dual boot x32 & x64

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?ZmxleGlibGU=?=, Apr 30, 2006.

  1. I'm setting up a new AMD dual core with XP Pro both the x32 and x64 versions.
    I learned the hard way that they each need a seperate drive so I'm going to
    partition the hard drive into 'C' & 'D'.

    QUESTION: which OS should I add first or does it matter?

    thanks
    --
    flexible
    =?Utf-8?B?ZmxleGlibGU=?=, Apr 30, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Always install the older version of Windows first, in this case Windows XP
    Professional x86 (32-bit) first then Windows XP Professional x64 (64-bit)
    after.

    Charlie Russel - MVP has an excellent article about recovering from corrupt
    installations and installing in the wrong order:
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2005/11/21/76180.aspx
    --
    --
    Andre
    Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta

    "flexible" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm setting up a new AMD dual core with XP Pro both the x32 and x64
    > versions.
    > I learned the hard way that they each need a seperate drive so I'm going
    > to
    > partition the hard drive into 'C' & 'D'.
    >
    > QUESTION: which OS should I add first or does it matter?
    >
    > thanks
    > --
    > flexible
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Apr 30, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Yes, it matters. Rule number one of dual boots - always start with the
    oldest first. So, do xp 32-bit first, then xp x64.

    See my blog for details.


    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    flexible wrote:
    > I'm setting up a new AMD dual core with XP Pro both the x32 and x64
    > versions. I learned the hard way that they each need a seperate drive so
    > I'm going to partition the hard drive into 'C' & 'D'.
    >
    > QUESTION: which OS should I add first or does it matter?
    >
    > thanks
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Apr 30, 2006
    #3
  4. =?Utf-8?B?ZmxleGlibGU=?=

    Bioboffin Guest

    flexible wrote:
    > I'm setting up a new AMD dual core with XP Pro both the x32 and x64
    > versions. I learned the hard way that they each need a seperate drive
    > so I'm going to partition the hard drive into 'C' & 'D'.
    >
    > QUESTION: which OS should I add first or does it matter?
    >
    > thanks


    Actually in this case it doesn't matter. You are getting the "conventional
    wisdom" from the other contributors. Both OSs are windows XP and therefore
    'concurrent'. I have done it both ways, and both work fine! However, you
    will find that the one which you install last comes out as the default when
    you start up. (Because boot.ini puts the latest OS first). If you choose to
    install XP x64 first, and prefer it to be the default, you will need to edit
    boot.ini (which is very easy and you can do it from within either version of
    windows).

    Take care,

    John.
    Bioboffin, Apr 30, 2006
    #4
  5. Just to be safe though, install XP x64 after XP x86.

    As you said, you can change the boot options by opening Control Panel from
    either OS, open System > Advanced (tab) > under "Startup and Recovery" click
    > Settings > under System startup > click in the "Default operating

    system:" list box and choose your desire OS.

    You can also edit the "Time to display list of operating systems:" on the
    Windows Boot Manager.
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

    "Bioboffin" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > flexible wrote:
    >> I'm setting up a new AMD dual core with XP Pro both the x32 and x64
    >> versions. I learned the hard way that they each need a seperate drive
    >> so I'm going to partition the hard drive into 'C' & 'D'.
    >>
    >> QUESTION: which OS should I add first or does it matter?
    >>
    >> thanks

    >
    > Actually in this case it doesn't matter. You are getting the "conventional
    > wisdom" from the other contributors. Both OSs are windows XP and therefore
    > 'concurrent'. I have done it both ways, and both work fine! However, you
    > will find that the one which you install last comes out as the default
    > when you start up. (Because boot.ini puts the latest OS first). If you
    > choose to install XP x64 first, and prefer it to be the default, you will
    > need to edit boot.ini (which is very easy and you can do it from within
    > either version of windows).
    >
    > Take care,
    >
    > John.
    >
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Apr 30, 2006
    #5
  6. =?Utf-8?B?ZmxleGlibGU=?=

    John Barnes Guest

    Not correct. Follow Charlies instruction in the blog. Newest system last.


    "Bioboffin" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > flexible wrote:
    >> I'm setting up a new AMD dual core with XP Pro both the x32 and x64
    >> versions. I learned the hard way that they each need a seperate drive
    >> so I'm going to partition the hard drive into 'C' & 'D'.
    >>
    >> QUESTION: which OS should I add first or does it matter?
    >>
    >> thanks

    >
    > Actually in this case it doesn't matter. You are getting the "conventional
    > wisdom" from the other contributors. Both OSs are windows XP and therefore
    > 'concurrent'. I have done it both ways, and both work fine! However, you
    > will find that the one which you install last comes out as the default
    > when you start up. (Because boot.ini puts the latest OS first). If you
    > choose to install XP x64 first, and prefer it to be the default, you will
    > need to edit boot.ini (which is very easy and you can do it from within
    > either version of windows).
    >
    > Take care,
    >
    > John.
    >
    John Barnes, Apr 30, 2006
    #6
  7. =?Utf-8?B?ZmxleGlibGU=?=

    Jane Colman Guest

    Nope. XP x32 is XP. XP x64 is not. It's based on Windows 2003........

    --
    Jane, but not plain ;) 64 bit enabled :)
    Batteries not included. Braincell on vacation.
    Jane Colman, Apr 30, 2006
    #7
  8. =?Utf-8?B?ZmxleGlibGU=?=

    Bioboffin Guest

    So you're telling me that this XP x64 OS which I am currently using as a
    dual boot system with an XP W32 on a second hard drive doesn't work?

    (Incidentally, the reason I installed it this way round is because the XP 32
    OS failed to boot - thanks to a problem with the RAID controller - so I
    needed to reinstall it from scratch. This was AFTER the x64 OS - obviously.
    Works just fine.)

    So you are wrong.

    John.

    John Barnes wrote:
    > Not correct. Follow Charlies instruction in the blog. Newest system
    > last.
    >
    > "Bioboffin" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> flexible wrote:
    >>> I'm setting up a new AMD dual core with XP Pro both the x32 and x64
    >>> versions. I learned the hard way that they each need a seperate
    >>> drive so I'm going to partition the hard drive into 'C' & 'D'.
    >>>
    >>> QUESTION: which OS should I add first or does it matter?
    >>>
    >>> thanks

    >>
    >> Actually in this case it doesn't matter. You are getting the
    >> "conventional wisdom" from the other contributors. Both OSs are
    >> windows XP and therefore 'concurrent'. I have done it both ways, and
    >> both work fine! However, you will find that the one which you
    >> install last comes out as the default when you start up. (Because
    >> boot.ini puts the latest OS first). If you choose to install XP x64
    >> first, and prefer it to be the default, you will need to edit
    >> boot.ini (which is very easy and you can do it from within either
    >> version of windows). Take care,
    >>
    >> John.
    Bioboffin, Apr 30, 2006
    #8
  9. =?Utf-8?B?ZmxleGlibGU=?=

    John Barnes Guest

    If you screw around with the drive priorities, active partitions, etc. you
    can accidentally get it to work, but that is not the intelligent way. Just
    ask dozens of posters who installed x64 first then x86 and came up with
    various drive and or file not found messages.


    "Bioboffin" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > So you're telling me that this XP x64 OS which I am currently using as a
    > dual boot system with an XP W32 on a second hard drive doesn't work?
    >
    > (Incidentally, the reason I installed it this way round is because the XP
    > 32 OS failed to boot - thanks to a problem with the RAID controller - so I
    > needed to reinstall it from scratch. This was AFTER the x64 OS -
    > obviously. Works just fine.)
    >
    > So you are wrong.
    >
    > John.
    >
    > John Barnes wrote:
    >> Not correct. Follow Charlies instruction in the blog. Newest system
    >> last.
    >>
    >> "Bioboffin" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%...
    >>> flexible wrote:
    >>>> I'm setting up a new AMD dual core with XP Pro both the x32 and x64
    >>>> versions. I learned the hard way that they each need a seperate
    >>>> drive so I'm going to partition the hard drive into 'C' & 'D'.
    >>>>
    >>>> QUESTION: which OS should I add first or does it matter?
    >>>>
    >>>> thanks
    >>>
    >>> Actually in this case it doesn't matter. You are getting the
    >>> "conventional wisdom" from the other contributors. Both OSs are
    >>> windows XP and therefore 'concurrent'. I have done it both ways, and
    >>> both work fine! However, you will find that the one which you
    >>> install last comes out as the default when you start up. (Because
    >>> boot.ini puts the latest OS first). If you choose to install XP x64
    >>> first, and prefer it to be the default, you will need to edit
    >>> boot.ini (which is very easy and you can do it from within either
    >>> version of windows). Take care,
    >>>
    >>> John.

    >
    >
    John Barnes, Apr 30, 2006
    #9
  10. John:
    I agree with you fully. It's one of the first lessons that I learned
    the hard way when x64 was still a CPP build. A way around it may be using a
    third-party boot manager.


    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > If you screw around with the drive priorities, active partitions, etc. you
    > can accidentally get it to work, but that is not the intelligent way.
    > Just ask dozens of posters who installed x64 first then x86 and came up
    > with various drive and or file not found messages.
    >
    >
    > "Bioboffin" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> So you're telling me that this XP x64 OS which I am currently using as a
    >> dual boot system with an XP W32 on a second hard drive doesn't work?
    >>
    >> (Incidentally, the reason I installed it this way round is because the XP
    >> 32 OS failed to boot - thanks to a problem with the RAID controller - so
    >> I needed to reinstall it from scratch. This was AFTER the x64 OS -
    >> obviously. Works just fine.)
    >>
    >> So you are wrong.
    >>
    >> John.
    >>
    >> John Barnes wrote:
    >>> Not correct. Follow Charlies instruction in the blog. Newest system
    >>> last.
    >>>
    >>> "Bioboffin" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:%...
    >>>> flexible wrote:
    >>>>> I'm setting up a new AMD dual core with XP Pro both the x32 and x64
    >>>>> versions. I learned the hard way that they each need a seperate
    >>>>> drive so I'm going to partition the hard drive into 'C' & 'D'.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> QUESTION: which OS should I add first or does it matter?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> thanks
    >>>>
    >>>> Actually in this case it doesn't matter. You are getting the
    >>>> "conventional wisdom" from the other contributors. Both OSs are
    >>>> windows XP and therefore 'concurrent'. I have done it both ways, and
    >>>> both work fine! However, you will find that the one which you
    >>>> install last comes out as the default when you start up. (Because
    >>>> boot.ini puts the latest OS first). If you choose to install XP x64
    >>>> first, and prefer it to be the default, you will need to edit
    >>>> boot.ini (which is very easy and you can do it from within either
    >>>> version of windows). Take care,
    >>>>
    >>>> John.

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Dennis Pack x64, IE7B2, Apr 30, 2006
    #10
  11. No, they aren't concurrent. And it won't be fine. You'll have to move some
    system files around if you install 32-bit after. See my blog. We've all been
    down this road many times, and that's why I put together the blog.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    Bioboffin wrote:
    > flexible wrote:
    >> I'm setting up a new AMD dual core with XP Pro both the x32 and x64
    >> versions. I learned the hard way that they each need a seperate drive
    >> so I'm going to partition the hard drive into 'C' & 'D'.
    >>
    >> QUESTION: which OS should I add first or does it matter?
    >>
    >> thanks

    >
    > Actually in this case it doesn't matter. You are getting the "conventional
    > wisdom" from the other contributors. Both OSs are windows XP and therefore
    > 'concurrent'. I have done it both ways, and both work fine! However, you
    > will find that the one which you install last comes out as the default
    > when you start up. (Because boot.ini puts the latest OS first). If you
    > choose to install XP x64 first, and prefer it to be the default, you will
    > need to edit boot.ini (which is very easy and you can do it from within
    > either version of windows).
    >
    > Take care,
    >
    > John.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, May 1, 2006
    #11
  12. =?Utf-8?B?ZmxleGlibGU=?=

    Bioboffin Guest

    Well I didn't "screw around" with any of those things. The two OSs are on
    two different drives. The only thing I did was to change the default OS in
    boot.ini.

    I guess I was just lucky.

    John.


    John Barnes wrote:
    > If you screw around with the drive priorities, active partitions,
    > etc. you can accidentally get it to work, but that is not the
    > intelligent way. Just ask dozens of posters who installed x64 first
    > then x86 and came up with various drive and or file not found
    > messages.
    >
    > "Bioboffin" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> So you're telling me that this XP x64 OS which I am currently using
    >> as a dual boot system with an XP W32 on a second hard drive doesn't
    >> work? (Incidentally, the reason I installed it this way round is because
    >> the XP 32 OS failed to boot - thanks to a problem with the RAID
    >> controller - so I needed to reinstall it from scratch. This was
    >> AFTER the x64 OS - obviously. Works just fine.)
    >>
    >> So you are wrong.
    >>
    >> John.
    >>
    >> John Barnes wrote:
    >>> Not correct. Follow Charlies instruction in the blog. Newest
    >>> system last.
    >>>
    >>> "Bioboffin" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:%...
    >>>> flexible wrote:
    >>>>> I'm setting up a new AMD dual core with XP Pro both the x32 and
    >>>>> x64 versions. I learned the hard way that they each need a
    >>>>> seperate drive so I'm going to partition the hard drive into 'C'
    >>>>> & 'D'. QUESTION: which OS should I add first or does it matter?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> thanks
    >>>>
    >>>> Actually in this case it doesn't matter. You are getting the
    >>>> "conventional wisdom" from the other contributors. Both OSs are
    >>>> windows XP and therefore 'concurrent'. I have done it both ways,
    >>>> and both work fine! However, you will find that the one which you
    >>>> install last comes out as the default when you start up. (Because
    >>>> boot.ini puts the latest OS first). If you choose to install XP x64
    >>>> first, and prefer it to be the default, you will need to edit
    >>>> boot.ini (which is very easy and you can do it from within either
    >>>> version of windows). Take care,
    >>>>
    >>>> John.
    Bioboffin, May 1, 2006
    #12
  13. =?Utf-8?B?ZmxleGlibGU=?=

    Bioboffin Guest

    Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
    > No, they aren't concurrent. And it won't be fine. You'll have to move
    > some system files around if you install 32-bit after. See my blog.
    > We've all been down this road many times, and that's why I put
    > together the blog.
    >

    I've read the blog - thanks. Just in case - I've printed off the "wrong
    order" bit.

    I'm not too worried about possible dire consequences - because like a lot of
    other people I installed x64 to learn about the issues, and because I enjoy
    messing about with computers! However, I am now intrigued to know why it
    seems to be working O.K., even though I reinstalled 32bit XP after x64. (it
    was the previous 'correctly installed' x32 which wouldn't boot up. Having
    reinstalled it, both OSs boot just fine.)

    Take care,

    John.
    Bioboffin, May 1, 2006
    #13
  14. I'm not very smart... but I'm hell confused...

    At work where I'm apparently system administrator (scary) they have a 64-bit
    AMD which was running XP x64 bit edition... that was all very well and good
    but it wouldn't install software the new person required so I installed
    windows xp 32 bit edition and had no problems at all, didn't eve think I
    would have any problem...

    my question to those who did is how did you do it (so I don't in future), I
    had four partitions on the drive when I first saw it to work with (boss has a
    fascination with lots of partitions) and just used an unused partition for
    the install, I can see how problems can occur if installing on the same
    partition (stupid in my opinion and as I said I'm not very smart) but still
    don't see the problem...

    enlighten me... I'll go read that blog now.
    =?Utf-8?B?dGhlY2xlbQ==?=, May 3, 2006
    #14
  15. Yup. Should see the 32-bit installation just fine. But getting back to the
    64-bit is the issue, if you use native Windows boot.ini and files.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64

    theclem wrote:
    > I'm not very smart... but I'm hell confused...
    >
    > At work where I'm apparently system administrator (scary) they have a
    > 64-bit AMD which was running XP x64 bit edition... that was all very well
    > and good but it wouldn't install software the new person required so I
    > installed windows xp 32 bit edition and had no problems at all, didn't
    > eve think I would have any problem...
    >
    > my question to those who did is how did you do it (so I don't in future),
    > I had four partitions on the drive when I first saw it to work with (boss
    > has a fascination with lots of partitions) and just used an unused
    > partition for the install, I can see how problems can occur if installing
    > on the same partition (stupid in my opinion and as I said I'm not very
    > smart) but still don't see the problem...
    >
    > enlighten me... I'll go read that blog now.
    Charlie Russel - MVP, May 3, 2006
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?S2V2aW4gQnVydG9u?=

    Dual boot x64 and x32?

    =?Utf-8?B?S2V2aW4gQnVydG9u?=, Jul 23, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    426
    =?Utf-8?B?cmVfYm9vdA==?=
    Jul 24, 2005
  2. jcl

    dual boot x64 x32

    jcl, Mar 3, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    403
  3. =?Utf-8?B?ZmxleGlibGU=?=

    dual boot x64 & x32 XP

    =?Utf-8?B?ZmxleGlibGU=?=, Apr 29, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    403
    Homer J. Simpson
    May 1, 2006
  4. Pat
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    618
    Colin Barnhorst
    Mar 31, 2008
  5. Hugh Sutherland

    dual boot or not to dual boot

    Hugh Sutherland, Jan 20, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    511
    Mike Easter
    Jan 20, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page