Hi.
I have a computer that's dual-booting Windows 2000 and Windows Vista. Of course, Vista was installed afterwards, and the dual-boot information that makes the start-up process detect both OSs was made by Vista.
If I was to re-install Windows 2000 now, after formatting its drive, and on the exact same drive, of course - Vista is on a second, separate drive, by the way - what would the installation do to the dual-boot? Would it mess it up?
Can I re-install Windows 2000, on the same drive, after a format, and still keep the dual-boot working just as before?
Thank you very much.
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9
Thread
-
Last edited by jeanpave; 27th Nov 2011 at 04:26.
-
I'm pretty sure this cannot be done as you describe, however the whole concept is an extremely bad idea and something I would never, ever do under any circumstances short of somebody holding a gun to my head.
To do it with Vista and 2000? No way in hell. -
Generally, the older OS should be installed first, as you know, followed by the newer. There is a workaround, however, if it's worth it to you to jump through those hoops.
-
Have you considered using another boot loader such as Grub?
It may prove easier than messing around with the Windows one. -
Thank you very much, p_l. I will try to follow that, if it turns out I'm in trouble.
I lost some financial information, and I was suspicious that maybe it was the Windows 2000 installation (not that it behaves oddly yet).
Isn't this a bit of an exaggeration?...
But what do you really mean by "No way in hell [...] with Vista and 2000"? Would you do it with another permutation of two MS OSs? And can you give me an example?
Actually, no. I'll check it out. Thank you very much, Computer Nerd Kev! -
Dual booting with one HD can be done, sure, but it increases significantly the possibility of some sort of major boot failure which renders the drive unusable. If you absolutely must boot two different OS, use two HD, installing each OS with only one drive present. Then just switch boot order in the BIOS.
Vista absolutely blows and 2000 is ancient. Outside of some really oddball compatibility requirement, 2000 has little or no use and Vista should be replaced with 7 or go back to XP pro. Still, use two different drives to avoid major failure.
We're not talking lose a file or a user setting failure, we're talking failure to BOOT which means no PC at all with repair possibly meaning losing program functionality until all are re-installed. Total data loss through partition corruption is also a risk.
You mentioned financial information which is evidently important. Why would you take risks with that, on purpose?
Grub, sure, I bet it works fine for lots of folks. For at least three that posted here in a 2 or 3 month period, it meant a non-bootable drive needing a complete re-format. Actually I think one of those folks got their data back, eventually.
Almost every dual-boot single-drive setup I have ever seen running for any length of time has ended by having major problems, roughly 10 out of 12. The 2 that worked belonged to pros that I'd worked with for several years, but then most of of the failed ones did, as well. Minor issues easily become major issues, and there are more causes for minor issues.
I make my living as a tech, and if somebody offered to pay me to set up a Dual-Boot pc, on a single drive, for business use (which is most of my customers), I would refuse to do so. Like putting in a server, with no battery backup, in the lightning strike capital of the world, just no way. I'd do it for a home user with a specific clause on the bill that IMO this is a bad idea and no warranty whatsoever would apply and no phone support of any kind would be offered. It would get the IBM DOS 4.00 treatment.
Just use a second drive. -
I believe Nelson37 is making a mountain out of a mole hill, dual boot on a single drive imo is the best way to do it provided youi don't something other than the windows boot loader, I believe grub was mentioned earlier in the thread. I've had Windows XP, Windows 7, and Unbuntu installed on the same drive for the past 2+ years with out a single hiccup and this is a machine i use everyday for video editing. However I don't store anything on the boot drive, I have a separate drive for storage to which each OS has read write access.
Murphy's law taught me everything I know. -
Ditto my experience: 4 or 5 machines I've set up at home and for relatives dual booting XP and Win 7 from the same HDD running for a couple of years with no problems so far.
-
The two installations are on separate drives, I already said. How has this generated the current argument?...
Thanks, though, guys.
P.S. Windows 2000 is awesome. Didn't Bill Gates say it was his favourite? And Vista looks much better than 7 - and, as far as I'm concerned, functions almost identically. People can say whatever they want; I'm not going to change these opinions of mine. (That's why I have these two OSs on this computer, although, just for the record, I do agree that Windows XP Pro rules!)
Similar Threads
-
Dual Boot or use SSD for storage?
By neworldman in forum ComputerReplies: 4Last Post: 2nd Dec 2011, 08:27 -
Dual boot using BIOS at startup
By edong in forum ComputerReplies: 8Last Post: 5th Jun 2011, 06:58 -
dual-boot systems
By joecass in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 7Last Post: 16th Jan 2011, 21:01 -
Creating a dual boot system...best way?
By sdsumike619 in forum ComputerReplies: 11Last Post: 14th Dec 2008, 12:30 -
Dual Boot OS use 1 or 2 keys?
By johnhammonds in forum SVCD2DVD & VOB2MPGReplies: 1Last Post: 18th Apr 2008, 06:20