dual boot xp/vista AND video card q

1) I need to dual boot xp and vista, but WITHOUT fiddling with the MBR on either drive. I can set "boot priority" in the bios, but it doesn't ask me which to install to, it just goes to the first bootable device (e.g just say it was 1)unformatted HD, 2)xp, 3)vista, then xp would boot first, even though vista is a working OS). Is this possible?

2) I've had to get a geforce 6200 to replace my 6800 (standard, 128 ram). How much of a performance hit have I suffered? Note that I only play games released about 2 years ago, at the most. I had the choice between a 128mb and 256 version, $15 difference, I took the 128. Would it have made much difference?

1. In order to dual boot with xp and vista, you need to install vista first. It should not be auto installing onto any partition or drive, as both xp and vista give you the option to partition drives as you see fit. I'm not entirely sure as to your particular situation (regarding what hardrives/partitions you have), but I recommend reformatting your (one?) hard drive and creating three partitions at vista setup up (advanced options during setup). Create two 20 GB partitions (1 for vista, 1 for xp) and then a remainder space partition for usable files between the two. You can do this many different ways NTSF file-type will work. However you will need to install Vista before you install XP or they will not properly recognize. At boot you should be getting the option to boot from vista (it will auto boot after a few seconds) or you can boot from your alternative os (XP). As for boot priority..thats really only useful if you have each os installed on separate physical hard drives.

2. Most games made within the last two years benefit from 256mb over 128mb gpu memory, however there are many other and often times more important factors to consider. This is really dependant on the games you play and at what settings, but yes you will probably see a significant hit in gameplay on your system. I'm not entirely sure as to why you purchased a 6200 at this stage in the game. It is in many cases less expensive to purchase a newer faster card such as a http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102729. Thats not a card that I would necessarily recommend for gaming, but it will outperform even many 6800's let alone a 6200. Also, other things to consider are memory type, card generation/type, clock speeds, bus width etc. that greatly affect performance.

Hope this helps.

GameSinewPCs said:

I'm not entirely sure as to why you purchased a 6200 at this stage in the game. It is in many cases less expensive to purchase a newer faster card such as a http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102729.

Click to expand...

As I said, I needed a replacement card ASAP, and it didn't matter on how it performs since I rarely play games. I know AGP is dead, so I just got the best card I could find in AGP, without wasting money on performance I don't need. When and if I do get a PC with pci-e, it will be a fairly good card, but now is not the time to do such a thing.

What I really just wanted to know is, how much worse is the 6200 than the 6800? As in, one of those bar charts showing FPS? Surely it's not worse than having a 5700?

Odds are you'll see a significant drop in gameplay from the 6800 to the 6200. If i had to estimate, at the same settings in the same games .5-2/3? the fps.

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=192&card2=178

Performance will be significantly less