Can You Convince Me To Upgrade To Windows 7

[JetsetBkk]

I installed Win7 on a partition on another drive and made the desktop dual booting: XP & Win7.

The dual booting didn't work as M$ said it would - Win7 booted all the time with no option to boot XP. Had to use EasyBCD to sort things out.

Assuming you were already running XP, installing Win7 (as the second OS) should enable dual boot automatically.

Did you install Win7 to a primary or extended partition on the second HDD? If it was a primary, was the partition set 'Active'? This would explain why there was no option to choose XP in the Win7 boot menu.

1. Yes, that's what I was told - dual-booting would be automatic - and that's what I expected. But there was no boot menu at all. I came to the conclusion that the problem was because the PC did not have a 'boot.ini' file in its XP system. Although it always booted XP OK, before I added Win7, I assumed that Win7 didn't find 'boot.ini' during it's installation and so didn't add it as a boot option.

2. I'm fairly sure I made it an active, primary partition - it's the sort of thing you do automatically. I think it was the missing "boot.ini" that caused the problem.

UAC gets in the way of trying to do things on Win7. Having to give administrators the right to access folders in Program Files is a pain in the butt. Having a shortcut called "Application Data" that goes nowhere is ridiculous.

Compared to Vista, the implementation of UAC in Win7 is so much better; less intrusive. Overall, a welcome change in this department. However, I do agree that having to grant Administrators access rights to folders like Program Files doesn't make a whole lot of sense. More often than not, it just gets in the way of things.

The "Application Data" folder doesn't exist, but a shortcut is created for legacy app compatibility. There are quite a few of these, app data isn't the only one.

I can understand why XP users were so irritated by UAC in Vista, if UAC was more intrusive than it is in Win7!

What I can't understand about the shortcuts that go nowhere is why didn't MS simply create the actual folder. They could even have put a 'readme.txt' file in the folder that says "This folder is no longer user. Win7 now uses 'AppData' " - or words to that effect. I mean, how much effort would that have been?

My biggest problem is that I have written a small program that produces command files and runs them. They cause Firefox to go to specific web sites, dump the page and download specific torrents. All works well on XP, but not on Win7. Even creating the command files needs "Administrator rights". Lord knows how I give these command files the right to run Firefox - which is the current problem.

[garyh]

Maybe your just not holding your mouth the right way.

You'll have to explain that one!

Maybe it's an Australian thing, ever seen someone making silly faces trying to do some difficult job like getting a nut on in a hard to get to spot. The joke is to tell them there not holding there mouth the right way, changing there expression will make the job easier.

[Sabum]

I upgraded from XP, which was quite som fuss to do. (It's easy if you have Vista they say.)

I didn't like 7 at all. I deleted it and went back to XP SP3.

<deleted>?! Hehe ya all that new fangled technology is confusing! Goshdangit! I can't even begin to imagine why you would go back to ancient technology that is completely inferior. Seems like for some of you all they need to do is change the location of a menu or some other insignificant thing and you get all flustered and give up, no tolerance for a small learning curve of the new?

[welo]

What I can't understand about the shortcuts that go nowhere is why didn't MS simply create the actual folder. They could even have put a 'readme.txt' file in the folder that says "This folder is no longer user. Win7 now uses 'AppData' " - or words to that effect. I mean, how much effort would that have been?

The folders you see are so-called junction points (hard links) to the corresponding folder in the new folder structure introduced with Vista. Referencing this folder from e.g. a program will lead directly to the referenced location. To the program it will seem like the folder is still there whereas any data read or written actually comes from the referenced folder. The only reason for this setup is to maintain backwards compatibility in order to allow programs written before Vista to still run on Vista and Win7.

For the very same reason you cannot create an actual folder with that name and put a readme.txt file there.

Why Windows Explorer cannot follow those junction points/links I do not know, I tried with Free Commander which will just jump to the referenced folder.

My biggest problem is that I have written a small program that produces command files and runs them. They cause Firefox to go to specific web sites, dump the page and download specific torrents. All works well on XP, but not on Win7. Even creating the command files needs "Administrator rights". Lord knows how I give these command files the right to run Firefox - which is the current problem.

Maybe you have to restructure your program a bit. I am not a Windows Programmer, but you probably should create the command files in a different location. Applications should separate program files from user data created during execution. Maybe you try to create those files in the Program Files folder.

welo

[Supernova]

1. Yes, that's what I was told - dual-booting would be automatic - and that's what I expected. But there was no boot menu at all. I came to the conclusion that the problem was because the PC did not have a 'boot.ini' file in its XP system. Although it always booted XP OK, before I added Win7, I assumed that Win7 didn't find 'boot.ini' during it's installation and so didn't add it as a boot option.

2. I'm fairly sure I made it an active, primary partition - it's the sort of thing you do automatically. I think it was the missing "boot.ini" that caused the problem.

You mean NTLDR, which is the traditional loader used in Windows XP and legacy NT systems. Windows 7 does not use a boot.ini file, much less read from it. Hence the entry, "Earlier Version of Windows" in the boot manager menu instead of something more specific like Windows 2000 or Windows XP Professional etc.

BTW, if the boot.ini file (or NTLDR) was missing, you won't be able to startup Windows XP -- even if it was the only operating system on your computer.

My biggest problem is that I have written a small program that produces command files and runs them. They cause Firefox to go to specific web sites, dump the page and download specific torrents. All works well on XP, but not on Win7. Even creating the command files needs "Administrator rights". Lord knows how I give these command files the right to run Firefox - which is the current problem.

Enable the "hidden" Administrator account. Unlike the default user account, this one has no restrictions.

net user administrator /active:yes

Use the RunAs command to access this account from your current one.

Just checked, mine is still member of Administrators group. Not sure if this is something you can choose on installation, can't remember

The default user account is part of the Administrators group, but has "limited" rights.

[welo]

Just checked, mine is still member of Administrators group. Not sure if this is something you can choose on installation, can't remember

The default user account is part of the Administrators group, but has "limited" rights.

Enable the "hidden" Administrator account. Unlike the default user account, this one has no restrictions.

Do you mind elaborating on that subject a bit more? I've just read an article on UAC and it seems that the only difference between the Administrator account and the user account created during setup is that the latter one has UAC enabled by default and the first one not. On the other hand I also found other user posts talking about activating the 'hidden' unlimited Administrator account, still without explaining how exactly this account will be superior to the default account.

For now I assume that disabling UAC on the default account yields the same result.

Talking about JetsetBKKs problem, why all the worries with activating the Administrator account? 'Run As Administrator' on the default account with UAC enabled should give his program admin rights without the need of activating the 'hidden' account.

And if the only reason why the program requires admin rights is the creation of files under the application program directory, one could either move the program to a non-system directory and run it from there, or rewrite it to create the files in the Users/AppData directory. The latter is surely the proper way to do things.

But of course when coding a small app/script for oneself the main motivation is to get the job done in the shortest amount of time

A few more quotes on Applications and UAC

However, David Cross, a product unit manager at Microsoft, stated during the RSA Conference 2008 that UAC was in fact designed to "annoy users," and force independent software vendors to make their programs more secure so that UAC prompts would not be triggered

<h4 class="subHeading">Developing UAC Compliant Applications for Windows Vista</h4>While the concept of running applications with the least privileges and user rights required has been widely accepted within the software development community, it has often been overlooked by application vendors who choose to instead concentrate on simplifying the use of software or on refining the user interface.

Many application developers will be required to change their applications so that they will work properly with UAC. Applications that unnecessarily require administrative rights should be redesigned to be UAC-compliant. This redesign will enable standard users to run many applications on Windows Vista that they are unable to run on Windows today.

Microsoft has provided guidance and tools for application developers to help facilitate this redesign process. For more information, please see the Application Compatibility page on MSDN (http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=49973).

Even with these changes, there will still be tasks that require a full administrator access token. Some examples include managing user accounts, installing device drivers, and running enterprise management software. With Windows Vista, application developers will need to determine which of the two levels of access (standard or administrative) their application needs for specific tasks. If an application does not need a full administrator access token for a task, then it should be written to require only standard user access checks. For example, a UAC-compliant application should write data files to the user's profile, as opposed to the Program Files directory tree.

source: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library...28WS.10%29.aspx

[Supernova]

Do you mind elaborating on that subject a bit more? I've just read an article on UAC and it seems that the only difference between the Administrator account and the user account created during setup is that the latter one has UAC enabled by default and the first one not. On the other hand I also found other user posts talking about activating the 'hidden' unlimited Administrator account, still without explaining how exactly this account will be superior to the default account.

For now I assume that disabling UAC on the default account yields the same result.

You've brought up an interesting point. To be honest, I don't know what the differences are between regular vs hidden Admin accounts. However, I would be very disappointed to learn if what you said is true -- with UAC being the deciding factor. If this was the case, having a hidden Admin account is moot; thus defeating the purpose of having one at all.

After some searching on the subject, this is what I came up with...

Enable the (Hidden) Administrator Account

How to access the true Admininstrator account

Although both links make references to Vista, the information should apply to Windows 7 as well. To quote what was said in the first link:

The built-in administrator has more privileges than the automatic administrator, regardless of UAC. In fact, it has a dangerous amount of privileges, and you should not use it–especially on a new OS with all-new security concerns–unless you know exactly why you need it.

I don't understand exactly what the poster meant by "dangerous amount of privileges" or whether the claims made have any truth to it. I'll let you decide...

Edited January 29, 2010 by Supernova

[Gary A]

Am I at risk? I really have no idea but I have the UAC turned off and don't wish to have any notifications. It works fine for me.

[Gary A]

Triple post - my CAT EVDO sucks!

Edited January 29, 2010 by Gary A

[Gary A]

CAT EVDO double sucks

Edited January 29, 2010 by Gary A

[Supernova]

Am I at risk? I really have no idea but I have the UAC turned off and don't wish to have any notifications. It works fine for me.

The 'risk factor' will always be there whether or not UAC is enabled. As long as you're aware of the dangers that are out there, I don't think you have anything to worry about.

I wouldn't disable UAC in Windows 7, instead keep it enabled; if only at the minimum level.

[welo]

Btw sorry to hijack this thread, but personally I find the discussion pretty interesting.

Still not sure what's the truth about this built-in administrator account...

Opinion 1

from Enable the (Hidden) Administrator Account

Several people asked about the difference between the built-in administrator account and the administrator created on Vista setup. Unless you are a very experienced user (more than 5 years in serious technical support) and require very specific access privileges, then the default account should be fine–you will know if you need the built-in administrator when, no matter what you do, you cannot perform an operation–and you will know immediately that this is the problem. Yes, there is a difference, and no, you shouldn't normally have to worry about it.

On Vista, setting your account to have "administrator" privileges effectively yields "standard" user rights, with the option to run programs with elevated privileges. To put this another way, under Vista you're still not running as the administrator you've come to expect, even if you're using "Run As Administrator."

In XP, group membership was sufficient to determine your privileges–you just added yourself to the appropriate group and everything happened under those privileges. A "user" could use shortcuts to "run a program as admin" but this was mostly ignored by "users always logged in as administrators" who simply preferred the convenience of not knowing why this "extra work" is critically important–or that Vista tried to address this. While it gets complex once networking is involved–especially with the use of domains–the gross result is that your feedback is correct under this model.

. In Vista (unfortunately) the administrator we initially see…isn't. While I remark to myself that the process you describe may be release-dependant, i.e., Home vs. Business or a function of corporate domains, more to the point: this is where the exact terminology matters. A user can appear to be a Vista "administrator" but lack the privilege escalation available to the "built-in administrator." In fact, Vista runs administrator tasks under the context of the currently-logged-in user–with multiple access tokens–UNLESS the user is NOT a member of the Administrators group, when the context used is the account used when authenticating with UAC. This is a critical security point, and enabling the built-in administrator is what the article is telling you how to do (think XP's security model). While this may initially seem misleading, what's happening is that this falls into the realm of highly-specific nomenclature, and my point is this: Many users don't recognize a difference and would either fail to find this article, discard it as irrelevant, or find it too technical (which is the risk I carry in my own comments). The author has to make this easy-to-find while at the same time trusting the average visitor won't get themselves in trouble. It *is* important to recognize the difference, because it *is* necessary to enable and use the "built-in administrator" in rare cases–but it's a risky move. It's why I keep coming back here to strongly caution non-expert users to be careful with this procedure, and to seek help on the HowToGeek forums when they need it.

Opinion 2

from http://4sysops.com/archives/the-myths-abou...-and-windows-7/

The built-in Administrator account and UAC (User Account Control)

Approval mode for the local Administrator account is disabled by default. There is a special Group Policy setting where this behavior can be changed: "Admin Approval Mode for the Built-in Administrator account". Running Vista in Admin Approval Mode is nothing other than running Vista with UAC enabled. Hence, this simply means that UAC is disabled by default for the built-in Administrator account.

Of course you can change these setting also for all other administrator accounts by disabling UAC through the User accounts applet in the Control Panel or by disabling the policy "Run all administrators in Admin Approval Mode". Note that this doesn't just disable the UAC prompts like if you set the policy "Behavior of the elevation prompt for administrators in Admin Approval Mode" to "Elevate without prompting". It disables UAC altogether, which basically means that every program an administrator launches will be elevated automatically. You can test this if you save a file with notepad in the Windows folder. If UAC is enabled you can't do that if you didn't elevate notepad before.

To me it seems the difference is that the built-in administrator has UAC completely disabled, which yields a different behavior than changing the UAC setting to 'never notify'. Maybe this is the key.

Unfortunately not many responses on the second website, so no confirmation whether the authors information is correct or not.

The author of the first article seems knowledgeable but avoids being specific about the difference (you'll need 'more than 5 years in serious technical support' to understand).

There is also one information that is either incorrect or only applies to Vista, not Windows 7 (I guess it's the latter), namely that the built-in administrator is not part of the Administrator group. I checked the user control panel (in Computer Management) and it definitely IS a member of Administrator group. Btw it's pretty easy to activate the built-in administrator user in there.

I still haven't made up my mind yet. Maybe do more reading later (or wait until somebody else does )

welo

[Supernova]

^ Interesting... I'm sure the folks in Redmond know what the differences are. However, I've yet to see any official explanation offered by MS.

Talking about JetsetBKKs problem, why all the worries with activating the Administrator account? 'Run As Administrator' on the default account with UAC enabled should give his program admin rights without the need of activating the 'hidden' account.

But of course when coding a small app/script for oneself the main motivation is to get the job done in the shortest amount of time

Sure, one can do the right-click and select "Run as Administrator"... But how to do this from a batch file, command line, or an application? I like to entertain the idea of adding a manifest to the application as suggested HERE (see last post). Don't know if it'll work though. There are a couple of other suggestions given in the same thread, be sure to read through it.

And if the only reason why the program requires admin rights is the creation of files under the application program directory, one could either move the program to a non-system directory and run it from there, or rewrite it to create the files in the Users/AppData directory. The latter is surely the proper way to do things.

%SystemDrive%\ProgramData directory should also work...

Edited January 29, 2010 by Supernova

[JetsetBkk]

Btw sorry to hijack this thread, but personally I find the discussion pretty interesting.

<snip>

I'm totally absorbed by this discussion - please keep it up!

You guys have given me lots of ideas to try.

The first one will be to either move the program out of 'Program Files' (I actually run it on my XP machine on an external USB HD "work" folder) or modify the program to create the command files in the %USERPROFILE% folder, which is 'C:\Documents and Settings\{username}' in XP, and 'C:\Users\{username}' in Win7. I'll try the latter first as suggested by Welo.

BTW Welo, those "so-called junction points (hard links)" had me puzzled as I couldn't understand why Explorer gave the error "Target not found", or something like that. Also, I'm going to investigate "Free Commander" - I see there are references to good old "Norton Commander" in the version history. Takes me back...

You mean NTLDR, which is the traditional loader used in Windows XP and legacy NT systems. Windows 7 does not use a boot.ini file, much less read from it. Hence the entry, "Earlier Version of Windows" in the boot manager menu instead of something more specific like Windows 2000 or Windows XP Professional etc.

BTW, if the boot.ini file (or NTLDR) was missing, you won't be able to startup Windows XP -- even if it was the only operating system on your computer.

Sorry, Supernova, but this doesn't match my personal experience. My friend's PC did not have a boot.ini in his XP system, and an error message would flash up on his monitor for a fraction of a second after restart, soon after the BIOS messages were displayed. I had to use my digital camera in movie mode to capture the message as it was so short-lived. It said - if I recall correctly - "Missing boot.ini. Defaulting to NTLDR". So XP always booted OK, but after adding Win7 to the other hard drive, it would always boot Win7 and we didn't get the boot option screen until I downloaded and ran "EasyBCD" to sort it out and add the XP system to the boot options.

The discussion about the Hidden Adminstrator Account is also fascinating and I will come back to this thread after I've tried creating the files in the User's account. Looks like all I need to do is liberally sprinkle some "%USERPROFILE%" variables in front of the various command files I create and run.

[JetsetBkk]

Maybe your just not holding your mouth the right way.

You'll have to explain that one!

Maybe it's an Australian thing, ever seen someone making silly faces trying to do some difficult job like getting a nut on in a hard to get to spot. The joke is to tell them there not holding there mouth the right way, changing there expression will make the job easier.

Definitely an Australian thing! I try very hard not to let my tongue hang out the corner of my mouth.

[welo]

My comments in blue color..

The first one will be to either move the program out of 'Program Files' (I actually run it on my XP machine on an external USB HD "work" folder) or modify the program to create the command files in the %USERPROFILE% folder, which is 'C:\Documents and Settings\{username}' in XP, and 'C:\Users\{username}' in Win7. I'll try the latter first as suggested by Welo.

You wouldn't want to rely to much on me on that matter, since I mostly do server-side programming in Java. I just know that the created files should be somewhere else than the program files directory, but I'm not familiar with Windows programming guide lines and the 'responsibilities' of specific directories. The Windows API provides functions to lookup specific folders, see here and here. Not sure what programming language you use, if you do batch coding there are corresponding environment variables.

I guess it also depends how you want your application to behave in a multi user environment. Data in the ProgramData directory is most likely shared between user profiles, those inside the 'Users' folder not. But in Windows7 now there is so many of them (AppData has 'local', 'roaming' etc) that one should really do some reading on that topic

BTW Welo, those "so-called junction points (hard links)" had me puzzled as I couldn't understand why Explorer gave the error "Target not found", or something like that. Also, I'm going to investigate "Free Commander" - I see there are references to good old "Norton Commander" in the version history. Takes me back...

There is tons of file managers with 'twin view' out there, this one I just found recently. It is not as good as some of the others (TotalCommander is a well-known one), but it's truly freeware and good enough.

[...]

it would always boot Win7 and we didn't get the boot option screen until I downloaded and ran "EasyBCD" to sort it out and add the XP system to the boot options.

Maybe the missing boot.ini was the reason why Win7 Setup didn't install the boot manager correctly..?

[Supernova]

Maybe the missing boot.ini was the reason why Win7 Setup didn't install the boot manager correctly..?

Nothing to do with boot.ini.

For some reason, Windows 7 setup failed to detect the existing system partition; thus no dual boot.

[welo]

For some reason, Windows 7 setup failed to detect the existing system partition; thus no dual boot.

From your link (wikipedia):

The system partition is a disk partition that contains the boot sector and files such as NTLDR [...] and the boot partition is the disk partition that contains the Windows operating system files and its support files, but not any files responsible for booting.

So which one did the setup not find, the system partition with the boot loader, or the boot partition with the system files. &lt;deleted&gt;!? LOL

welo

[Supernova]

LOL. Confusing isn't? To most people (myself included), the boot partition is the partition with the boot loader. Whereas the system partition is the partition which holds the operating system files. Not so, according to Microsoft...

So which one did the setup not find, the system partition with the boot loader, or the boot partition with the system files. &lt;deleted&gt;!? LOL

welo

Using Microsoft logic, that would be the system partition with the boot loader.

[JetsetBkk]

My comments in blue color..

<snip>

Rather than quote the whole post, I'll just comment on your comments.

re. running the program from the user's profile folder: I hope this will allow the program to create and run the command files without the access problems I had with the Program Files folder. I should find out tomorrow.

re. the program I'm using: it's called "Liberty Basic". It can do most of what I need to do, but sometimes it's easier to get it to write a command file and run that, rather then figuring out how to do it in basic.

re. the environment variables: I've been to that page before and I use the variables in my program now, but just for cosmetic reasons, i.e. displaying the user's name and the operating system. If the program still has problems when run from the user's profile, I'll look into using those variables more.

re. multi-user environment: not in my current plans.

[JetsetBkk]

Maybe the missing boot.ini was the reason why Win7 Setup didn't install the boot manager correctly..?

Nothing to do with boot.ini.

For some reason, Windows 7 setup failed to detect the existing system partition; thus no dual boot.

As I see it, the possibilities are:

1. Windows 7 won't recognise the XP system partition if it's on a second hard drive - as was the situation in this case

or

2. Windows 7 needs to find "boot.ini" in the XP system in order to create the dual-boot options (there was no "boot.ini" in this case).

I know of another case, where someone else did a dual-boot system and the XP system won't boot unless the Win7 hard drive is disconnected - maybe it's the other way round. Don't know much about the details, but it shows that dual-booting isn't quite as straightforward as the people (who have done it successfully) think.

I'm tempted to create a Win7 system on my current laptop just to see what happens with dual-booting, and if everything works as it should, delete the Win7 system, delete the XP "boot.ini" file and do it again. But I don't really have the time (or the inclination ).

[Supernova]

As I see it, the possibilities are:

1. Windows 7 won't recognise the XP system partition if it's on a second hard drive - as was the situation in this case

or

2. Windows 7 needs to find "boot.ini" in the XP system in order to create the dual-boot options (there was no "boot.ini" in this case).

Well, it seems you were correct all along about being able to boot XP without a boot.ini file. However, this is only possible if %WINDIR% is on the first partition of the first hard drive (source: Wikipedia). Based on this bit of information, what I said of boot.ini being required to load XP is also true. On a system where the boot partition or \windows (as defined by MS) isn't the first partition, the lack of a boot.ini file results in boot failure. A prime example of this type of setup is shown here.

In all fairness, I do not know what criteria Windows Setup uses to detect an existing XP installation. It would be a shame if boot.ini was actually used as a center piece though. I mean, stop to think about it for a minute... A user running XP wants to dual boot Vista or 7. He/she installs the latter, only to discover dual boot isn't working all because of a missing boot.ini file?! If this really is the case, it's irresponsible and very poor programming on Microsoft's part.

I tend to lean towards a detection mechanism involving NTLDR or perhaps the Master Boot Record (MBR).

I know of another case, where someone else did a dual-boot system and the XP system won't boot unless the Win7 hard drive is disconnected - maybe it's the other way round. Don't know much about the details, but it shows that dual-booting isn't quite as straightforward as the people (who have done it successfully) think.

Possible causes:

1. Boot device order in the BIOS;

2. Both OSes were installed "independently" of each other; meaning there's no sharing of the same system partition between them.

I'm tempted to create a Win7 system on my current laptop just to see what happens with dual-booting, and if everything works as it should, delete the Win7 system, delete the XP "boot.ini" file and do it again. But I don't really have the time (or the inclination biggrin.gif).

If it ain't broke, don't fix it...

Edited January 30, 2010 by Supernova

[JetsetBkk]

Well, it seems you were correct all along about being able to boot XP without a boot.ini file. However, this is only possible if %WINDIR% is on the first partition of the first hard drive (source: Wikipedia). Based on this bit of information, what I said of boot.ini being required to load XP is also true. On a system where the boot partition or \windows (as defined by MS) isn't the first partition, the lack of a boot.ini file results in boot failure.<snip>

Interesting that Wikipedia mentions "bcdedit.exe". I had a look at that and didn't like it - too tricky. "EasyBCD" was much more friendly.

Possible causes:

1. Boot device order in the BIOS;

2. Both OSes were installed "independently" of each other; meaning there's no sharing of the same system partition between them.

1. re. the BIOS: OMG! I can't remember the number of times I changed the boot order of the devices in there, and physically changed the cables in the PC to change the order of the drives on the bus. I think I tried every combination possible of boot order and connection - at least, that was the intent. But no joy. There was one other wrinkle to this set-up, there was a third drive used simply as a data drive i.e. no bootable system present. I don't know if that was screwing things up.

2. don't know what you mean by sharing of the same system partition. Do you mean the second system (Win7) was installed while the XP drive was either not powered up or not connected? Can you explain, as this may be the problem and I could easily re-install Win7 as the guy doesn't use it much. Someone else did the dual-booting attempt here, so I don't know exactly what was done.

I'm tempted to create a Win7 system on my current laptop just to see what happens with dual-booting, and if everything works as it should, delete the Win7 system, delete the XP "boot.ini" file and do it again. But I don't really have the time (or the inclination biggrin.gif).

If it ain't broke, don't fix it...

My thoughts exactly.

[Supernova]

2. don't know what you mean by sharing of the same system partition. Do you mean the second system (Win7) was installed while the XP drive was either not powered up or not connected? Can you explain, as this may be the problem and I could easily re-install Win7 as the guy doesn't use it much. Someone else did the dual-booting attempt here, so I don't know exactly what was done.

Yep, that's it.

Some folks prefer to setup their computer this way. I guess the idea behind it being that if either operating system fails, it doesn't affect the other. Whereas in a scenario involving a "shared" system partition, reinstalling XP overwrites the Vista/7 boot code making the latter operating systems inaccessible. Worse yet, formatting this partition would effectively kill your Vista/7 installation. Well maybe not, but for the 'average' user this would mean starting over...

A sample scenario:

To keep things simple, I'll designate the first hard disk, first active primary partition as hd0,1 and the second drive hd1,1.

User installs XP to hd0,1. Doing so would make this both the system AND boot partition (as defined by MS).

User installs Vista/7... Doesn't matter if it's installed to a second partition on the first hard drive (hd0,2) or a partition on the second hard drive (hd1,1). The boot code will always be written to the hd0,1 as long as it is set active.

There's your "shared" system partition (hd0,1). Reinstall XP and you lose the ability boot to Vista/7 until you repair the boot code.

This is precisely why I have a small 100MB system partition for Windows boot files and nothing else. 100MB is very easy to backup and restore as opposed to gigabytes worth of data.

[Gary A]

Hard drives are no longer expensive. I kept my Win XP Pro on its original hard drive for a couple of months. I installed my new Win 7 Pro on a new faster and larger hard drive. It is a simple matter to unplug the new drive and plug the old hard drive back in. That is the simple non techie way to keep both systems. I also have Linux on another drive. Every time I have tried a dual boot system has been a disaster. Even when it worked, the extra step to choose which system to use was just another step that I didn't care to take.

I guess the techies don't agree with me. They have to understand that I am NOT a techie.

[dominique355]

I am still on XP.

Whenever friends ask me to fix problems on Vista computers I find it a hassle.

Viewing a bradn new machine with Windows 7 was a revelation.

So much easier to access and set up things.

I am tempted for my old computer.

"So much easier to access and set up things." - this is a joke, right?

Is that why the "God Mode" hack was added?

I also am helping a friend upgrade to Win7 - an absolute pain in the butt.

I'll stick with XP until they stop supporting it and then I'll change to Linux.

Well, I must confess, I am not a computer geek. I wish I were, but I am not. Nevertheless I had nothing to do (yeah, right) and decided to install Windows 7 on my ACER Predator, which runs Windows Vista 64 Home Premium. After some discussion with so-called experts, I opted for Windows 7 Ultimate, but NOT the 64B version.

And because I am not a geek, I decided to buy a new Harddisk and install Windows 7 on this new harddisk. (Just in case...) In the Predator, that's easy, because there are 4 disc bays and all four are "hot swappable", well ... not the Disc 0 (which is drive C:), I found out. (I told you, I am not a geek).

Anyway, I screwed this new 1 TB HD in an empty case, pulled out the old Disc 0 and pushed in the new one. Then I put the Windows 7 DVD in the DVD drive and started the whole thing. After a few questions about the language and the keyboard and the registration key, I had to wait maybe 15 minutes and all was done. Windows 7 was up and running. Everything worked fine, even the MF Printer (Canon).

So I pushed back in the old Disc with the Vista system, and immediately the system recognized it and assigned it the drive letter G: and all my data in this disk was available.

If installing Windows 7 is that easy, I wonder why anyone wants to keep Vista, or even an older system.

[welo]

Anyway, I screwed this new 1 TB HD in an empty case, pulled out the old Disc 0 and pushed in the new one. Then I put the Windows 7 DVD in the DVD drive and started the whole thing. After a few questions about the language and the keyboard and the registration key, I had to wait maybe 15 minutes and all was done. Windows 7 was up and running. Everything worked fine, even the MF Printer (Canon).

So I pushed back in the old Disc with the Vista system, and immediately the system recognized it and assigned it the drive letter G: and all my data in this disk was available.

I guess this is a pretty good and safe solution. This nullifies the risk of messing up your current system and/or loosing data. In case something goes wrong one can always just revert the drive configuration and boot the previous OS.

Of course you cannot switch back and forth between your old and the new OS, which you may want to do if you are depending on some applications (for work?) and want to test the new OS for some time before switching.

Of course there are plenty of disk imaging solutions that you can use to backup the whole disk before installing a new OS. If you put that on a second (maybe external) harddrive you will be prepared for any disaster happening during setup, too.

Btw I've just been messing around with virtual machines and found VirtualBox and VMLite. The latter is basically a rebrand of Sun's VirtualBox and working towards a XPMode feature like MS is offering with VirtualPC. Another of their plans is to be able to convert existing Windows installs into a Virtual Machine in order to smooth the process of upgrading to Windows 7.

I think this is already possible with a fair bit of work - would be really nice if a Windows installer would offer to automatically convert the existing Windows into a virtual machine, then install the new OS and making the old OS available as Virtual Machine under the new OS.

However, it seems that they can't even implement the conversion into a dual boot system to work reliable...

welo

[welo]

Every time I have tried a dual boot system has been a disaster. Even when it worked, the extra step to choose which system to use was just another step that I didn't care to take.

LOL Don't you usually have a default option that will automatically start after x seconds without pushing any key?

However, I completely agree that in many cases it's far easier to just backup the old OS (into a system image file, or just keep the harddrive) and switch to the new OS. This is if you want to upgrade within the same technology (e.g. Windows to Windows).

Of course there are other scenarios where dual booting makes sense.

welo

[Supernova]

Hard drives are no longer expensive. I kept my Win XP Pro on its original hard drive for a couple of months. I installed my new Win 7 Pro on a new faster and larger hard drive. It is a simple matter to unplug the new drive and plug the old hard drive back in. That is the simple non techie way to keep both systems. I also have Linux on another drive. Every time I have tried a dual boot system has been a disaster. Even when it worked, the extra step to choose which system to use was just another step that I didn't care to take.

There's nothing wrong with your current setup. In fact, it's rather common with the availability of "hot-swappable" devices. Modern computers also have the ability to select the default boot device without having to actually enter the BIOS. This function which acts similar to a boot manager can be invoked by pressing a special key on the keyboard. This a big plus, especially in a multi boot scenario where each operating system is installed on a separate (physical) drive.

For me, I choose to install everything on a single drive because I find it easier to manage and maintain; not to mention that I've setup my computer like this for years. However, there is a downside... Should the drive holding all my operating systems fail, I lose everything -- operating systems that is. Personal data on the other hand, is safe as I have separate drives for that, including backups.

I guess the techies don't agree with me. They have to understand that I am NOT a techie.

To the contrary, I think you'll find that the average geek/techie are likely to be in agreement with you more than you think. In this day and age everyone's a techie; some more so than others.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Supernova

[Sabum]

So.... I installed this new fangled os, goldiggitydangit. Uhm? WOW? So like EVERYTHING works without installing drivers? &lt;deleted&gt;. Where is my hours of endless browsing on ANOTHER machine to find drivers and work arounds to get my internet working like I did with Vista? I feel so cheated!!

I am seriously shocked, my printer works, my wifi card, my high end video card... everyting, right after installing win 7. Then with windows update it quickly got more updated drivers for other things too. This is by far the best and easiest new os installation.

Liked it so much I decided to "try" installing it on my old laptop that used to run xp. Sonofabitch.... it is now 3 times as fast and again it installed all the drivers and updated them easily, windows 7 is a godsend. My girlfriend has stopped bugging me to buy her a laptop since the old one was so bogged down and slow, win 7 made it a whole new pc.