Dual Booting MS VISTA and MS XP

[msm8378]

Hello all...

I just shuffled my system around and set it up to run both MS VISTA and MS XP in a "dual-boot" config.

After several attempts via various directions from others on the web, I finally hit on a set that make doing this very, very smooth.

If anyone decides to try this on their computers feel free to PM me and I will be more than happy to share what I learned.

For those who may be asking why I did this it is because I have a laptop with dual processor and 4GB RAM. FS9 and FSX run really smooth in VISTA with my config, but I have several thousands of dollars invested in older business software and a few other games as well that are not compatible with VISTA...also, XP only recognizes 2GB to 3GB of RAM depending on which Service Packs are installed. So this was a worthwhile endeavor for me and has worked out perfectly....

[sprocky]

So you have 64-Bit Vista installed? Otherwise Vista32 will recognize 4GB RAM but it will not make use of it. Just about 3GB - check your Task Manager.

[msm8378]

Yes, I have the 64bit VISTA.

I also need to correct my initial post in that XP Home can utilize up to 2GB of RAM and XP Pro can utilize up to 3GB of RAM as per MSKB...

For me having the option of running both OS's on the same machine is a life-saver. While VISTA has a tremendous amount of problems and disadvantages to it's coding, the dual-boot and multi-boot functions were well thought out and actually fairly easy to setup once you figure out the correct install sequences and correction of the VISTA Master Boot Record...

[Weescotty]

Yes, I have the 64bit VISTA.

I also need to correct my initial post in that XP Home can utilize up to 2GB of RAM and XP Pro can utilize up to 3GB of RAM as per MSKB...

For me having the option of running both OS's on the same machine is a life-saver. While VISTA has a tremendous amount of problems and disadvantages to it's coding, the dual-boot and multi-boot functions were well thought out and actually fairly easy to setup once you figure out the correct install sequences and correction of the VISTA Master Boot Record...

XP Home and Pro both address up to 4Gb memory. The amount you see varies on -
How much video memory you have
memory allocation table
chipset
Typically most will see from 3>3.5Gb available memory in both Versions of XP.

Only two main reasons to choose Pro over Home -
1) Pro allows you to join a domain, Home only has workgroups.
2) Pro supports 2 physical CPU's, Home only supports 1.

Note - At present XP distinguishes between physical CPU's and cores. Think of it as the number of CPU sockets on a motherboard. 2 for Pro, 1 for Home, each CPU can have multiple cores.

Interestingly Window 2000 Pro was never updated for this capability, so you can run 1 dual core or 2 single core CPU's, as it sees each core as a physical CPU.
To use a quad core under Windows 2000 you need the Server version.

Note - With 4Gb memory installed Windows by default keeps 2Gb for the OS and 2 GB for applications. This can be changed to 1Gb for the OS and 3Gb for apps OS by use of the /3Gb switch in the boot.ini file.
HOWEVER - research fully the implications this has before using it!!!!!!
Same applies to the /PAE switch.

[msm8378]

Weescotty...

Interesting notes...

I was using XP Home with SP3 on my new Acer Aspire 6930 which has an Intel T5800 Dual Core CPU and 4GB of RAM. No matter what I did or program I used, I could only get the system to recognize/utilize a total of 2GB of RAM. I even tried the 3GB switch.

I had tried running FSX on both my laptop and desktop under XP but to no avail.

With the "dual-boot" setup I am able to run it just fine on the laptop under VISTA with steady FPS of 22.x with Scenery and Weather set to Ultra High.

Conversely, FS9 is running FPS of 18.x in VISTA and 25.x in XP with identical Display settings.

So this brings me to a question...How RAM dependent is FS9 and/or FSX? I know that both are big CPU users...

[Weescotty]

Weescotty...

Interesting notes...

I was using XP Home with SP3 on my new Acer Aspire 6930 which has an Intel T5800 Dual Core CPU and 4GB of RAM. No matter what I did or program I used, I could only get the system to recognize/utilize a total of 2GB of RAM. I even tried the 3GB switch.

I had tried running FSX on both my laptop and desktop under XP but to no avail.

With the "dual-boot" setup I am able to run it just fine on the laptop under VISTA with steady FPS of 22.x with Scenery and Weather set to Ultra High.

Conversely, FS9 is running FPS of 18.x in VISTA and 25.x in XP with identical Display settings.

So this brings me to a question...How RAM dependent is FS9 and/or FSX? I know that both are big CPU users...

Even more intersting I have an Aspire 9410 with 2x2Gb.
The BIOS recognises 3Gb, but Windows shows the usual 3.25->3.5Gb

BIOS update time?

Wonder if FS9 is slower under Vista because Vista has to software emulate DX9, there is no longer a DirectX backwards compatibility with DX10.
E.g. DX9 was directly backwards compatible with previous versions, with DX10 an extra layer of emulation has has been added to provide the backwards compatibility.

So in effect -
XP = Native DX9, 8, 7 etc
Vista = Native DX10, Emulated DX9, 8, 7 etc