Multiboot setup advice requested

[wowa]

Hi,

I currently have Win XP and Win 7 x32 set up on 2 separate HD controlled by BCD.

I would like to install additional Win 7 x64.

What would be the best place for it -
- another HD or
- second partition on Win 7 x32

Your help would be greatly appreciated.

TIA

 

[Virgorising]

First, I could not live without Easy BCD.Re a third drive, depends on yr system, yr PSU. I assume you have open SATA port for one and an empty bay.

I also recommend Revosleep, amazing German freeware compatible with both yr current OSes (tho not W8 I believe), it allows you to put backup drives to sleep at will, saving power, reducing heat.....it is amazing.

http://revosleep.realspooky.de/

What do you plan to use the W7 64-bit installation for if I may ask?

And please share your specs.

What would be your objection to just upgrading yr current W7-32 bit drive to 64 bit? All yr 32-bit apps will run just fine, and it would be simpler and more efficient.

I assume you have decent RAM or you wouldn't be considering 64 bit altogether.

You may have yr reasons to retain it, but I assume you know XP will no longer be supported by next month, yes?

 

[wowa]

Thank you Virgorising,

XP - I still use some apz which will not run well under anything else. I also need
to share with other machines running only XP. PC does not get on line therefore I do not care about support.

Win 7 x32 - almost as above - some apz are not written specifically for 64 I believe,
so it may be a problem - I rather play safe.

You're right - I want to progress to 64 - after is installed - then I will re-install those
appz v. 64 and test them. However I have same appz written for 64. So I will be able to compare. I need to get to 64 since newer releases do not support 32 anymore.
What a mess and confusion.
Those appz are professional stuff like ACAD, PS, Vegas etc, I do not care about games.

This way I can still use the machine normally and experiment as time allows. After all is OK- I will just remove HD with w7 32.

Specs: i5-3570K 3.4Ghz 8MB RAM 18600 ASRock Z-77 Pro. PS 750W. I was thinking about using second partition on HD with W7 x32 on the first one. I'm just afraid that 32 may somehow tangle up with 64 hence 3rd HD concept.

Thank you again

 

[Virgorising]

Specs: i5-3570K 3.4Ghz 8MB RAM 18600 ASRock Z-77 Pro. PS 750W. I was thinking about using second partition on HD with W7 x32 on the first one. I'm just afraid that 32 may somehow tangle up with 64 hence 3rd HD concept.

NICE RIG!:biggrin:

XP - I still use some apz which will not run well under anything else. I also need to share with other machines running only XP. PC does not get on line therefore I do not care about support.

Thanks for explaining this....and everything else. When i first upgraded to W7 32 bit from XP long ago on what is now my backup desktop, I too was afraid some apps might not run well.....but I was VERY WRONG.

Same deal deciding whether to run W7 32-bit or 64 in this system I am on. I even posted about it. I am SO GLAD I went ahead with 64 bit! Not only can it employ more of my 8GBs of DDR2, every single thing which ran well in 32 runs just as well in 64 if not better! So please do not go on being the architect of your own misery by worrying about that! 😎

With YOUR rig? No way is there any cause for worry, in fact with your rig, it would be a sin not to run 64! For openers, you are wasting over half of yr installed RAM as it is now.

Streamline! Do it, you will be so much less stressed and so, totally liberated!:thumbsup: When you do it, you will be like "Wut was I THINKING BEFORE?"

And, I have no clue why a system running 7 could not communicate with one running XP.

Please, no thanks necessary!!

 

[wowa]

Tx, now - what is a procedure of converting up to 64?
Never done that. Install/repair 64 ?
Would it confuse BCD - should I disconnect XP drive ?

 

[Ketchup]

With virtualization where it is today, I do not multiboot anymore. I create a virtual machine for anything that requires XP. Just seems a lot simpler for me, and makes it very easy to move if needed.

For your Windows 7 question, 1 64-bit should be all you need.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

With virtualization where it is today, I do not multiboot anymore.

This. Not only does it support snapshots for testing, but you can run the virtual machine/s simultaneously. Outside of gaming, there isn't much you can't do with a virtual machine. The only caveat is that if you want a 64-bit system anywhere in the mix, you must have a 64-bit host.

 

[Virgorising]

With virtualization where it is today, I do not multiboot anymore. I create a virtual machine for anything that requires XP. Just seems a lot simpler for me, and makes it very easy to move if needed.

For your Windows 7 question, 1 64-bit should be all you need.

I was about to post again last nite again re windows easy transfer, I will now, but site went to maintenance mode.

If I get all of this right, and important to try to do that, the OP doesn't really need XP or 7 32- bit altogether, and the only reason he felt he did was fear.

As I posted, that happens. It's happened to me as I posted.

I was on my way to getting clear re why he has two drives in the first place if the contents are different, etc. in this, I think that's vital.

I have dual boot....simply cause a cloned backup drive is my internal backup strategy. So, sometimes dual boot is a good thing.

 

[Virgorising]

This. Not only does it support snapshots for testing, but you can run the virtual machine/s simultaneously. Outside of gaming, there isn't much you can't do with a virtual machine. The only caveat is that if you want a 64-bit system anywhere in the mix, you must have a 64-bit host.

Bur we are addressing a unique individual human here. If U read the whole thread, he don need virtual anything. And, addressing virtual here will only confuse him further with no upside.

First thing, determine wut is going on and why; clarify the options based on the guy's real needs and rig....get rid of irrational but human fears which led him to feel he needed XP or W7 32 altogether with that rig.

 

[Virgorising]

Hi, wowa....just came in; I was about to follow up last nite, but the site went into its maintenance mode.

Nobody should take anyone's word for anything. But, unless I am missing smething, I am convinced, in this, you do not need to be runing either XP or W7 32 bit and that you felt you had to owed to the usual human fears re moving up. I relate!

what is a procedure of converting up to 64?

Well, first, how, besides the operating systems, is the content of yr two drives different right now?

Next, I assume, since your original plan was to install W7 64 bit, that you have a copy of it, yes?

Depending on which current drive you have the most data on and boot into the most, my way would be to use Windows Easy Transfer--you have it in both operating systems, if not in XP you can easily download it.

Some would recommend you do a clean install of W7 64 on a clean, formatted drive, and I respect that, but I would do it as per above.

Know that if you use Windows Easy Transfer, you will though have to reinstall some of yr apps, it doesn't copy everything.....but the end result will be more than worth it.

Again, pls say how the content of yr two drives differs as it is now. And to what degree the volumes are filled.

Easy BCD (I use it for dual boot for my two drives which are identical and I use one for backup---is simple to configure. You are in charge of this!

It seems, if you agree based on getting all the facts here and yr options, etc......you may want to move the contents of yr current drives to one running W7-64....perhaps use the other one as internal backup which is my strategy. But first, we gotta find out what is on both drives.

 

[wowa]

HI Guys,

For clarification - if everything is so simple (running 32 on 64) why some application are written specifically in 2 versions?

Virtual XP - I found it runs somewhat crippled - not all functions of some appz i.e. auto saves function correctly if at all - which are critical. It would be OK to open XP but not to do any serious work under it.

Anyway - I think for now I would like to take a safe approach, so the question is:
install new version of Win 7 64 with all new installs of 64 appz on separate drive and use BCD or do the above on a separate partition of the same drive?

I am not sure about inner workings of Windows but had a problem installing Win XP and Win 7 on the same drive - Windows intertwined them quite a bit. It run just fine but files and date appeared to be shared. Nightmare using Explorer - never knew what was where.
Not to mention back ups. I do not even want to think what would happen if machine crashes ( or program). It could be a problem to restore. Doing images often is not very practical.
That is when I decided to install them on a separate drives. Also I did that one at the time
with other drive physically disconnected. Then BCD.
It works just fine - like having two individual machines. The price - an extra HD. It was worth it to me. Later I can just "reclaim" Win 7 32 drive.

Sorry about the rant - but I do not have any serious knowledge about inner workings of Windows and knowing M$ and its workarounds - I am quite skeptical.

What do you think?

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Bur we are addressing a unique individual human here. If U read the whole thread, he don need virtual anything. And, addressing virtual here will only confuse him further with no upside.

First thing, determine wut is going on and why; clarify the options based on the guy's real needs and rig....get rid of irrational but human fears which led him to feel he needed XP or W7 32 altogether with that rig.

It's not all about fear. Let's review what he said:

XP - I still use some apz which will not run well under anything else.

This is a necessity.

I also need to share with other machines running only XP.

This is a fear. It is possible for Win7 to share files with XP machines.

Win 7 x32 - almost as above - some apz are not written specifically for 64 I believe, so it may be a problem - I rather play safe.

This is a fear that may be unfounded. Most 32-bit software works just fine on 64-bit systems.

You're right - I want to progress to 64 - after is installed - then I will re-install those appz v. 64 and test them. However I have same appz written for 64. So I will be able to compare. I need to get to 64 since newer releases do not support 32 anymore.

This is a fear that has nothing to do with his need for XP.

Those appz are professional stuff like ACAD, PS, Vegas etc, I do not care about games.

This way I can still use the machine normally and experiment as time allows. After all is OK- I will just remove HD with w7 32.

He specifically mentions the desire to remove Win7 32, but not XP. Based on his information, he still needs XP.

There is one other option, but only works with certain versions of Win7 - Windows XP Mode. I've never used it, though, so I don't know if it is sandboxed like a typical virtual machine. It may not be as secure as eg, VirtualBox.

 

[Ketchup]

I was not referring to Virtual XP wowa, which I have also found does not run very well. Download VMWare Player and install XP on a virtual machine with that. If you need help setting it up, plenty of us that can help you with that.

Edit: The only difference I have found between 32-bit and 64-bit 7 are drivers. Everything I have runs fine on both.

As for your original question, it really doesn't make a difference, unless you have space limitations on the drive you will be using.

 

[Virgorising]

For clarification - if everything is so simple (running 32 on 64) why some application are written specifically in 2 versions?

Very normal question. reason is, apps written for 64 work more seamlessly in 64, but when u run 64, 32-bit apps work just as well as they did before you upgraded to 64. I am spekaing form first hand experience. Again I had fear-generation trepidations too before I finally got I should move up to 64.

Virtual XP - I found it runs somewhat crippled - not all functions of some appz i.e. auto saves function correctly if at all - which are critical. It would be OK to open XP but not to do any serious work under it.

Again, unless I am missing sumthin, I see no reason you need to go on running XP.

Anyway - I think for now I would like to take a safe approach, so the question is: install new version of Win 7 64 with all new installs of 64 appz on separate drive and use BCD or do the above on a separate partition of the same drive?

Again, i recommend you streamline, but based on identifying YOUR INDIVIDUAL NEEDS, and doing away with fear based premises.

I am not sure about inner workings of Windows but had a problem installing Win XP and Win 7 on the same drive - Windows intertwined them quite a bit. It run just fine but files and date appeared to be shared. Nightmare using Explorer - never knew what was where.

Well I think you were doing something not necessary and counterproductive.

Not to mention back ups. I do not even want to think what would happen if machine crashes ( or program). It could be a problem to restore. Doing images often is not very practical.

Again, is there any reason you can now identify why you can't do new W7 64 installation, move all yr stuff to it, and then reformat the other drive and use it for yr backup drive? And configure Easy BCD for dual boot.

That's what I do. I do new clone to the backup drive around one a week to keep it current, reqires deleting the backup drive from Easy BCD when clone is finished. Its a no brainer.

It works just fine - like having two individual machines. The price - an extra HD. It was worth it to me. Later I can just "reclaim" Win 7 32 drive.

Well not exactly. It's having two individual DRIVES to protect yr data within one system. But for me, it's the best bakup strategy. Others like different backup strategies.

Sorry about the rant - but I do not have any serious knowledge about inner workings of Windows and knowing M$ and its workarounds - I am quite skeptical.

You are doing just fine; stop apologizing. What precisely are you skeptical about? We need to get clear on yr needs, identify the most viable route to them while divesting you of fear-based convictions re running 64-bit. That's my take.

 

[Virgorising]

It's not all about fear. Let's review what he said: Quote: XP - I still use some apz which will not run well under anything else. This is a necessity.

I think we need to identify the individual apps here before we conclude he actually has any which will not run in W7 64. originally, he said he needs to communicate with system running XP, tho not online.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

For clarification - if everything is so simple (running 32 on 64) why some application are written specifically in 2 versions?

Win 7 and 8 are still available in 32-bit versions, so until those OSes are completely gone there will be a need for 32-bit software.

Virtual XP - I found it runs somewhat crippled - not all functions of some appz i.e. auto saves function correctly if at all - which are critical. It would be OK to open XP but not to do any serious work under it.

When was the last time you tested this? As was mentioned earlier, virtualization has come a long way in recent years. There are also several different virtual machine products available, so what doesn't work on one may well work on another.

 

[Virgorising]

When was the last time you tested this? As was mentioned earlier, virtualization has come a long way in recent years. There are also several dfifferent virtual machine products available, so what doesn't work on one may well work on another.

Again, I think first, we need to determine if, in fact, he really does have apps which will only run in XP.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Again, I think first, we need to determine if, in fact, he really does have apps which will only run in XP.

He did mention it, though he didn't mention if these were for XP or Win7 32:

Those appz are professional stuff like ACAD, PS, Vegas etc, I do not care about games.

Even if there are newer versions that do work with Win7, he may not be willing or able to shell out the cash necessary for new licenses.

 

[Virgorising]

Win 7 and 8 are still available in 32-bit versions, so until those OSes are completely gone there will be a need for 32-bit software.

Obviously true. But he was asking from his concern about the viability of running 32 bit apps in 64. And, some architects of apps don wanna spend the time to write new code unless they have to.

Not to mention, many people still have systems with inadequate hardware to run 64.

The membership of this community is atypical re Big Picture.

 

[Virgorising]

He did mention it, though he didn't mention if these were for XP or Win7 32:

Yes, I did miss that, was in a rush. But, re professional or academic apps, hard to believe, given we are at the end of support for XP, it is true.

Even if there are newer versions that do work with Win7, he may not be willing or able to shell out the cash necessary for new licenses.

This is a good point. When I finally determined to run W7 64 on this system, I did have to pay for new licenses for some apps. but the upside of my decision far outweighed running 32 bit. Esp given I upgraded to GBs of DDR3.

There is no perfect reality when upgrading. There is always a price to be paid. Question always is, which is the less dear one, and defining penny wise, pound foolish, always with an eye toward the future.

I will no way run W8....I tested it early on and threw up. But, I run tow apps crucial for some of my work I bought and installed first in what is now my backup deskoop when it was running XP.

when I moved up to W7 32-bit on that system, I first emailed the Co that wrote the apps. I was told, U bet, compatible with W7! And thankfully, they were right.

But I have also learned only recently, neither is compatible with 8. That just reitered my aversion to 8 for other reasons.

Again, we are each unique and use our systems in unique ways. For me, the goal always is to delve and identify the specifics to harvest more viable options for us as individuals. Factoring in our hardware, etc, of course.

 

[Virgorising]

wowa: I, at least, am unfamiliar with the three apps you listed you say can only run in XP. Unless you prefer not to, can you tell us more about them?

I would think it rare for any app used for work by many, would be so stuck at this juncture, to not be able to run in W7. I mean before there was W7, there was that evil called Vista.

One of many reasons it makes no sense to me, is, it would mean whoever wrote those apps would be loosing big money.