Dual Boot Pure Win7 Pro & Pure Xp Pro

[choro]

Raid is designed to reduce the odds of data loss.

Raid 0: uses a single disk, makes a copy. If the disk fails, you lose
both copies of the data. I don't know why it even exists, it's useless
as mammary equipment on a male bovine.

Raid 1: requires two physical disks, one is a mirror of the other. If
one fails, the OS simply uses the other one. NB that the whole system is
mirrored, OS data and all. This is the one to use if you have a single
machine.

Raid 2 to 5: other schemes of duplicating data over many disks/machines.

Reasoning: if the odds of disk failure are, say, 1:1,000,000, then the
odds of two disks failing simultaneously are 1: 1,000,000,000,000. (This
is basic probability theory). So if you use two (or more) cheap
(=relatively failure prone) disks instead of one (or a few) expensive
(=failure resistant) disk, you have a better chance of preserving your
data.

So if you automatically write the same data to two disks, you vastly
improve the odds of saving your data. All server farms use variants of
this scheme (plus hot-swappable disks, so that failed hardware can be
replaced without shutting down the system.)

For more, check Wikipedia. Raid = Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks.

HTH
Wolf K.

Excuse me but RAID of any variety is asking for trouble, if you ask me.
The only time RAID can come in useful is if the second HD is a copy of
the first HD. Why not instead clone a copy of your OS and other software
once everything is fully installed (and may be periodic cloning or
backing up to cover yourself for updates) and use xcopy or xxcopy to
copy all your user files to an external 2.5" HD which you just connect
with a USB cable without any resort to mains adaptors etc and which, if
need be, you can pop in your pocket and carry with you?

RAID of all colors is utterly pointless in any case. Just clone your HD
or make a proper back up of it and use the xcopy or xxcopy command to
copy your user files to an external disk drive. Hey, your "external" HD
could even be a 3.5" HD mounted inside a desktop but of course you then
lose the advantage of popping it into your pocket and taking it with
you. You can't have your cake and it it too, you know!

Our motto in life should always be "KIS" or "Keep It Simple"...
-- choro

 

[John Morrison]

To me this sounds the best solution thus far. But I have another
suggestion. Why not use a KVM box and let the two computers share the
same Keyboard, Monitor and the Mouse?

This way you can switch instantly between the two OS's as they could
both be up and running at the same time. None of the drawbacks of having
two OS's on the same computer with all the advantages of two separate
discrete computers?

Surely more or less anybody switching over to Windows 7 will either buy
or build a new computer for themselves. Or am I wrong on this point?

If one of the computers is a laptop just configure it NOT to go to sleep
with the lid closed and Bob's your uncle. Moreover with a special USB
link cable one can transfer any user file on one of the computers to the
other in a jiffy. Or you can even email the damn user file to yourself
and pick it up on the other computer. The possibilities are endless, one
might say.

And why should one opt for a more complicated system where one has to
switch off the computer and switch it back on again just to access the
other OS when with a very small outlay one can have both computers and
thus both OS's up and running at the same time and with a simple click
of the keyboard start monitoring and working on the other computer?

After all, KVMs for 2 computers with all the connecting cables built in
can be had for a song these days.

The only thing that refused to install on my Win 7 machine was the
driver for my old scanner. With a cheap KVM, I solved the problem.

I fail to understand all these more complicated ways of doing things or
do people update their old Windows XP machines to Windows 7? To be
honest I can't see the logic in that either.

Virtual XP lets a user use Win XP while checking email using an email
program and other programs running under Win 7. <g,d & r>

 

[Wolf K]

On 18/12/2011 1:36 PM, BeeJ wrote:
[...]
So far I think I am hearing
install XP Pro first
use one HD for each OS

Yes, that's what I'd recommend. HDDs are cheap. Since you're starting
with a blank box, I'd also recommend RAID 1, which you have to set up
before installing any OS, and which requires a RAID-capable BIOS.

But you can put XP and W7 on different partitions and use the second HD
for backups. NB that the backup utility that comes with W7 refuses to
backup the system to a partition on the same physical drive.

use EasyBCD to boot.
[...]

You don't need it if you have a pure Windows box. Easy BCD is helpful
(but_not_ bullet proof) if you add non-Windows OS.

HTH
Wolf K.
PS: I've now had three desktops with two or more OSs on them.
Dual/multi-boot is a lot simpler than many people think. I also briefly
dual-booted a laptop.

What does "not bullet proof" mean". Does it have any bugs?

About 18 months ago, I tried it with XP and Linux (Ubuntu). It wouldn't
boot Ubuntu, although it supposedly "saw" the OS. I never could get it
to work. Trashed it, reinstalled Ubu (a 5 minute job), and Linux's
bootmanager (grub) worked just fine.

HTH,
Wolf K.

 

[choro]

Virtual XP lets a user use Win XP while checking email using an email
program and other programs running under Win 7.<g,d& r>

But my solution with both computers going simultaneously and linked
together with a KVM, would do that and more besides. Far more in fact.
And you don't have to switch from one operating system to another since
both are running simultaneously. You are obviously talking about OE. Why
bother with OE when Thunderbird will run on a Win7 machine?!
I honestly can't see any advantages to having 2 OS's on the same machine
except saving the footprint of the 2nd machine. But if the 2nd machine
is a laptop it could even be sitting in a drawer. Just make sure it
doesn't get too hot in a confined space! ;-)
-- choro

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

But my solution with both computers going simultaneously and linked together
with a KVM, would do that and more besides. Far more in fact. And you don't
have to switch from one operating system to another since both are running
simultaneously. You are obviously talking about OE. Why bother with OE when
Thunderbird will run on a Win7 machine?!
I honestly can't see any advantages to having 2 OS's on the same machine
except saving the footprint of the 2nd machine. But if the 2nd machine is a
laptop it could even be sitting in a drawer. Just make sure it doesn't get
too hot in a confined space! ;-)
-- choro

Some advantages to having two OSes on one machine:
1. Easy access between file systems
2. No need to have two computers occupying space (and costing money)
3. No tangle of cables with KVM
4. With a virtual machine, simultaneous visibility of both OSes (two
separate computers w/o KVM does this too)

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Raid 1: requires two physical disks, one is a mirror of the other. If one
fails, the OS simply uses the other one. NB that the whole system is
mirrored, OS data and all. This is the one to use if you have a single
machine.

Raid 2 to 5: other schemes of duplicating data over many disks/machines.

Reasoning: if the odds of disk failure are, say, 1:1,000,000, then the odds
of two disks failing simultaneously are 1: 1,000,000,000,000. (This is basic
probability theory). So if you use two (or more) cheap (=relatively failure
prone) disks instead of one (or a few) expensive (=failure resistant) disk,
you have a better chance of preserving your data.

That is only true if the failures are truly random. However, in
addition to random drive failures, lightning strikes, power surges,
fires, theft, and malware will affect both drives. Not to mention
seizure by the police

Especially malware. Under mirroring, anything written to drive 0 is
simultaneously written to drive 1. Thus the infection is propagated...

So the odds are better, but not nearly as much as you state. As for
calculating the difference: I'm OK at probabliity, but my skills fail
me here

 

[Char Jackson]

That is only true if the failures are truly random. However, in
addition to random drive failures, lightning strikes, power surges,
fires, theft, and malware will affect both drives. Not to mention
seizure by the police

Wait, what? The police won't let me break the RAID mirror and keep one
of the drives while they seize everything else? I better get a new
strategy...

 

[Allen Drake]

On 18/12/2011 1:36 PM, BeeJ wrote:
[...]
So far I think I am hearing
install XP Pro first
use one HD for each OS

Yes, that's what I'd recommend. HDDs are cheap. Since you're starting
with a blank box, I'd also recommend RAID 1, which you have to set up
before installing any OS, and which requires a RAID-capable BIOS.

But you can put XP and W7 on different partitions and use the second HD
for backups. NB that the backup utility that comes with W7 refuses to
backup the system to a partition on the same physical drive.

use EasyBCD to boot.
[...]

You don't need it if you have a pure Windows box. Easy BCD is helpful
(but_not_ bullet proof) if you add non-Windows OS.

HTH
Wolf K.
PS: I've now had three desktops with two or more OSs on them.
Dual/multi-boot is a lot simpler than many people think. I also briefly
dual-booted a laptop.

What does "not bullet proof" mean". Does it have any bugs?

About 18 months ago, I tried it with XP and Linux (Ubuntu). It wouldn't
boot Ubuntu, although it supposedly "saw" the OS. I never could get it
to work. Trashed it, reinstalled Ubu (a 5 minute job), and Linux's
bootmanager (grub) worked just fine.

HTH,
Wolf K.

Ok, so let me ask you this and maybe you can speak for others for a
moment. I have never used Linux although my brother runs it
exclusively, why the need for it if you find WindowsX fulfills your
needs. If not then what can you do with Linux that WinX can not. I am
always looking to try something new and useful but just haven't had
any complaints about what I have to far. The only reason I still hang
on to Windows XP is I have applications and systems that still run
fine and don't feel like bloating Win7. Actually that is why I have
several systems in the first place. Each one is have different
applications and totally different uses.

The only reason I have dual boot is because the XP and 7 systems are
so closely tied. If I were to install Linux I would just build another
machine.

Thanks for any tips.

Al

 

[Allen Drake]

On 18/12/2011 1:36 PM, BeeJ wrote:
[...]
So far I think I am hearing
install XP Pro first
use one HD for each OS
Yes, that's what I'd recommend. HDDs are cheap. Since you're starting
with a blank box, I'd also recommend RAID 1, which you have to set up
before installing any OS, and which requires a RAID-capable BIOS.

But you can put XP and W7 on different partitions and use the second HD
for backups. NB that the backup utility that comes with W7 refuses to
backup the system to a partition on the same physical drive.

use EasyBCD to boot.
[...]

You don't need it if you have a pure Windows box. Easy BCD is helpful
(but _not_ bullet proof) if you add non-Windows OS.

HTH
Wolf K.
PS: I've now had three desktops with two or more OSs on them.
Dual/multi-boot is a lot simpler than many people think. I also briefly
dual-booted a laptop.

What does "not bullet proof" mean". Does it have any bugs? The OP
asked about booting into two Windows OSes and nothing about
non-Windows. My guess it no one in this tread has deven tried EasyBCD.
If they had they would see the ease and simplicity. It boots to a menu
and waits as long as you tell it to for you to hit one key.

I have it on 3 systems and who said it doesn't boot to non-Windows?

http://neosmart.net/wiki/display/EB...e;jsessionid=D999A9AED09BDF14EE6EF8C0AB0979AF


What is EasyBCD ®Anyway?

It all depends on who you ask or what you want to get done, but
•EasyBCD is NeoSmart Technologies 100% free Windows bootloader (BCD)
modification tool.
•A way to get your Windows Vista or Windows 7 working with Linux, BSD,
Mac OS X, and dozens more operating systems without a headache!
•An IT Guy's number 1 bootloader-troubleshooting tool.
•A multiple award-winning application, used and recommended by the
folks at Microsoft, PC World and more!
•The easiest way of booting from virtual disks, ISO images, network
devices, or USB disks!
•The best way to do just about anything with Windows Vista/7 before it
even turns on!

That's just the tip of the iceberg though. You should read the FAQ for
more info. Also, take a look at the Multibooters' Guide for a
down-to-earth explanation of what multi-booting is and how it works.

What Does EasyBCD Do? Why Should I Use It?

Well, no one says you have to use EasyBCD, but Microsoft's made it
very clear that they're not releasing anything other than the
command-line (and poorly supported/documented) bcdedit.exe for editing
the bootloader. Plus, the guys at Microsoft, Google, PC World, PC
Magazine, and many others use EasyBCD as their Vista BCD tool of
choice. Why shouldn't you join in the fun? After all, not like it
costs anything!

To get started, take a look at our list of Supported Operating
Systems, check out the FAQ, or jump right into our detailed
documentation for booting into just about anything from A to Z!

I don't think that's the issue at all.

Setting up the initial boot configuration is not a big deal.
Making modifications with EasyBCD is not a big deal either.
Wiring together your config, using bubble gum and binder twine
isn't the issue either. If you wanted to manage booting via
GRUB, I'm sure that would work.

What is a big deal, is how safe it is to mix WinXP, Win7, and
Linux at the same time. I've "broken" Win7 twice now, one time
repaired by the built-in boot repair facility, the second time,
really broken and requiring recovery from a system image backup.

The issue is, the design of the NTFS file system on the Win7 C: partition,
and what operations are or aren't safe. An obvious issue,
is leaving System Restore enabled on WinXP. But even probing the
Win7 C: partition from Linux, can have unintended consequences.
I think I might have deleted a couple trivial data files while
running Linux, and then Win7 wouldn't boot on the next attempt.

On my current system, mixing Win2K, WinXP, Linux, I never have
problems like that. On a system with Win7 added to the mix,
I've had problems keeping Win7 running.

So I wouldn't be too glib about success formulas. There is still
a need to be careful. And for my own personal usage, I still
don't have what I consider to be "safe enough" handling
procedures. For example, if I need to do maintenance from
Linux, I've resorted to using Knoppix 5.3.1 DVD, because
it mounts Windows partitions "read only" by default. Many
other Linux LiveCDs will tempt you by mounting read/write,
and then there is a possibility when you make even a couple
file changes to the NTFS C: partition of Win7, it'll be broken
again.

So sure, dual boot, multiboot, but make a system image every
week of Win7 C: and SYSTEM RESERVED partitions, using the
build-in Win7 capability, and store in a safe place. I'm glad
I did that. I've had problems, but I recovered from them.

If you make the C: partition on Win7 relatively small, and store
user data on a separate partition, that makes it easier to give
C: a few more backups than normal. I've never had a problem
with the data partition on my Win7 setup. It's the C: that
is sensitive to behind-the-scenes activities.

For all the examples you have mentioned and more is why I use SSDs on
all my systems solely for the OS and data on separate drives. Sure I
used to use large drives and ran into large problems. I don't
partition any of my drives other the one each. I never use one drive
for more than one OS. Cloning an SSD is quick and clean and can be
done faster then a virus scan. Replacing that drive with the last BU
is many times faster then debugging SW issues.

And I haven't methodically examined the issues, because
my setup isn't flexible enough to do that in a reasonably
short time period. I'm discovering these issues just as a
part of normal activities.

The items you want, are "Create a system image" and "Create a
system repair disc". The latter one, if you have a laptop with
pre-installed Win7, and don't have a regular installer DVD to
boot from. The "system repair disk" is a couple hundred MB and
allows booting from a CD, to copy back the system image and
fix C: again. You store the resulting system image, on an
external disk, for safety.

http://www.pcfeeder.com/images/stor...stem_Image/Windows7_Create_System_Image_1.png

If you install Win7 without Service Pack, then I'd also
recommend doing the System Image, before installing SP1.
Again, just for safety. The Service Pack will back itself
out, if it detects problems during the install attempt.
But if the SP1 has a problem on the first reboot, then
you could be screwed. (That's because, the installer
considers the job "finished". And if you can't boot at
that point, you'll need to restore from backup. The
installer logic is great, if it detects a problem
during the actual installation part.)

Paul

Thanks for all that but I doubt it will stop me from using EasyBCD
and iBoot. I have had no problems in all the time I have had several
systems configured in this manner.

 

[choro]

Some advantages to having two OSes on one machine:
1. Easy access between file systems
2. No need to have two computers occupying space (and costing money)
3. No tangle of cables with KVM
4. With a virtual machine, simultaneous visibility of both OSes (two
separate computers w/o KVM does this too)

I agree but if you want to use Win XP software on the machine you have
to get out of Win7 and start WinXP (with all the waiting that that
implies), don't you?

Sorry but the KVM route is the one for me, the main advantage being that
both systems can be simultaneously up and running and accessing the one
of the other computer is only a Hot-Key away.

And with a USB link cable connecting the two computers, user files on
any one computer are accessible on the other computer. Just drag and
drop! I've even got one such cable that includes the software on a chip
in that it doesn't need to be "installed" on any of the computers before
it can be used. You just plug it in and it works. It will even link a
Windows and an Apple computer. Brilliant! You can't beat that, can you?

As far as I am concerned a Virtual XP machine is about as attractive as
a virtual woman! But I am willing to learn if I have failed to grasp how
this virtual machine works. Though my understanding is that there ARE
drawbacks. With a KVM there ARE no drawbacks.
-- choro

 

[choro]

That is only true if the failures are truly random. However, in addition
to random drive failures, lightning strikes, power surges, fires, theft,
and malware will affect both drives. Not to mention seizure by the
police

Especially malware. Under mirroring, anything written to drive 0 is
simultaneously written to drive 1. Thus the infection is propagated...

So the odds are better, but not nearly as much as you state. As for
calculating the difference: I'm OK at probabliity, but my skills fail me
here

I thought RAID was just a passing fad at least for home computers. I see
that it is still around. Give me an external disk any day even if it is
mounted inside the case! I didn't even bother to find out whether my new
Win7 machine's mobo has got the RAID facility. Bloody waste of time, if
you ask me.

My advice to people, for what it's worth, is to make use of xxcopy, a
freeware that is far more flexible than xcopy that comes with Windows.

Remember to KIS = Keep It Simple!
-- choro

 

[Char Jackson]

And with a USB link cable connecting the two computers, user files on
any one computer are accessible on the other computer. Just drag and
drop! I've even got one such cable that includes the software on a chip
in that it doesn't need to be "installed" on any of the computers before
it can be used. You just plug it in and it works. It will even link a
Windows and an Apple computer. Brilliant! You can't beat that, can you?

I think I can beat that. It's called Ethernet. ;-)

As far as I am concerned a Virtual XP machine is about as attractive as
a virtual woman! But I am willing to learn if I have failed to grasp how
this virtual machine works. Though my understanding is that there ARE
drawbacks. With a KVM there ARE no drawbacks.

Yes, there are drawbacks to a KVM. Gene listed several in the post you
replied to.

 

[John Morrison]

But my solution with both computers going simultaneously and linked
together with a KVM, would do that and more besides. Far more in fact.
And you don't have to switch from one operating system to another since
both are running simultaneously. You are obviously talking about OE. Why
bother with OE when Thunderbird will run on a Win7 machine?!

I use Eudora for email on my Win 7 Ultimate. ;-)

 

[Wolf K]

On 19/12/2011 3:40 PM, Allen Drake wrote:
[...]

Ok, so let me ask you this and maybe you can speak for others for a
moment. I have never used Linux although my brother runs it
exclusively, why the need for it if you find WindowsX fulfills your
needs. If not then what can you do with Linux that WinX can not. I am
always looking to try something new and useful but just haven't had
any complaints about what I have to far. The only reason I still hang
on to Windows XP is I have applications and systems that still run
fine and don't feel like bloating Win7. Actually that is why I have
several systems in the first place. Each one is have different
applications and totally different uses.

The only reason I have dual boot is because the XP and 7 systems are
so closely tied. If I were to install Linux I would just build another
machine.

Thanks for any tips.

Al

Well, computers are as much a hobby as a tool for me, so I've been
trying out/playing with Linux for quite a while. ;-)

IMO there are two reasons to use Linux (but I don't think either is
compelling, an opinion that brought down the wrath of the most extreme
Lindroids in a newsgroup I no longer subscribe to):

a) security if you intend to use public wi-fi while travelling;
b) extending the life of old hardware well past its best before date.

My comments, in no particular order, and of varying relevance.:

There's nothing you can do on Linux that you can't do on Windows. And
many of the things you can do on Windows (or OS-X) you can't do as well
or as easily or as auto-magically on Linux. The basics are the same:
browsing, e-mail, writing, simple image processing, playing music or
movies, and so on are equally well supported on all current platforms.
In fact, pretty well all the best free, open source software comes in
Windows, OS-X, and Linux versions. ;-). But once you get beyond the
basics, Linux falls behind Windows. If you play high-end games, Windows
is your only choice. For heavy duty media-creation, stick with Macs.

That being said, there is one (IMO great) advantage: Linux is much more
secure against direct attacks and malware. (Basically, it's matter of
strictly enforced permission levels: e.g., you can't simply "continue"
when attempting a system-level task, as you can with Windows). This is
the reason I've installed LinuxMint on a five-year-old laptop, which we
take with us when we travel. It's more secure in public wi-fi hotspots.
It runs Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office, and few other useful apps
without a hitch. And it's faster than the XP it replaced.

Many Linux advocates point to the fact that Linux is free. True, but
that comes at a cost: an enormous amount of (IMO pointless) variation.
There are upwards of 600 "distros" (versions) of Linux. Most are merely
the OS plus a bundle of software, but there are real differences between
the four or five major versions, enough that some software written for
(and tuned to) one version won't be happy running on another.

Much of the development of Linux is done by volunteers, who tend to
follow their own agendas. One result is that there may be drivers for
the latest most esoteric hardware out there, but not for the current
plain-vanilla stuff sold at big-box stores. OTOH, there are also likely
to be well-functioning drivers for older equipment that is no longer
supported for the current versions of Windows. If you are still running
W95, I think you'd do better with Linux. If you're willing a to learn
some new software, that is.

This insistence on "freedom" has fractured the Linux community: there
are many who sneer at Ubuntu, because its developers are trying to make
a Linux machine as easy to use as a Windows or a Mac. Too little, too
late, unfortunately. Linux is an also-ran on the desktop and laptop.

There is one application for which Linux (and Unix in general) is
superior: network server. One friend who's used Linux as his business
servers since the early days leaves his machines up 24/7/365. Most of
the server farms you access when you go on line run on Unix or Linux.
But that's a long way from home computing.

And there is another application for which Linux's lean mean design, and
stability, have made it the OS of choice: Android is a Linux derivative.
MS is trying to beat Android by developing W8 as a both/and OS: lean
enough to run a phone or tablet, yet extensible enough to make it a
powerful PC OS. Of it succeeds, we're in for an exciting time as the
size/power ratio will change by an order of magnitude or two.

Hope this has been of interest,
Wolf K.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I agree but if you want to use Win XP software on the machine you have to get
out of Win7 and start WinXP (with all the waiting that that implies), don't
you?

Not in the least. I run XP in a virtual machine and it no more hides
Windows 7 than running a browser in Windows 7 would.

I just click on the XP window to get back to it from Windows 7 and vice
versa, no sweat.

I also just drag a file from an XP directory to a Windows 7 directory
and vice versa, and again no sweat.

Sorry but the KVM route is the one for me, the main advantage being that both
systems can be simultaneously up and running and accessing the one of the
other computer is only a Hot-Key away.

In the VM, they are even closer together and they are simultaneously
visible.

And with a USB link cable connecting the two computers, user files on any one
computer are accessible on the other computer. Just drag and drop! I've even
got one such cable that includes the software on a chip in that it doesn't
need to be "installed" on any of the computers before it can be used. You
just plug it in and it works. It will even link a Windows and an Apple
computer. Brilliant! You can't beat that, can you?

Yes I can. The VM will do all that, even with Windows in a VM on a Mac
(I used to run a Windows VM under Mac OS).

As far as I am concerned a Virtual XP machine is about as attractive as a
virtual woman! But I am willing to learn if I have failed to grasp how this
virtual machine works. Though my understanding is that there ARE drawbacks.
With a KVM there ARE no drawbacks.
-- choro

No drawbacks! Hah! I've used a KVM, and I simply can not agree with
you.

I once used a KVM when I was setting up a new machine to help me figure
out what was on the old machine and get things properly set up on the
new one.

Based on that experience, I can say, in proper engineering technical
lingo, KVM sucks. Now if I can't have the two computers side by side
and separately supplied with peripherals, I do it by putting the old
drive into a USB dock.

But if you wish to continue to torture yourself, I have no intention of
trying to stop you.

The above summary of my experience is for those who are in a position
to decide, not those whose minds are made up (either way!).

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:58:14 -0800, Gene E. Bloch

Wait, what? The police won't let me break the RAID mirror and keep one
of the drives while they seize everything else? I better get a new
strategy...

Paint the second drive wiht invisible ink...

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Hope this has been of interest,

Very much so.

Thankee.

 

[Char Jackson]

No drawbacks! Hah! I've used a KVM, and I simply can not agree with
you.

I once used a KVM when I was setting up a new machine to help me figure
out what was on the old machine and get things properly set up on the
new one.

Based on that experience, I can say, in proper engineering technical
lingo, KVM sucks. Now if I can't have the two computers side by side
and separately supplied with peripherals, I do it by putting the old
drive into a USB dock.

But if you wish to continue to torture yourself, I have no intention of
trying to stop you.

The above summary of my experience is for those who are in a position
to decide, not those whose minds are made up (either way!).

Like you, I have some experience with the KVM situation. I consider it
another tool in my virtual toolbox, to be trotted out when necessary,
but it's never going to be my first choice. I don't find it convenient
at all. Obviously, the mileage of others may vary.

 

[BeeJ]

Virtual is OK for some things but not for others:

1) interfacing hardware (not printers or scanners) - what I do
2) timing considerations - what I do.
3) verify apps I develop run in native XP properly.

The apps I develop are not eMail programs or word processors or spreadsheets
or such that have little timing consequences.

I have hardware devices that require tight timing and direct as possible
hardware interfacing.

My apps run multiple threads and need to get as close the CPU as possible.

It is bad enough to try to troubleshoot apps on XP or Win7 without having to
go through both Win7 and XP.

 

[Allen Drake]

On 19/12/2011 3:40 PM, Allen Drake wrote:
[...]

Ok, so let me ask you this and maybe you can speak for others for a
moment. I have never used Linux although my brother runs it
exclusively, why the need for it if you find WindowsX fulfills your
needs. If not then what can you do with Linux that WinX can not. I am
always looking to try something new and useful but just haven't had
any complaints about what I have to far. The only reason I still hang
on to Windows XP is I have applications and systems that still run
fine and don't feel like bloating Win7. Actually that is why I have
several systems in the first place. Each one is have different
applications and totally different uses.

The only reason I have dual boot is because the XP and 7 systems are
so closely tied. If I were to install Linux I would just build another
machine.

Thanks for any tips.

Al

Well, computers are as much a hobby as a tool for me, so I've been
trying out/playing with Linux for quite a while. ;-)

IMO there are two reasons to use Linux (but I don't think either is
compelling, an opinion that brought down the wrath of the most extreme
Lindroids in a newsgroup I no longer subscribe to):

a) security if you intend to use public wi-fi while travelling;
b) extending the life of old hardware well past its best before date.

My comments, in no particular order, and of varying relevance.:

There's nothing you can do on Linux that you can't do on Windows. And
many of the things you can do on Windows (or OS-X) you can't do as well
or as easily or as auto-magically on Linux. The basics are the same:
browsing, e-mail, writing, simple image processing, playing music or
movies, and so on are equally well supported on all current platforms.
In fact, pretty well all the best free, open source software comes in
Windows, OS-X, and Linux versions. ;-). But once you get beyond the
basics, Linux falls behind Windows. If you play high-end games, Windows
is your only choice. For heavy duty media-creation, stick with Macs.

That being said, there is one (IMO great) advantage: Linux is much more
secure against direct attacks and malware. (Basically, it's matter of
strictly enforced permission levels: e.g., you can't simply "continue"
when attempting a system-level task, as you can with Windows). This is
the reason I've installed LinuxMint on a five-year-old laptop, which we
take with us when we travel. It's more secure in public wi-fi hotspots.
It runs Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office, and few other useful apps
without a hitch. And it's faster than the XP it replaced.

Many Linux advocates point to the fact that Linux is free. True, but
that comes at a cost: an enormous amount of (IMO pointless) variation.
There are upwards of 600 "distros" (versions) of Linux. Most are merely
the OS plus a bundle of software, but there are real differences between
the four or five major versions, enough that some software written for
(and tuned to) one version won't be happy running on another.

Much of the development of Linux is done by volunteers, who tend to
follow their own agendas. One result is that there may be drivers for
the latest most esoteric hardware out there, but not for the current
plain-vanilla stuff sold at big-box stores. OTOH, there are also likely
to be well-functioning drivers for older equipment that is no longer
supported for the current versions of Windows. If you are still running
W95, I think you'd do better with Linux. If you're willing a to learn
some new software, that is.

This insistence on "freedom" has fractured the Linux community: there
are many who sneer at Ubuntu, because its developers are trying to make
a Linux machine as easy to use as a Windows or a Mac. Too little, too
late, unfortunately. Linux is an also-ran on the desktop and laptop.

There is one application for which Linux (and Unix in general) is
superior: network server. One friend who's used Linux as his business
servers since the early days leaves his machines up 24/7/365. Most of
the server farms you access when you go on line run on Unix or Linux.
But that's a long way from home computing.

And there is another application for which Linux's lean mean design, and
stability, have made it the OS of choice: Android is a Linux derivative.
MS is trying to beat Android by developing W8 as a both/and OS: lean
enough to run a phone or tablet, yet extensible enough to make it a
powerful PC OS. Of it succeeds, we're in for an exciting time as the
size/power ratio will change by an order of magnitude or two.

Hope this has been of interest,
Wolf K.

Great post. Thank you very much. I guess I am off now to put together
a Linux system. Actually I am in the middle of two right now. Three if
you count the my last build just sitting here moving dust around.

I was going to ask some questions about what's the best this and
what's the best that to get me running and become familiar with Linux
but maybe I will wait and not hijack this thread.

Thanks again.

Al.