dual booting xp and vista?

[Case]

anyone any experience of this? is it difficult/impossible?

 

[Overdriven]

Logically the same method of doing it with other operating systems Partition your hard drive, install the other OS on the other one and change your boot.ini file so it supports either of them (Google)

 

[echome]

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

 

[Chronictank]

No problems, i use xp64 for gaming and vista ultimate for everything else.
If you want to save yourself hassel install XP first and install vista second on different drives/partitions.

 

[Case]

rox, will have a goo asap then

 

[Serbitar]

shouldn't be a problem. if your not going to be using one of the partitions for gaming you could just use virtual pc though

 

[soze]

shouldn't be a problem. if your not going to be using one of the partitions for gaming you could just use virtual pc though

Thats what i do at work Vista Machine XP VM i really like Vista apart from the VPN aspect which sucks.

 

[liloe]

Thats what i do at work Vista Machine XP VM i really like Vista apart from the VPN aspect which sucks.

I like punching myself in the face, too ^^

Seriously, how can people like Vista? If you like the looks, go get MacOS, at least it's more stable and if you want Windows, use XP or 2003....which doesn't use up 250gb RAM and 3TB of you HDD just to install

I use Win 2003 Server x64 for gaming and everything else, but if I could, I'd use it for gaming only and install a MacOS for everything else (sadly I can't install it on a non-Apple computer ). Also Vista treats the users like children, by checking certificates (100% useless imho), asking the same thing a hundred times (well, the new Office does that aswell tbh: "Are you REALLY sure you want to open that document?" x3....yes ofc you shit program, don't ask again.....)

On a serious note....what do you Vista-lovers like, which you can't have with XP or 2003.

 

[crispy]

(sadly I can't install it on a non-Apple computer )

Afaik they recently remade the macosx kernel so it can run on all x86 hardware :>

Or something like that

 

[liloe]

Afaik they recently remade the macosx kernel so it can run on all x86 hardware :>

Or something like that

This is true, but it still doesn't work on a non-Apple system, unless you use some kind of illegal trick. Afaik there is some kind of hardware in Apple computers which the OS checks upon installing.

 

[Delket]

Have ms murdered your 1st born liloe?

I got a new pc a week ago today with vista on and its like a godsend and a thorn in my side at the same time. With time to acclimatise and new drivers etc its undoubtably better than XP, with that said i dont think its worth the upgrade on an older pc unless you really need something on it.

For me it was a no brainer given im using 4GB of mem, and short of using xp64 which gives you the same issues anyway it makes sense for future compatibility. I love the precaching, indexing etc which allows me to make use of the file strcture quickly and efficiently. Theres a lot of nice improvements in that regards.

On the other hand some stuff has been moved around for no obvious reason, which for someone heavily used to traditional windows can be very confusing or irritating. Then theres the lack of things always working, IE my mic input doesnt work atm till creative get their ass in gear, plus the fact some applications arent compatible with vista at this stage, some of which do bother me not having available.

So yes, on a powerful machine which wont notice the vista overheads and can benefit from the support of newer hardware better its excellent, but for someone who needs backwards compatility a dual boot is in order. Come SP1 however it should be awesome....with a little bit of breaking old habits (start button, r for run, c:....grumble)

 

[soze]

I like punching myself in the face, too ^^

Seriously, how can people like Vista? If you like the looks, go get MacOS, at least it's more stable and if you want Windows, use XP or 2003....which doesn't use up 250gb RAM and 3TB of you HDD just to install

I use Win 2003 Server x64 for gaming and everything else, but if I could, I'd use it for gaming only and install a MacOS for everything else (sadly I can't install it on a non-Apple computer ). Also Vista treats the users like children, by checking certificates (100% useless imho), asking the same thing a hundred times (well, the new Office does that aswell tbh: "Are you REALLY sure you want to open that document?" x3....yes ofc you shit program, don't ask again.....)

On a serious note....what do you Vista-lovers like, which you can't have with XP or 2003.

I have been using Vista since RC1 and i have not seen any of this stability bugs. I have about 100 vpns on my machine and the only bug i hate in Vista is opening connect too with more than 5 vpns seems to takes agaes. So i open the CPL direct.

But i like the new layout of vista i love the side bar and the shortcuts it gives me. But most importantly to support it i have to use it. The only person i know who has had major problems was a friend of mine who installed the wrong graphic drivers of the 200+ Vista machines i have deployed they only problem i have seen is with Application compatibility.

I user XP too in a Virtual Machine and why would i use a server OS? Can you tell me what major bugs and stability problems you have come across in Vista? I always like to know if there is a problem round the corner.

 

[liloe]

I have been using Vista since RC1 and i have not seen any of this stability bugs. I have about 100 vpns on my machine and the only bug i hate in Vista is opening connect too with more than 5 vpns seems to takes agaes. So i open the CPL direct.

But i like the new layout of vista i love the side bar and the shortcuts it gives me. But most importantly to support it i have to use it. The only person i know who has had major problems was a friend of mine who installed the wrong graphic drivers of the 200+ Vista machines i have deployed they only problem i have seen is with Application compatibility.

I user XP too in a Virtual Machine and why would i use a server OS? Can you tell me what major bugs and stability problems you have come across in Vista? I always like to know if there is a problem round the corner.

Well the layout is no argument, cause you can mod Win XP to look like Vista or you can use MacOS which has this look since 5y ago

For VPN's I always used the Sisco client, which worked kinda well and if it's just for networking, Linux is a much better option.

I agree that you need to use it when you support it, but I just don't see the area where it fits in. If you want networking, use Linux. If you want gfx/design, use MacOS, if you just need simple office stuff, MacOS does the trick aswell (and you can even use Word/Excel/etc.).
The only thing I really need Windows for is gaming, that's about it. Every other thing can be done better by a non-Win system =) The day nVidia gets to finish their XEN-driver or their DX10 clone is the day where Windows will be deleted from all my HDD's =)

I don't like when my OS takes up an extreme amount of memory, even if I have enough to not care about it =)
What bothers me aswell is the amount of control that MS tries to enforce on their customers, by using all that license stuff. I don't use Vista myself cause I cba to buy it and my current university doesn't have an MS-contract, but a friend of mine works with computers all day long (uni +job) and he tells interesting stories =) The amount of stuff you had to swich off in XP already pissed me off and now Vista takes that to an even higher level.....horrible.

Oh and why do I use a Server OS? I tried XP x64 but it crashed all the time, so now I run 2003 Server x64 and it works fine, except if I activate AA. The problem there is the RAID-driver though (nerf SiS). They have some driver updates now, but you know what they say about changing running systems =)

Btw, that friend of mine has a funny picture of some Vista bug, I'll have to poke him a bit to get it and upload it =)

 

[soze]

I understand what you are saying but im not about to try talk 600 users into using Linux and Mac OS. Most of them hate using computers let alone try talking to them about a new OS.

I suppose it all comes down to what you like and what you are used to. I hate Macs no Right Click i hate them. I have Linux on my PS3 and on a test machine and im just not happy with it yet that i suppose that will come with time and practice.

For me i like windows os i have never had any major problems with my computers that were down to an OS error. And i remember how bad swiching from 98 to XP was and compared to that the swich to Vista is brilliant And the only thing i have fond in Vista that needs to be turned off is UAC which is shite. Defender and the Firewall are both much improved in Vista and are both helpful. Windows is just the Industry Standard bit of everything OS sure other OS do singel things better but none of them do everything better

This is just another Appels and Oranges argument no one is wrong its just what you like

 

[Mojo]

Soze, how did you deploy Vista?

 

[liloe]

This is just another Appels and Oranges argument no one is wrong its just what you like

A bit yes, I guess =) Gladly enough I studied computer science for a few years, so I made a lot of friends who can help me out when I need some specific stuff =) I also have a really good mate round the corner who experiments a lot and ends up formating his computers at least once every 1-2 months to try out new OS/setup combos =))

Mac has right click though ^^ Plug in a 3 button mouse and you have a standard "Windows-like" mouse-setup =)

 

[soze]

Soze, how did you deploy Vista?

New PC's with Images and then File Setting Transfer on the desktop. Which i was surprised to find worked really well.

 

[Mojo]

New PC's with Images and then File Setting Transfer on the desktop. Which i was surprised to find worked really well.

I don't suppose you used WDS for your images? I am an expert RIS user and am now working with WDS. I have sorted all the legacy images out on WDS and am now working on the Vista Image. I don't suppose you know your WDS Vista deployment stuff inside out by chance? WDS isn't greatly documented to the level I was hoping for (i.e. modification of the build via scripting, automation etc) I am just about to dive into and was hoping for some quick answers.

 

[soze]

I don't suppose you used WDS for your images? I am an expert RIS user and am now working with WDS. I have sorted all the legacy images out on WDS and am now working on the Vista Image. I don't suppose you know your WDS Vista deployment stuff inside out by chance? WDS isn't greatly documented to the level I was hoping for (i.e. modification of the build via scripting, automation etc) I am just about to dive into and was hoping for some quick answers.

Nope sorry we dont use a Deployment Server. We just use Ghost as we go by department so 20-30 people who have a seperate image to the next office. I have always wanted to try it but the powers that be are happy for us to image them 10 at a time.

 

[Mojo]

Nope sorry we dont use a Deployment Server. We just use Ghost as we go by department so 20-30 people who have a seperate image to the next office. I have always wanted to try it but the powers that be are happy for us to image them 10 at a time.

Ah right no worries, I don't plan to deploy Vista any time soon anyway, just doing some testing atm to see how it differs from deploying XP etc.

 

[Chronictank]

Ah right no worries, I don't plan to deploy Vista any time soon anyway, just doing some testing atm to see how it differs from deploying XP etc.

duno if this is for home or for work but if its for work we simply have images tar'd up on the storage array, machines network boot and download the image using sftp.
To make the image universal we use a utility called Universal Image Utility (Universal Imaging Utility | Big Bang LLC) which strips out the drivers and effectively makes it usable on any machine, with ip, name, etc patching done using scripts on the run once