What do you think would be best?

[ingeborgdot]

I have vista 64 as my main os. Would it be best to run a dual boot using xp pro or to make a virtual machine and add xp pro that way?

 

[superdave1984]

Depends on why you want to do it. Virtual machine is very good if you are going to be doing lots of testing on the system.

 

[forrestcupp]

Virtual machines are not an option if you want to do anything with DirectX. If you want to game or do anything 3D, you have to dual boot.

The best thing virtual machines are good for is if you are a programmer and you want to compile software for multiple platforms.

If all you are going to do is run Office or Nero or something, you might be alright with a vm. But then again, you can do most things like that in Vista anyway.

 

[ingeborgdot]

I would probably be doing some video editing because there is not a lot out there yet for 64 bit vista. Also if something doesn't quite work right I want to be able to get basic internet etc.

 

[forrestcupp]

If you're doing video editing, I would dual boot. While virtual machines may appear fast, when it comes to something as intensive as rendering a video, it will be much slower. Also, vm's don't directly interface with your hardware. They use "virtual hardware" that interfaces with whatever hardware you have. If you have an nvidia video card, it won't show up as an nvidia card; it will show up as whatever crappy card they use for their virtual video card. Because of this, firewire may be hard to get working well, too.

Just dual boot. It's a pain to reboot into another OS, but you know you won't have any problems using your system to its maximum capability.

 

[ingeborgdot]

Ok. What is the best way to install. Xp first or vista. I will be getting rid of xp when vista 64 becomes the main os in another year.
So will it make a difference if I will be getting rid of xp?

 

[KSoD]

The definitive dual-booting guide: Linux, Vista and XP step-by-step | APC Magazine

There is a nice guide on how to Dual Boot XP/Vista with Vista installed first or any which way you can think of.

 

[ingeborgdot]

After looking around I think I may dual boot but some say I need bartpe. Is this true or can I just install xp and do my stuff and then install vista and go about my business?

 

[ingeborgdot]

I have dual booted and all seems to be working fine but I have a question. On my xp side my drives are different then on my vista side. I loaded xp first so c: was xp. Then I loaded vista later and when I was on my vista side vista became c: at least on vista side. I then formatted E: and my other hdd F. I looked at my drives on vista and here is what they are-
C: Vista
D: XP
E: Music and documents
F: Pictures, videos and programs files

When I go to my xp side the drives are arranged differently.
C: XP
D: Music and documents
E: Vista
F: Pictures, videos, and program files
It seems to be working fine but is this the norm. I tried to arrange it right but this is how it turned out. Anyone care to explain? Thanks.

 

[KSoD]

This is normal. Since you installed right from the CD and DVD each OS choose C:\ as its drive letter. This is completely normal. I have the same setup. which is actually nice cause i used a 3rd partition for my application installs like Adobe and such. Since the install can run from teh C:\ drive it works for both partitions easily. Just had to get some Registry entries.

It does this because the Windows like the C:\ drive to be the system drive. Since XP and Vista are coded differently they both can use the C:\ drive lettering by just adjusting the other ones drive letter. It doesnt affect your performance at all. At least not that i have seen.