Is it possible to install Vista onto Ext. USB Hard Drive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chad Harris
  • Start date Start date
C

Chad Harris

I've found endless threads on this but nothing definitive. If this can be
done, by now I'm sure someone has the way. I couldn't get it done.

CH
 
Windows was not made to run on removable media, having said that I too have
seen many people do this with XP.

I also have seen some versions of XP that boot and run from a CD...

But there is a question of performance.. USB is just too slow for vista for
normal use.

Why are you trying to achieve this? An experiment or do you actually want do
use it that way.

Because it will be painfully slow... vista is slow even on sata II drives
let alone USB externals.. lol
 
Hi Chad,

Simply put, no, at least not by design. Vista can not normally (and I use
this word carefully) be loaded onto and run from an external drive. Even if
you can find a workaround (some of which purportedly exist), the throughput
rate for data will not provide for very much in the way of performance.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
 
I spent a lot of time trying to do this with XP. The only way I could get it
to work was with a modified WinPE environment like BartPE. Even then booting
from a USB device depended a lot on the BIOS. On the majority of
motherboards I tried it didn't work. I gave up and just used CDs. You may be
able to accomplish something similar (minimal environment booting from CD)
in Vista but I think you'd run into the same problems when trying to use
USB.
 
This is the perspective I was looking for. Thanks to all of you--Tie, Kerry,
Rick.

"USB is just too slow for vista for normal use...Even then booting
from a USB device depended a lot on the BIOS. On the majority of
motherboards I tried it didn't work...vista is slow even on sata II drives
let alone USB externals.. lol"

I suspected that this could be very bios dependent Kerry. Thanks for
confirming that. I had spent a lot of time trying to get Vista to boot from
an external DVD drive even using the internal HD, when the Beta first
cranked up and I had no luck at all, and had to put in an internal DVD
burner and even then reconfigure the cabling and some bios settings to
finally get it going but I learned from that.

I was trying to get a good perspective, and I knew I could get it here.
There are a lot of threads on http://channel9.msdn.com forums where a lot of
developer types hang, and there wasn't really a definitive set of directions
for Vista; many people said they've done it for XP--but they didn't remakr
on speed.

I really appreciate the main overriding caveat from everyone--that the
troughput rate would be ***slow and that's the major deal breaker right
there. If it's going to be significantly slow, then just getting it done
***to see it on the external hd moving slow was not what I had in mind.

On one box I have a triple boot and it works very well, but my reason for
putting a Vista to experiment with or put betas and extra programs on the
external HD (a Western Digital My book that works like a charm and has freed
up a lot of space for me on my smaller internal HD) was that as everyone
realizes, some programs are increasingly larger these days, and some
programs still require ***major space on the system drive.

When the Beta first cranked up, and all kinds of nifty pocket hard drives
began to proliferate there were many questions about this to MSFT, and they
were very adamant they wouldn't support it because they wanted to stress
security and they didn't want people vulnerable to loosing their OS,
settings and possibly valuable documents if they lost one of the small
mobile HDs. Of course the statement they wouldn't support it prompted many
people to try workarounds immediately, but what's the good of doing it if
the system is going to cause you to wait for things to happen?

It's funny you'll see some people answer the threads on Radio 9 and say,
well if you have the right modern MOBO, you can set the bios to do this.
That's a little vague, and if I were able to do it and I were posting
directions and it was going to be slow going once they did it, I'd sure not
be shy about saying it was going to be slow so they could make the best
choice.

As real whole computers become smaller and less expensive, maybe the slow
throughput problem will be solved when those computers get into the form
factor size that all these nifty pocket HDs are in--I don't know if that's
possible, but I suspect that it will be some day.

Thanks very much for everyone's advice.

CH
 
What can be done is store virtual machines on a USB drive. This is slow but
it works well for testing.
 
Yep good point Kerry.

CH

Kerry Brown said:
What can be done is store virtual machines on a USB drive. This is slow
but it works well for testing.
 
But unless I'm mistaken, I should have added the problem is that you're
still dealing out some RAM from your original supply with virtual machines.

CH
 
With Vista x64 and 4 GB of RAM I'm able to run three virtual machines with
SBS 2003 (1 GB) and two XP clients (256 MB) and get reasonable response from
Vista and the vm's. So to answer your question, yes, you do use some RAM
from the host OS, but it is possible and even reasonable. The slowness of
the USB drive makes more of a difference.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Back
Top