Dual Boot the way forward?

[freddie]

This post I thought deserved it's own thread.

is dual booting's a good idea? I was wondering what OS to use, I've just ordered parts for a new computer inc 4gb of RAM - so if I wanted to use all of that it'd be a 64bit OS. Now I realise Vista is the way to go for 64bit......but just for familiarity I wanted XP and because I'll have 750gb hard disk space i thought dual boot makes sense as it'll take up little of that space and I can get rid of one of them if I don't need it or hate it!

32bit XP - get the machine running and see if I can get a mild overclock. Then add Vista x64 to it. Is it as easy as some web sites say? eg.

How to dual-boot Vista with XP - step-by-step guide with screenshots | APC Magazine

or

How to Dual Boot XP and Vista with XP Installed First » Raymond.CC Blog

or are there better guides out there? also when i do this will i need to load programs twice - ie for each OS seperately?

thanks

[kalniel]

I answered this in your other thread. But yes, it's really simple. Just install the older OS first. You will need to load programs twice if they interact with the OS (registry, start menu etc.) but if they are completely stand alone then you can just have them in one location and create shortcuts if you want to launch them from the menu/desktop.

[freddie]

ah thanks for the reply, sometimes i wonder if things can really be that simple!

i'm just reading anandtechs take on vista sp1 which has gone gold. it seems to be alright!

[peterb]

I'm not sure if dual boot is the way forward, or VMware - provided you have lots of memory and a fast processor. Then you have both OS's running together - just switch from one to the other as required.

[will101]

The guide you mentioned here worked very well for me even on a Raid 0 setup. I'd advise to install XP first as then the currently running OS will always be C:\

Also I'd recommend using XP 32bit as yr other OS if yr also going to use Vista x64. I used the x64 versions of both and a lot of legacy things that don't run in Vista don't support XP x64 either :-/

Vista though is absolutely fine now for everything I need to do except make a USB recovery stick for my Eee PC. (2 and counting!) Drivers, software, everything. I even played with media portal on it the other week which is pretty darn good as it's open sauce...

[fuddam]

I already have vista64 installed, but have found some nikon software I need urgently to run on my laptop will only cope with XP. I really don't want to format, install XP, then again put on vista

any advice about creating a dual boot / using vmware (complete noob there) when vista is already installed?

TIA

[Oldjim]

Best explanation I found is here Make your computer dual-boot Vista and XP

[Lucio]

To be honest, I thought I was going to have to dual boot when I first switched to Vista. As it turned out, the software that was supposedly not Vista comptable, was and I'm left with a £50 XP drinks coaster.

Vista does work ok. I'm not sure it's any better than XP, but it's fine.

[Dreaming]

I'm not sure if dual boot is the way forward, or VMware - provided you have lots of memory and a fast processor. Then you have both OS's running together - just switch from one to the other as required.

I think this will be the way forward in the future, with machines running a very basic client hooked up to the internet, you login to a website and download / run your own operating system / desktop at any remote PC. Then logout, and it closes the virtualisation and you're back to a simple tamper roof virus proof OS.

[iranu]

That would also open the way for licensing an application/OS as you use it rather than having to spend cash on one OS then spend again on another disk when you upgrade and have the coaster issue Lucio did. Just having a login that you pay a hourly/monthly/yearly fee for would be simpler and probably more secure and less likely to be pirated.

It's no wonder people illegally download software when a) it's easy to do b) software such as Vista doesn't work with existing hardware and c) it's expensive.

[dangel]

It's no wonder people illegally download software when a) it's easy to do b) software such as Vista doesn't work with existing hardware and c) it's expensive.

And d) Product Activation in a royal pain in the bum for legit users.

[Dreaming]

That would also open the way for licensing an application/OS as you use it rather than having to spend cash on one OS then spend again on another disk when you upgrade and have the coaster issue Lucio did. Just having a login that you pay a hourly/monthly/yearly fee for would be simpler and probably more secure and less likely to be pirated.

It's no wonder people illegally download software when a) it's easy to do b) software such as Vista doesn't work with existing hardware and c) it's expensive.

I tend to divide costs over the length of time they're used for anyway, would be up for monthly subscriptions as it allows more flexibility. I think Windows Vista for me is working out at about £2.87 a month. This is why I try to get software relatively soonish because all software / hardware becomes obsolete at a fixed point of time in the future, so to get the most value out of it (value being some function of utility gained minus cost divided by time), you want to minimise the monthly cost and maximise the utility or something. This is by no means scientific but just something I work by.

So if you get Windows Vista at £70 for 2 years and it costs £3 a month lets say, but you gain a product and capabilities you would pay £10 a month for, you're getting value back of £7 a month. If you wait, the cost goes up and also the amount of extra utility you get overall is reduced. This doesn't take into account the bizarre circumstance where you may lose capabilities that benefit you by going to Vista, it assumes you start with a PC with no OS installed. With XP being roughly the same price there seems no justification for going to XP which will become obselete faster, unless the utility you get back is really massive so will offset the cost of purchasing another licence for Vista in the future.

But broadly speaking Vista is at least equal to XP if not better in most cases so I'm better off. That probably doesn't make loads of sense, but it's how I work things out .

If there was a monthly subscription it would make things much simpler.

[2Cold Scorpio]

OS's should *never* be a monthly subscription. Never. What happens if you can't pay your monthly bill? Well, suddenly, you're locked out of your own PC. I don't think so. I'll pay Uncle Bill his fat lump sum all at once, and be happy knowing it'll work for years. I like knowing that I can pop my Win 98 CD in a system and know it'll work (especially given its not isntalled on any system currently, so the EULA isn't violated). Same with my copy of Windows 2000 and XP Pro (the latter is which I'm using now). The copy of XP Pro I got back in 2002 was used on my laptop (which is now dead, but if it wasn't, I still have its original XP Home OEM disk). Now, can you imagine paying a monthly subscription on a piece of software I've used for nearly *eight* years? At even as low as $10 a month, I'd have spent nearly a thousand dollars on it. And there were plenty of times in those eight years I couldn't have paid the 'monthly fee'.

The idea is asinine. The fact security software companies do it is bad enough. But operating systems and production software (i.e. Office) should *never* have a time limit built onto it.