ozgeek Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 So far the order of installing Vista seems to favour being after XP. Can I install XP after Vista - or will I mangle my hard drive?Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 To be honest, I am not sure what would happen. Traditionally, installing the oldest OS first has been the rule. I think installing XP after Vista may just mess up the Vista Boot Manager. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozgeek Posted November 4, 2006 Author Share Posted November 4, 2006 To be honest, I am not sure what would happen. Traditionally, installing the oldest OS first has been the rule. I think installing XP after Vista may just mess up the Vista Boot Manager.Yes, that's what I was afraid of. I've got Vista working so well I'd hate to risk it unless I knew it was safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeafBug Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 Umm, you know that Vista is expires one day. MS won't allow you to upgrade the final release over RC1. They expect you to wipe out the HD. So it is not too long down that you have to wait to get it dual booted the way you want. The holidays is coming and will make the time fly before you even know it. Unless you got an copy from work and make the PC/laptop work related, then it is only days away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozgeek Posted November 4, 2006 Author Share Posted November 4, 2006 Umm, you know that Vista is expires one day. MS won't allow you to upgrade the final release over RC1. They expect you to wipe out the HD. So it is not too long down that you have to wait to get it dual booted the way you want. The holidays is coming and will make the time fly before you even know it. Unless you got an copy from work and make the PC/laptop work related, then it is only days away.You are quite right, of course. However, it remains to be seen if I will jump in and buy Vista when it's released. I'll more likely hang on and see if there are any big problems . I'll just enjoy RC2 while I'll got it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 Remember that the Vista Boot Manager is completely different than the one in XP. There is no editing the boot.ini file like in XP. You can edit it but it won't be easy without 3rd party tools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 Here you go. I use it and it works just fine.http://www.vistabootpro.org/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 Yup, it's a beauty of a tool that's for sure!As for Vista, I'm pretty much ready to use it full time. I'll still keep the dual boot for the time being, but when Vista RTMs, I will use it as the only OS on my Dell Inspiron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 (edited) Yup, it's a beauty of a tool that's for sure!As for Vista, I'm pretty much ready to use it full time. I'll still keep the dual boot for the time being, but when Vista RTMs, I will use it as the only OS on my Dell Inspiron.I duel Boot Vista with Xp but I hardly ever use Xp. I boot into it to update stuff and that ix about it.Oh and it quite the duel at times. Edited November 4, 2006 by Gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 Yes, that's what I was afraid of. I've got Vista working so well I'd hate to risk it unless I knew it was safe. I found this thread over at the forums where VistaBootPro can be found:How to modify BCD when installing a previous version of Windows onto a computer running Windows Vistahttp://www.pro-networks.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=607987 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozgeek Posted November 4, 2006 Author Share Posted November 4, 2006 Many thanks to you all for your helpful links and suggestions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 The toughest thing about taking apart Vista dual-booting with XP is removing the \Boot directory that presumably is on your C: drive along with XP. Vista leaves that behind and it's riddled with nasty file and folder permissions that make it very hard to delete. VistaBootPro used to make it easy to delete the boot folder, but it no longer does in newer versions.Like James, I have my own set of instructions for dealing with XP/Vista dual-booting, which were published in the newsletter and also on Computerworld.I've found a relatively easy way to make the boot folder disappear for people who are interested. Will be writing out directions for a Computerworld story -- and I'll post them here first.If you have an easy way you use for this, I'd be interested in it.--Scot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 I've found a relatively easy way to make the boot folder disappear for people who are interested. Will be writing out directions for a Computerworld story -- and I'll post them here first.--Scot I look forward to reading that Scot, and I'll add a link to the article on my Dual Boot page when the article is live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomBox Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I am finding out that it is best to consider WinVista as a smarter, more aggressive and multi-lingual cousin of WinXP:* WinVista can 'speak' WinXP >> but not the other way around!* BCD can 'mangle' boot.ini >> but not the other way around!I have given up on "Duel Boot" many many OSs ago and prefer to run each OS in an autonomous mode in what I consider "Multi-Boot". Recipe for Multi-Boot is simple: Just add more physical HardDiskDrives (not partitions of the same HDD) and a mechanism to control which OS/HDD will be the boot device (aka "System" device). As stated above, if you allow WinVista HDD to be online (aka "Active") while WinXP is booted, there will be no problems >> but not the other way around: Since the presence of WinXP HDD will be detected by WinVista, and it will aggressively attempt to modify the BCD to accommodate a second OS in a "Duel Boot" configuration... without prompting the user for such automatic changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Hi, this is the draft copy from a story that will be posted in the near future:TIP:But there is an easy way to solve the problem. On the Vista install DVD there's a folder called Boot containing a file called bootsect.exe. Using Command Prompt, navigate to that directory and type this command for detailed information about how to use this tool:bootsect /helpIn tests performed with a Windows XP (installed on drive c:) and Windows Vista, this command loosened the file permissions on the BCD boot folder:bootsect /nt52 c:(Note: Replace "c:" with the letter of the drive that the boot folder was installed on.)After running this command, you should be able to select and delete the BCD boot folder in Windows Explorer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomBox Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 ... In tests performed with a Windows XP (installed on drive c:) and Windows Vista, ... Sir Scot F.,Out of curiosity: Exactly, where (physically) is the WinVista OS installed in this configuration you are using? The reason I ask is that I am finding out that WinVista Drive Letter Assignment configs have not changed much since previous MicroSoft OperatingSystems and in a Multi-HDD configuration of WinVista. These drive letter calls still seem to be arbitrary and may cause havoc during "Duel Boot", especially during the initial boot stages (prior to WinVista GUI). As with BCD, the user intervention of these Drive Letter Assignments are not allowed and seem to be not sticky (session specific?) even after tweaking them via the Computer Management Console! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Random,The classic configuration is XP on C: and Vista on D: (or your first available drive letter).Did you install Vista in a dual boot config and find that when you're booted to Vista, you're booted to C: and when you're booted to XP you're also booted to drive C:? Because that's a, well, random feature. It happened off and on throughout the beta cycle. And though I've asked Microsoft about it, I can't find the setting that controls it -- or the rationale behind why it happens sometimes and not others. It hasn't happened to me since before Beta 2, but I know other people it happened to very, very recently.Is that what you're referring to? If not, I'm not sure what you mean about random drive assignments. You actually get to choose the drive you want to install to during installation. If you mean the default assignment (before you choose, then I agree about that). But it's not an assignment you have to accept.Come on back and fill me in. I'm interested.-- Scot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsden11 Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 That's what happened on my laptop. XP X64 on C: became D: and Vista installed on D: became C:. They flip, depending on which one you boot to. They both work but I have no idea what happens when you start messing with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Thanks, Marsden. I will ask Microsoft about this again. Because it seems to have picked up again with the few days before Gold build and the Gold build.Which build are you using?-- Scot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomBox Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Yes, my original findings were similar to Marsden11's findings!But I have been soooooooo fed up with all of that dual-boot stuff from back in the Win2k + Win31 days that I was forced to figure out an alternative means of being able to boot to different OS (not windows specific; as I also futz around with many Linux flavors). You may have previously (over the years) heard my rants about being able to Multi-Boot with each OS running autonomous and without ever getting a whiff of other OSs in the system. I have always had the luxury of being a dedicated SCSI user (presently using 6HDDs of the U160/320 types on two separate channels). I also have always hated/detested partitioning a single HDD into parts as I feel partitioning is like a placebo or a magic elixir. (sorry about the length of these details that I thought you should know!). So, when I decide to boot from another OS, I simply choose the HDD to boot from in the BIOS. But WinVista does not take a liking to this arrangement and always forces dual-boot when it detects that there is another OS in another drive. Thus (as I had originally discussed), I am forced to actually detach and/or power down the SCSI HDD carrier that contains the WinXP HDD from the system. I don't have to do the same with the WinVista HDD (or Linux dedicated HDDs) >> since WinXP does not have a conniption if those HDDs are energized during the boot of WinXP. I think part of the problem with the WinVista drive letter assignments arise (possibly) when other drives in the system are taken offline, even if the user had set the drive letter assignments manually.I also continue being a happy camper with my Multi-Boot SCSI setup >> since if/when I blow off a OS from my system; it means that I really don't have to worry about what the boot.ini (BCD) ramification maybe. Of course, since I am religious about creating (Acronis) images of each OS every <45 days or so, I don't even get winded or worry that a catastrophic failure of a SCSI HDD. Since the good old days of SCSI-1 (4Mbps(?)), I have had very few SCSI HDDs go south on me over all of these years, as most SCSI HDDs are server grade and don't often fail (5 year warranty also helps). Lately, I have actually been enjoying the 15k rpm whine that my latest 73GByte Seagate U320 SCSI drive makes. It sounds like a jet is taking off.As an OffTopic discussion >> I hate the new monster drives (>100GByte) as they become too cumbersome to rebuild or defrag or image. Even with WinVista, I am finding out that 36GByte HDDs are quite adequate for all needed space as long as one is religious about keeping user data on other HDDs. Backing up and imaging does not become a chore either. I think reasonable priced SATA-II drives maybe as pleasurable to work with as with my SCSI configuration but that topic is for another day. As is RAID discussions (which I also don't employ).I hope the above is able to answer your question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderRiver Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 I kind just take the easy way out. Install Xp first, and then install Vista. Obviously, if you do so in such order, you can install both OS under the same partition.and that's the expected behavior.As much as I am into the guts of Vista, it is truly a different breed from Xp. To remove hidden folders like Boot..or even C:\Program Files and etc, requires that you take ownership of the files and folder before you can delete them. Truly a pain, but I can see why they are doing so to bolster the security within the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Hmmmm. I have never had any trouble whatsoever with Windows' dual or multiboot workings. It's always been bullet proof. But there is a primary rule, and Thunder mentioned it. You have to install successive versions of Windows from oldest version to newest version. It doesn't work properly (or at all) if you don't do that. It's never been meant to be the last word on multiboot. It's just a basic solution that's designed to be a test-the-next-version-of-Windows solution for more advanced users and IT people.There are many other multiple boot tools out there, such as System Commander and even freeware solutions. Those products let you install Windows in any order. They also let you use other operating systems, such as Linux.One thing I have to say, only because I've been against it publicly for years, is the notion that you would install two versions of Windows in one partition. That is possible, but a really bad idea. Always install additional OSes in their own separate partitions. The use of PartitionMagic (or similar technology from Acronis or others) is highly useful for this purpose.Symantec has come out saying that it will not upgrade PartitionMagic to be run on Vista. Does anyone know of another dynamic partitioning utility maker that intends to support Vista? Because I need to get their product as soon as it comes out!-- Scot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James M. Fisher Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Scot, I use Acronis Disk Director, but I have never tried to install it in Vista. I always run it from the bootable CD and manage my partitions that way. I took a quick look at the Acronis site, but I didn't see any mention of a version for Vista.However, I heard from a fellow MVP that Disk Director v10 as well as v9.1 works on Vista. That's what happened on my laptop. XP X64 on C: became D: and Vista installed on D: became C:. They flip, depending on which one you boot to. They both work but I have no idea what happens when you start messing with it. Yes, same here with the RC2 build (5477). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b2cm Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 What if, let's say, you hide the first primary partition on which Vista is installed, create another primary partition 2 (then set it active and install Windows XP on it), then use a boot manager that supports partition hiding to boot one or the other at startup? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomBox Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Scot, I use Acronis Disk Director, ...I have also tried Acronis OS Selector (part of DiskDirector) with same miserable results! My results continue with the conclusions that WinVista just don't play nice with other OS; if you don't want it to take over your system control during boot. Multi-boot does not care which OS is installed first (or last). I have tried OS Selector with WinXPpro + WinVistaRC1 combo and I was sooooooo glad that I had my WinXP imaged with AcronisTrueImage. What if, let's say, you hide the first primary partition ... Clever thought/concept but I don't think/know that a partition is really declared "Primary" until boot commences??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderRiver Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 (edited) Symantec has come out saying that it will not upgrade PartitionMagic to be run on Vista. Does anyone know of another dynamic partitioning utility maker that intends to support Vista? Because I need to get their product as soon as it comes out!-- ScotBecuase of BitLocker, the built-in Disk Management within Vista allows user to shrink or extend current partitions, depending on users' needs. Thus, the only two missing features that PartitionMagic has advantage over are1. ability to merge partitions2. ability to format partitions into other types, ReiserFS, and etc (You can already do that in Linux distro...but I just prefer PartitionMagic's UI)The decision mde by Symantec to not support Vista is, in my opinion, a set back to Symantec. The world is not going to stop moving ahead becuase you refuse to comply.On the other hand, has anyone tried to use Bart's PE Builder to run PartitionMagic? It should work just fine.Note: It is truly a pain to use Xp on SATA drives. Everytime I run WinPE or Bart's PE, it goes BSOD if I forget to turn off SATA support in BIOS. So glad Vista supports SATA natively. Clever thought/concept but I don't think/know that a partition is really declared "Primary" until boot commences???(I assume you meant "Active", not "Primary", because you decide "Primary" or "Logical" partition during "partitioning")In PartitionMagic, you can mark a partition as active and it will take immediate effect after you reboot. You can hide a partition, but I don't recall that method works with NT based OS. I used to hide a partition and mark another one active during early Windows 9.x days, but I remember no matter what, my Windows 2000 could always spot another partition even if it is hidden. Edited November 11, 2006 by ThunderRiver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b2cm Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 Clever thought/concept but I don't think/know that a partition is really declared "Primary" until boot commences??This is defined in the master partition table in the MBR. The MBR also has a boot program that initializes the boot process, transferring control to the boot program located in the partition boot block or volume boot record/sector. When you install Windows, setup will require a visible primary partition, because that is where setup will write the boot code (in the volume boot sector) and the boot files (ie, ntldr, boot.ini, ntdetect.com, msdos.sys). Microsoft calls this the 'system' partition. You can install Windows on another volume (the so-called 'boot' volume) but at startup the 'system' partition has to be visible and active.If you hide the 'system' partition of, let's say, Vista, and then install XP on a separate and visible primary partition, XP setup will write its boot code/files only to that partition (and not on the Vista volume). The only problem is that after the install you can boot only XP as it is on the visible, active primary partition. But if you use a boot manager that, at boot time, unhides and sets active a partition, and at the same time hides the other (actually, that's what a boot manager does), you can boot any of your installs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 but I just prefer PartitionMagic's UI)I do as well, but MS recommends using Xp's built in disk partitioner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scot Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 It is possible to hide the partition, and people have been doing it for years. But I guess my take is that the Windows bootmgr is a pretty basic tool. I'd prefer to use a solid multiboot product to handle this kind of stuff. Having said that, I don't use a third-party utility for this. I rarely run more than three OSes on one box. Part of that may just be that I've always had a lot of hardware. With the number of PCs I have, it's easier and faster for me to have machines that only have two OSes. That's my norm. And I have dedicated Linux boxes. And virtual machines with Macs.-- Scot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 (edited) I tried running Xp Pro with two separate builds of Vista and ran into all kinds of problems. Edited November 11, 2006 by Gary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.