I'm planning to create a Vista/Win7 dual-boot on a system that
currently runs Vista (32-bit) and need feedback on which of two HDs to
use. The 1T has Vista installed and currently has 694gb free. The
second HD has 465gb of 500gb free (both are Seagate). I've heard that
it's better to put the OS's of a dual-boot on separate drives, if
possible. True?
If you're comfortable with Ranish and various low level partition
manipulators, and, unless there are issues with either W7 or Vista
accessing low-level settings, that is, once past the initial
installation.
I don't run either, just XP. Basically it's about hiding partitions
Windows Operating Systems wouldn't need to or shouldn't see. Once the
OS is stable, IMO, it's mainly about being very careful about
subsequent hardware and sometimes software changes.
I just swapped cases last night (and a few minor changes - 1 new USB
port, a SATA MB port DVD hookup). Tricky, how XP can screw itself
up. But, since I'm ghosted, I was able to repeat the installation and
duplicate the errors to find what was causing XP the grief (required
stagged, consecutive hardware detection of each piece, singularly,
before advancing to next "changes". Three DVDs running simultaneously
over separate DMA channels into three 200/250G 5-year-old Seagate
HDs. 756 3000 AMD on an Asus, doing it, bumps the temp from 100 to
125F, but still sweet. Getting media off DVDs and onto 1T drives via
a USB docking station).
I prefer keeping an OS small by installing subsequent software to
other partitions (potentially shared OS resources is a further
possibility). Then I can Ghost the OS into smaller, faster-to-restore/
write binary-sector images. Once my images are backed-up, Ghost will
account adapting to most any sector sizing.
Which is circularly roundabout back to low level manipulations. If
partitions and drive letter assignments match, should be a mote point,
where the operating system is going (aside a little juggling in the OS
hardware detection phase, and a drive model ID coming up as detected
for different). I personally prefer everything related to an OS on
one drive (some partitions/logical assignments of course being hidden
by a boot arbitrator), in dealing and keeping storage issues from a
core gist of OS "maintenance" -- apart on other drives.