Dual boot: Which OS on which partition

[_D]

I currently have two systems set up as dual boot. I'm going to keep
XP on both, but change the second OS. Both are used for software
development and testing.

System 1: Currently has C: WinME, and D:XP. WinME was useful at one
time, for doing stuff like partitioning and for testing compatibility,
but I rarely use it now. I'm thinking about replacing it with Linux
or maybe an Avalon beta. Problem with Linux's is that they don't
read/write NTFS, so maybe Avalon is the way to go.

System 2: Currently has C:\Win2000 and D:XP. Win2k used to be my
'stable' fallback in case XP had problems, but same thing...I rarely
boot it now. Thinking about going with a server platform so I can
test server software. Probably Win2003.

I realize that the decisions are totally arbitrary, but you guys have
some great ideas sometimes. <g> I could use some perspective to tip
the scales.

First, the Linux vs Avalon thing... Is it too early to jump into
Avalon? I'm concerned that it may run very slow on a straight P4 3Ghz
machine.

Second, the assignment of partitions: Now might be a good time to
reinstall XP as well, so I could switch both XP partitions from D: to
C:. Not sure if the effort is warranted, and I can't think of
compelling reasons to do that. Can you think of any reason to switch
partitions around? I know that XP runs OK on D: but I'm not sure if
I'll run into obscure bugs with Win2003 Server, Avalon or even Linux.

Just kinda thinking out loud. Jump in if you can think of anything.

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

I currently have two systems set up as dual boot. I'm going to keep
XP on both, but change the second OS. Both are used for software
development and testing.

System 1: Currently has C: WinME, and D:XP. WinME was useful at one
time, for doing stuff like partitioning and for testing compatibility,
but I rarely use it now. I'm thinking about replacing it with Linux
or maybe an Avalon beta. Problem with Linux's is that they don't
read/write NTFS, so maybe Avalon is the way to go.

System 2: Currently has C:\Win2000 and D:XP. Win2k used to be my
'stable' fallback in case XP had problems, but same thing...I rarely
boot it now. Thinking about going with a server platform so I can
test server software. Probably Win2003.

I realize that the decisions are totally arbitrary, but you guys have
some great ideas sometimes. <g> I could use some perspective to tip
the scales.

First, the Linux vs Avalon thing... Is it too early to jump into
Avalon? I'm concerned that it may run very slow on a straight P4 3Ghz
machine.

Second, the assignment of partitions: Now might be a good time to
reinstall XP as well, so I could switch both XP partitions from D: to
C:. Not sure if the effort is warranted, and I can't think of
compelling reasons to do that. Can you think of any reason to switch
partitions around? I know that XP runs OK on D: but I'm not sure if
I'll run into obscure bugs with Win2003 Server, Avalon or even Linux.

Just kinda thinking out loud. Jump in if you can think of anything.

It does not really matter where you install your OSs. However,
anything you install on a drive other than C: will rely on there
being a drive C: as a place holder. This could cause problems
later on when removing an obsolete OS.

You would get far better flexibility if you used a third party
boot loader such as XOSL, and installed each OS on its own
drive C:, getting the boot loader to hide the unused partitions.
With this method you also eliminate any interdependency
between the OSs. And lastly, some boot loaders let you
run stand-alone OSs on disks other than the primary master
disk, e.g. like so:
Primary master, primary partition 1: Win2000
Primary master, primary partition 2: Linux
Secondary slave, logical partition 1: WinXP