Dual Boot Xp - Vista

H

Hacksaw

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
102
Ok I have a question I am about to start building a new computer on monday ( waiting for some more parts) and I just found out that some of my graphic design software is not compatible with VISTA which I was going to use as my OS. So I was thinking of dual booting with XP pro.
My question is when I partion off my HD (500gb) do I need to give the XP more then lets say 10gb so I have room to save files while running XP or will the files saved just go on the remainder of the HD space no matter what OS I use. Thanks for the help I am just confused I never did this before
 
15GB for XP is what I've always used; I have a great number of applications installed (I run XP x64 actually) and never had issues with any free space concerns. Some people will argue the point but I'd say 15GB is pretty much enough for anyone. Go for 20, maybe even 25GB if your graphic design software is pretty large (and I have the entire CS3 suite installed presently as well as Office 2007 Professional and a few other large software suites - I'm barely cracking 9GB of space consumed so far).

Vista I recommend at least a 25GB system partition for; it's larger and requires more space just for itself (about10-12GB for Ultimate, slightly less for the other editions).

I'm curious about what software is saying it's not Vista compatible if you'd care to share. Not one app that I've tried in testing hasn't worked with Vista, and anytime something complains I just run it in Compatibility Mode and it works flawlessly, so that's always an option as well.

Hope this helps...
 
Thanks for the Info!!!. So when I design something and save the file while on the XP side and lets say the file is a gig or 2 will it only save that file on the 25gb the I have partioned out for XP or will it use the remainder of the HD space?
The programs I have are
Wasatch Color RIP
Flexi 7.5
Both are quite abit of money so I cant afford to upgrade them right now

Thanks again!
 
What is the real benefit of DUAL BOOTING XP DirectX9/VISTADirectX10, on seperate Hard Drives of course.
Is there any benefit in playing games at all.:confused:
 
I wouldn't say there is a benefit in terms of massive performance gains, etc. I would say that a lot of people want to use Vista, but they have limits to how much they can tolerate it at first because for most people they've used XP for so long and it's tough to just up and change from one comfortable and familiar OS to completely new territory and new procedures overnight.

So they set up dual boots and gradually switch between them as they get more experienced with using Vista on a regular basis.

The difference between DX9 and DX10 is simply that DX10 offers new capabilities for graphics effects - it does not automagically mean DX10 is faster or higher performance; anyone that says otherwise is full of shit. DX10 opens up new graphics effects, all sorts of cool new stuff that DX9 simply wasn't capable of supporting.

A DX9 game on a DX9 video card would perform at roughly the same speed as the same game on a DX10 video card if the only difference between them was the DX10 card offered the DX10 options. When the card is functioning in DX9 mode with DX9 graphics effects and options, it's just a DX9 card. When DX10 games come out in force (a ways off but it's coming), then we'll see a big shift towards DX10 accelerators.

Just yesterday there were two decent Nvidia DX10 capable cards being sold, one for $103 and one for $113, so DX10 isn't expensive as most people believe. Those are 256MB cards with fairly high GPU clocks on 'em and DDR3 memory, too.

DX10 offers more capabilities, not specifically better performance.

Hope that clears that little bit up...

EDIT:
After posting this and re-reading it, let me clarify one point: obviously a DX10 enabled game on a DX10 card is going to perform better than the same game on a DX9 card - if it's using the DX10 effects, that's a given. I'm not suggesting that DX10 games are slower or underperforming. I'm babbling now, but I think you should get the gist of what I'm trying to say. :D
 
Thanks for the clarification.
So there wouldn't be any conflict with using 2 different DIRECTX on 2 seperate hard drives, that's what i was looking for, as the only reason to have Vista on your pc is just for DirectX10 Games, well for me anyway.
 
There's no conflict. In fact all of the DX10 hype has been burst by a selected group of hackers who got 'DX10 only' titles to work just fine in XP with a simple mod.
 
Please don't spread misinfomation.

Those games WERE NOT DX10 ONLY.

They were VISTA ONLY.

So the hackers just cut out the little check that the game performs when it starts up to make sure that it's playing on Vista. This worked in this case because the games had full DX9 codepaths for people with DirectX 9 cards who were using Vista. If a game was "DX10 only" and the developers hadn't coded it to work with DX9, the hackers would basically have to rewrite the graphics engine, which they most certainly did not do in this case.
 
Umm ok, what made the games Vista only then except dx10 support? Nothing I guess. Talk about misinformation through marketing.
 
MS just made the games Vista only to force vista adoption. There was nothing about the games themselves that neccesitated running on vista.

Its their standard tactic of forced upgrades that they've used since the dawn of time.
 
pitbull46 said:
Thanks for the clarification.
So there wouldn't be any conflict with using 2 different DIRECTX on 2 seperate hard drives, that's what i was looking for, as the only reason to have Vista on your pc is just for DirectX10 Games, well for me anyway.
Click to expand...
Only one would be in use at any given time, because you'd be only running one OS at one time, so there's no way it DirectX would conflict with itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top