G
Geo.
Anyone know if it possible to dual-boot Vista x86 and Vista x64 versions? Is the key the same for both versions?
Just curious.
Geo.
Just curious.
Geo.
J
Jordi Maycas
I've got and amd64 bits, and I've installed both versions, Vista x86 and
x64. The only problem was the drivers....
"Geo." <[email protected]> escribió en el mensaje
Anyone know if it possible to dual-boot Vista x86 and Vista x64 versions? Is
the key the same for both versions?
Just curious.
Geo.
x64. The only problem was the drivers....
"Geo." <[email protected]> escribió en el mensaje
Anyone know if it possible to dual-boot Vista x86 and Vista x64 versions? Is
the key the same for both versions?
Just curious.
Geo.
R
Rick Rogers
Hi Geo,
Yes and yes. Under the license agreement, you're supposed to have two
licenses to do this, but technically it is feasible with one. Just make sure
that each install goes on its own volume.
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
Anyone know if it possible to dual-boot Vista x86 and Vista x64 versions? Is
the key the same for both versions?
Just curious.
Geo.
Yes and yes. Under the license agreement, you're supposed to have two
licenses to do this, but technically it is feasible with one. Just make sure
that each install goes on its own volume.
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
Anyone know if it possible to dual-boot Vista x86 and Vista x64 versions? Is
the key the same for both versions?
Just curious.
Geo.
G
Geo.
Thanks Rick and Jordi.
I'm currently dual-booting 32-bit versions of Win XP and Vista RC1. When the retail product is available I'd like to try a dual-boot setup with both flavours of Vista for comparison. I can't try it at the moment because I still need XP and I don't have sufficient free disk space for a third partition.
Geo.
I'm currently dual-booting 32-bit versions of Win XP and Vista RC1. When the retail product is available I'd like to try a dual-boot setup with both flavours of Vista for comparison. I can't try it at the moment because I still need XP and I don't have sufficient free disk space for a third partition.
Geo.
C
Colin Barnhorst
I don't recommend dual booting XP and Vista on a production or primary
computer without a third party boot manager that can hide Vista from XP.
Search the newsgroup on "VSS" for an explanation.
Thanks Rick and Jordi.
I'm currently dual-booting 32-bit versions of Win XP and Vista RC1. When the
retail product is available I'd like to try a dual-boot setup with both
flavours of Vista for comparison. I can't try it at the moment because I
still need XP and I don't have sufficient free disk space for a third
partition.
computer without a third party boot manager that can hide Vista from XP.
Search the newsgroup on "VSS" for an explanation.
Thanks Rick and Jordi.
I'm currently dual-booting 32-bit versions of Win XP and Vista RC1. When the
retail product is available I'd like to try a dual-boot setup with both
flavours of Vista for comparison. I can't try it at the moment because I
still need XP and I don't have sufficient free disk space for a third
partition.
R
Roy Coorne
Colin said:
Would you agree that there is no influence of XP on Vista (system
restore date) if Vista is installed on a separate HDD, the HDD with XP
being disconnected - and, having re-connected the XP HDD, the choice
between XP and Vista is made by choosing the boot drive in the BIOS?
Roy
C
Colin Barnhorst
I am simply trying to warn folks who are blissfully unaware of this issue.
The folks who use the basic setup to achieve a boot options screen showing
XP and Vista. I am not trying to rehash all the different methods of
installing Vista. The method you indicate is not the dual booting that is
set up by a standard Vista installation on a system with XP. Obviously you
are technically sophisticated and it works for you.
IMHO I think folks who only have one machine to work with should stick to
one OS or the other. Using BIOS settings is fine but I don't see it as a
long term solution nor one to advise a lot of folks to use. Entering the
BIOS on a regular basis should probably only be done by technically
sophisticated people such as you.
I advise the use of virtualization where possible to run XP on a Vista
system. It offers a lot of advantages over dual booting. Note, I said
where possible.
The folks who use the basic setup to achieve a boot options screen showing
XP and Vista. I am not trying to rehash all the different methods of
installing Vista. The method you indicate is not the dual booting that is
set up by a standard Vista installation on a system with XP. Obviously you
are technically sophisticated and it works for you.
IMHO I think folks who only have one machine to work with should stick to
one OS or the other. Using BIOS settings is fine but I don't see it as a
long term solution nor one to advise a lot of folks to use. Entering the
BIOS on a regular basis should probably only be done by technically
sophisticated people such as you.
I advise the use of virtualization where possible to run XP on a Vista
system. It offers a lot of advantages over dual booting. Note, I said
where possible.
N
news.microsoft.com
I have done it. The Vista bootloader is installed on the first partition
(C
where XPx64 also lives. So its tricky - both OS's consider the boot
partition to e C:, when in fact Vista RC2 is on the second partition. It is
(as people have said) quite important to hide Vista from XP. I'm not sure
what tasks can corrupt that seperation - does anybody know (that is that
Vista appears as a drive (for example H on XP and CAN"T be hidden through
Computer Management.
Anyway, I messed up my installation by upgrading my system (realize that
XPx64 is OEM and was purchased - it didn't care) from 3 60GB HD's to 2 300GB
drives. I used BootitNG to move things around. It's a great program but
was defeated by Vista - I could only boot in Vista from the Bootloader -
trying to boot to XP gave a "black screen" error about not find \ntlder
Fortuantely I also have Linux (Fedora Core 6) which now has SAFE r/w access
to NTFS parition. I found there is a nasty directory installed by Vista
calle C:\boot. This has all the BCD information (what got messed upped).
You can make the directory its visible by taking off the system and hidden
attributes, but from Wiudows (XP) you CANNOT delete the directory or any of
the interesting subdirectories (such as localizations) no matter how you
change the attributes. I knew I had to get rid of this directory to do a
clean install of RC2 which would have the usuable Vista Bootloader. If
Windows won't let you delete the directory - Linux will. Dual boot
restored. If anybody doesn't have Linux (or perhaps the Ultimate Boot CD)
perhaps someone could tell them how to restore a clean dual boot.
(C
where XPx64 also lives. So its tricky - both OS's consider the bootpartition to e C:, when in fact Vista RC2 is on the second partition. It is
(as people have said) quite important to hide Vista from XP. I'm not sure
what tasks can corrupt that seperation - does anybody know (that is that
Vista appears as a drive (for example H
on XP and CAN"T be hidden throughComputer Management.
Anyway, I messed up my installation by upgrading my system (realize that
XPx64 is OEM and was purchased - it didn't care) from 3 60GB HD's to 2 300GB
drives. I used BootitNG to move things around. It's a great program but
was defeated by Vista - I could only boot in Vista from the Bootloader -
trying to boot to XP gave a "black screen" error about not find \ntlder
Fortuantely I also have Linux (Fedora Core 6) which now has SAFE r/w access
to NTFS parition. I found there is a nasty directory installed by Vista
calle C:\boot. This has all the BCD information (what got messed upped).
You can make the directory its visible by taking off the system and hidden
attributes, but from Wiudows (XP) you CANNOT delete the directory or any of
the interesting subdirectories (such as localizations) no matter how you
change the attributes. I knew I had to get rid of this directory to do a
clean install of RC2 which would have the usuable Vista Bootloader. If
Windows won't let you delete the directory - Linux will. Dual boot
restored. If anybody doesn't have Linux (or perhaps the Ultimate Boot CD)
perhaps someone could tell them how to restore a clean dual boot.
R
Roy Coorne
Colin said:
I see a major disadvantage of virtualization in the increased demand
for RAM which is split between the host and the guest system, AFAIR.
And Vista _loves_ RAM, as we all know;-)
Roy
C
Colin Barnhorst
A gig for each works well.
Seriously, ram is cheaper and more versatile than many other solutions.
Seriously, ram is cheaper and more versatile than many other solutions.
S
Sharon Fink
Roy Coorne said:
No, I would not agree. The setup method does not come into play on this
issue. Any time you boot XP, it re-enumerates all connected volumes. If
the drive with Vista is connected at that time, XP will remove Vista's
System Restore data on any volume that is monitored by Vista (the Vista
default is operating system volume only).
One way to avoid the problem is to use a boot manager that will
completely hide the Vista volume from XP whenever XP is booted. Example:
BootIT from terabyteunlimited.com is capable of this type of management.
C
Colin Barnhorst
With the single exception of XP Safe Mode, of course, since volsnap.sys does
not run in SM.
not run in SM.
R
Roy Coorne
Sharon said:
But why? A strange behaviour, indeed...
Do you expect that this bug... eh... feature will be changed in SP1?
Roy
C
Colin Barnhorst
The VSS drivers in XP and Vista are incompatible due to enhancements to VSS
in Vista.
Vista is XP-aware so the Vista volsnap.sys driver knows to leave the XP
files alone. It knows they are valid.
XP is not Vista-aware and because of the enhancements to VSS in Vista, the
XP volsnap.sys driver concludes that the Vista VSS files must be corrupt and
deletes them to protect the user from attempting to restore from corrupt
files.
MS has been looking at this for at least two years and concluded that the
fix would involve an extensive and expensive re-write of XP. MS has decided
not to fix XP.
It is one of those cases where it is not a bug in Vista and not a bug in XP.
It is a bug only if you expose Vista volumes to XP as in a multi-boot
scenario. The fix is don't multiboot XP and Vista without some provision
for hiding the Vista volumes from XP.
I have started a thread on the PROnetworks forum at
http://www.pro-networks.org/forum/about86248.html&sid=6e828e97d11cbfdd45bb1b560987bfc0
asking them to upgrade VistaBoot Pro with a capability of hiding volumes.
Please contribute your thoughts in support of that since the suggestion is
finding some support. A solution like that is all we can expect to get.
in Vista.
Vista is XP-aware so the Vista volsnap.sys driver knows to leave the XP
files alone. It knows they are valid.
XP is not Vista-aware and because of the enhancements to VSS in Vista, the
XP volsnap.sys driver concludes that the Vista VSS files must be corrupt and
deletes them to protect the user from attempting to restore from corrupt
files.
MS has been looking at this for at least two years and concluded that the
fix would involve an extensive and expensive re-write of XP. MS has decided
not to fix XP.
It is one of those cases where it is not a bug in Vista and not a bug in XP.
It is a bug only if you expose Vista volumes to XP as in a multi-boot
scenario. The fix is don't multiboot XP and Vista without some provision
for hiding the Vista volumes from XP.
I have started a thread on the PROnetworks forum at
http://www.pro-networks.org/forum/about86248.html&sid=6e828e97d11cbfdd45bb1b560987bfc0
asking them to upgrade VistaBoot Pro with a capability of hiding volumes.
Please contribute your thoughts in support of that since the suggestion is
finding some support. A solution like that is all we can expect to get.
R
Roy Coorne
Colin Barnhorst explained:
THX for this explanation and the hint towards PROnetworks!
Roy
THX for this explanation and the hint towards PROnetworks!
Roy
C
Colin Barnhorst
You're welcome.
expect to get.
expect to get.