Running one game from two different OS

F

FoxhoundOp

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Messages
1,129
I like to keep my games installed on a separate partition than my OS is on. If I was to install a game while running Vista and say, want to play it from my XP or 7 installation, would I be able to do that without causing any problems?
 
you may need to install the game on both OS'es, and sometimes they add registry keys, or things of that nature, that will need to be available in both OS'es.

Other than that, yes, it should work fine.
 
Creating a start menu shortcut may be the only thing you need to do.
On the other hand, you may need to worry about re-activation, or sharing saved game or profile folders between the operating systems.

It all depends on the game.
 
Thanks for the replies. Now that I think about it, it's probably more trouble than it's worth.
 
I can confirm that Crysis/Warhead installed with XP (32bit) will not work from a Vista Home Premium 64bit partition.
 
The only reason to run a dual boot set up is to test one of the OSes, if you aren't willing to dive in head first. That being said, you keep everything separate from each other. All apps and games should be installed for each OS, in separate locations, so if you encounter an issue, you can easily pinpoint the problem.

If you are confident in both OSes to be gaming on them, then make a choice to have one OS, and stick with it. If you need XP for some old app for some reason, stick it in a VM.
 
rblews said:
I can confirm that Crysis/Warhead installed with XP (32bit) will not work from a Vista Home Premium 64bit partition.
Click to expand...

Crysis worked perfectly for me.
Installed on XP 32-bit. Ran perfectly from Windows 7 64-bit.

However, you cannot install the game on your XP drive C and then expect to run it from Vista. When you boot to Vista, the XP partition will not be C anymore.
That is the only reason I can think of why it did not work for you.

The drive letter of the partition containing the installation must be the same from both OS.
 
MrF said:
Crysis worked perfectly for me.
Installed on XP 32-bit. Ran perfectly from Windows 7 64-bit.
The drive letter of the partition containing the installation must be the same from both OS.
Click to expand...

You must have installed the game on a non-booting partition (no active OS). It was easy enough for me to reinstall the game using Vista; and I'm finaly weening off XP anyway.
 
rblews said:
You must have installed the game on a non-booting partition (no active OS).
Click to expand...

Of course. Otherwise, it is not surprising that it will not work since Vista makes itself new drive C and XP will be given a different drive letter while booting to Vista.
 
I knew about the change to the drive letter, but didn't know it would affect the game. Thanks for the info.
 
The Windows structure is too archaic and retarded to allow this to work easily. It will be very hit and miss, some games will work, some won't. DLLs and Registry for the fail. Unix based architectures have been doing this easily for decades. This is one area that Windows definitely fails.
 
And that's why we see so many games on UNIX... because it is just sooooooooo fucking superior... gotcha. 95% market share for 20+ years... massive fail there, absolutely massive... almost on a Universal scale, eh?

Right.

Nobody is stopping developers from writing games that reside inside a single directory, nobody at all. Hell, every id Software game I've ever played worked that way, so does Unreal and its derivatives, and most others to be honest. Perhaps a "saved game" directory thrown out into the user's profile, but geez... most everything is more transportable than most people realize.

Some folks just can't quite do much aside from bashing Windows consistently, can they?
 
bonsai said:
The Windows structure is too archaic and retarded to allow this to work easily. It will be very hit and miss, some games will work, some won't. DLLs and Registry for the fail. Unix based architectures have been doing this easily for decades. This is one area that Windows definitely fails.
Click to expand...
Way to contribute nothing. And be so far wrong that we're all stupider for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
 
bonsai said:
Oh the irony.

What's the matter the Windows fanbois can't take a little criticism? Let's see a Windows install survive a live kernel update. Portability my ass.
Click to expand...

Does your live kernel upgrade let you play any of the windows based games any better? Didn't think so.

Oh and btw the so called "live kernel upgrade" still requires you to reboot in order to actually use the new kernel you just compiled. So really, nothing is "live" about a "live kernel upgrade". You simply make a copy of the old kernel and modify it or download a new kernel source to compile, which neither is really anything live but a simple compile procedure that takes effect after a reboot. Live my ass.

It's getting really hilarious reading about Windows/linux bashing. First it was "Linux is so much faster than windows". Thats not true anymore with modern machines. Then it was "Linux is so much faster on OLDER machines". That might be true. Now go enjoy your Pentium II a little longer and whine some more. Then it was "Linux at least prefetches your memory". That coming from the same people that complain that Vista and Windows 7 uses prefecht now and complain that it's a memory hog. Then it was "But Linux is FREE". Funny thing because NOW i see people here complain that Microsoft gives XP basically away for free on Netbooks, stating that it's unfair to Linux. Cry me some more rivers.

Linux for desktops for the average user = EPIC FAIL.
Linux for gaming = EPIC FAIL
Linux for tinkeres who get a kick out of downloading, compiling and finally after 2 hours of work get some program to work that works by clicking one executable file in windows = great OS
Linux for people who think they're better because they finally after 8 hours and countless miserable failures compiled their own kernel on that mentioned Pentium II machine that does nothing for them except bragging rights = THE MOST EPIC FAIL
 
Last edited:
bonsai said:
Oh the irony.

What's the matter the Windows fanbois can't take a little criticism? Let's see a Windows install survive a live kernel update. Portability my ass.
Click to expand...

Windows have this thing called Drive Management where you can change drive letters. Perhaps you've heard of it?

Put the games on a non-OS drive and when you boot into the OS's, make sure that non-OS drive is the same letter. For example, if it's D: on Windows Vista, make sure it's also D: on Windows 7. It will reduce the chance of failing to launch the game. If it still fails, then it's due to lack of registry entry. Reinstallng the game in the same place *should* fix it.
 
DeaconFrost said:
The only reason to run a dual boot set up is to test one of the OSes, if you aren't willing to dive in head first. That being said, you keep everything separate from each other. All apps and games should be installed for each OS, in separate locations, so if you encounter an issue, you can easily pinpoint the problem.

If you are confident in both OSes to be gaming on them, then make a choice to have one OS, and stick with it. If you need XP for some old app for some reason, stick it in a VM.
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
Thanks for the replies guys. Some of them go a bit further than I asked for and the fanboy OS arguing definitely isn't necessary but I decided not to bother with it anyway. I spend too much time on the computer as it is.
 
bonsai said:
What's the matter the Windows fanbois can't take a little criticism?
Click to expand...
Oh the irony. Someone disagrees with you and that makes them a fanboi? That argument is lame by anyone, but reaches new levels coming from someone who typically only posts to flame or troll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top