My point exactly.... However, use of a separate hard drive in a system that is already running something else or 'separation technology (not 100% sure what that is) usually means 'dual boot' to some degree.
And, I would really suggest that if you're not learning HOW to manage the BCD in Vista - it might be an idea. Dual booting is a way to do this. Rick -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ASB Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 2:43 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hehe…. Let me know how that full-out testing of Vista and Aero Glass is going for you in a VPC or a VMWare virtual machine. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That's what dedicated systems are for. :) Sure, a VM is not the best option here, depending on what aspect of the OS is being tested, but in that case, using a totally separate hard drive or some other separation technology will still likely prove to be more viable than dual-booting. -ASB FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/ On 1/1/06, Rick Kingslan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hehe…. Let me know how that full-out testing of Vista and Aero Glass is > going for you in a VPC or a VMWare virtual machine. > > > > I agree, dual-booting is not the optimal method to running different OS's, > but if you want the OS to have the full machine, rather than the limited > virtualized hardware that the VMs are allowed – I think dual booting still > has a very strong place in the testing / learning environment. > > > > And, make no mistake – this is coming from a guy that when on the road, has > a 250GB external with nothing BUT VMs with VPC and VS 2005 R2 on his laptop. > I love virtualization…. It's just not the right thing for all situations. > > > > Rick > > > ________________________________ > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > joe > Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 10:40 AM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 > > > > > I have no clue why it wouldn't allow you to have different names for the OS > and then both can be joined at the same time, I have done this often. You > did use different directories for the installations right? > > > > > > Any more dual booting is going the way of the dodo, the "new" thing is to > virtualization software so you have both instances up and running at once. > Look at Virtual PC or VMWare Workstation. > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > shereen naser > Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 6:01 AM > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org > Subject: [ActiveDir] WinXP and Win2003 > > > Hi list, > > > I have windows xp sp 2 on my machine, I need to test something so I > installed windows 2003 server enterprise edition R2 on the same machine same > hard disk, I can see the dual boot screen and choose the OS, but I can only > login to the domain if one of the OS's is disconnected from the domain, > meaning if I want to login to the windows 2003 I have to go to the windows > xp and disjoin the machine from the domain then restart and login to the > domain in windows 2003, if I want to login to winxp I go to windows 2003 and > disjoin it from the domain then restart and join the xp to the domain and > login, locally I can login to both machines no problem. the error is that > the computer account is not found on the domain when I try to login and both > OSes are joined to the domain. I tried to rename the machine name to > different names in each OS but same thing happens. is there a way to do > that? (login to domain using both OS's without having to disjoin?) > > > Thank you .Š†ÿÁŠŠƒ²§²B§Ã¶v®Š§²rz§ÃŠryýŠŠ™i½® List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
