Second hd for linux in an Xp machine or not?

[beanzontoast]

I can't make my mind up what to do in future.

I have an Xp base unit that is dual core and fairly fast. On this, I've run the live dvd version of a linux distro including some video processing software - the distro runs fine, but the video software crashes occasionally and would (I think) be more stable and faster if installed. So, maybe I should get a second hd and try installing it? However, this base is my main machine - I don't want to do anything that might mess it up.

I also have a much older single core base unit (my backup machine) running Xp and with this same distro and video software actually installed on its second hd. It runs the video rendering software without crashing but way more slowly than the live dvd on the dual core base unit. A new i5 processor base unit to replace this older unit is coming in about a month's time.

So... do I install an extra hd on the existing dual core base, install the linux distro to that and use it to render video

or

do I wait for the new Windows 7 i5 base unit and install the new hd and linux on that and use it to render video?

 

[Carwash]

If you're short of space on your main drive, a second drive would be sensible if you're planning to install Linux, yes. If you're not short of space, what are you worried about?

 

[beanzontoast]

If you're short of space on your main drive, a second drive would be sensible if you're planning to install Linux, yes. If you're not short of space, what are you worried about?

Not lots of space left - and video does take up room - so a second hd is the way to go I think. But on which machine? Two things I'm worried about really. I can't decide whether adding a second hd to the existing dualcore machine is less risky than adding it to the shiny new i5 machine when it arrives - it will be under warranty whereas the dual core isn't for one thing. OTOH, I'm not sure whether adding a second hd for a linux install to my current main machine where I have everything (apart from linux) running nicely might be more risky than adding it afresh to the new machine.

 

[Carwash]

You talk of it being risky - is there something in particular you're worried about? Installing Linux nowadays is not the path fraught with peril it once was.

 

[JamesAC]

I added a second disc to my XP machine, and installed Debian/Linux on it. I use it almost all the time, other than when I have to run some software that only runs on Windows.

If you dedicate the second disc to Linux, there is almost nothing that can go wrong: the installation process will detect that you have XP installed on the other disc, and will ask if you want the grub loader to include Windows. There is a small, but definite chance that grub will screw up the mbr. But you can recover from that without too much trouble.

 

[beanzontoast]

You talk of it being risky - is there something in particular you're worried about? Installing Linux nowadays is not the path fraught with peril it once was.

Agreed. What mainly concerns me is if I decide to remove the linux entirely at some point, might there be issues with grub letting me go back to having just Xp / Windows 7 on the base? The exisiting dual core is just set up how I like it at present and I wouldn't want to risk mucking it up. This is why I'm wondering if the dual boot might be better on the new base when I get it - less to lose, initially at least, if I do decide to uninstall the linux again.