dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1347
share rss forum feed


norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback

Win 8 back to Win 7

While discussing partitions, there is something I've noticed and wondered if it was worth the discussion and if anyone has come across it or had issues?

Win 8 uses GPT, Win 7 uses MBR partitions.
Koitsu was kind enough to post this link in a topic:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Parti···versions

Now x64 bit flavors seem to be fine.

What I was wondering if you have Win 8 installed and wanted to go back to Win 7, and all you had was a x86/x32 bit flavor of Win 7, would it create issues with the partition table or install if you were not aware of this?
I'm not quite sure if this is a hardware topic or a Microsoft topic, but as Microsoft has changed the rules, so to speak, thought it better talked about here due to it affecting the install; does it?
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



plencnerb
Premium
join:2000-09-25
Carpentersville, IL
kudos:3

I think a bit more information here is needed as to what exactly you are looking to do.

The reason I say this is that if you are running Windows 8 x64, and wanted to install Windows 7 x86, that should not be a problem with the hard drive, if you saved all your data to an external source first, and did a clean install of Windows 7.

Maybe its just me, but when I do an install of an OS, I don't like the upgrade or downgrade route. Sure, its a pain as you have to re-install all your applications and restore all your data, but to me, that eliminates a ton of other issues.

So, if you are looking to install Windows 7 x86 on top of an existing Windows 8 x64 install, I would highly suggest if you wanted to do that, to save your data, make sure you have all your application installs, and just start over with Windows 7.

Not saying what you are asking cannot be done, I just feel that it would be less hassle and you could end up with a cleaner, more stable result in the end.

--Brian
--
============================
--Brian Plencner

E-Mail: CoasterBrian72Cancer@gmail.com
Note: Kill Cancer to Reply via e-mail



norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback

1 edit

This isn't a discussion on what I need, it was more on would this issue affect people enough it might be a concern.
Would just deleting the partition be enough then installing. Would this lack of compatibility be of concern, if for instance, yes, the user chose the upgrade/downgrade option?
I myself wouldn't, and would start fresh.

I just feel there is a point of discussion here because of what maybe an install/migration issue.
I could be wrong.

I understand it is only in a boot environment that it comes into play, just curious if anyone has been caught out with the boundaries in place.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



plencnerb
Premium
join:2000-09-25
Carpentersville, IL
kudos:3

I totally agree with you on your points. It is an interesting topic for discussion, as there are a lot of people out there that do prefer to do in-place upgrades / downgrades instead of a full format / install of a given OS.

I do not know enough about the subject to comment on it further, so it will be interesting for me, as well as a learning experience to see what others have to say on this subject.

--Brian
--
============================
--Brian Plencner

E-Mail: CoasterBrian72Cancer@gmail.com
Note: Kill Cancer to Reply via e-mail


Aranarth

join:2011-11-04
Stanwood, MI
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
reply to norwegian

I also recommend doing a full wipe and install.

I have found that unless the previous version of windows was a completely new install, with nothing installed, when you do an in-place upgrade there is ALWAYS something that comes back to bite you.

I have tried upgrades from every version of windows to the next at least once ignoring my own advice and have always regretted it. (Even from win3.1 to 95 to 98)

If the in-place upgrade was able to properly repair the previously installed version of windows first before the upgrade it would probably not be an issue but the upgrade seems to assume that everything is fine and blindly plows ahead.



nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
kudos:7
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
reply to norwegian

said by norwegian:

What I was wondering if you have Win 8 installed and wanted to go back to Win 7, and all you had was a x86/x32 bit flavor of Win 7, would it create issues with the partition table or install if you were not aware of this?

I don't know the answer, and I'm more of a linux person.

However, my impression is this:

Windows (7,8) will only use GPT partitioning in a UEFI setup. They will only use traditional BIOS partitioning in an MBR/Legacy booting setup.

UEFI requires 64 bit.

So my best guess is that 32-bit and GPT will give problems.
--
AT&T Uverse; Buffalo WHR-300HP router (behind the 2wire gateway); openSuSE 12.3; firefox 19.0.2


DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
reply to norwegian

BTW win7 can do GPT too.

Every VM I've made for server 2008R2 since esxi 5 is EFI boot with a GPT boot VM disk

I've made a few win 7 vm's like this too.

but win7 will only make a GPT boot drive if its EFI boot not Bios.
--
»www.change.org/petitions/create-···imcity-4



norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
reply to nwrickert

said by nwrickert:

Windows (7,8) will only use GPT partitioning in a UEFI setup. They will only use traditional BIOS partitioning in an MBR/Legacy booting setup.

UEFI requires 64 bit.

So my best guess is that 32-bit and GPT will give problems.

This is how I read it too.
In what situation does this play out, as a user finding the system unresponsive, or will it never happen.

I don't think UEFI is really relevant, even though it is specific to that platform, other than it will be more likely encountered on newer motherboards because of the feature.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
reply to DarkLogix

said by DarkLogix:

BTW win7 can do GPT too.

but win7 will only make a GPT boot drive if its EFI boot not Bios.

That's the point, Win7 x32 will not though.
What if the user does use a return to Win7 x32 policy?
Does the install just error out with a code that is decipherable?

The 2 items; win7 x32 and a GPT bootable medium may never occur, and this discussion is moot.
That's also part of the question.
But if the 2 do meet, it won't play out nicely?
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



AMDUSER
Premium
join:2003-05-28
Earth,
kudos:1
reply to norwegian

I did this on a Dell laptop that came preloaded with Windows 8.
I disabled the uEFI so it ran in 'regular' BIOS mode..
It would have allowed Windows 7 32 bit / x86 to install if I wanted to...



mmainprize

join:2001-12-06
Houghton Lake, MI
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to norwegian

The upgrade Paths the OP laid out are not legit Upgrade/Downgrade paths as you can not change x86 to x64 during a migration.
If you had an Win 7 X86 system and you purchased an Upgrade to Win 8 you would get Win 8 x86 only via download purchase.

Now, there are ways to change to x64 from X86 using an upgrade disk, but they require a fresh OS install and not a system migration. So partitions are not an issue, as they will be deleted and recreated if needed.

The same is true for a downgrade from win 8 to win 7 or back to x86.



norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback


Thanks for pointing that out.

I'm trying to figure if there will be any issue with that limitation and will it affect anyone long term.

I've no time for testing my curiosity out like in the past, and hoped someone might have been able to pass on knowledge on the restrictions and if it could be of concern in certain instances.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



DarkLogix
Texan and Proud
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
reply to norwegian

said by norwegian:

said by DarkLogix:

BTW win7 can do GPT too.

but win7 will only make a GPT boot drive if its EFI boot not Bios.

That's the point, Win7 x32 will not though.
What if the user does use a return to Win7 x32 policy?
Does the install just error out with a code that is decipherable?

The 2 items; win7 x32 and a GPT bootable medium may never occur, and this discussion is moot.
That's also part of the question.
But if the 2 do meet, it won't play out nicely?

I would guess it would offer to re-format the drive.
--
»www.change.org/petitions/create-···imcity-4


mmainprize

join:2001-12-06
Houghton Lake, MI
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to norwegian

Just to add to my above comments, if hardware permits, like a second HDD or partition in the PC, the Upgrade may offer to backup your data files, format and install the new OS and then transfer your data back into the new installed OS.
This can even be offered if changing to x64. This migration process is OK but may not handle all your program and there data files, that is it may fail on some that are not supported.
When doing this type of migration there are many more possible errors that could come up and cause problems so most people avoid this method and do a clean install and manually transfer there data files.



norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback


So no one can see an issue with this?

Reformat replies really don't discuss this at all, and as I've said already, I am aware of that option, I do it all the time, that is not at discussion.

The partition table and operating system properties are, so please try and discuss this.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
reply to mmainprize

said by mmainprize:

The upgrade Paths the OP laid out are not legit Upgrade/Downgrade paths as you can not change x86 to x64 during a migration.

I guess for discussion sake, this would be more relative to Win 8 x86 migration to Win 7 x86.


norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
reply to norwegian

Please excuse the cross post from another site forum, in hopes I can get this discussion happening to help others who "do not know to wipe" etc, or as in this users case, did not wipe at all and kept all data, however risky it might be - especially if nothing is backed up and you try it.

»www.wilderssecurity.com/showthre···t=339321
particularly this entry on one way to resolve it.
»www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost···count=20

Also, for those just starting out and might need to understand more, I found the Microsoft FAQ's a little more helpful.

»msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library···525.aspx

Hopefully this is worth continuing - and if not I will request it be sent to the hardware forum.
I just thought it would be worthy of discussion for newbies future reference here as it is really specific to Windows than any other platform.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
reply to norwegian

I think I've found a topic that explorers a little on what I was hoping someone would enlighten me to:

»arstechnica.com/information-tech···know-it/

x86: freedom and flexibility

x86 Windows 8 systems must allow users to add and remove certificates from the firmware's certificate store. For example, a Linux vendor could provide a signed operating system loader and corresponding certificate: all x86 Windows 8 systems must permit users to install such certificates. Microsoft calls this "custom mode", in contrast to "standard mode", that includes only the Microsoft certificate.

x86 Windows 8 systems must also allow secure boot to be turned off completely, so that no certificate verification is performed at all.

UEFI allows the ability to drop back to mimicking BIOS, to allow UEFI systems to start pre-UEFI operating systems. This is done through a combination of running the "option ROMs" embedded into many components, and Compatibility Support Modules (CSMs) to hand over control to a legacy operating system.

Windows 8 machines using x86 processors can offer this kind of backwards compatibility, but they must not invoke it without explicit user action; in other words, this "BIOS mode" must be explicitly enabled. Further, if secure boot is enabled, the system must not enter BIOS mode at all. Systems with 32-bit Windows can even ship in BIOS mode by default, though they must still be capable of UEFI mode.

This combination of options should settle most concerns that were raised when news of the secure boot requirement first broke. On x86 systems, Windows 8 stands as no impediment to using non-Windows operating systems. Indeed, Microsoft's rules ensure that vendors will make it possible to securely boot operating systems other than Windows: system builders will have no choice but to allow system owners to install their own certificates.

The rules should also ensure the system remains secure; in all cases, weakening the system's integrity (by adding certificates or disabling secure boot entirely) should require physical console access, and shouldn't be possible programmatically. In other words, there should be no way for a rootkit to silently add its own certificate to the trusted store or otherwise defeat the system.

However, leaving it up to the user is why I thought it worth discussion, most users are not as knowledgeable as some of the good people here....hence discussion for future reference.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
kudos:7
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse

said by norwegian:

This combination of options should settle most concerns that were raised when news of the secure boot requirement first broke. On x86 systems, Windows 8 stands as no impediment to using non-Windows operating systems.

We're a bit off-topic. However, this is not entirely true.

If I want to install linux to dual-boot with Windows, then here are two problems (I would call them impediments):

1: As best I can tell, Microsoft has not documented any way of adding an entry to the Windows boot manager for booting the linux system.

2: I can setup the linux system to boot Windows 8. However, if I ever boot Windows 8, then Windows reinserts the Windows boot manager as the booting agent, cutting off access to linux.

There is a work-around - create a second EFI partition, and setup the linux boot there. But this should not be needed. The EFI partition is supposed to be shared.

These impediments may not have been intentional - they may have been a side effect of the way things are done by Windows. But they are impediments.
--
AT&T Uverse; Buffalo WHR-300HP router (behind the 2wire gateway); openSuSE 12.3; firefox 20.0


Freddy
Premium
join:2005-05-17
Arlington, VA
kudos:2

nwrickert,

Microsoft has clarified its requirements by stating that systems certified for Windows 8 must allow secure boot to enter custom mode or be disabled, but not on systems using the ARM architecture.

I interpret that statement as meaning that authors of UEFI firmware are responsible for making it possible to dual boot operating systems.

So, perhaps the problem you're identifying lies with those manufacturers who don't implement the UEFI standard in the manner specified by Microsoft.

My source:

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Ex···nterface

It's possible I could have misinterpreted what is saw there.

I have a UEFI based system, but it contains no Secure Boot option. It's a self-built system using an ASRock H77M-ITX motherboard running Windows 8 64 bit. I don't dual boot, so I haven't tried that to determine whether it provides the option you speak of.

Just some thoughts on the subject. Additional comments or clarification welcome. This is complicated subject, so it's easy to get wrapped around the axle. Been there, done that.

Freddy



nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
kudos:7
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse

said by Freddy:

So, perhaps the problem you're identifying lies with those manufacturers who don't implement the UEFI standard in the manner specified by Microsoft.

Perhaps you misread my post. I did not say anything at all that relates to manufacturer implementation of UEFI. My post was entirely about problems caused by the Microsoft implementation of Windows 8.
--
AT&T Uverse; Buffalo WHR-300HP router (behind the 2wire gateway); openSuSE 12.3; firefox 20.0


Freddy
Premium
join:2005-05-17
Arlington, VA
kudos:2

1 edit

Yeah, I know you didn't say anything about Manufacturer implementation of UEFI. My point is trying to open debate on the possibility that authors of UEFI have caused the problem you talk about, rather than just Microsoft causing it.

I agree with you that one should have an option to select what operating system to boot. But just who is responsible for providing this option? How does one know who to blame?

Also, developers of (other) operating systems have some responsibility for implementing compliance with standards for booting in UEFI in dual use systems. I guess I don't know why (only) Microsoft should provide this option.

It seems to me that resolving this issue is not just the responsibility of Microsoft. I don't know the answer, but maybe some can provide insight. Let's hear it.

Freddy

Edit: In parentheses to clarify



norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback


To me, outside of the Win 7 driver certification; we now have bios certification (UEFI). How this came about, and at the hardware layer is anyone's guess. Why it is certified and will not allow dual boot to work at the user request highlights this "legal requirement" of Windows.

If I read this wrong, please correct me, but it is simply like a speeding fine, once you choose to do it, any protection is void.

It is after all a user selection, thus avoiding O/S requirements and protection.
I understand that, how do you turn this into a conglomerate issue to cover those users who have no idea at all?
Simply so their funds on a new system is covered under support/warranty etc?
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke



norwegian
Premium
join:2005-02-15
Outback
reply to nwrickert

said by nwrickert:

We're a bit off-topic. However, this is not entirely true.

If I want to install linux to dual-boot with Windows, then here are two problems (I would call them impediments):

Maybe a little off topic, but it is relative to some degree on what Microsoft has put in place for their needs with UEFI, and you highlight a different issue that is still relative to the same juncture that is being put in place by an O/S over the hardware.

I'm not quite sure why an O/S should be allowed to control the hardware to that level, at least a level, while trying to add security, it is messing with the hardware enough it will create problems for users, and as you point out, it forces the bootloader to change it's behavior - in a security/malware sense that is dangerous?
Which is why I mentioned the certification process.
I don't have answers, but still certifications have been broken/spoofed, and been big in the headlines of late, so why the push to utilize this method.
Bit off topic possibly too, but maybe this method was in development before all the recent cert issues came about.

This could always move to the hardware forum, if the mods here consider we are getting off topic for this forum and the subject. There is a lot affected since the Windows partition table changed it's properties.

--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke