hardwarenubejavaelite Posted June 21, 2006 Author Share Posted June 21, 2006 Synergy...that sounds cool!! Ok well i've been doing some thinking about all of this and well... How come I can't just restart my computer and boot from a differen't harddrive each time? I mean seeing as swapping back and forth sounds so impossible what about just booting from a seperate harddrive. But I Don't want to turn off and on each harddrive I just want to be able to have both harddrives hooked up and then lets say I boot from the 80 gb. Well I"d like to be able to only share files to the other harddrive...just not have access to the harddrive itself. I could then set a password on the shared folder. So I use the 80 gb and download stuff and put it in the shared folder, then I restart my computer and boot from the other harddrive....is this really impossible? I think what i'm asking now has got to be extremely easier. Is there anyway I can do this? Just set up 2 harddrives, have a shared folder that both have access to and is password protected, but I only get to boot from one harddrive at a time and I have to restart my computer to do so...but I Don't want to use a power switch swapper. Or is it that I Need a power switch swapper because somehow or another my bootstrap loader wants to read that I have a harddrive and therefore windows is going to want to know what to do with it? I don't get it...why is it so hard to just tell windows to ignore the fact that I have a harddrive and pretend it's not there. Or maybe it could show up I Just couldn't open it without the proper password. See what i'm saying, be able to boot from both Harddrives and just not have the harddrive as a slave drive. If I have to only boot 1 at a time, that's fine with me. I"ll just boot from 1 or the other. If this is indeed impossible...well that sucks and i'll have to use the power switch swap solution...but idk it just seems like this shouldn't be so impossible. THanks again HAK5 rules! SYnergyyyyyyyyyyyy can't wait till i have enough money for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy© Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Partitioning is so much easier on the Xbox its all dynamically done and assigned by the bios at boot. That said Win98 you can do this easily as win98 only recognises 1 primary partition (the one you boot into) at a time and extended partitions are common WinXP I think you would need to alter the MBR (sorry alittle sleeper here) I found this on google but havent had chance to digest it all... http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm To be totaly honnest the more you write the more I think that a virtual machine would be your best bet. Darren > I'm supprised no one has ever made a USB device for your hardware setup - you could storethe clipboard (amongst other things) on some solid state memory inside it... ooo give USB DMA access to the other (maybe dangerous) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 I'm guessing that works by creating virtual machines (albeit ones that are less obvious to the user than when using VMWare or similar). I can't find much information on how it works exactly on Google though. It would have to work from creating a vm for each machine, as no matter what your still going to need one core system controlling everything, (which programs have access to the cpu and what not) So with out the one underlining OS doing this your going to have every other OS over writing each others data. With that said that is why it is impossible to have two OS running on the same machine at the same time with out the use of a VM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy© Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 With that said that is why it is impossible to have two OS running on the same machine at the same time with out the use of a VM So if I wanted to run a multi core processor multi OS I would need a VM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 snowy do you just look for fights ro something, fucking grow up, you took what i said out of context. How many people have the money to run something like that? oops my bad i forgot most people here would have the money.... Just becasue you couldnt use some commen sense and l.ogic to work out that it would be running the OS in a VM doesnt mean you have to try and start another fight with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Kitchen Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 I don't have the money, and I don't think he was looking for a fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowy© Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Just becasue you couldnt use some commen sense and l.ogic to work out that it would be running the OS in a VM doesnt mean you have to try and start another fight with me. yaie whoa what did I say wrong? I never said I know everything or anything for that matter, which is why I ask questions. :? Maybe I should of just looked it up on google :D Sorry Spider I was just thinking if I did need to run a VM then I'd probably need 3 cores or 2 cores and some sort of dedicated logic to do it, overall I was just wondering if it was possiable and so I asked. *shrug* :?: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 sorry my bad, its just that everytime i suggest something or come up with a sultion on this forum someone in here comes around and starts to fight with me over it, just read back on this topic to know what i mean. With what you asked in thoary you wouldnt need an underlaying OS to split up the usage of your hardware like you would if you just had one cpu, you would just have to make sure that each OS only uses one cpue and not the other, you could probly get linux to do this and run two copys at once, only for the fact that linux always you to modifie how the kernel works. It probbly wouldnt be an easy job to get it set up but you could in theory achieve two OS's running at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.