Dual Boot Pure Win7 Pro & Pure Xp Pro

[Wolf K]

I have a new PC with a blank 500G hard disk.
I have legal copies of Win7 pro and XP Pro.
I want to create a dual boot PC, 250G and 250G on the 500G hard disk.

Can someone give me step by step procedure to create this dual boot PC
or a link that explains.

NO I do not want a Win7 with Virtual XP so do not bother with that.
NO I do not want to use Win7 compatibility so do not bother with that!
Why, I an doing direct hardware interfacing and want no additional OS
code in the way so I want pure XP Pro and pure Win7 Pro.

Thanks in advance.

Install XP first, then Win 7. W7 will ask whether you want to keep the
older version of Windows, say yes, and then follow the prompts.

Tip: create two system partitions, and at least one common data
partition, say 100/100/300. Install as much of the same software on each
system as possible. W7 will run most 32-bit software without a problem,
even if it was originally written for XP. That way, you won't need to
switch OSs as often.

FWIW, I have XP on this box because there's no W7 driver for my ancient
but extremely reliable and cheap- to-operate b/w laser printer. I don't
store any data on the system partitions. I have three physical disks, I
use one for backup.

HTH
Wolf K.

 

[Wolf K]

Not sure if the BIOS will see the two and request a selection of Win7 or
XP. Is that universal or just some motherboards.
My new motherboard documentation makes no mention of dual boot capability.

Dual boot is taken care of by the W7 boot manager (automatically
installed when you install W7 when another OS is present). It will show
W7 as the default and "Older version of Windows" as a choice. Just
mouse/arrow to XP and Enter will boot it instead.

And kindly quote what you are answering, eh? Otherwise nobody know what
"this" or "that" is. (If you had been in any of my composition classes,
you'd have been given an automatic fail (--> rewrite) with the first
non-existent, unclear, or ambiguous pronoun reference. I wouldn't even
have bothered reading the rest of your work. Really. I was a a real
hard-nosed bastard that. ;-))

HTH,
Wolf K.

 

[Wolf K]

On 18/12/2011 1:36 PM, BeeJ wrote:
[...]

So far I think I am hearing
install XP Pro first
use one HD for each OS

Yes, that's what I'd recommend. HDDs are cheap. Since you're starting
with a blank box, I'd also recommend RAID 1, which you have to set up
before installing any OS, and which requires a RAID-capable BIOS.

But you can put XP and W7 on different partitions and use the second HD
for backups. NB that the backup utility that comes with W7 refuses to
backup the system to a partition on the same physical drive.

use EasyBCD to boot.

[...]

You don't need it if you have a pure Windows box. Easy BCD is helpful
(but _not_ bullet proof) if you add non-Windows OS.

HTH
Wolf K.
PS: I've now had three desktops with two or more OSs on them.
Dual/multi-boot is a lot simpler than many people think. I also briefly
dual-booted a laptop.

 

[Wolf K]

I shudder a bit when I hear that. Disk Management is just one of the
built-in tools for creating and managing partitions, but it's the
least capable. What it does, it does well, but it's extremely limited
in what it can do and is therefore NOT "THE" tool. Diskpart is another
built-in disk management tool and is much more capable. Third party
disk management tools take it up yet another notch.

In summary, go ahead and use Disk Management if it can do what you
need to do. It has a GUI and is very easy to use. If you get
frustrated by its many shortcomings, consider using the command line
tool, diskpart. If you need even more capability and would like to
have it delivered with a GUI, keep in mind that third party tools are
available that go above and beyond what diskpart can do, and of course
leave Disk Management in the dust.

Disk Management should be fine for the OP, and I agree with the advice
to use it in this case, but I can't agree that it's THE tool for
performing disk management. It's simply way too limited to deserve
that title.

Seconded,
Wolf K.

 

[Char Jackson]

Seconded,
Wolf K.

I thought I was a little over the top...

 

[Jan Alter]

If you choose to install an OS to each hard drive, you can install them in
any order. Just make sure only the hard drive you are installing to is
connected to the MB. Once you have both installed, you can connect both
drives to the MB and use the BIOS boot preference prompt to decide which
to boot to. It will assume you want to boot to the last one you installed
unless you tell it otherwise. You can change the default boot drive in the
BIOS. With this set up if either hard drive or OS goes south, the other
one isn't affected.

I agree with Alias in that respect. Many motherboards show a screen during
startup and indicate a F key to push to choose the boot drive. Even if it
doesn't you can locate the information in the manual for the motherboard.

If you do decide to go with this type of installation then after you
have installed the first OS disconnect that hard drive and connect the
second hard drive to install the second OS. When the second hard drive is
installed reconnect the first hard drive with whatever OS you installed.
That way no Windows boot manager will have been installed in the mbr sector
of the second installation.

 

[Wolf K]

On 18/12/2011 3:26 AM, BeeJ wrote:
[...][...]

This isn't a mobo issue. "Dual boot" merely means that MBR must contain
data and software that the BIOS will use to boot from whatever source
you specify. Originally, that meant only HDDs, but nowadays it means
anything the BIOS can recognise as an attached source of data. By
default, the BIOS will look for this on hard disk zero first, then
other devices in the specified order.

To see whether your mobo can boot from devices other than the HDDs, go
into Setup, and check the boot-order options. You should see more than
just the HDDs.

BTW, once you've installed one OS, you'll want to change the boot order
so that you can boot from the second OS's install DVD.

HTH
Wolf K.

 

[Wolf K]

I agree with Alias in that respect. Many motherboards show a screen during
startup

Only if set to do so via BIOS Setup.

and indicate a F key to push to choose the boot drive. Even if it
doesn't you can locate the information in the manual for the motherboard.

[snip]

If that information has to be found in the manual, it more than likely
refers to how to change the boot order. This is not the easiest way to
dual boot. There's a reason boot managers have been created!

IMO, Alias's advice is unnecessarily complicated. It also creates a
problem: OP would have to install a 3rd party boot manager to provide a
convenient choice of boot options. Why do that if W7 provides one
automatically?

To install the second OS, change the boot order in the BIOS Setup so the
machine will boot from the optical drive. That drive may be specified by
manufacturer and model, so be sure to look at _all_ boot options before
deciding which one to place first.

After installing W7, chnage the boot order so that BIOS accesses HD-0
first. The machine will otherwise attempt to boot from the optical drive
every time, which slows down the boot while it searches for a bootable
CD/DVD. The boot may hang if there's an unbootable disk left in the drive.

If the MBR on the first boot drive gets trashed, use Setup to change the
boot order back to the optical drive, and use the install disk to Repair
Win7.

HTH
Wiolf K.

 

[Wolf K]

[...]

Seconded,
Wolf K.

I thought I was a little over the top...

Oh, I don't know. I would have been a deal less polite than you if I'd
been moved to express the same sentiments. ;-)

Wolf K.

 

[Paul]

I agree with Alias in that respect. Many motherboards show a screen
during
startup

Only if set to do so via BIOS Setup.

and indicate a F key to push to choose the boot drive. Even if it
doesn't you can locate the information in the manual for the motherboard.

[snip]

If that information has to be found in the manual, it more than likely
refers to how to change the boot order. This is not the easiest way to
dual boot. There's a reason boot managers have been created!

IMO, Alias's advice is unnecessarily complicated. It also creates a
problem: OP would have to install a 3rd party boot manager to provide a
convenient choice of boot options. Why do that if W7 provides one
automatically?

To install the second OS, change the boot order in the BIOS Setup so the
machine will boot from the optical drive. That drive may be specified by
manufacturer and model, so be sure to look at _all_ boot options before
deciding which one to place first.

After installing W7, chnage the boot order so that BIOS accesses HD-0
first. The machine will otherwise attempt to boot from the optical drive
every time, which slows down the boot while it searches for a bootable
CD/DVD. The boot may hang if there's an unbootable disk left in the drive.

If the MBR on the first boot drive gets trashed, use Setup to change the
boot order back to the optical drive, and use the install disk to Repair
Win7.

HTH
Wiolf K.

I have a couple computers here, where there is a function key you
can press at POST, to cause a "popup BIOS boot menu" to appear.
In it, is a list of drives detected during POST. You can make
a temporary boot selection from that menu, and booting
starts immediately afterwards.

(This isn't a very good example, in terms of the devices listed, but
it shows the exact appearance of the list. And this is drawn by the BIOS.)

http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19127-01/ultra27.ws/821-0166/images/7-2-Boot-Device-Menu.gif

That's how I control a two disk, Win2K/WinXP, one OS per disk system.
I select one drive from that menu, if I want WinXP, and the other
drive if I want Win2K. By doing so, there is no need to modify any
Boot Managers (BCD or boot.ini).

On the Asus motherboard, I press the F8 key to get the menu. There
should be at least some hint that the key is available (like the
reference to "BBS" here).

http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19127-01/ultra27.ws/821-0166/images/7-1-F8-Prompt.gif

On the Asrock motherboard, I press the F11 key.

Pressing "Pause" when the first BIOS screen appears, will allow
reviewing the various options. So if some function keys are
mentioned there, there may be a popup boot menu.

My older motherboards don't have that function.

In terms of timing the function key press, there is a window of opportunity
during the painting of the first BIOS page of output. If I wait too long,
the key press won't get accepted. On my laptop, the interval is
ridiculously short (1 to 2 seconds). If I need to make an alternate
boot choice on the laptop, usually I screw up the first time, have
to reboot and try again. The Asus and Asrock motherboards give longer than that,
and the function is actually useful on them.

That method doesn't affect the "normal" boot order. On those computers,
if I walk away from the computer and let it boot, it uses the default
boot order stored in the BIOS. On my Win2K/WinXP machine, that means
WinXP will boot. So I don't have to stand there every time and tap
a key. But if I want Win2K to boot, then I need F8.

Paul

 

[BeeJ]

My BIOS does allow Raid but what is the difference between not using
that and Raid 1?

How difficult is it to set up?
Why use Raid 1?

Thanks!

 

[Wolf K]

I have a couple computers here, where there is a function key you
can press at POST, to cause a "popup BIOS boot menu" to appear.
In it, is a list of drives detected during POST. You can make
a temporary boot selection from that menu, and booting
starts immediately afterwards.

(This isn't a very good example, in terms of the devices listed, but
it shows the exact appearance of the list. And this is drawn by the BIOS.)

Thanks for this,
Wolf K.

 

[Wolf K]

My BIOS does allow Raid but what is the difference between not using
that and Raid 1?

How difficult is it to set up?
Why use Raid 1?

Thanks!

Raid is designed to reduce the odds of data loss.

Raid 0: uses a single disk, makes a copy. If the disk fails, you lose
both copies of the data. I don't know why it even exists, it's useless
as mammary equipment on a male bovine.

Raid 1: requires two physical disks, one is a mirror of the other. If
one fails, the OS simply uses the other one. NB that the whole system is
mirrored, OS data and all. This is the one to use if you have a single
machine.

Raid 2 to 5: other schemes of duplicating data over many disks/machines.

Reasoning: if the odds of disk failure are, say, 1:1,000,000, then the
odds of two disks failing simultaneously are 1: 1,000,000,000,000. (This
is basic probability theory). So if you use two (or more) cheap
(=relatively failure prone) disks instead of one (or a few) expensive
(=failure resistant) disk, you have a better chance of preserving your data.

So if you automatically write the same data to two disks, you vastly
improve the odds of saving your data. All server farms use variants of
this scheme (plus hot-swappable disks, so that failed hardware can be
replaced without shutting down the system.)

For more, check Wikipedia. Raid = Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks.

HTH
Wolf K.

 

[Char Jackson]

Lots of good discussion in this thread, with several different
approaches spelled out.

Personally, I have no need to dual boot, but if I did, and if I had
two drives available, I would definitely follow this approach:

Install the first drive and install the first OS on it. Remove that
drive, install the second drive and install the second OS on it.
Finally, reinstall the first drive (so that both drives are installed)
and allow the BIOS boot order code to select which OS to boot.

Each drive (each OS) has its own boot loader code, with no
interdependencies between them. That's a significant advantage and
removes the scenario where a damaged boot loader disables both OS's,
requiring repair tools to recover. In addition, the two OS's can be
installed in any order and either OS can be removed without affecting
the other. It's pretty slick, actually.

 

[Char Jackson]

Raid is designed to reduce the odds of data loss.

That, or to provide increased performance.

Raid 0: uses a single disk, makes a copy. If the disk fails, you lose
both copies of the data. I don't know why it even exists, it's useless
as mammary equipment on a male bovine.

<snip>

RAID 0, mirroring or striping blocks of data across multiple drives,
provides improved read/write performance, but it comes at the cost of
higher risk of data loss, as you mentioned above.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID>

I've built many systems, (these are always for others, never for
myself) with RAID 0 arrays for improved system performance. Similar
tricks for maximizing system performance include using 10k RPM drives,
(rather than 7200 or 5400 RPM), and in more recent times, replacing
spinning media with SSD devices.

 

[Wolf K]

RAID 0, mirroring or striping blocks of data across multiple drives,
provides improved read/write performance, but it comes at the cost of
higher risk of data loss, as you mentioned above.

Oops, my bad, I forgot that Raid 0 can use more than one
drive.Logically, all drives are a single disk, however. If I Recall
Correctly, that is. (I really should read up on this again. ;-o )

Wolf K.

 

[R. C. White]

Hi, BeeJ.

RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive - or Independent - Disks) always
requires two or more HDDs, and it's best if all disks in the array are
identical, or at least have the same capacities.

My experience with RAID is limited to RAID 1, which is essentially the
hardware equivalent of a software "mirror": Everything that the operating
system writes to the first disk is also written immediately to the second
disk. If either disk fails, it can be replaced and the system will rebuild
the array from the contents of the good disk. After the one disk fails, you
can continue to use the files on the good disk as a single disk as before
until - and while - the array is rebuilt. (Yes, this happened to me and it
validated - for me - the strategy of having the redundant disks. This was
less traumatic - almost painless - compared to my loss of a single disk full
of files several years ago.)

After using RAID 1 on a pair of 300 GB disks for a couple of years, I bought
a second 1 TB disk to match one that I was already using and tried to move
my RAID to the pair of big disks. But I got a new mobo with a new BIOS at
about the same time; the new BIOS supported RAID, but making the transition
got so complicated that I gave up. I moved the contents of one 300 GB disk
to one of the TB disks and had Disk Management create a software mirror on
the second TB disk. In the olden days (I've heard), the hardware RAID
mirror was better, but with Win7, the software mirror works fine.

While I haven't used RAID 0, I've read about it in many places; just Bingle
for RAID and you'll find more than you can digest in a month! RAID 0
("striping") writes only HALF of each file to each disk, so if you lose one
disk, you've lost the whole file. Striping writes the first sector of a
file to Disk 0, the second sector to Disk 1, the third sector back to Disk
0, the fourth to Disk 1...etc. This makes reading/writing go faster because
the two sets of read/write heads on the two disks can both be reading and
writing at the same time, dramatically improving performance. But if you
lose either disk, you have only disjointed segments of a program or data
file - or of the operating system itself. In other words, if one disk dies,
both are worthless and their contents have to be rebuilt from scratch - ALL
of it!

In short, striping (RAID 0) doubles disk read/write speeds - but also
doubles risk of losing everything. Mirroring (RAID 1 or software) provides
significant (but not complete!) protection from data loss, but doubles the
cost of storage.

Other RAID schemes (RAID 5, for example) combine these concepts, but I've
never used them and can't comment on them.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-2010)
Windows Live Mail 2011 (Build 15.4.3538.0513) in Win7 Ultimate x64 SP1


"BeeJ" wrote in message
My BIOS does allow Raid but what is the difference between not using
that and Raid 1?

How difficult is it to set up?
Why use Raid 1?

Thanks!

 

[Allen Drake]

On 18/12/2011 1:36 PM, BeeJ wrote:
[...]

So far I think I am hearing
install XP Pro first
use one HD for each OS

Yes, that's what I'd recommend. HDDs are cheap. Since you're starting
with a blank box, I'd also recommend RAID 1, which you have to set up
before installing any OS, and which requires a RAID-capable BIOS.

But you can put XP and W7 on different partitions and use the second HD
for backups. NB that the backup utility that comes with W7 refuses to
backup the system to a partition on the same physical drive.

use EasyBCD to boot.

[...]

You don't need it if you have a pure Windows box. Easy BCD is helpful
(but _not_ bullet proof) if you add non-Windows OS.

HTH
Wolf K.
PS: I've now had three desktops with two or more OSs on them.
Dual/multi-boot is a lot simpler than many people think. I also briefly
dual-booted a laptop.

What does "not bullet proof" mean". Does it have any bugs? The OP
asked about booting into two Windows OSes and nothing about
non-Windows. My guess it no one in this tread has deven tried EasyBCD.
If they had they would see the ease and simplicity. It boots to a menu
and waits as long as you tell it to for you to hit one key.

I have it on 3 systems and who said it doesn't boot to non-Windows?

http://neosmart.net/wiki/display/EB...e;jsessionid=D999A9AED09BDF14EE6EF8C0AB0979AF


What is EasyBCD ®Anyway?

It all depends on who you ask or what you want to get done, but
•EasyBCD is NeoSmart Technologies 100% free Windows bootloader (BCD)
modification tool.
•A way to get your Windows Vista or Windows 7 working with Linux, BSD,
Mac OS X, and dozens more operating systems without a headache!
•An IT Guy's number 1 bootloader-troubleshooting tool.
•A multiple award-winning application, used and recommended by the
folks at Microsoft, PC World and more!
•The easiest way of booting from virtual disks, ISO images, network
devices, or USB disks!
•The best way to do just about anything with Windows Vista/7 before it
even turns on!

That's just the tip of the iceberg though. You should read the FAQ for
more info. Also, take a look at the Multibooters' Guide for a
down-to-earth explanation of what multi-booting is and how it works.

What Does EasyBCD Do? Why Should I Use It?

Well, no one says you have to use EasyBCD, but Microsoft's made it
very clear that they're not releasing anything other than the
command-line (and poorly supported/documented) bcdedit.exe for editing
the bootloader. Plus, the guys at Microsoft, Google, PC World, PC
Magazine, and many others use EasyBCD as their Vista BCD tool of
choice. Why shouldn't you join in the fun? After all, not like it
costs anything!

To get started, take a look at our list of Supported Operating
Systems, check out the FAQ, or jump right into our detailed
documentation for booting into just about anything from A to Z!

 

[Paul]

On 18/12/2011 1:36 PM, BeeJ wrote:
[...]

So far I think I am hearing
install XP Pro first
use one HD for each OS

Yes, that's what I'd recommend. HDDs are cheap. Since you're starting
with a blank box, I'd also recommend RAID 1, which you have to set up
before installing any OS, and which requires a RAID-capable BIOS.

But you can put XP and W7 on different partitions and use the second HD
for backups. NB that the backup utility that comes with W7 refuses to
backup the system to a partition on the same physical drive.

use EasyBCD to boot.

[...]

You don't need it if you have a pure Windows box. Easy BCD is helpful
(but _not_ bullet proof) if you add non-Windows OS.

HTH
Wolf K.
PS: I've now had three desktops with two or more OSs on them.
Dual/multi-boot is a lot simpler than many people think. I also briefly
dual-booted a laptop.

What does "not bullet proof" mean". Does it have any bugs? The OP
asked about booting into two Windows OSes and nothing about
non-Windows. My guess it no one in this tread has deven tried EasyBCD.
If they had they would see the ease and simplicity. It boots to a menu
and waits as long as you tell it to for you to hit one key.

I have it on 3 systems and who said it doesn't boot to non-Windows?

http://neosmart.net/wiki/display/EB...e;jsessionid=D999A9AED09BDF14EE6EF8C0AB0979AF


What is EasyBCD ®Anyway?

It all depends on who you ask or what you want to get done, but
•EasyBCD is NeoSmart Technologies 100% free Windows bootloader (BCD)
modification tool.
•A way to get your Windows Vista or Windows 7 working with Linux, BSD,
Mac OS X, and dozens more operating systems without a headache!
•An IT Guy's number 1 bootloader-troubleshooting tool.
•A multiple award-winning application, used and recommended by the
folks at Microsoft, PC World and more!
•The easiest way of booting from virtual disks, ISO images, network
devices, or USB disks!
•The best way to do just about anything with Windows Vista/7 before it
even turns on!

That's just the tip of the iceberg though. You should read the FAQ for
more info. Also, take a look at the Multibooters' Guide for a
down-to-earth explanation of what multi-booting is and how it works.

What Does EasyBCD Do? Why Should I Use It?

Well, no one says you have to use EasyBCD, but Microsoft's made it
very clear that they're not releasing anything other than the
command-line (and poorly supported/documented) bcdedit.exe for editing
the bootloader. Plus, the guys at Microsoft, Google, PC World, PC
Magazine, and many others use EasyBCD as their Vista BCD tool of
choice. Why shouldn't you join in the fun? After all, not like it
costs anything!

To get started, take a look at our list of Supported Operating
Systems, check out the FAQ, or jump right into our detailed
documentation for booting into just about anything from A to Z!

I don't think that's the issue at all.

Setting up the initial boot configuration is not a big deal.
Making modifications with EasyBCD is not a big deal either.
Wiring together your config, using bubble gum and binder twine
isn't the issue either. If you wanted to manage booting via
GRUB, I'm sure that would work.

What is a big deal, is how safe it is to mix WinXP, Win7, and
Linux at the same time. I've "broken" Win7 twice now, one time
repaired by the built-in boot repair facility, the second time,
really broken and requiring recovery from a system image backup.

The issue is, the design of the NTFS file system on the Win7 C: partition,
and what operations are or aren't safe. An obvious issue,
is leaving System Restore enabled on WinXP. But even probing the
Win7 C: partition from Linux, can have unintended consequences.
I think I might have deleted a couple trivial data files while
running Linux, and then Win7 wouldn't boot on the next attempt.

On my current system, mixing Win2K, WinXP, Linux, I never have
problems like that. On a system with Win7 added to the mix,
I've had problems keeping Win7 running.

So I wouldn't be too glib about success formulas. There is still
a need to be careful. And for my own personal usage, I still
don't have what I consider to be "safe enough" handling
procedures. For example, if I need to do maintenance from
Linux, I've resorted to using Knoppix 5.3.1 DVD, because
it mounts Windows partitions "read only" by default. Many
other Linux LiveCDs will tempt you by mounting read/write,
and then there is a possibility when you make even a couple
file changes to the NTFS C: partition of Win7, it'll be broken
again.

So sure, dual boot, multiboot, but make a system image every
week of Win7 C: and SYSTEM RESERVED partitions, using the
build-in Win7 capability, and store in a safe place. I'm glad
I did that. I've had problems, but I recovered from them.

If you make the C: partition on Win7 relatively small, and store
user data on a separate partition, that makes it easier to give
C: a few more backups than normal. I've never had a problem
with the data partition on my Win7 setup. It's the C: that
is sensitive to behind-the-scenes activities.

And I haven't methodically examined the issues, because
my setup isn't flexible enough to do that in a reasonably
short time period. I'm discovering these issues just as a
part of normal activities.

The items you want, are "Create a system image" and "Create a
system repair disc". The latter one, if you have a laptop with
pre-installed Win7, and don't have a regular installer DVD to
boot from. The "system repair disk" is a couple hundred MB and
allows booting from a CD, to copy back the system image and
fix C: again. You store the resulting system image, on an
external disk, for safety.

http://www.pcfeeder.com/images/stor...stem_Image/Windows7_Create_System_Image_1.png

If you install Win7 without Service Pack, then I'd also
recommend doing the System Image, before installing SP1.
Again, just for safety. The Service Pack will back itself
out, if it detects problems during the install attempt.
But if the SP1 has a problem on the first reboot, then
you could be screwed. (That's because, the installer
considers the job "finished". And if you can't boot at
that point, you'll need to restore from backup. The
installer logic is great, if it detects a problem
during the actual installation part.)

Paul

 

[choro]

Lots of good discussion in this thread, with several different
approaches spelled out.

Personally, I have no need to dual boot, but if I did, and if I had
two drives available, I would definitely follow this approach:

Install the first drive and install the first OS on it. Remove that
drive, install the second drive and install the second OS on it.
Finally, reinstall the first drive (so that both drives are installed)
and allow the BIOS boot order code to select which OS to boot.

Each drive (each OS) has its own boot loader code, with no
interdependencies between them. That's a significant advantage and
removes the scenario where a damaged boot loader disables both OS's,
requiring repair tools to recover. In addition, the two OS's can be
installed in any order and either OS can be removed without affecting
the other. It's pretty slick, actually.

To me this sounds the best solution thus far. But I have another
suggestion. Why not use a KVM box and let the two computers share the
same Keyboard, Monitor and the Mouse?

This way you can switch instantly between the two OS's as they could
both be up and running at the same time. None of the drawbacks of having
two OS's on the same computer with all the advantages of two separate
discrete computers?

Surely more or less anybody switching over to Windows 7 will either buy
or build a new computer for themselves. Or am I wrong on this point?

If one of the computers is a laptop just configure it NOT to go to sleep
with the lid closed and Bob's your uncle. Moreover with a special USB
link cable one can transfer any user file on one of the computers to the
other in a jiffy. Or you can even email the damn user file to yourself
and pick it up on the other computer. The possibilities are endless, one
might say.

And why should one opt for a more complicated system where one has to
switch off the computer and switch it back on again just to access the
other OS when with a very small outlay one can have both computers and
thus both OS's up and running at the same time and with a simple click
of the keyboard start monitoring and working on the other computer?

After all, KVMs for 2 computers with all the connecting cables built in
can be had for a song these days.

The only thing that refused to install on my Win 7 machine was the
driver for my old scanner. With a cheap KVM, I solved the problem.

I fail to understand all these more complicated ways of doing things or
do people update their old Windows XP machines to Windows 7? To be
honest I can't see the logic in that either.
-- choro