Is Dual-Booting worth it?

If you do dual boot, make sure only one OS tweaks the DST settings, otherwise they'll cancel eachother out. If you have a 2GHz+ CPU, I'd suggest using VMWare instead, as it lets you run multiple OSes at the same time and without modifing your current filesystem.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

For future reference, ALWAYS install the oldest OS first (on the C: Partition) and the newer OS second (putting it on the D: Partition). This lets the newer OS set up a dual boot, when done the other way around, the older OS usually won't recognize the newer OS and destroy important boot files and information.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Guest

I read about how you should always install the older OS first, so I wasn't supprised when MCE broke. I hate having to reinstall an OS but this was worth it, finally everything is working the way I want it. Theres still some problems with finding drivers for 2000, but at least my games are working and I have the internet on it. Windows 2000 uses about a 3rd of the resources MCE does so I was able to test run World of Warcraft at maxed settings. Now I'm thinking about trying this VMWare Virtual Machine. Does it hog alot of resources to swap OSs without rebooting? Like if I'm running MCE then decide to get on 2000 to play a game, will MCE still be running in the background?


By the way, to get Windows 2000 working again I had to edit the boot.ini file(s). It took me several tries before I found the right string.
-------------
[boot loader]
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOW S
timeout=5
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Micro soft Windows XP Media Center Edition" /fastdetect
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(1)partition(1)\WINNT="Microso ft Windows 2000 Professional" /fastdetect
-------------

Just be lucky you wern't installing Windows 95/98/ME, they use a different filesystem altogether (and also handle FAT and FAT 32 bootsectors differently than Windows NT based OSes do) and would require you to reformat the primary partition and reinstall any newer OSes (so they wouldn't destroy the ability to boot into Windows 9x).

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by evilboris

A question, is it allowed have both Winxp 32bit and Winxp 64bit on the same partition as a dualboot setup? Or would it not work becase of them updating the same bunch of files in c:\Program Files or wherever with incompatible versions?

If you're going to the trouble to have a 32bit Windows OS and a 64bit Windows OS, use Windows 98SE and WinXP 64bit. 99% of all the 32bit programs Win98SE can't run can be ran on WinXP 64bit (it can run most 32bit programs not designed to use any pre-Win9x/WinNT code); this is much different on 64bit Windows, where any program that isn't 100% 32bit or 64bit will not run at all on any 64bit Windows OS (this includes 32bit programs that use a legacy 16bit installer). In fact if most of my games break when I (a long ways off if at all) use Windows Vista, I'll give Windows 98 SE a try.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by evilboris

Same partition. I only have 3, and only 1 of them is reserved for OS. And I really don't want to repartition the drive.

Perhaps its time to invest in a new HD.

Just buy a 320GB HDD, they're only ~$150-160 on Newegg right now. For the immense space, that's a great deal.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by neothe0ne

I was under the impression that Windows XP Media Center Edition is Windows XP Professional...

They have different focus. WinXP pro is mainly for professional workstation (and power user) PCs. Media center is for soccer moms that want to show off their digital photos on their 50" plasma.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

One recent innovation that will please many multiple OS users is the fatc that bleeding edge Intel processors (and upcoming AMDs) will support Virtualization, which lets you run each OS in a seperate core (up to the point that you have more OSes running than cores, upon which it would probably share cores) even lets you run 64bit and 32bit OSes side by side. Certainly gives old fashioned dual booting a kick in the ass.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Arainach

Actually, it doesn't mean shit. CPU power has NEVER been the issue. It's access and control over hardware that prevents you from effectively running simultaneous OSes.

Well 32bit and 64bit OSes cannot be ran on the same core (without emulation), and the hardware sharing issue could be solved:

Originally Posted by CPU Magazine April 2006 (I'd source it, but the website requires registration to view the whole article)

In a system without Pacifica technology, the x86 processor hardware contains no virtualization capabilities. When creating a virtual machine in this type of system, the virtualization software must manage the resources between the host OS and the guest OS. Because this extra layer causes additional overhead and complexity, application performance suffers...
...With Pacifica running on an AMD dual- or multi-core processor, there would be fewer layers and less complexity, improving application performance. Pacifica would use Hypervisor as its virtualization software, which would manage the virtual machines. Hypervisor also would track the availability of physical hardware, letting applications take advantage of the hardware as it becomes available.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?