart Technologies 100% free Windows bootloader (BCD)
modification tool.
•A way to get your Windows Vista or Windows 7 working with Linux, BSD,
Mac OS X, and dozens more operating systems without a headache!
•An IT Guy's number 1 bootloader-troubleshooting tool.
•A multiple award-winning application, used and recommended by the
folks at Microsoft, PC World and more!
•The easiest way of booting from virtual disks, ISO images, network
devices, or USB disks!
•The best way to do just about anything with Windows Vista/7 before it
even turns on!

That's just the tip of the iceberg though. You should read the FAQ for
more info. Also, take a look at the Multibooters' Guide for a
down-to-earth explanation of what multi-booting is and how it works.

What Does EasyBCD Do? Why Should I Use It?

Well, no one says you have to use EasyBCD, but Microsoft's made it
very clear that they're not releasing anything other than the
command-line (and poorly supported/documented) bcdedit.exe for editing
the bootloader. Plus, the guys at Microsoft, Google, PC World, PC
Magazine, and many others use EasyBCD as their Vista BCD tool of
choice. Why shouldn't you join in the fun? After all, not like it
costs anything!

To get started, take a look at our list of Supported Operating
Systems, check out the FAQ, or jump right into our detailed
documentation for booting into just about anything from A to Z!
Paul
2011-12-19 10:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Allen Drake
Post by Wolf K
[...]
Post by BeeJ
So far I think I am hearing
install XP Pro first
use one HD for each OS
Yes, that's what I'd recommend. HDDs are cheap. Since you're starting
with a blank box, I'd also recommend RAID 1, which you have to set up
before installing any OS, and which requires a RAID-capable BIOS.
But you can put XP and W7 on different partitions and use the second HD
for backups. NB that the backup utility that comes with W7 refuses to
backup the system to a partition on the same physical drive.
Post by BeeJ
use EasyBCD to boot.
[...]
You don't need it if you have a pure Windows box. Easy BCD is helpful
(but _not_ bullet proof) if you add non-Windows OS.
HTH
Wolf K.
PS: I've now had three desktops with two or more OSs on them.
Dual/multi-boot is a lot simpler than many people think. I also briefly
dual-booted a laptop.
What does "not bullet proof" mean". Does it have any bugs? The OP
asked about booting into two Windows OSes and nothing about
non-Windows. My guess it no one in this tread has deven tried EasyBCD.
If they had they would see the ease and simplicity. It boots to a menu
and waits as long as you tell it to for you to hit one key.
I have it on 3 systems and who said it doesn't boot to non-Windows?
http://neosmart.net/wiki/display/EBCD/EasyBCD+Documentation+Home;jsessionid=D999A9AED09BDF14EE6EF8C0AB0979AF
What is EasyBCD ®Anyway?
It all depends on who you ask or what you want to get done, but
•EasyBCD is NeoSmart Technologies 100% free Windows bootloader (BCD)
modification tool.
•A way to get your Windows Vista or Windows 7 working with Linux, BSD,
Mac OS X, and dozens more operating systems without a headache!
•An IT Guy's number 1 bootloader-troubleshooting tool.
•A multiple award-winning application, used and recommended by the
folks at Microsoft, PC World and more!
•The easiest way of booting from virtual disks, ISO images, network
devices, or USB disks!
•The best way to do just about anything with Windows Vista/7 before it
even turns on!
That's just the tip of the iceberg though. You should read the FAQ for
more info. Also, take a look at the Multibooters' Guide for a
down-to-earth explanation of what multi-booting is and how it works.
What Does EasyBCD Do? Why Should I Use It?
Well, no one says you have to use EasyBCD, but Microsoft's made it
very clear that they're not releasing anything other than the
command-line (and poorly supported/documented) bcdedit.exe for editing
the bootloader. Plus, the guys at Microsoft, Google, PC World, PC
Magazine, and many others use EasyBCD as their Vista BCD tool of
choice. Why shouldn't you join in the fun? After all, not like it
costs anything!
To get started, take a look at our list of Supported Operating
Systems, check out the FAQ, or jump right into our detailed
documentation for booting into just about anything from A to Z!
I don't think that's the issue at all.

Setting up the initial boot configuration is not a big deal.
Making modifications with EasyBCD is not a big deal either.
Wiring together your config, using bubble gum and binder twine
isn't the issue either. If you wanted to manage booting via
GRUB, I'm sure that would work.

What is a big deal, is how safe it is to mix WinXP, Win7, and
Linux at the same time. I've "broken" Win7 twice now, one time
repaired by the built-in boot repair facility, the second time,
really broken and requiring recovery from a system image backup.

The issue is, the design of the NTFS file system on the Win7 C: partition,
and what operations are or aren't safe. An obvious issue,
is leaving System Restore enabled on WinXP. But even probing the
Win7 C: partition from Linux, can have unintended consequences.
I think I might have deleted a couple trivial data files while
running Linux, and then Win7 wouldn't boot on the next attempt.

On my current system, mixing Win2K, WinXP, Linux, I never have
problems like that. On a system with Win7 added to the mix,
I've had problems keeping Win7 running.

So I wouldn't be too glib about success formulas. There is still
a need to be careful. And for my own personal usage, I still
don't have what I consider to be "safe enough" handling
procedures. For example, if I need to do maintenance from
Linux, I've resorted to using Knoppix 5.3.1 DVD, because
it mounts Windows partitions "read only" by default. Many
other Linux LiveCDs will tempt you by mounting read/write,
and then there is a possibility when you make even a couple
file changes to the NTFS C: partition of Win7, it'll be broken
again.

So sure, dual boot, multiboot, but make a system image every
week of Win7 C: and SYSTEM RESERVED partitions, using the
build-in Win7 capability, and store in a safe place. I'm glad
I did that. I've had problems, but I recovered from them.

If you make the C: partition on Win7 relatively small, and store
user data on a separate partition, that makes it easier to give
C: a few more backups than normal. I've never had a problem
with the data partition on my Win7 setup. It's the C: that
is sensitive to behind-the-scenes activities.

And I haven't methodically examined the issues, because
my setup isn't flexible enough to do that in a reasonably
short time period. I'm discovering these issues just as a
part of normal activities.

The items you want, are "Create a system image" and "Create a
system repair disc". The latter one, if you have a laptop with
pre-installed Win7, and don't have a regular installer DVD to
boot from. The "system repair disk" is a couple hundred MB and
allows booting from a CD, to copy back the system image and
fix C: again. You store the resulting system image, on an
external disk, for safety.

Loading Image...

If you install Win7 without Service Pack, then I'd also
recommend doing the System Image, before installing SP1.
Again, just for safety. The Service Pack will back itself
out, if it detects problems during the install attempt.
But if the SP1 has a problem on the first reboot, then
you could be screwed. (That's because, the installer
considers the job "finished". And if you can't boot at
that point, you'll need to restore from backup. The
installer logic is great, if it detects a problem
during the actual installation part.)

Paul
Allen Drake
2011-12-19 20:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul
Post by Allen Drake
Post by Wolf K
[...]
Post by BeeJ
So far I think I am hearing
install XP Pro first
use one HD for each OS
Yes, that's what I'd recommend. HDDs are cheap. Since you're starting
with a blank box, I'd also recommend RAID 1, which you have to set up
before installing any OS, and which requires a RAID-capable BIOS.
But you can put XP and W7 on different partitions and use the second HD
for backups. NB that the backup utility that comes with W7 refuses to
backup the system to a partition on the same physical drive.
Post by BeeJ
use EasyBCD to boot.
[...]
You don't need it if you have a pure Windows box. Easy BCD is helpful
(but _not_ bullet proof) if you add non-Windows OS.
HTH
Wolf K.
PS: I've now had three desktops with two or more OSs on them.
Dual/multi-boot is a lot simpler than many people think. I also briefly
dual-booted a laptop.
What does "not bullet proof" mean". Does it have any bugs? The OP
asked about booting into two Windows OSes and nothing about
non-Windows. My guess it no one in this tread has deven tried EasyBCD.
If they had they would see the ease and simplicity. It boots to a menu
and waits as long as you tell it to for you to hit one key.
I have it on 3 systems and who said it doesn't boot to non-Windows?
http://neosmart.net/wiki/display/EBCD/EasyBCD+Documentation+Home;jsessionid=D999A9AED09BDF14EE6EF8C0AB0979AF
What is EasyBCD ®Anyway?
It all depends on who you ask or what you want to get done, but
•EasyBCD is NeoSmart Technologies 100% free Windows bootloader (BCD)
modification tool.
•A way to get your Windows Vista or Windows 7 working with Linux, BSD,
Mac OS X, and dozens more operating systems without a headache!
•An IT Guy's number 1 bootloader-troubleshooting tool.
•A multiple award-winning application, used and recommended by the
folks at Microsoft, PC World and more!
•The easiest way of booting from virtual disks, ISO images, network
devices, or USB disks!
•The best way to do just about anything with Windows Vista/7 before it
even turns on!
That's just the tip of the iceberg though. You should read the FAQ for
more info. Also, take a look at the Multibooters' Guide for a
down-to-earth explanation of what multi-booting is and how it works.
What Does EasyBCD Do? Why Should I Use It?
Well, no one says you have to use EasyBCD, but Microsoft's made it
very clear that they're not releasing anything other than the
command-line (and poorly supported/documented) bcdedit.exe for editing
the bootloader. Plus, the guys at Microsoft, Google, PC World, PC
Magazine, and many others use EasyBCD as their Vista BCD tool of
choice. Why shouldn't you join in the fun? After all, not like it
costs anything!
To get started, take a look at our list of Supported Operating
Systems, check out the FAQ, or jump right into our detailed
documentation for booting into just about anything from A to Z!
I don't think that's the issue at all.
Setting up the initial boot configuration is not a big deal.
Making modifications with EasyBCD is not a big deal either.
Wiring together your config, using bubble gum and binder twine
isn't the issue either. If you wanted to manage booting via
GRUB, I'm sure that would work.
What is a big deal, is how safe it is to mix WinXP, Win7, and
Linux at the same time. I've "broken" Win7 twice now, one time
repaired by the built-in boot repair facility, the second time,
really broken and requiring recovery from a system image backup.
The issue is, the design of the NTFS file system on the Win7 C: partition,
and what operations are or aren't safe. An obvious issue,
is leaving System Restore enabled on WinXP. But even probing the
Win7 C: partition from Linux, can have unintended consequences.
I think I might have deleted a couple trivial data files while
running Linux, and then Win7 wouldn't boot on the next attempt.
On my current system, mixing Win2K, WinXP, Linux, I never have
problems like that. On a system with Win7 added to the mix,
I've had problems keeping Win7 running.
So I wouldn't be too glib about success formulas. There is still
a need to be careful. And for my own personal usage, I still
don't have what I consider to be "safe enough" handling
procedures. For example, if I need to do maintenance from
Linux, I've resorted to using Knoppix 5.3.1 DVD, because
it mounts Windows partitions "read only" by default. Many
other Linux LiveCDs will tempt you by mounting read/write,
and then there is a possibility when you make even a couple
file changes to the NTFS C: partition of Win7, it'll be broken
again.
So sure, dual boot, multiboot, but make a system image every
week of Win7 C: and SYSTEM RESERVED partitions, using the
build-in Win7 capability, and store in a safe place. I'm glad
I did that. I've had problems, but I recovered from them.
If you make the C: partition on Win7 relatively small, and store
user data on a separate partition, that makes it easier to give
C: a few more backups than normal. I've never had a problem
with the data partition on my Win7 setup. It's the C: that
is sensitive to behind-the-scenes activities.
For all the examples you have mentioned and more is why I use SSDs on
all my systems solely for the OS and data on separate drives. Sure I
used to use large drives and ran into large problems. I don't
partition any of my drives other the one each. I never use one drive
for more than one OS. Cloning an SSD is quick and clean and can be
done faster then a virus scan. Replacing that drive with the last BU
is many times faster then debugging SW issues.
Post by Paul
And I haven't methodically examined the issues, because
my setup isn't flexible enough to do that in a reasonably
short time period. I'm discovering these issues just as a
part of normal activities.
The items you want, are "Create a system image" and "Create a
system repair disc". The latter one, if you have a laptop with
pre-installed Win7, and don't have a regular installer DVD to
boot from. The "system repair disk" is a couple hundred MB and
allows booting from a CD, to copy back the system image and
fix C: again. You store the resulting system image, on an
external disk, for safety.
http://www.pcfeeder.com/images/stories/W7_Backup_PC_Create_System_Image/Windows7_Create_System_Image_1.png
If you install Win7 without Service Pack, then I'd also
recommend doing the System Image, before installing SP1.
Again, just for safety. The Service Pack will back itself
out, if it detects problems during the install attempt.
But if the SP1 has a problem on the first reboot, then
you could be screwed. (That's because, the installer
considers the job "finished". And if you can't boot at
that point, you'll need to restore from backup. The
installer logic is great, if it detects a problem
during the actual installation part.)
Paul
Thanks for all that but I doubt it will stop me from using EasyBCD
and iBoot. I have had no problems in all the time I have had several
systems configured in this manner.
Wolf K
2011-12-19 13:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Allen Drake
Post by Wolf K
[...]
Post by BeeJ
So far I think I am hearing
install XP Pro first
use one HD for each OS
Yes, that's what I'd recommend. HDDs are cheap. Since you're starting
with a blank box, I'd also recommend RAID 1, which you have to set up
before installing any OS, and which requires a RAID-capable BIOS.
But you can put XP and W7 on different partitions and use the second HD
for backups. NB that the backup utility that comes with W7 refuses to
backup the system to a partition on the same physical drive.
Post by BeeJ
use EasyBCD to boot.
[...]
You don't need it if you have a pure Windows box. Easy BCD is helpful
(but_not_ bullet proof) if you add non-Windows OS.
HTH
Wolf K.
PS: I've now had three desktops with two or more OSs on them.
Dual/multi-boot is a lot simpler than many people think. I also briefly
dual-booted a laptop.
What does "not bullet proof" mean". Does it have any bugs?
About 18 months ago, I tried it with XP and Linux (Ubuntu). It wouldn't
boot Ubuntu, although it supposedly "saw" the OS. I never could get it
to work. Trashed it, reinstalled Ubu (a 5 minute job), and Linux's
bootmanager (grub) worked just fine.

HTH,
Wolf K.
Allen Drake
2011-12-19 20:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf K
Post by Allen Drake
Post by Wolf K
[...]
Post by BeeJ
So far I think I am hearing
install XP Pro first
use one HD for each OS
Yes, that's what I'd recommend. HDDs are cheap. Since you're starting
with a blank box, I'd also recommend RAID 1, which you have to set up
before installing any OS, and which requires a RAID-capable BIOS.
But you can put XP and W7 on different partitions and use the second HD
for backups. NB that the backup utility that comes with W7 refuses to
backup the system to a partition on the same physical drive.
Post by BeeJ
use EasyBCD to boot.
[...]
You don't need it if you have a pure Windows box. Easy BCD is helpful
(but_not_ bullet proof) if you add non-Windows OS.
HTH
Wolf K.
PS: I've now had three desktops with two or more OSs on them.
Dual/multi-boot is a lot simpler than many people think. I also briefly
dual-booted a laptop.
What does "not bullet proof" mean". Does it have any bugs?
About 18 months ago, I tried it with XP and Linux (Ubuntu). It wouldn't
boot Ubuntu, although it supposedly "saw" the OS. I never could get it
to work. Trashed it, reinstalled Ubu (a 5 minute job), and Linux's
bootmanager (grub) worked just fine.
HTH,
Wolf K.
Ok, so let me ask you this and maybe you can speak for others for a
moment. I have never used Linux although my brother runs it
exclusively, why the need for it if you find WindowsX fulfills your
needs. If not then what can you do with Linux that WinX can not. I am
always looking to try something new and useful but just haven't had
any complaints about what I have to far. The only reason I still hang
on to Windows XP is I have applications and systems that still run
fine and don't feel like bloating Win7. Actually that is why I have
several systems in the first place. Each one is have different
applications and totally different uses.

The only reason I have dual boot is because the XP and 7 systems are
so closely tied. If I were to install Linux I would just build another
machine.

Thanks for any tips.

Al
Wolf K
2011-12-20 01:05:21 UTC
Permalink
On 19/12/2011 3:40 PM, Allen Drake wrote:
[...]
Post by Allen Drake
Post by Wolf K
About 18 months ago, I tried it with XP and Linux (Ubuntu). It wouldn't
boot Ubuntu, although it supposedly "saw" the OS. I never could get it
to work. Trashed it, reinstalled Ubu (a 5 minute job), and Linux's
bootmanager (grub) worked just fine.
HTH,
Wolf K.
Ok, so let me ask you this and maybe you can speak for others for a
moment. I have never used Linux although my brother runs it
exclusively, why the need for it if you find WindowsX fulfills your
needs. If not then what can you do with Linux that WinX can not. I am
always looking to try something new and useful but just haven't had
any complaints about what I have to far. The only reason I still hang
on to Windows XP is I have applications and systems that still run
fine and don't feel like bloating Win7. Actually that is why I have
several systems in the first place. Each one is have different
applications and totally different uses.
The only reason I have dual boot is because the XP and 7 systems are
so closely tied. If I were to install Linux I would just build another
machine.
Thanks for any tips.
Al
Well, computers are as much a hobby as a tool for me, so I've been
trying out/playing with Linux for quite a while. ;-)

IMO there are two reasons to use Linux (but I don't think either is
compelling, an opinion that brought down the wrath of the most extreme
Lindroids in a newsgroup I no longer subscribe to):

a) security if you intend to use public wi-fi while travelling;
b) extending the life of old hardware well past its best before date.

My comments, in no particular order, and of varying relevance.:

There's nothing you can do on Linux that you can't do on Windows. And
many of the things you can do on Windows (or OS-X) you can't do as well
or as easily or as auto-magically on Linux. The basics are the same:
browsing, e-mail, writing, simple image processing, playing music or
movies, and so on are equally well supported on all current platforms.
In fact, pretty well all the best free, open source software comes in
Windows, OS-X, and Linux versions. ;-). But once you get beyond the
basics, Linux falls behind Windows. If you play high-end games, Windows
is your only choice. For heavy duty media-creation, stick with Macs.

That being said, there is one (IMO great) advantage: Linux is much more
secure against direct attacks and malware. (Basically, it's matter of
strictly enforced permission levels: e.g., you can't simply "continue"
when attempting a system-level task, as you can with Windows). This is
the reason I've installed LinuxMint on a five-year-old laptop, which we
take with us when we travel. It's more secure in public wi-fi hotspots.
It runs Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office, and few other useful apps
without a hitch. And it's faster than the XP it replaced.

Many Linux advocates point to the fact that Linux is free. True, but
that comes at a cost: an enormous amount of (IMO pointless) variation.
There are upwards of 600 "distros" (versions) of Linux. Most are merely
the OS plus a bundle of software, but there are real differences between
the four or five major versions, enough that some software written for
(and tuned to) one version won't be happy running on another.

Much of the development of Linux is done by volunteers, who tend to
follow their own agendas. One result is that there may be drivers for
the latest most esoteric hardware out there, but not for the current
plain-vanilla stuff sold at big-box stores. OTOH, there are also likely
to be well-functioning drivers for older equipment that is no longer
supported for the current versions of Windows. If you are still running
W95, I think you'd do better with Linux. If you're willing a to learn
some new software, that is.

This insistence on "freedom" has fractured the Linux community: there
are many who sneer at Ubuntu, because its developers are trying to make
a Linux machine as easy to use as a Windows or a Mac. Too little, too
late, unfortunately. Linux is an also-ran on the desktop and laptop.

There is one application for which Linux (and Unix in general) is
superior: network server. One friend who's used Linux as his business
servers since the early days leaves his machines up 24/7/365. Most of
the server farms you access when you go on line run on Unix or Linux.
But that's a long way from home computing.

And there is another application for which Linux's lean mean design, and
stability, have made it the OS of choice: Android is a Linux derivative.
MS is trying to beat Android by developing W8 as a both/and OS: lean
enough to run a phone or tablet, yet extensible enough to make it a
powerful PC OS. Of it succeeds, we're in for an exciting time as the
size/power ratio will change by an order of magnitude or two.

Hope this has been of interest,
Wolf K.
Gene E. Bloch
2011-12-20 03:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf K
Hope this has been of interest,
Very much so.

Thankee.
--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
Allen Drake
2011-12-20 20:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wolf K
[...]
Post by Allen Drake
Post by Wolf K
About 18 months ago, I tried it with XP and Linux (Ubuntu). It wouldn't
boot Ubuntu, although it supposedly "saw" the OS. I never could get it
to work. Trashed it, reinstalled Ubu (a 5 minute job), and Linux's
bootmanager (grub) worked just fine.
HTH,
Wolf K.
Ok, so let me ask you this and maybe you can speak for others for a
moment. I have never used Linux although my brother runs it
exclusively, why the need for it if you find WindowsX fulfills your
needs. If not then what can you do with Linux that WinX can not. I am
always looking to try something new and useful but just haven't had
any complaints about what I have to far. The only reason I still hang
on to Windows XP is I have applications and systems that still run
fine and don't feel like bloating Win7. Actually that is why I have
several systems in the first place. Each one is have different
applications and totally different uses.
The only reason I have dual boot is because the XP and 7 systems are
so closely tied. If I were to install Linux I would just build another
machine.
Thanks for any tips.
Al
Well, computers are as much a hobby as a tool for me, so I've been
trying out/playing with Linux for quite a while. ;-)
IMO there are two reasons to use Linux (but I don't think either is
compelling, an opinion that brought down the wrath of the most extreme
a) security if you intend to use public wi-fi while travelling;
b) extending the life of old hardware well past its best before date.
There's nothing you can do on Linux that you can't do on Windows. And
many of the things you can do on Windows (or OS-X) you can't do as well
browsing, e-mail, writing, simple image processing, playing music or
movies, and so on are equally well supported on all current platforms.
In fact, pretty well all the best free, open source software comes in
Windows, OS-X, and Linux versions. ;-). But once you get beyond the
basics, Linux falls behind Windows. If you play high-end games, Windows
is your only choice. For heavy duty media-creation, stick with Macs.
That being said, there is one (IMO great) advantage: Linux is much more
secure against direct attacks and malware. (Basically, it's matter of
strictly enforced permission levels: e.g., you can't simply "continue"
when attempting a system-level task, as you can with Windows). This is
the reason I've installed LinuxMint on a five-year-old laptop, which we
take with us when we travel. It's more secure in public wi-fi hotspots.
It runs Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office, and few other useful apps
without a hitch. And it's faster than the XP it replaced.
Many Linux advocates point to the fact that Linux is free. True, but
that comes at a cost: an enormous amount of (IMO pointless) variation.
There are upwards of 600 "distros" (versions) of Linux. Most are merely
the OS plus a bundle of software, but there are real differences between
the four or five major versions, enough that some software written for
(and tuned to) one version won't be happy running on another.
Much of the development of Linux is done by volunteers, who tend to
follow their own agendas. One result is that there may be drivers for
the latest most esoteric hardware out there, but not for the current
plain-vanilla stuff sold at big-box stores. OTOH, there are also likely
to be well-functioning drivers for older equipment that is no longer
supported for the current versions of Windows. If you are still running
W95, I think you'd do better with Linux. If you're willing a to learn
some new software, that is.
This insistence on "freedom" has fractured the Linux community: there
are many who sneer at Ubuntu, because its developers are trying to make
a Linux machine as easy to use as a Windows or a Mac. Too little, too
late, unfortunately. Linux is an also-ran on the desktop and laptop.
There is one application for which Linux (and Unix in general) is
superior: network server. One friend who's used Linux as his business
servers since the early days leaves his machines up 24/7/365. Most of
the server farms you access when you go on line run on Unix or Linux.
But that's a long way from home computing.
And there is another application for which Linux's lean mean design, and
stability, have made it the OS of choice: Android is a Linux derivative.
MS is trying to beat Android by developing W8 as a both/and OS: lean
enough to run a phone or tablet, yet extensible enough to make it a
powerful PC OS. Of it succeeds, we're in for an exciting time as the
size/power ratio will change by an order of magnitude or two.
Hope this has been of interest,
Wolf K.
Great post. Thank you very much. I guess I am off now to put together
a Linux system. Actually I am in the middle of two right now. Three if
you count the my last build just sitting here moving dust around.

I was going to ask some questions about what's the best this and
what's the best that to get me running and become familiar with Linux
but maybe I will wait and not hijack this thread.

Thanks again.

Al.
Wolf K
2011-12-18 19:34:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by BeeJ
I have a new PC with a blank 500G hard disk.
I have legal copies of Win7 pro and XP Pro.
I want to create a dual boot PC, 250G and 250G on the 500G hard disk.
Can someone give me step by step procedure to create this dual boot PC
or a link that explains.
NO I do not want a Win7 with Virtual XP so do not bother with that.
NO I do not want to use Win7 compatibility so do not bother with that!
Why, I an doing direct hardware interfacing and want no additional OS
code in the way so I want pure XP Pro and pure Win7 Pro.
Thanks in advance.
Install XP first, then Win 7. W7 will ask whether you want to keep the
older version of Windows, say yes, and then follow the prompts.

Tip: create two system partitions, and at least one common data
partition, say 100/100/300. Install as much of the same software on each
system as possible. W7 will run most 32-bit software without a problem,
even if it was originally written for XP. That way, you won't need to
switch OSs as often.

FWIW, I have XP on this box because there's no W7 driver for my ancient
but extremely reliable and cheap- to-operate b/w laser printer. I don't
store any data on the system partitions. I have three physical disks, I
use one for backup.

HTH
Wolf K.
Loading...