Dual Boot - XP Home + XP Pro32bit - Can they share programs?

[jonjan]

Hi :)

I'm glad there's a forum and people to help each other.

I'm building a computer for the partial benefit of aid and education organizations. I want to test whether XP Home, or XP Pro 32bit is faster for the computer I use. I thought I could do this by making the computer dual-boot, and I could test each OS over time.

I read at Microsoft's site http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/s.../multiboot.mspx

that they suggest installing all programs on both OS's partitions. However, I want to test the same exact programs with each OS. I'll be making changes to files and I want both OS's to always access the latest changes I've made.

So my question is... Would it work to create 2 partitions for the 2 OS's, and then put all the programs and files on the other part of the drive... and have both OS's access and work with the same exact programs and files?

I'm new at this, so I really appreciate any help :)

appreciatively

Jon

Explore your highest Guidance, whatever it may be, and it need not be religious

[-pops-]

Welcome to Windows Forum :)

I doubt that you can do as you want but, more important, I can't really see why you want to do speed comparisons between two almost identical operating systems.

The speed of operation of a computer depends on many variables - the operating system is way, way down the list of these.

There are no speed differences claimed by Microsoft for the two version of XP - the reason for the two versions is almost entirely to do with the improved security aspects of the Pro version - which are only likely to be of interest to business users.

If there is a speed difference it will be minimal and unnoticable. Real, significant speed increases are made by faster hardware, not software.

[jason.b.c]

Would it work to create 2 partitions for the 2 OS's,

You allready have two partitions.! , One with XP home and the other with XP pro..! :P

Are you asking if you can create just one extra partition and have both systems access it to use the programs from there instead of having the programs installed on the same partitions as the systems are installed..??

I'm sure you could do that with some stuff, But to have one of each program installed on that partition and have the two XP's use them i think it would be a stretch...

If you have already installed Windows, and you have only one partition, you must reformat and partition your hard drive before you can multiboot.

You can divide your hard disk into multiple partitions, and each partition can function as a separate logical drive. For example, logical drives C: and D: can both exist on the same hard disk, but function as separate disks. You should install each operating system on a different partition. Then install applications on the same partition as the operating system with which you run them. If an application is used with two different operating systems, install copies on both partitions. Placing each operating system in a separate partition ensures that it will not overwrite crucial files used by the other OS.

From your link.... :D

[jonjan]

Welcome to Windows Forum :)

There are no speed differences claimed by Microsoft for the two version of XP - the reason for the two versions is almost entirely to do with the improved security aspects of the Pro version - which are only likely to be of interest to business users.

If there is a speed difference it will be minimal and unnoticable. Real, significant speed increases are made by faster hardware, not software.

I have the hardware I'll be using, so my next choice is my choice of OS.

The hardware is pretty good... a P4 3.8GHz 2MB L2 with HyperThreading, and 2x 512megs of Corsair XMS2 3-3-2-8-4 PC2-5400 675Mhz DDR2. Almost my whole set-up can be seen at www.helpusall.com/computer

I notice that XP Home loads about 30% faster on my system than XP Pro 32bit does, so it seems the operating speed may also be significantly different. That's why I want to test them over time and see.

[-pops-]

Here at home I have two machines running Pro and one with Home. I don't see any noticeable difference in any of their speeds especially as one of the Pro loaded machines is the same hardware specification as the Home one.

Also, I build machines for my son's business using a mix of Home and Pro (depending on the main uses of each computer). He has never noticed any difference that could be attributed to the operating systems.

I wouldn't put much importance into the loading times. Yes, there is more for XP Pro to load but, once it's loaded that's it.

Reverting to your original question, though, I am still doubtful that you can do as you want, which jason.b.c seems to confirm in his quote from your own link.

[jonjan]

Would it work to create 2 partitions for the 2 OS's,

You allready have two partitions.! , One with XP home and the other with XP pro..! :P

Are you asking if you can create just one extra partition and have both systems access it to use the programs from there instead of having the programs installed on the same partitions as the systems are installed..??

Right, Yes :) Because I want both to be able to access the same files and modify them, and always access the last modification. So if I change a Word document in Home, I'd like to be able to access that modified document if I boot up next time in Pro 32bit. And for programs that need a separate lisence for each computer they're installed on, I'd like both OS's to access that same exact program

I'm sure you could do that with some stuff, But to have one of each program installed on that partition and have the two XP's use them i think it would be a stretch...

I want this set-up...

Partition 1: XP Home

Partition 2: XP Pro 32bit

Partition 3(remainder of drive space): All programs and files

So I boot up in one OS, or the other, and then work with the programs and files from the 3rd partition.

I hope I'm explaining this so it's understandable. It seems like a set-up that many people using dual-boot would want... so I'm guessing it's common. A few years ago a tech set up a computer for me with Windows 98 and Windows XP, and it worked this way. Or it was set-up some way that enabled me to choose which OS to use, and then it accessed the same programs and files

If you have already installed Windows, and you have only one partition, you must reformat and partition your hard drive before you can multiboot..

...Placing each operating system in a separate partition ensures that it will not overwrite crucial files used by the other OS.

Reformatting the drives is fine. And overwiting the files is exactly what I want to accomplish... but overwrite the program and file files, not the OS files. So is what I want possible then?

*fingers crossed* B)

[-pops-]

Looking at your web site, I note that the hard drives (40GB) are very small by modern standards.

Perhaps drives more in keeping with modern usage (>120GB+) would be more appropriate for your system and for the work you want to do, that is doubling up on the operating systems and programs.

I always work on the principle that when a hard drive is at 50% of its total capacity then it is "full" and serious consideration should be given at that time to acquiring extra drive space. This is because, due to the way it functions, Windows needs lots of drive space to carry out its operations efficiently. This 50% figure is not so important with the larger drives but, considering a Windows XP installation can use 6GB itself (ergo 2 x Windows = 12 GB) + programs this does not leave much room for Windows to operate at its best.

[jonjan]

Looking at your web site, I note that the hard drives (40GB) are very small by modern standards.

Perhaps drives more in keeping with modern usage (>120GB+) would be more appropriate for your system and for the work you want to do, that is doubling up on the operating systems and programs.

Thank you for mentioning this. I do keep the drive very empty, maybe 3 gigs of other programs, aside from XP. Getting the NCQ 3GB Raptors would help also. I can see from my testing that the drives seem to be a limiting factor. When I click on a folder, there's a slight pause, and then the folder 'opens' and I hear the drive make it's fast ticking sound. This is using XP Pro 32bit, and a few days ago the XP Home OS did seem to be at least twice as fast opening folders. It's not the easiest thing to compare though, when it requires doing a clean install each time of the OS B) That's why I want to know if the dual-boot is possible... or else I'll just give it a try and see what happens :)

I just did a lot of reading on RAM virtual disks...

This program RamDisk, takes Physical Memory and can create a Virtual Drive from it.

http://www.superspeed.com/servers/ramdisk.php#compare

So possibly, the OS and TS, could be put on a Virtual Drive of RAM, and it would be much faster than a hard drive. Of course it's impermanent, but it seems possible to Ghost copy the OS and TS onto it each day, and save it at the end of the day.

Another program from the same company is SuperVolume http://www.superspeed.com/desktop/supervolume.php

This supposedly mirrors a hard drive partition onto the physical RAM. (the drive partition needs to be small enough to fit onto the RAM). The I/O requests supposedly are handled by the RAM mirror, and also are duplicated to the drive partition itself.

So RamDisk seems faster but without real-time permanence, and SuperVolume seems to have Permanence, but possibly (?) works more slowly (since the RAM/CPU also needs to copy the I/O data to the hard drive))

And SuperCache on the same site is another option... To make a cache from a part of the physical RAM, for a partition on a drive. It would not mirror the entire partition, but supposedly be a cache for part of it, and increase I/O speeds.

and a free one http://www.cenatek.com/product_ramdisk.cfm

I was looking at iRam http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/g...am/index.x?pg=2 but at $600 to buy it and add 4GB of memory, the system RAM-based apps seems better (if they'll work). Plus the system RAM would seem to run faster, compared to the SATA interface of the iRAM

Jon

[-pops-]

Are you familiar with HyperOS and HyperDrive?

Have a look at click here.

They recently had some very good offers on their systems.

[jonjan]

Are you familiar with HyperOS and HyperDrive?

Have a look at click here.

They recently had some very good offers on their systems.

Thank you, Yes I did find the HyperOS's HyperDrive IV also.

Also similar is Gigabytes iRam http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/g...am/index.x?pg=1

And Cenatek Rocket Drive which seems comparatively more expensive, for it's capacity and it's PCI.

DDRDrive is supposed to be released soon, using PCI-E x1 slot

I think the SuperSpeed RamDisk, SuperVolume, and SuperCache have the strengths of not having the bottleneck of a SATA, PATA or PCI-E interface... especially RamDisk just using the board RAM. However HyperDrive IV has the benefit of holding 8GB or 16GB, whereas the SuperSpeed apps and iRAM can only use 4GB, actually less since some RAM is needed for OS operation.

Assuming a cost of $80 for a 1GB RAM stick, and $140 for a 2GB RAM stick:

Gigabyte's iRam is about $450 for 4GB for the Card and the RAM, at a cost of $110 per GB of RAM drive.

The HyperDrive costs about $1300 for a 8GB card and RAM ($160 per GB), and $2,100 for a 16GB card and RAM ($130 per GB).

The SuperSpeed RamDisk has a cost of $300 for 3GB of board RAM and the app, at ($100 per GB) (assuming 4GB is installed on the board, and 1GB is used for the usual physical RAM uses).

The apps would run much much faster. HyperDrive can use 8-16GB. HyperDrive and iRAM can retain data after shut-down, by battery for a few hours, and by an external power plugged to the PSU, or to a wall outlet or UPS.

The app SuperVolume and SuperCache can retain data after full shut down and no power, since the data is also written to the hard drive. ...That raises another option... combining SuperVolume or SuperCache with a Card RAM Drive

I do wonder how easy it would be to transfer a program, or the OS, to a RamDisk or the a Card RAM Drive. If a ghost or cloning program (Acronis, Norton, etc) could do this easily?

this is sure fun stuff :D sky's the limit for sure..

On The Initial Topic... I found this..

from http://www.microsoft.com

Partitions, Volumes, Drives, and Disks

The first rule of partitions is that every operating system needs one. Actually, every OS needs its own drive letter (technically, a logical drive), but it can share an extended partition with other operating systems as long as they're each in their own logical drive. If your mix of operating systems includes UNIX and/or Linux, they will require their own primary partition, separate from any Windows operating system you have installed.

So plan how to divide the available hard disk space by the number of operating systems you want to install and by how much space you'll allot to each OS. Plus room for applications, of course. If you plan to boot three operating systems on one computer, and install applications in one place where all the operating systems can use them, you'll need four partitions or logical drives of sufficient size—these days, I figure not less than 2 GB per operating system. But don't actually install anything yet—we need to do a little planning before we install the operating systems, because the order of installation is critical to our success.

So it seems that it is possible to have each OS use, modify, and access the same exact programs and files..

I'm going to try this today..

[jonjan]

I collected a bit more info...

[red]FASTER DATA STORAGE I/O[/red]

[red]collection and main features of available

PATA, SATA, PCI-E x1 RAM drive Cards,

and application RAMDisk, RAM cache, and RAM drive volumes (mirrors)....[/red]

General Idea of what is possible with these... (i-Ram)

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/g...am/index.x?pg=7

RAM CARDS

HyperOS HyperDrive IV (empty 8GB card $700 , empty 16GB card $1,050)

http://www.hyperossystems.co.uk/07042003/p...erosHDIIproduct

PATA or SATA interface, 8-16GB storage, battery for 2hours of non-powered data retention, and external cord to PSU for data retention as long as the PSU is plugged in (even when in shut-down mode)

Also similar is Gigabytes iRam (empty 4GB card $120)

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q1/g...am/index.x?pg=1

(link gives data on the speed difference.. as fast as 4 RAID0 drives)

And Cenatek Rocket Drive (2GB card, upgradable to 4GB $1,600)

http://www.cenatek.com/product_rocketdrive.cfm

which seems comparatively more expensive, for it's capacity and it's PCI.

DDRDrive (8GB card $?)

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/02/03/ddrdrive...nounced_for_q1/

is supposed to be released soon, using PCI-E x1 slot

RAM Disk Applications

SuperSpeed's RamDisk $50, SuperVolume $90 and SuperCache II $150

http://www.superspeed.com/desktop/ramdisk.php

RamDisk makes a virtual Disk from the RAM installed on the system board... the 'disk' data can be loaded at start-up, and also be saved to an image file at shut-down. SuperVolume has the RAM mirror the data from a drive or partition, and that is used for I/O... and the I/O is also transferred to the hard drive itself. SuperCache uses the RAM as a cache, the same way as SuperVolume, but for drives/partitions that are larger than the amount of RAM available for the app.

WinSoft RamDisk $35

http://www.winsoft.sk/ramdisk.htm

Functions the same as the above RamDisk.

Cenatek RamDisk $50

http://www.cenatek.com/product_ramdisk.cfm

Appears to be the same thing

FACTORS

Speed

the SuperSpeed http://www.superspeed.com/desktop/ramdisk.php

RamDisk, SuperVolume, and SuperCache have the strengths of not having the bottleneck of a SATA, PATA or PCI-E interface... especially RamDisk which only uses the board RAM.

Capacity

HyperDrive IV has the benefit of holding 8GB or 16GB, whereas the SuperSpeed apps and iRAM can only use 4GB, and SuperSpeed would actually use less since some RAM is needed for the usual on-board operations.

Data Retention

HyperDrive and iRAM can retain data after shut-down, by battery for a few hours (HyperDrive- 2hrs, iRam 5-10hrs), and by an external power plugged to the PSU, or to a wall outlet or UPS.

The SuperSpeed apps SuperVolume and SuperCache can retain data after full shut down and no power, since the data is also written to the hard drive.

Cost

Including the cost of $80 for a 1GB RAM stick, and $140 for a 2GB RAM stick (about the cheapest DDR1 on pricegrabber))

[blue]Gigabyte's iRam card[/blue] at [blue]$450 for 4GB[/blue] is [blue]$110 per GB[/blue] of RAM drive.

[green]HyperOS HyperDrive card[/green] is [green]$1300 for a 8GB card[/green] at ([green]$160 per GB[/green]), and [red]$2,100 for a 16GB[/red] at ([red]$130 per GB[/red]).

[brown]SuperSpeed RamDisk app.[/brown] is [brown]$300 for 3GB[/brown] at ([brown]$100 per GB[/brown]) (assuming 4GB is installed on the board, and 1GB is used for the usual physical RAM uses). Using [purple]2GB is $210 [/purple]at [purple]$105 a GB [/purple]. And using [navy]1GB costs $130[/navy] for [navy]$130 a GB[/navy].

[brown]Cenatek RamDisk[/brown] is the same cost as SuperSpeed's RamDisk... [brown]$100/GB for 3GB[/brown], [purple]$105/GB for 2GB[/purple], and [navy]$130/GB for 1GB[/navy].

[green]WinSoft RamDisk [/green]is a bit less, [brown]$90/GB for 3GB[/brown], [purple]$100/GB for 2GB[/purple], and [navy]$115/GB for 1GB[/navy].

There is also the ability to combine SuperCache or SuperVolume, with an iRam or HyperDrive IV. So the reading and writing to the hard drive would be faster.

I do wonder how easy it would be to transfer a program, or the OS, to a RamDisk or the a Card RAM Drive. If a ghost or cloning program (Acronis, Norton, etc) could do this easily?

[:)]

Jon

www.helpusall.com/intro.html

[jason.b.c]

Are you familiar with HyperOS and HyperDrive?

Have a look at click here.

They recently had some very good offers on their systems.

POP's..?? Who is seriously going to buy that thing anyway..?? The purchase price makes me want to throw up..

It's an awesome alternative to a hard drive, Your right about that, But i don't think that it's a really feasable way to achieve faster computer speeds.. ;)

[-pops-]

Jason, despite what you might think, these units do sell. You must not forget that computer users are much more than amateurs sitting around on a lazy Sunday afternoon twiddling their keyboards and mice.

If you have a genuine use for these high speed devices, they are very cost effective and their price is of little significance.

I should point out, though, that my main objective in my post was to highlight the HyperOS system to query if that would fulfil jonjan's objectives.

[jonjan]

Are you familiar with HyperOS and HyperDrive?

Have a look at click here.

They recently had some very good offers on their systems.

POP's..?? Who is seriously going to buy that thing anyway..?? The purchase price makes me want to throw up..

It's an awesome alternative to a hard drive, Your right about that, But i don't think that it's a really feasable way to achieve faster computer speeds.. ;)

Hi jason.b.c ,

there are some people for sure who will buy it, otherwise the iRam wouldn't be selling on newegg with user reviews.

Some people with either a lot of extra money, or a mission. I have a $7,000+ system that is not finished yet! I use it trading stocks to pay my bills and help helpful organizations. It's a mission so I make the system as solid as possible. For some stock traders, half a second difference is a big difference, so these ram drives are a great option to explore. :)

------------

POP's,

yes, I thank you a ton... you actually gave me fodder to explore this area, and I'll likely be testing it in the near future. The I/O speed of these is incredible

(I keep editing these as they don't always post how I intend)....

Update

I sucessfully created a dual-boot system with XP Home and XP Pro 32bit.

I did a clean install of XP Home, onto a 2GB partition I created during the install process. Then, I installed XP Pro 32bit, onto another 2GB partition. I installed the INF file and video card drivers to each OS, and everything is working fine. I formatted both partitions with NTFS also.

Now when I start-up, the system goes through POST, and it comes to a screen showing XP Pro and XP Home, and asks which I want to use. It was very easy.

Now I'll partition the remainder of the drive and install some programs, and see if both drives will access them..

[jason.b.c]

Jason, despite what you might think, these units do sell. You must not forget that computer users are much more than amateurs sitting around on a lazy Sunday afternoon twiddling their keyboards and mice.

If you have a genuine use for these high speed devices, they are very cost effective and their price is of little significance.

I should point out, though, that my main objective in my post was to highlight the HyperOS system to query if that would fulfil jonjan's objectives.

Very little significance..??? I dunno.?? Seems to me like you could buy a "whole lotta" hard drive and physical ram for that kind of money..

Maybe not of much significance to big corporations, but we're talking about individuals...

Hi jason.b.c ,

there are some people for sure who will buy it, otherwise the iRam wouldn't be selling on newegg with user reviews.

Some people with either a lot of extra money, or a mission. I have a $7,000+ system that is not finished yet! I use it trading stocks to pay my bills and help helpful organizations. It's a mission so I make the system as solid as possible. For some stock traders, half a second difference is a big difference, so these ram drives are a great option to explore.

Oh i'm sure they do sell ;) .., I just can't picture spending that kind of money on something like that nor could i justify the need to have one ( at that price )..

[-pops-]

jason, your quote from my post omitted the salient point:

If you have a genuine use for these high speed devices

You should also get away from the idea that all computers are sitting somewhere in people's homes being used for mainly trivial purposes. Things aren't like that at all. OK, home computers do make up a significant proportion of the world's computers but there are also an awful lot of bigger and better machines using bigger, better and more expensive hardware and software than we could even think of using.

Take software. Photoshop is expensive - too expensive for most home users to contemplate buying so, to counter this Photoshop Elements (a cut down version) was issued but, more important, a number of lower cost clones (example Paint Shop Pro) were introduced for the home user. Accounts software is complex and very expensive. There isn't much demand to home user accounts software so there aren't many cut down or low cost versions.

We aren't just

talking about individuals

janjon has a query which, it appears, the "expensive" ideas I gave may be able to help with.

I built computers for my son's business. One reason is that he can't get commercial machines of the quality and specification he demands without buying far more than he would need or paying way over the odds for them. I can build at a reasonable price (but still expensive) and the spec is far, far higher than almost any machine that you see advertised in the magazines.

The demand is there and it is not always down to cost that makes a device sell or not.

[jason.b.c]

You should also get away from the idea that all computers are sitting somewhere in people's homes being used for mainly trivial purposes. Things aren't like that at all. OK, home computers do make up a significant proportion of the world's computers but there are also an awful lot of bigger and better machines using bigger, better and more expensive hardware and software than we could even think of using.

I understand a little better now.. :D

I wasn't trying to be argumentative.. :lol:

[ɹəuəllıʍ ʇɐb]

...

Now I'll partition the remainder of the drive and install some programs, and see if both drives will access them..

Most applications (99%) will not execute if they were not installed on the OS you run. They all depend on registry entries and/or settings and files in the C:\Documents and Settings folder. So you will have to install them in both systems.

But since this appears to be a test installation only at current, you will probably find out soon... :)

[jonjan]

...

Now I'll partition the remainder of the drive and install some programs, and see if both drives will access them..

Most applications (99%) will not execute if they were not installed on the OS you run. They all depend on registry entries and/or settings and files in the C:\Documents and Settings folder. So you will have to install them in both systems.

But since this appears to be a test installation only at current, you will probably find out soon... :)

Doraemon...

yes this is a test installation. I just want to test the speed of Home compared to Pro32bit. I loaded the same drivers to each OS, and set the windows settings exactly the same. Next comes running 3DMark2006, and seeing if there is a time difference between the 2.

so far, it's been an interesting and enjoyable process learning :)

[cozofdeath]

Very interesting idea, let us all know how your make out. What all performance wise will your be monitoring? I can see how xp home would be faster though exspecially at startup. Pro has to load all the access controls, the encryption file system, policys, domain networking, and all the services xp home doesn't start, although it does have and can be turned on. When you add everything together, it would be interesting to see how them extra xp pro features, compared to home, slow your computer down. Is there much visual evidence?

[jonjan]

I installed PCMark06 to the 3rd partition, and both OS's can access it and use it.

The drive letters do change, depending on what OS is booted. And both OS partition 'drives' are visible, no matter which OS is booted to...

I'm actually not sure what performance I'm wanting to check The CPU speed is the biggest bottleneck for the program I use, so I will pay special note to that score.

So far, both OS's seem to operate the same, visually. I'll get more time spend with them and be back to share... 1/4 of a second is a significant difference for my program, but harder to detect with my eye... especially after an interruption of restarting between the OS's.

[jonjan]

Okay, here is what I found from running PCMark06 about a dozen times on each OS, testing the cpu and the memory.

the cpu values in Home are mostly within a tight range. The range of the cpu values in Pro32bit is more than twice as wide. The Pro cpu values have their average about at the tight range average of Home.

the memory of Pro, and Home are both relatively within a tight range. Pro's values are a little bit faster.

So, since I plan to overclock, a tighter cpu range seems more important than a slightly faster memory function. So Home seems more Stable, according to a couple dozen tests performed over a few hours

[ɹəuəllıʍ ʇɐb]

Interesting findings! A couple of questions...

• Did you run these tests with applications installed (or just the OS) ?
  
• Did you run these tests with applications running?
  

I'm asking because if applications are installed, there are likely a few startup apps, taking up memory. And of course if applications (e.g. Office) are running, they are likely to take up lots of memory, perhaps swapping in and out while you are testing.

But I don't know if this will actually make much difference in your findings.

P.S. glad that you know Doraemon...

[jonjan]

I ran the tests all with only the OS running.

Some one else had suggested to do many more tests and get the average to get a more confident score for each... it is a good idea.

I've had college classes in statistics, and even the relatively few tests I did, had variances that would be unlikely to be changed if the tests were ran more (especially at the cost of many hours of running the tests).

So XP Home is my choice.

I'm mostly partial to Ghibli like Kiki's Delivery Service, and Totoro :)