Saying Goodbye for win 7

[Void Master]

I have currently a core 2 quad system with a potato gt 730 (upgrade from a 9400 gt) it running win 7 ultimate 64bit And Vista ultimate 64 bit  ,7 gb ram ( awkward i know 2 + 2 +2 +1 gb ddr2 ) 

I will switch to win 10 the same day win 7 support ends ( honoring win 7 And vista before it ,i am dual booting win 7 and vista )

My question is : Will there be any worries dual booting win vista , win 7 and win 10 on the same pc ? (separate drives tho , win10 will have and SSD)

Can Win 10 corrupt both of my previous installs ? 

Thanks for reading this .

Edit : And plz don't tell me vista sucks as it was gd for me 

Edited August 21, 2019 by Void Master

[TomvanWijnen]

I'm not sure if it's necessary with Windows 10 anymore, but you always have to ensure that all storage devices, apart from the one you're installing Windows on, are disconnected, so Windows doesn't put "important" crap on the other drives.

 

4 minutes ago, Void Master said:

Edit : And plz don't tell me vista sucks as it was gd for me 

I personally loved Vista.

[Radium_Angel]

36 minutes ago, Void Master said:

vista

Vista was fine once the hardware caught up (and the service packs)

Also, don't forget, Windows 9 is a thing. Don't need to jump to 10 right away.

[TheDelphiDude]

3 hours ago, TomvanWijnen said:

I'm not sure if it's necessary with Windows 10 anymore, but you always have to ensure that all storage devices, apart from the one you're installing Windows on, are disconnected, so Windows doesn't put "important" crap on the other drives.

If he wants to triple boot Vista, 7 and 10 he should keep his harddisks plugged in, and not change the boot order. That way 10 will install and add itself to the existing boot menu.

He can unplug the harddisks, install 10 on the SSD and have that set as the first boot device, but he'll have to use BCDEdit afterwards to add entries for Vista and 7.

[lloose]

If you are ok with running non-supported OS's why even bother with Windows 10? Just stay on 7 if you don't care about security. Vista has been out of support for over 2 years now, installing Windows 10 because Windows 7 is going out of support seems kind of dumb when you look at it that way.

[GoodBytes]

On 8/21/2019 at 2:53 PM, TomvanWijnen said:

I'm not sure if it's necessary with Windows 10 anymore, but you always have to ensure that all storage devices, apart from the one you're installing Windows on, are disconnected, so Windows doesn't put "important" crap on the other drives.

The issue is with either the motherboard or your setup.

Windows setup will assume your main drive is on the first port that the motherboard reports back to the OS (that is the first SATA port that isn't an optical drive).

So if you have an HDD and SSD, and you want your main drive to be the SSD, but you connected the HDD on SATA-1, and SSD on SATA -2... then Windows setup will install Windows on the SSD as this is what you pick in the setup, but the boot partition will be on the HDD. Now, why Windows setup does that and not just assume the selected drive to be the main drive is because of compatibility purposes with all BIOS/UEFI which assume the boot partition to be on the main drive. 

 

Another issue with motherboards is if you have M.2 drive and a SATA drive. Some motherboard, even from name brand in the custom PC, priorities the SATA drives, and THEN the M.2 drives. I even recall the Gigabyte board that my brother had on his aged old system by now (long ago upgraded of course), where it was in the days where we still had motherboards with IDE connector for HDDs despite SATA-2 being everywhere and standard, and SATA-3 being the new thing... I think it was a Core i7-860 or something his CPU

Funny thing, is that it prioritized IDE if you had an HDD connected over SATA. Completely silly. But alas common. I learned that by connecting his, at the time, new HDD which was on SATA, and his old one (IDE) when we built his system, installing Windows 7, thinking of transferring his files from the old drive to the new one... Yup that was a nice waste of time in re-installing everything again, this time IDE drive unplugged (or I think we disabled the IDE ports from the BIOS, or something, I don't recall.. its been more than 10 years ago).

 

On 8/21/2019 at 2:53 PM, TomvanWijnen said:

I personally loved Vista.

An OS that was ahead of its time. As much as people like to trash on Vista, Vista has done amazing things in the PC world. Vista pushed actual GPUs in PC space. No more S3 graphics and Intel integrated graphics that could barely handle the shadow effects from Windows XP on icons and barely play DVDs (recall: DVD are 480p), no more system with fancy CPUs, but like 512MB of RAM, or super slow RAM (no more unbalanced specs systems from OEMs which they used to love to throw in together, basically making budget PCs with old parts that they have around), Nvidia, AMD, and Intel had to setup their game with alpha blending performance (that is transparency), which probably would have occurred anyway due to gaming with models having textures that has transparency to make things look smoother, like trees, or glass effects and so on... but assured that this tech advancement comes down to the entry level chips, and accelerated its adoption rate of being able to this much faster then ever before. Pushed to dropped many legacy technologies in favor of new ones in the hardware space. And pushed multi-core CPUs in the consumer space.

 

The period of Vista, reminded of the old days in computers, where it was common for software, even a web browser to pushed your hardware to the limits, and that was fine, consumers where open to new hardware upgrades that would make their computing experience better. Something that was lost in that time, where users where blaming lack of software optimization instead. Mind you, yes Vista had many front-facing user bugs at release, and needed optimizations, but by SP1 things where getting there. Microsoft definitely rushed released the OS which didn't help anything (not to mention the company bending down to OEMs to reduce the OS actual system requirement, which was a huge mistake, among many others that the company have done in that period).

[homeap5]

@GoodBytes: Are you sure with that priority and boot loader? I always thought that Windows just uses existing boot loader (no matter on what drive is) if exist instead of creating new one and that is why people ends with boot loader on hdd when they plug new ssd and trying to install new system (because existing boot loader is updated).

[GoodBytes]

4 hours ago, homeap5 said:

@GoodBytes: Are you sure with that priority and boot loader? I always thought that Windows just uses existing boot loader (no matter on what drive is) if exist instead of creating new one and that is why people ends with boot loader on hdd when they plug new ssd and trying to install new system (because existing boot loader is updated).

From my experience, WIndows will replace the bootloader and add the other OS detected. Although not sure if it will be moved. I think it must be for UEFI based systems.

 

[Joluch]

If there isn't a specific requirement for you to run windows 7 and vista straight from boot. Have you thought about running them as Virtual Machines inside windows 10? I'm no expert but it seems like you can convert an existing install into a VM as well if you don't want to do a fresh windows 7/vista install in the VM. I'm sure the knowledgeable peeps on here would have experience on such.

 

Just a thought.

[Void Master]

15 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

The issue is with either the motherboard or your setup.

Windows setup will assume your main drive is on the first port that the motherboard reports back to the OS (that is the first SATA port that isn't an optical drive).

So if you have an HDD and SSD, and you want your main drive to be the SSD, but you connected the HDD on SATA-1, and SSD on SATA -2... then Windows setup will install Windows on the SSD as this is what you pick in the setup, but the boot partition will be on the HDD. Now, why Windows setup does that and not just assume the selected drive to be the main drive is because of compatibility purposes with all BIOS/UEFI which assume the boot partition to be on the main drive. 

 

Another issue with motherboards is if you have M.2 drive and a SATA drive. Some motherboard, even from name brand in the custom PC, priorities the SATA drives, and THEN the M.2 drives. I even recall the Gigabyte board that my brother had on his aged old system by now (long ago upgraded of course), where it was in the days where we still had motherboards with IDE connector for HDDs despite SATA-2 being everywhere and standard, and SATA-3 being the new thing... I think it was a Core i7-860 or something his CPU

Funny thing, is that it prioritized IDE if you had an HDD connected over SATA. Completely silly. But alas common. I learned that by connecting his, at the time, new HDD which was on SATA, and his old one (IDE) when we built his system, installing Windows 7, thinking of transferring his files from the old drive to the new one... Yup that was a nice waste of time in re-installing everything again, this time IDE drive unplugged (or I think we disabled the IDE ports from the BIOS, or something, I don't recall.. its been more than 10 years ago).

Thx for ur help , i fixed this .

Win 10 is updating tho

I will be barely using this PC (it's just a fun project / emergency computer)

So if my vista hdd won't be dying soon (hopefully)

I am thinking of cloning my HDDs to SSDs (kingston A400 i can afford 2 more of these)

will it affect my install if i keep the boot order (from a certain ports ) unchanged ?

And i mean by cloning a full blown clone (all partitions )

Thx for help