I'm currently dual booting but I'm unable to single boot. Can someone help?

S

szdpd

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
122
Hello,

I have the following hard drives and OS's installed on my PC, which were installed in the following order:

hard drive 1: windows XP
hard drive 2: windows 7

I dual boot, but recently removed hard drive 2 and tried to single boot windows XP but was unable to do it. I tried changing the boot order in the bios but that didn't help. For some reason hard drive 1 is not being recognized as a bootable device. When I reconnected hard drive 2 to my computer I was able to dual boot.

Since I plan to get rid of hard drive 2 soon, and would like to boot only windows XP on this computer, can someone tell me how I can enable single boot?
 
I suspect you want to get into the recovery console and do fixboot and fixmbr.
Someone with more windows expertise than me will probably show up and expand on / correct that quite soon. :)
 
And people wonder why I've been so against dual-booting for a few years now. *sighs*.

Anyway, some of the boot files likely were overwritten by the newer boot loader from Windows 7. You'll need to run a repair on the XP drive using an XP disc, preferably one of the same service pack level of what's installed.

For the future....it's 2010....virtualize.
 
DeaconFrost said:
And people wonder why I've been so against dual-booting for a few years now. *sighs*.

Anyway, some of the boot files likely were overwritten by the newer boot loader from Windows 7. You'll need to run a repair on the XP drive using an XP disc, preferably one of the same service pack level of what's installed.

For the future....it's 2010....virtualize.
Click to expand...

Still a small performance overhead - x86 virtualization is right for "I want to run X", but not for eeking out performance by trying different OSes.
 
HHunt said:
but not for eeking out performance by trying different OSes.
Click to expand...
There's no need to try different OSes for performance sake anymore. Windows 7 is it. The only reason to ever maintain an older OS is for app compatibility....in which case a VM fits the bill just fine. In fact, XP Mode takes that one step further, assuming you meet the qualifications and pre-reqs for it.
 
DeaconFrost said:
There's no need to try different OSes for performance sake anymore. Windows 7 is it. The only reason to ever maintain an older OS is for app compatibility....in which case a VM fits the bill just fine. In fact, XP Mode takes that one step further, assuming you meet the qualifications and pre-reqs for it.
Click to expand...

Win7 is a good windows, arguably the best so far - but XP is faster on some hardware, for some things. Now, I've got a PC where the difference is small enough that I just run Win7 and don't worry ... but if you were e.g. testing Win7 vs XP on an old PC to see how they compare, the fairest comparison is dualbooting. (Unless you think running Win7 in a VM on XP and testing a few games would be a valid base for conclusions?)


Another thing is running linux (or like me, FreeBSD) as a desktop OS: You want to see how it does when exposed to your actual hardware. Virtualizing it lets you test the GUI, certainly - but that's just part of it. Oh, and there's the virtualization software side. I want linux (and ideally FreeBSD) 3D support with speed comparable to the native drivers, since that allows for a decent composited desktop. To the best of my knowledge, that's not really possible at the moment. (Well, there's VMGL, but that's a mess to set up and only works when the moon is in the second quadrant of Pisces.)
 
If you truly wanted to know about the performance of an OS on an older system, you still wouldn't be dual-booting. You'd be installing each OS separately, one at a time on the system, to eliminate variables. That's the basis of any scientific comparison, of any kind. Just ask any third grader entering a school science fair project. Besides...given your example, once you test and come to a conclusion, you'll still only install one OS on the system. Common sense, right? After all, you only want to find out which one performs better.

I could see dual-booting with alternative OSes, much the same way many Mac users still need to run Windows for certain apps, such as Outlook. I'll stand by my comments about not needed to dual-boot multiple versions of Windows anymore.
 
DeaconFrost said:
If you truly wanted to know about the performance of an OS on an older system, you still wouldn't be dual-booting. You'd be installing each OS separately, one at a time on the system, to eliminate variables. That's the basis of any scientific comparison, of any kind. Just ask any third grader entering a school science fair project. Besides...given your example, once you test and come to a conclusion, you'll still only install one OS on the system. Common sense, right? After all, you only want to find out which one performs better.

I could see dual-booting with alternative OSes, much the same way many Mac users still need to run Windows for certain apps, such as Outlook. I'll stand by my comments about not needed to dual-boot multiple versions of Windows anymore.
Click to expand...


Mmh, let me twist that a bit. The hypothesis being tested is "A fresh windows 7 install will feel so much better compared to my current XP install that it's worth the hurdle of changing OS". In that case, a dualboot gives the right results. :)

Also, the ease of moving to jsut one of the dualbooted OSes depends on your method. I tend to unplug the other OS disk when installing, then use the BIOS disk selector to pick which one to boot. In the worst case, the work needed to singleboot one of them is to set that drive as default (and optionally clean out the other one).

Besides that, I'd agree with you. :)
 
HHunt said:
Mmh, let me twist that a bit. The hypothesis being tested is "A fresh windows 7 install will feel so much better compared to my current XP install that it's worth the hurdle of changing OS". In that case, a dualboot gives the right results. :)
Click to expand...
That's what a drive imaging program is for. I just did this with an old laptop to see how Windows 7 would run compared to it's existing Windows XP install. Why make changes to the system to squeeze a dual boot on there, when I could image the drive in a few minutes, and then install Windows 7? We decided Windows 7 was a little much for it, so in another few minutes, I had the previous XP install back on, as if nothing was ever done. That's a much cleaner and simpler process than configuring a dual boot system, and then undoing those changes.
 
DeaconFrost said:
That's what a drive imaging program is for. I just did this with an old laptop to see how Windows 7 would run compared to it's existing Windows XP install. Why make changes to the system to squeeze a dual boot on there, when I could image the drive in a few minutes, and then install Windows 7? We decided Windows 7 was a little much for it, so in another few minutes, I had the previous XP install back on, as if nothing was ever done. That's a much cleaner and simpler process than configuring a dual boot system, and then undoing those changes.
Click to expand...

Depends on the system and setting.
In my case it would be
- Find a spare HD and chuck it in the PC, unplug the other disk
- Install
- Reconnect the other disk

Then test both for a while and decide which disk to set as default and which one to wipe.

Of course, this is not viable if you've got one especially nice HD you want the OS on. :)
It's also less convenient on a laptop, though my thinkpad does make HD swaps quite easy. (I'm swapping ubuntu 9.10 vs. my old XP at the moment, and it has been useful to have both alternatives at hand on short notice while not at home.)
 
Or if you have a laptop, as in my example, and don't have a spare drive sitting around, or would rather just complete the entire process in the time it would take you to remove the hard drive from the system anyway.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Or if you have a laptop, as in my example, and don't have a spare drive sitting around, or would rather just complete the entire process in the time it would take you to remove the hard drive from the system anyway.
Click to expand...

As I said, it depends on the hardware and setting. :)
The thinkpad solution is to remove one screw, pull the HD out of two rubber liners and a tray, and the reverse with the other HD. Takes under 30 sec, and can be done in your lap on a train (been there, done that).
 
When you have to take out two screws, and then four more screws just to remove the drive from a cage, only to have to reverse the process to put in a spare drive (assuming you have one), it is much easier to boot from a BartPE disc and send the image over to my server, and only took about 5 minutes. This way, I also had a backup of the system in case something went wrong.

We are going round and round on this, but my point still stands. Dual-booting was great in its day, but like all things, its day has passed. I'll still stand by my original point as well, that there's very little to no need to have multiple Windows OSes on the same system in a dual-boot config anymore.

Another added benefit is that if you screw up something in a VM, all you have to do is replace a single file and you are back to where you were before. In a dual-boot system, it would be very possible (and very likely, just do a search here) to render both OSes unusable. No thank you, no reason to ever take that risk. I've always been a firm believer in the K.I.S.S. concept, so it is hard for me to understand why anyone would consider a dual-boot system these days.
 
DeaconFrost said:
When you have to take out two screws, and then four more screws just to remove the drive from a cage, only to have to reverse the process to put in a spare drive (assuming you have one), it is much easier to boot from a BartPE disc and send the image over to my server, and only took about 5 minutes. This way, I also had a backup of the system in case something went wrong.

We are going round and round on this, but my point still stands. Dual-booting was great in its day, but like all things, its day has passed. I'll still stand by my original point as well, that there's very little to no need to have multiple Windows OSes on the same system in a dual-boot config anymore.

Another added benefit is that if you screw up something in a VM, all you have to do is replace a single file and you are back to where you were before. In a dual-boot system, it would be very possible (and very likely, just do a search here) to render both OSes unusable. No thank you, no reason to ever take that risk. I've always been a firm believer in the K.I.S.S. concept, so it is hard for me to understand why anyone would consider a dual-boot system these days.
Click to expand...

I think my now thrice repeated point of "what's more convenient depends on the hardware and the setting" still stands. Agreed on the backup aspect, mind you - I've done that now and then (with a BSD disk and dd, but the idea is the same).

Dualbooting windows OSes, done in a way that doesn't require much in the way of work to turn into a singleboot (that is, you have to avoid boot loader issues and any form of repartitioning) is IMO a valid way to see if an upgrade is worth it - especially if you want to swap to and from for a while. Your two suggested replacement methods (imaging and virtualization) just wouldn't be as good for that usage. (Rebooting and picking another drive vs. reimaging the disk are not quite on the same scale).

And "very likely to go wrong"? I've never managed it. Know what to look out for, and it isn't. Having a dedicated, self-contained disk for each OS you run is as clean and simple as it gets, you just have to keep the notoriously rude windows installers from touching the other drives.

However, virtualization is excellent if you want to test the features of another OS. I have a few FreeBSD VMs lying around for playing with, and that's very useful. XP mode in Win7 makes all sorts of sense for those with the odd old program - though I haven't needed it yet. If I decide to play around with 2008 Server R2, that will also be in a VM.
 
HHunt said:
And "very likely to go wrong"? I've never managed it.
Click to expand...
You haven't been dealing with Windows OSes very long then, if you haven't ever dealt with a driver or software that renders a system non-booting. Lucky you, and I mean that honestly. By the way, your method of swapping disks in the BIOS, isn't dual-booting. That's really no different than using a drive cage with multiple removable cages, and isn't my point of contention. Typical dual-boot systems are what I feel are dead and should be left to rot in the past.
HHunt said:
Having a dedicated, self-contained disk for each OS you run is as clean and simple as it gets,
Click to expand...
Having one OS installed natively on the system is as clean and simple as it gets.
 
I still dual boot, and for good reason.

I use some monstrously intensive CAD tools which run in Windows and in Unix, but not in both. Virtualization incurs too much of a performance hit, and I don't feel like purchasing a separate computer just so I don't have to write a couple lines of boot loader code.
 
Alright guys, just to make sure I understood:

I need to remove hard drive 2 and boot from my windows XP installation CD. At that point I will be given an option to repair windows XP, which will allow me to single boot windows XP (installed on hard drive 1).

Is that all that needs to be done?

(If it can be done manually, even better)
 
DeaconFrost said:
You haven't been dealing with Windows OSes very long then, if you haven't ever dealt with a driver or software that renders a system non-booting. Lucky you, and I mean that honestly. By the way, your method of swapping disks in the BIOS, isn't dual-booting. That's really no different than using a drive cage with multiple removable cages, and isn't my point of contention. Typical dual-boot systems are what I feel are dead and should be left to rot in the past.

Having one OS installed natively on the system is as clean and simple as it gets.
Click to expand...

"As a result of a dualboot setup" was implicit - I've had it happen, but not for that reason.

And well, now we're getting into the semantics. Alway a fun field. :D
I think the definition is something like "being able to chose between two OSes at boot", and I'd argue that hitting F8 to bring up the BIOS boot device selector is in practice much like selecting an OS from a boot loader's list.

(Of course, there's hybrid solutions like using a boot loader on a third drive to chainload whatever is on the others - this leaves the windows disks clean and makes things a touch easier. I've done this with my FreeBSD disk, but triplebooting is an even smaller niche.)

I agree that bodging two windows installs onto the same disk (or even worse, the same partition) is a bit of a mess, but isn't that a strike against the method more than the concept of dualbooting itself?


szdpd: That sounds right to me.
 
Last edited:
DeaconFrost said:
And people wonder why I've been so against dual-booting for a few years now. *sighs*.

Anyway, some of the boot files likely were overwritten by the newer boot loader from Windows 7. You'll need to run a repair on the XP drive using an XP disc, preferably one of the same service pack level of what's installed.

For the future....it's 2010....virtualize.
Click to expand...

How do I "repair" XP without erasing all the updates?
 
To be more on topic* lol, I suspect you wanna take a look at your "boot.ini" file if you on xp, or the bcdedit command in Win 7. If its Win 7, def. use EasyBCD. Seems this thread has gotten way large for such a simple problem.


Win7:

http://www.ditii.com/2009/01/28/how-to-modify-windows-7-boot-loader/
http://www.sevenforums.com/general-discussion/3150-boot-ini.html

*You could also attach the second drive externally or internally and check Disk Management (My computer properties > Manage > Disk Mgt), and make sure it is an active disk. Other than that try fixboot and fixmbr on the drive with the XP Recovery Console , using the XP install media.. Whenever you install more than One OS, its it's is always much easier to install from the Oldest* windows OS to the Newest*. That way the boot manager will not get overidden.
 
DeaconFrost said:
There's no need to try different OSes for performance sake anymore. Windows 7 is it. The only reason to ever maintain an older OS is for app compatibility....in which case a VM fits the bill just fine. In fact, XP Mode takes that one step further, assuming you meet the qualifications and pre-reqs for it.
Click to expand...

You certainly made some valid points and I agree that virtualization is the superior option for a number of scenarios, but there is one reason why someone might want to dual boot 7 and XP where something like VirtualBox or XP Mode won't cut it: older games that refuse to work with Vista and Win7. Most of them can be made to work, but others are far more difficult and/or just refuse to cooperate. In that case, a dual boot scenario might be warranted. I agree that it can potentially cause some headaches, but just because you have no reason to run native XP anymore doesn't mean that no one does, and that virtualization will suffice in 100% of situations.

Another reason to run native XP would be if your processor doesn't support virtualization. I was surprised to find out that there are still CPUs being sold that don't.
 
Is anyone other than me going to try and help the lad? I love a good virutalization discussion too, but don't let the guy hanging :D
 
imyourzero said:
Another reason to run native XP would be if your processor doesn't support virtualization. I was surprised to find out that there are still CPUs being sold that don't.
Click to expand...
I virtualize on several PCs that don't have Intel VT, and the performance is more than just usable...it runs very well. My work tower is an E7300, and I run Virtual PC 2007 on it so I can maintain an XP install on the domain.
szdpd said:
How do I "repair" XP without erasing all the updates?
Click to expand...
You use a disc with the same SP level as what's installed, and then once it is booting, you re-run Windows Update.
ProfessorKaos64 said:
Is anyone other than me going to try and help the lad? I love a good virutalization discussion too, but don't let the guy hanging :D
Click to expand...
Other than you? The OP's been given several suggestions, along with steps to follow. Even after the OP's last question, j-sta gave a very detailed answer.
 
j-sta said:
you may be able to get away with running off the XP disc, selecting Recovery Console, then doing a:
fixboot
fixmbr

this should fix the bootloader back to the XP one. It will not (theoretically) touch any of the actual data on the drive.

http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/1040/vista_how_to_uninstall_vista_dual_boot_machine/
http://www.syschat.com/remove-vista-xp-vista-dual-boot-1852.html
Click to expand...

That sounds like the info I was looking for.


What happens is that I would like to format the windows 7 hard drive, but only AFTER making sure that the windows XP hard drive will single boot properly. So ideally I'd like to disconnect hard drive 2, use the recovery console in order to enable single boot on hard drive 1 (windows XP), later reconnect hard drive 2, somehow prevent the bios from seeing it as a bootable device, and format it via windows XP. I'm worried that if I reconnect hard drive 2, I will again be presented with a dual prompt. If I get the windows 7 dual prompt, will it overwrite the previous fixboot/fixmbr done on the windows XP hard drive?
 
If you remove disk 2 (windows 7) and repair the XP, you'll be able to boot to XP again. The BIOS doesn't look for each disc to determine the loader menu...that information is currently stored on your first disc, which is why you need to run a repair. Repair the XP drive, and then reconnect the Windows 7 drive. Then, if nothing needs to be saved from the W7 drive, go ahead and format it in Disk Management.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top