Vista - Dual-boot Vista x86 and x64?

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.

I've got and amd64 bits, and I've installed both versions, Vista x86 and
x64. The only problem was the drivers....


"Geo." <bargeo@aapt.net.au> escribió en el mensaje
news:u54NCIPHHHA.2456@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
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.

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
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

"Geo." <bargeo@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:u54NCIPHHHA.2456@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
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.

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.


"Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message news:OVJTuZRHHHA.2632@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> 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
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>
> "Geo." <bargeo@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
> news:u54NCIPHHHA.2456@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>

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.

"Geo." <bargeo@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:uttvvFUHHHA.816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
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.

Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> 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.
>
> "Geo." <bargeo@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
> news:uttvvFUHHHA.816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> 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.

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

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.

"Roy Coorne" <rcoorne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OJb7jmVHHHA.3468@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> 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

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.

"Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:OVJTuZRHHHA.2632@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> 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
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
>
> "Geo." <bargeo@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
> news:u54NCIPHHHA.2456@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> 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.

Colin Barnhorst schrieb:
> 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.

THX!

> 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.

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


> "Roy Coorne" <rcoorne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OJb7jmVHHHA.3468@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
>> 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

A gig for each works well.

Seriously, ram is cheaper and more versatile than many other solutions.

"Roy Coorne" <rcoorne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uVor3VZHHHA.2632@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Colin Barnhorst schrieb:
>> 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.
>
> THX!
>
>> 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.
>
> 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
>