Separate OS install for gaming only?

kleox64

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,467
I'm not sure what the general conscientious is nowadays with the arrival of windows 7, however with windows 2k and XP I would always keep a separate OS instal strictly for gaming and another one for work purposes(internet, office, vmware, acronis, visio, acrobat etc...). How is it nowadays? is it worth the extra headache of doing this especially as I'm running a C300 SSD which has made immense difference in performance.
 

Menelmarar

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2001
Messages
5,472
It was never necessary or beneficial for 2K, XP, or Vista.

Nothing has changed for 7.
 

Joe Average

Ad Blocker - Banned
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
15,459
It was never necessary or beneficial for 2K, XP, or Vista.

Nothing has changed for 7.

QFT, and basically a silly and wasteful idea to begin with. I understand the concept, I just find it silly that people would go to such extremes, with no really tangible benefits in the long run except more headaches and multiple <insert whatever here> to deal with. ;)
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,462
The only reason I would see someone doing this is if they had to run a lot of always on applications/services that would really eat up your memory and CPU cycles.

If you properly disable the start-up junk and not bloat your system, then the default install should be good for all of your task.
 

Jon55

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,349
The only reason I would see someone doing this is if they had to run a lot of always on applications/services that would really eat up your memory and CPU cycles.

If you properly disable the start-up junk and not bloat your system, then the default install should be good for all of your task.

And even then, it would have to be a lot (assuming this is a typical user we're talking about).

As others have said, totally unnecessary.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,410
With 2K/XP I would always do this, seems redundant now!

it was redundant back then as well

Most people did it for performance gains, so they claimed, your game install had no AV and no other services running, but you could just shut those off anyways in the amount of time it took to boot to your other OS.
 

DeaconFrost

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
11,445
it was redundant back then as well
Exactly what I was about to post. I always got a kick out of seeing what people would do to their systems, thinking it would give them some kind of boost. I always loved the fact people would go with a double install, rather than separate user accounts (if it mattered to them that much).


Either way, you now have an OS that runs fast and efficient, so spend your time and effort using and enjoying the computer, rather than worrying about chasing phantom performance gains.
 

hardBBQ

Gawd
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
619
Well, I have a separate gaming OS to keep my main installation free of all the various DRM from games, and for maximum stability and security.

I simply cloned my OS to another partition (an incremental state with most software already configured, minus licensed professional software), installed Geforce drivers for my Quadro card, and reconfigured things to be optimal for gaming (clone mode with TV, different audio selected, a more liberal software firewall setup for multiplayer, etc.)

I find it highly convenient and worthwhile for my purposes.
 

Sparkyy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
1,166
I have three drives in my system, one of my OS and various normal programs, a second drive for Steam and that is because I don't feel like having to hassle with downloading or moving 465gb of games anytime I have to format my computer.

Not that I format all that much! Still a pain, and the third is for virtual machines and when I run them then I don't have to deal with the tie up of my OS/games that might cause on the VMs.

Could I do it all on one 2TB drive? Yeah, but why? Just takes the strain of programs/apps/downloads off of one spindle and spreads it over three.
 

DeaconFrost

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
11,445
I find it highly convenient and worthwhile for my purposes.
So is wearing a tin foil hat.
Could I do it all on one 2TB drive? Yeah, but why? Just takes the strain of programs/apps/downloads off of one spindle and spreads it over three.
We aren't talking about spreading files out across three drives...we're talking about booting several versions of the same OS on the same computer, to make believe one can be kept clean and lean for gaming, and the other can be loaded up for other usage. What you are doing can make sense and has some logic to it. Paying for extra licenses and wasting the disk space of running the same OS twice is wasteful and achieves nothing positive.
 

hardBBQ

Gawd
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
619
I'd be more likely to just make a tin foil roof to not have to mess up my hair. :)

I agree that for performance reasons it's absolutely needless/redundant/cumbersome, but to be able to use one computer where one installation is critical for productivity and security, and the other can independently be abused (used by kids) or crash from buggy games or be laden with DRM (that can sometimes interfere with other software), and be configured with a different hardware/driver setup, is definitely convenient for me.

And I pride myself on common sense and/or apathy regarding conspiracy theories. :)
 

Sparkyy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
1,166
We aren't talking about spreading files out across three drives...we're talking about booting several versions of the same OS on the same computer, to make believe one can be kept clean and lean for gaming, and the other can be loaded up for other usage. What you are doing can make sense and has some logic to it. Paying for extra licenses and wasting the disk space of running the same OS twice is wasteful and achieves nothing positive.

Ah yes, reading would be a bit more helpful. :eek:

Then it doesn't make sense to have multiple drives and systems just to have one setup for gaming and one for general use. Computers are so much more powerful than even 2 years ago to be bothered with this hassle it would cause of switch hard drives/partitions around.

Unless you share a computer with grandma who downloads every toolbar under the sun or clicks any link that crosses the screen. One OS on the computer should be more than enough.
 

Jon55

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,349
I can only assume that anyone who would install Windows, TWICE, on the same machine to get a performance boost or for "security" has absolutely no idea how computers actually work.
 

DeaconFrost

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
11,445
but to be able to use one computer where one installation is critical for productivity and security, and the other can independently be abused (used by kids) or crash from buggy games or be laden with DRM (that can sometimes interfere with other software), and be configured with a different hardware/driver setup, is definitely convenient for me.
It still isn't needed. It all boils down to the comment above. A little knowledge brings forth much better solutions. First, the gaming DRM sounds like an over-hyped issue that isn't real a big deal. I admit I don't play many games anymore, but if one had any kind of DRM that interfered with my system, it would be returned for a refund. I do read up on plenty of gaming sites though, and don't see this problem being discussed. 99.99% of the time the letters DRM are mentioned, there's really no issue at all, it's just what someone heard from someone else, who heard it from someone else, etc.

As for a computer being abused by kids....that's what user accounts and permissions are for. Simply create user accounts for them and lock the those accounts down. Problem solved, no need to waste space or money on a second license.

If software is being tested or used that could affect one system, that's what VMs are designed for. A VM file can be restored in 5 minutes, so if some app was tested and it broke the system, it is very easy to roll back.

It's been mentioned to death, but there's no reason or convenience to installing the same OS twice. Whatever the thought process is...there's a better and more efficient way around it, as Jon55 above is alluding to.

Let me ask you this. Do you tow a second, identical car around behing your primary vehicle everyday? Sounds ridiculous, right? That's what installing the same OS twice is akin to.
 

hardBBQ

Gawd
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
619
Well, for my situation, separate user accounts with limited permissions would not suffice, if only to be able to accommodate older (poorly written) software that requires full admin access, not to mention a whole host of system-level changes that cannot be account-specific (for another small example, I disable the Tablet PC Input Service for my Wacom tablet because of a bug with DX10 -- no need to execute scripts to set things up for games).

Some of the DRM protections have caused conflicts or inconveniences (older Starforce, newer Securom) but it doesn't affect me practically because I have a fully working independent OS which I use 90% of the time.

Kids want to install Flash games or other crap, Itunes, etc.? No problem in my dedicated game OS -- that's what it's for.

As for licenses, originally I had Vista Ultimate, as well as a cheap Home Premium license as part of the family offer for Ultimate. Now I have Windows 7, and migrated one Vista license to a virtual machine, while the other is still used for games. What is the big deal?

I don't see how I can be accused of not understanding computers when there are multiple reasons why I boot two fully independent OSes.

It is not uncommon for teenagers to be given the keys to an old beater rather than the Bimmer. Or to have an off-roader for weekend trips, etc. Same idea.
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
28,796
the last dual boot machine I had was NT 4 and 98 since 2K never had a seperate install
 
Top