Virtual Pc or Dual Boot?   

Which is better?  I realise that a virtual PC can be "deleted" if there are 
any problems, but performance wise am i better with Virtual PC or a dual 
boot on another partition?

IF a virtual PC ... Virtual PC 2004 SP1 or VMWare (bearing in mind the 
problems with VPC04 when XP SP2 came out)

Thanks
Mark

date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:25:56 +1200   author:   Mark Shehan

Re: Virtual Pc or Dual Boot?   

"Mark Shehan"  wrote in message 
news:uJTQxuxkFHA.764@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

> Which is better?  I realise that a virtual PC can be "deleted" if there 
> are any problems, but performance wise am i better with Virtual PC or a 
> dual boot on another partition?

The release notes warn that dual booting will not work with most other OSes 
even if you properly install into separate partitions.  The other partitions 
will remain but the OSes in them will not be bootable.

Virtual PC 2004 SP1 is working for me.  Of course Virtual PC has its known 
bugs and Vista Beta 1 has its bugs, but the combination doesn't seem to be 
any worse than expected.  I told Virtual PC to pretend that the guest is XP, 
and then even VM Additions are working.  (Didn't try it with a checked build 
though.)

date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 20:30:41 +0900   author:   Norman Diamond am

Re: Virtual Pc or Dual Boot?   

Dual booting seems to work just fine, I have installed on a couple of 
machines so far, both with multiple OS's and have had no problem. The 
bootloader that is installed has no problem recoginizing XP, XP64, Server 
2003, and MCE 2005 - I expect it will recognize anything from windows 2000 
and above without a problem. If you just want to see what Vista looks like, 
try the Virtual route, if you want to see how Vista really runs and works, go 
with the dual boot.

"Norman Diamond" wrote:

> "Mark Shehan"  wrote in message 
> news:uJTQxuxkFHA.764@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> 
> > Which is better?  I realise that a virtual PC can be "deleted" if there 
> > are any problems, but performance wise am i better with Virtual PC or a 
> > dual boot on another partition?
> 
> The release notes warn that dual booting will not work with most other OSes 
> even if you properly install into separate partitions.  The other partitions 
> will remain but the OSes in them will not be bootable.
> 
> Virtual PC 2004 SP1 is working for me.  Of course Virtual PC has its known 
> bugs and Vista Beta 1 has its bugs, but the combination doesn't seem to be 
> any worse than expected.  I told Virtual PC to pretend that the guest is XP, 
> and then even VM Additions are working.  (Didn't try it with a checked build 
> though.) 
> 
>

date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 05:45:03 -0700   author:   jrfree

Re: Virtual Pc or Dual Boot?   

Performance will be better with dual boot. I am currently running both MSDN 
Vista 64 bit and XP Pro SP2 on the same drive in seperate partitions. I use 
a third party boot manger.

-- 

Harry Ohrn MS MVP [Shell\User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


"Mark Shehan"  wrote in message 
news:uJTQxuxkFHA.764@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Which is better?  I realise that a virtual PC can be "deleted" if there 
> are any problems, but performance wise am i better with Virtual PC or a 
> dual boot on another partition?
>
> IF a virtual PC ... Virtual PC 2004 SP1 or VMWare (bearing in mind the 
> problems with VPC04 when XP SP2 came out)
>
> Thanks
> Mark
>

date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 11:06:35 -0600   author:   Default User