Two Operating Systems on Same Computer

[Fourier12]

I have Windows Vista, and I was wondering if it is possible to install a new operating system on my labtop (i.e. Linux), without uninstalling Vista, and be able to specify which one I want to use whenever I want. If this is possible, what is the method to do so?

[jbennet]

Yes, easiest way is to use Ubuntu linux. Comes as a live-cd so you can try it out before installing, and it has the option to rezize your windows parition and install linux in the free space. It is also able to automagically set up and configure a bootloader (GRUB) so that at boot, you can choose between starting Vista or Linux.

One caveat though. Laptops generally have crappy recovery partitions instead of actual windows vista CDs. Dont try it if you have one of these, as you dont want to risk bricking it . Some laptops have the option to burn your own recovery CDs, if so then i reccomend this.

[kaninelupus]

One caveat though. Laptops generally have crappy recovery partitions instead of actual windows vista CDs. Dont try it if you have one of these, as you dont want to risk bricking it . Some laptops have the option to burn your own recovery CDs, if so then i reccomend this.

What a load of nonsense - as long as the recovery partition remains untouched (is usually protected anyhow), this is a non-issue!!

Partitioning/Resizing drives can easily be done within Windows - have done myself before with no dramas... the reason the previous benchmark software for the job Partition Magic never got updated for Vista, is that you no longer need this type of app.

Now just because I'm feeling particularly lazy, will guide you by referring you to two forum posts on the topic. Have used the techniques myself, so know very well they work :)

The first covers the initial process of resizing your drive to set space aside for a second partition, and use of images does make it a little user friendly.

Now I've always dual-booted btwn different Windows builds, so not 100% sure if Ubuntu has the option to format the new partition (which you will need to do) before install - I know other Linux distros do, but never liked Ubuntu to bother with more than a Live disc... would more advise OpenSuse.

You can save the need for this task by converting the now unused disk-space to a newly formatted partition using the steps here

Now, of course if you don't want to fiddle with partitioning and dual-booting, another option is actually available - virtualisation :)

VMware is the better-known sollution, but is not free (unless you know where to look, but I didn't say that lol) VirtualBox is a free open-source alternative, but is limited to 32-bit support, so if you're running x64, you'll need to look for other alternatives.

Either way, virtualisation does have advantages if you are trying out alternate OS's, as running a Live disk does not allow the installation of any drivers not packed in the Live disk, where as they can be installed in a visualised environment - and if you don't like the particular OS, is much easier to get rid of it without messing with boot logs and the such. Also has the advantage of allowing access to BOTH OS's simultaneously :)

[jbennet]

as long as the recovery partition remains untouched (is usually protected anyhow), this is a non-issue!!

It is an issue because installing grub removes the option to "push f11 for recovery" when it overwrites the boot sector. Also, resizing NTFS partitions from linux is inheretly dangerous (if there is any bad blocks, it tends to bomb out and destroy the partition table) hence it is always a good idea to ensure you have actual reinstallation media.

Partitioning/Resizing drives can easily be done within Windows

Yes - the resizing and partitioning can, so long as you have vista - good point. But you will need to format them and set your point points at install time, so why not do it all in the same place?

not 100% sure if Ubuntu has the option to format the new partition (which you will need to do) before install

Yes of course, seeing as windows cant format EXT3 partitions?

VirtualBox is a free open-source alternative, but is limited to 32-bit support, so if you're running x64, you'll need to look for other alternatives.

In the new version 3 i think there may be 64 bit support. it includes a lot of new features like SMP

but is not free (unless you know where to look, but I didn't say that lol)

Please dont condone that.

But yes, i agree with the OP that trying out a few diffferent distributions in some virtualisation software is probably a good idea, until you find the one that suits you.

[kaninelupus]

It is an issue because installing grub removes the option to "push f11 for recovery" when it overwrites the boot sector. Also, resizing NTFS partitions from linux is inheretly dangerous (if there is any bad blocks, it tends to bomb out and destroy the partition table) hence it is always a good idea to ensure you have actual reinstallation media.

Have in past dual boot btwn SUSE and Vista, and left the recovery partition alone... assumed Ubuntu would have the same tech involved. Another strike to Ubuntu it seems.

Yes, I realise the hazard of resizing a disk-space with Linux... thus the suggestion to do it from Windows :D

In the new version 3 i think there may be 64 bit support. it includes a lot of new features like SMP

Only AMD64 support listed for VirtualBox 3.0.2, which makes me think will end up running as a x86 app on any other x64 chipset (ie, Intel). Feel free to correct this if is wrong by the way, but the distinction does suggest this.

[jbennet]

Only AMD64 support listed for VirtualBox 3.0.2

You are wrong. Starting with Version 2.1, VirtualBox supports 64-bit guest operating systems, even on a 32-bit host OS, so long as you have a 64-bit processor with hardware virtualization support (Intel VT-x and AMD-V) enabled. (as a side note, to make use of the SMP capabilities of 3.0, you need this enabled too - check your BIOS)

Interestingly, the Intel and AMD implentations of the x86-64 instruction set are mostly identical as intel lincenced it from AMD.

Virtualbox supports both AMD and Intel CPUs (which have the EMT64 extension) for 64 bit use. The fact they labelled it as amd64 doesnt mean anything, thats just a common naming convention for open source software as AMD originally popularised 64 bit desktop computing, and released the first compatible desktop CPUs as well as to stop people getting confused between x86_64 (Intel EMT64/AMD64) and the *other* (totally incompatible) Intel 64-bit architechture called Itanium.

Have in past dual boot btwn SUSE and Vista, and left the recovery partition alone... assumed Ubuntu would have the same tech involved. Another strike to Ubuntu it seems.

Im just speaking from experience, for me it was fedora that disabled the recovery shortcut on my Lenovo laptop.

[kaninelupus]

OK - 'tis interesting. So why the heck would they be listing it as "AMD64" then, and not simply x64 (the term most of us are more familiar with)?? Having had absolutely nothing to do with AMD's 64-bit processors, had to go look it up, and have to say the info just ends up sending you on a wild goose chase.

so long as you have a 64-bit processor with hardware virtualization support (Intel VT-x and AMD-V) enabled. (as a side note, to make use of the SMP capabilities of 3.0, you need this enabled too - check your BIOS)

So it sounds like it comes with the same limitation which will see many looking to use the virtualised XP option in Win7 - all down to virtualisation support at CPU level?? VMWare doesn't have this limitation, does it??

[Fourier12]

Okay, thanks everyone for the replies, I appreciate it.

[jbennet]

Qo why the heck would they be listing it as "AMD64" then

Because AMD originally designed and popularised thier 64 bit extensions to the x86 instruction set (which they actually licence from intel). Intel then licenced back the rights to the AMD64 extensions, and used it for thier own implementation.

and not simply x64 (the term most of us are more familiar with)

Thats where the problem lies. Before AMD made 64 bit desktoo computing popular "x64" was generally taken to mean Intel Itanium (now known as IA-64), a line of high end server chips whose instruction set was totally 64 bit and totally different to x86.

Indeed "Windows XP 64-Bit Edition" which was for high end Itanium workstations and is a totally different product to "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition" which is for 64-bit desktop CPUs by AMD an Intel.

Do you see now why AMD64 is a much easier name?
Gonna mark this as solved now

[kaninelupus]

Do you see now why AMD64 is a much easier name?

While you or I may understand that differentiation (must say am a little surprised the Itanium processor model actually still survives given the frustrating lack of app-transition to 64-bit), do you honestly think the average end-user is going to look at the term "AMD64" and have any clue as to what it means?? Especially given the lack of reliable, consistent and up-to-date info on the term (most definitions relate back to around the point where Intel adopted the "similar" technology, or even prior to, to differentiate btwn 64 and Itanium 64-bit... all of which will mean nothing to the end-user 2-3 yrs onwards) thus the question still holds weight. Given that x64 and AMD64 are pretty much synonymous terms, one would think devs - even open source devs - would use the most understandable and commonly understood definition.

Let's face it, while you and I may understand the distinguishing factors btwn x64 and pure 64-bit, how many general end-users do you think are going to comprehend the difference. for 99.99% of users, a def of x64 is what they can understand.

[Dewise]

sorry am in a deep here........i have windows vista on a partition on my system i tried installing same OS on another partition so that i can do away with the first but the installation stopped on its way before finishing.....now i cant access my desktop cos non of the OS is booting to desktop................SOMEONE HELP