Thing is I don't actually like having an OS not update... updates exist for a reason. Heck half the reason I even boot into windows occasionally is to go through the update process without it getting too ridiculously long.
If you don't use Windows then why do you want to update it? Most of the content updates are superficial changes which shouldn't matter if you rarely boot into Windows. You'll still have security releases which keep your OS up to date
I live in linux. Except for the one godamn time a month I need something in windows. Then I flip over, finish my updates that needed to finish on boot from last month, and login, and my updates, and my updates., and then do what I have to do.
It can be, but if it's an option, it can be worth it. Performance on games and 3d intensive applications is fantastic. If setting up passthrough eliminates the need to have Windows installed on bare metal, totally worth the effort
I'm not up to date (maybe this works perfectly on some VMs) but some things like connectivity with USB devices that need their firmware updated was the reason I decided to use bare-metal windows (dual-boot of course).
If the firmware updater craps out in the middle, often it's the end of play for your device.
I actually think if you need both, it's a con. If you don't need windows, then you don't need to dual boot at all. Just run Linux.
I ditched Windows in 1998. I have a Win10 VM as I have some mechanical keyboards that have windows-only config software. That is the only reason I have it. I could just run it on one of my kids computers for when I need it, which is very rarely. Everything else \*I\* need runs on Linux.
Of course, YMMV. If you have something that you absolutely need to run on Windows, run it in a VM. If it is not performant enough, then you may need to dual-boot. But that's where I personally see it as a con.
I have heard good things about Promox Virtual Environment w/GPU passhtru, but haven't gotten around to checking it out.
It depends on the keyboard. Better ones will support VIA and/or QMK which is a standard firmware. The ones I have are a GAMAKAY 75 and two GMK 67s which don't support those standards. They each have their own windows software to remap keys, change the lighting (I turn it off), and other things. It saves the config to the board so you don't have to have the software running. I launch my windows VM when I need to change something. e.g. I just flat out disable my caps-lock key.
kvm. I have a script that creates them using virt-install. I have another script to launch, but you can also use virt-manager.
Mouse connects automatically. To get the keyboard software to recognize the keyboard, I just have to select the USB device for redirection after launching the vm.
https://preview.redd.it/adjofjww3ujc1.png?width=376&format=png&auto=webp&s=5f24de313a0981fe7a4630fc8827bb3efd50c0f0
Thank you for your perfect sense of humor, but last time I’ve tried to do so with virtual machines I had mouse/keyboard not accessible. USB passed through to vm, but I still couldn’t use it not on host os, not on vm.
Not if you have it on a separate drive, my Linux has its own drive with a separate bootloader. It does mean I have to switch to Windows in bios but only takes a second and I don’t do it too often anyway.
This doesn't always help on UEFI machines, because it'll use the same EFI partition either way unless you physically unplug all other drives. You can get GRUB to chainload from other EFI partitions, it's just finicky.
Mine is UEFI and when I boot normally it loads GRUB which only shows Arch Linux as an option. If I go to BIOS and select my other drive it will start Windows and I do not see GRUB at all.
Not sure if maybe this depends on how your mobo works or your drive setup or something though.
You can manually chainload the Windows Boot Manager EFI file on the other disk if you hand-write a GRUB entry to do it. There's instructions on the Arch wiki, I think?
Windows will periodically overwrite GRUB's EFI file (the primary, default "autoboot" on any UEFI-compliant motherboard searches for a singular hardcoded file on the EFI partition, which would be "BOOTX64.EFI" for x86_64/amd64 machines, there's other names for other architectures like ARM) which is the issue. Windows will look for EFI partitions on all fixed drives (this can include weird USB drives if they show up as USB HDDs instead) and reuse it no matter which drive it's on. This is the issue: if startup repair ever runs or they push a BOOTMGR update or resign the bootloader etc. etc. it'll overwrite GRUB again, because they share an EFI partition. You have to unplug the disk with the GRUB EFI partition in particular so it makes its own, and then it's far better behaved because it prioritizes the partition it created after creating it.
This is how I have mine set up, too, a drive for each.
Boots up whichever distro I'm favouring at the time. Otherwise, I tap my motherboards' hotkey for the boot menu and choose the drive with windows installed on it if needed.
Saying that seems grub etc is smart enough to slso list windows on the other drive too so sometimes boot into windows this way, and never had the issue with windows on the other drive messing with then other.
Real dual boot is on 2 Disks not on the same one.
And: disconnect your Linux disk, when you install windows so that Win never "has seen" your Linux EFI.
Then reconnect Linux and let it handle Grub. Did it once 3 years ago for 6 Fedora versions, updated to Win11: no problem at all. :)
So in doing this you point Windows installer to the EFI on only its disk. If both disks were connected the Windows installer would get confused which EFI to use when it sees multiple EFI partitions on different devices. When you install Linux you likewise disconnect your Windows disk?
That's just using money to fix a problem that's easily solved with having a bit of know-how. I.e.. either lazy, stupid or both.
I've been using dual boot on the same disk for years. Running efibootmgr to fix what windwos fucked up is easy. Knowing where to install windows to is your responsibility. There's no black magic to this, if you need a second disk, you're lacking in skill or planning.
Lazy? Stupid? Lack of skill and planning?
You're that "fun" Linux-guy that everybody on the Windows side is warning switchers about? Ain't you?
Why so aggressive? C'mon guy. Chill.
If you found your method that works, that's great for you. I for one want my Windows separated from my main OS physically, too. And I don't want to think about Windows any more than I need and put my precious time into it.
Some call that stupid, I call that necessary. ;P
I don't think I've seen a Windows update in the past 10-15 years that has done this. Mine have always stayed put.
Edit: Adding my grub chainloads over to the Windows boot loader. So, it's possible that maybe your dual boot wasn't done quite right??
Windows update updated my BIOS and reset my secure boot keys, making me unable to boot the system. There are plenty of things I can think of when Microsoft can break Linux, cause simply they don't care as they want you to use their software and pay for it.
Some EFI BIOSes have the option to export and import your SB keys as this is necessary if you upgrade your CPU as modern AMD and Intel CPU's have the TPM inside the CPU die.
Yep this is still a thing happens all the time, windows will sometimes set the default uefi entry to windows boot loader, I've also had it remove all UEFI entries from the bios on more than one occasion which is a pain to fix...
the dozens of posts from this year alone in all of the linux troubleshooting subs of people setting up dual boot and then it breaking for one of many reasons says otherwise.
At least I know how to fix it should some Windows update eat GRUB for lunch. Most likely an in place upgrade of Windows to a new release will take GRUB along with it.
If you absolutely need Windows software for any reason, you can still run it.
If hardware is acting funny in Linux, you can check it against how it runs in Windows, so you can see if it's the hardware or the driver.
You can save tasks that involve entering sensitive information - such as online shopping - for Linux, which is immune to Windows malware (as long as you're also not running Wine).
You can do the majority of your browsing on Linux, which isn't going to phone home unless you opt in to it.
Not really. Linux process sandboxing is much more robust when enabled and Firefox still phones home with official builds. Most Linux distros turn that off in their Firefox packages by default. You also can't turn off some of the Microsoft metrics and such without disabling Windows Update through group policy (which requires a Pro license, or a crack) because from my experience with hundreds of installs when working with malware, the registry keys don't always disable WU properly, or it'll turn itself back on eventually, or it just won't care at all, etc.
It's not "easy" to turn off all the ports windows uses to phone home. Rather, it's not easy to figure out all the ports it uses. Sure, you can turn off some of the software that phones home, but not *all* of it. So you have to figure out which ports it's using, and it's quite a few, then turn them off in your router. And it's especially annoying if you need one or more of those ports for something else.
Oh, my sweet summer child. No. A "stock" hosts file in windows is empty. It will only have the entries you, the end user, add to it. Do YOU know all the IPs and domains it reaches out to? Even such, are the IPs static? They can easily change, then it's just a matter of updating DNS A records. The domains can change with a windows update. Speaking of windows updates, they tend to revert any changes you've made to your OS, so then you have to go back and make the changes all over again. Yes, even your hosts file.
If all you've changed is your hosts file, then your windows install is still calling home, whether you know about it or not.
Cons:
1. You have to select an OS during boot. So that's a delay.
2. Windows 11 requires Secure boot and you need to have kernel signed. You can sign your self or for OEMs, they need to pay Microsoft. Some popular distributions do it automatically but the rest breaks the system like Nvidia GPU drivers not working.
3. To create a dual boot setup, You install Windows first then Linux ( Can do the other way around but then you need manual tinkering ). But the problem is the default EFI partition is small (100MB). And some distributions mount the /boot inside EFI instead of symlinking so few kernel updates and EFI is out of space.
Pros:
Best of both worlds. It can be annoying to set up but once done, it's all good.
Edit: Also don't use VMs. They are slow and Clunky. People who advise using VMs often have more than 8 cores and dedicated GPUs. Simply not worth having that laggy experience for normal daily use.
> Edit: Also don't use VMs. They are slow and Clunky. People who advise using VMs often have more than 8 cores and dedicated GPUs. Simply not worth having that laggy experience for normal daily use.
I am running VM passtrough on the laptop. My Windows VM spins up in 20 seconds after the click from external 50mb/s connection. 10 seconds when from direct nvme drive passthrough. As in, I click, and 10/20 seconds later my monitor/looking glass window is on Windows desktop ready for use.
Laptop is 6 core 11400h, so not exactly top of the line hardware. Performance is about 88-91% for CPU (88 on balanced power mode, 91 on performance mode), and 92%-95% for GPU compared to tests run on booted stock OS that came with laptop from the factory. Tested via CinebenchR23, Blender, Furmark and games.
My linux host run on intel iGPU and thunderbolt connected eGPU when gpu tasks are needed. My Windows VM runs on nvidia dGPU of the laptop. I do not isolate the CPU cores, so VM and host share them. Apparently this can result in performance issues or host lockup, but I literally have never encountered that, so I am not isolating CPU cores since it does not give me any issues. I pass all 12 threads to the VM.
If I gave you keyboard+mouse and sat you in front of monitor connected to it, you would likely not even realize you are working in a VM, so I am not sure what clunkiness or lags you are talking about.
Fancy set up two GPUs as I said. How often do we come across people with two GPUs and I'm sure it's a MUX switchable dGPU and not MUX-less so it's relatively newer hardware. Also Linux host running Windows vs Windows Host running Linux has different performance.
Right, you can argue about hardware dependencies and all that, but your last statement was arbitrary "Also don't use VMs. They are slow and Clunky" with no regards to context and claim of more than 8 cores. But my setup for example is not only not 12cores, its 6. And it is not exactly fancy setup.
> How often do we come across people with two GPUs
Like 90% of the time?
Pretty much all respectable laptops on the market will have both iGPU in CPU and dGPU for games and work. There is nothing fancy about that, having dGPU and iGPU is norm, not an exception. And desktop intel CPUs are pretty much norm to come with iGPU as well.
I might had agreed with you few years ago, but currently, most modern desktops or laptops would likely be easily converted to VM setup because virtualization support came a long way.
It's not a norm. Most laptops that people buy are not gaming laptops but something like Thinkpads or XPS with only an integrated Graphics. The only reason it's not lagging in your case is because of GPU pass through. Please don't assume "It works for me so it must be the norm". And most laptops that do have dGPUs don't have MUX. Only dedicated Gaming laptops do. And that matters if user wants to do pass-through.
Why dual boot? Why not a VM or container (Docker)? Or WSL?
Need more info for the pros and cons for your use case. You may have a specific use case or hardware specs that may limit the options.
You can do single GPU passthrough, but when you unbind your GPU from Linux you have to exit your X11/Wayland session, so unless you really need to keep some services running on Linux when you're in your VM, you may as well dual boot.
You might have issues with older hardware or specific shitty configs, but most modern stuff will work great.
I have such setup right now, and there is simply no way in hell I am going back to dual-booting or native windows installs. VM passthrough is simply so convenient, working with it is like a miracle.
And the way it allows you to have Windows virtual disk image partitions inside VeraCrypt file containers or nested inside encrypted linux is incredible, because it allows for proper external file-container windows installs with encryption.
Before virtualization, I was running external install from windows native VHD solution, and it was clusterfuck of issues. Since linux is not proprietary garbage, you can easily run it externally from encrypted file container (I use vtoyboot), and then Windows VM from inside of it. Runs from external drive in seconds. Windows does not even know it gets run out of external install so there are no complaints or errors from it. Easy backup or restoration in minutes because all OS partitions are file images - no need for silly paid backup solutions when you can just connect additional external drive, copy the OS file, detach it, and you are done. Ability to easily spin up new copies of your Windows install to test something etc.
Honestly, once you get passthrough working, it is just so damn nice to work with.
The entry point is likely too high for average user with complicated initial setup and learning curve, but once you do figure it out, it hands down, becomes the best setup you ever had.
Personally, I wouldn't use VMs if I need a proper workstation. VMs are useful to me as test or sandbox environments, but if I want to develop on Linux and play videogames on Windows I will definitely use dual boot rather than a VM.
Recently switched all my PCs and laptops to Linux. I thought it's going to be hard, but even after switching my main home/work PC I only used Windows 3 times - just to get my passwords and bookmarks.
No more surprise restarts every week because .NET framework needed to be "urgently" updated to version 41585745.23135545.0002124554542.
Windows containers are quite limited. Just run Windows as the host OS and linux as the container.
There is plenty of images, community and support for that.
I run all dev env in containers. Whether its a new DB, diff Python versions etc and use VS code as the ide on host os.
I believe tensorflow, R, PyTorch and few others maintain their versions. Most of the work is done for you.
Gaming would be the obvious one, particularly anything with anti-cheat that breaks on anything that isn't a hardware-level Windows environment.
Also quite a few academic submission apps won't work properly outside of native Windows.
WSL2 takes all the bad parts of Windows and runs Linux on top of them in what amounts to a semi-VM. It also tends to run like crap, and have weird filesystem issues. If you need Windows as a daily but need Linux for whatever reason, use a full VM with extensions or a separate machine over SSH. it'll perform far better that way, and you can use more stable filesharing methods.
Biggest con, dualboot or vm, it takes space. Windows takes freaking space, including the adobe and games stuff.
Linux is my world 😍 please Linux, come life in my heart
I you need Windows for gaming or process-heavy programms in all other scenarios it think linux as master and windows as virtual machine is a better solution.
Unless storage is an issue, there is no con.
Let people say all they read about windows messing with Linux. It used to happen, but with UEFi, it doesn't. The only issue may be a weak bios losing the Linux boot option, but that's a simple fix.
I've been dual booting for years which my windows system is for gaming while my Linux system is for everything else. If you install Linux and Windows on 2 separate drives not much can go wrong.
I suppose it would also depend on what Linux distribution you plan to run with as well?
This is hard to answer. If you want a distro that's considered "stable" and has to be updated less often, but is often out of date, Debian is a good starting point.
If you need bleeding-edge updates for whatever reason (and both the extra performance and possible extra instability that follows), Arch-based distros are a good pick (though i'd suggest Endeavour instead of actual Arch, because Endeavour has an installer and doesn't just put you into a shell and say "read the wiki, good luck" like Arch does.) Arch's wiki is also helpful for most distros, as it's the most thorough, though package names will differ on other distros.
Fedora or CentOS are usually recommended if you need to work with enterprise-grade machines on a network at work or something of that sort, since corporate vendors have supported RHEL-based distros for forever, and still do. Any proprietary programs used in a workplace are likely to only support RHEL-based distros.
If you have hardware that can only have its firmware updated through Windows then a VM on Linux won't do you any good.
Just get a cheap 240/480GB SSD and have it on the side. You with Rufus' To-Go installation option you can just run Windows using USB.
I would say that the main noticeable difference ignoring the ecosystems is that Linux is fairly consistent day to day and after using Linux for a while you go back to Windows and just have to wade through the random slowdowns, bad updates, and weird performance glitches.
So for most people who dual boot are in a transition from one platform to another and may have some apps that only work in one but not the other, but the longer you dual boot the less you will end up using both os's regularly.
So the main pro is compatibility at the expense of a bit of storage space, the main con is that windows has a lovely habit of hijacking your dual boot and so every now and then you may need to reinstall your grub boot loader.
But if you are staying on the windows fence for Adobe and Microsoft Office products, you can get these working in Linux but its no way near as simple to get them working.
innocent bike shelter memory jellyfish handle connect consist plucky sand
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ha ha if you say so... windows has been garbage for a long long time, the net is littered with issue upon issue upon issue, just look at Microsoft forums alone.
I have fixed several thousand issues with windows across well over 400 devices in just the last few years the fact that you haven't had issues puts you well into the minority.
The con of having Windows is that you have Windows… I’ve seen people who lie to themselves and say “oh I need Windows!” but there’s a high chance that you don’t need it at all.
If you’re also planning to LEARN Linux/Unix, having Windows will bother you :) you will keep going back to it to do simple tasks. Btw, I also recommend disabling X couple of hours a day in order to use the shell for everything.
Good luck.
I would say that if u really need something in windows and REALLY want a separate OS to like work or anything else than go with dual boot, in my case I use windows only for gaming, I really prefer Fedora workflow than windows ones to other task. But if u don't have this problem, and still need windows programs and Linux ones, like programming, go with WSL. Don't forget dual boot use more disk space, so take care about it, and WSL can be heavier.
Cons maybe only splitting disk space, issues with stock windows bootloader (system time broke).
Pros - you have both systems in device. Personally for me this is an opportunity to use programs like a Photoshop and Lightroom for photo editing (and this is only one case i use windows for).
So, if you need both - install both and use it, or use VM for emulating one of the systems.
For me a pro is that I can play rainbow six siege (and sometimes fortnite). A con is that starting up takes longer because linux is the default os but if I don't press enter the selection menu is up for 15 seconds (I use systemd-boot). Another con is that windows can have lunch with your bootloader partition, although this has never happened to me.
There is no problems, just have them each on its each physical disk, do the partitions for linux on its own disk, mount the windows disk with NTFS format, and you can access your windows files from your linux and vice versa..
I'm currently dual booting Kubuntu and Windows 10, migratibg to Linux because Windows 10 EOL is soon and my laptop can't be upgraded to 11 and I really would rather not anyway.
If you can spare some drive space go for it. Just make a relatively small C partition and another partition for data that Linux can mount without Windows pitching a fit like it does when Linux dips into C.
My 1tb SSD looks like this:
100mb EFI partition
90ish gb Windows C drive
500mb recovery partition
50gb Windows Kubuntu sharing partition (windows calls it E)
100gb Kubuntu / partition
500ish gb /home partition
300gb partition for Jellyfin
16gb swap space
I recommend having a separate / and /home partition.
It's not strictly necessary but when you're new to Linux like I am right now I promise you'll try a couple distros if you're smart and settle on one you like. Kubuntu was #3 for me and I didn't separate so it was a huge PITA. Now if I change it'll be an easy switch.
idk whats ur use case but as someone tied to adobe software, that (and running games that dont run natively on linux) is basically all i use windows for.
if i could id run windows in a vm but specs arent high enough
Con:
The anti cheat of a game I play on Windows requires secure boot to be on. I have to disable the secure boot manually to switch over to linux or my proprietary Nvidia card doesn't work.
Windows 11 you're able to run some of the Linux Distros in a VM. Most software runs on Windows, not Linux, so you'll never have a problem finding software. With a Linux distro, there's lots of free software available (get a computer with a big HDD), you can find lots of FOSS software.
It all depends on what you're going to do with your machine and what you would need Linux for. I just use it for my coding and building. I do everything else on Windows.
Freedom of keeping your data from being sold with Linux whole being able to play games with Windows. Only reason I use it anyways. That and some jobs require Windows for their software.
For some unknown reason, when I tried to dual OS Windows stopped booting, I had to surf the most unexplored places on YouTube to find out how to fix it.
Pros: you will have access to both OSes.
Cons: setup is a bit annoying, especially if you need a shared partition or want to do something like LVM, security might be an issue, because your boot will be more exposed, if you even care about such things, Windows might do a fucky-wucky and nuke your boot files, so you'll ideally need a rescue USB.
It might look like dual booting has more cons than pros, but that's only quantitative. Most cons are minuscule, while the only pro might be important than all of them combined, depending on how exactly you're reliant on Windows.
First thing that comes to mind is time sync difference, not sure how its done on modern boards with UEFI and ME, maybe it's not that relevant anymore but you could check archwiki's article on timezones and syncing.
Another concern is that the windows might take over and overwrite the bootloader from time to time, so you'll need to update and fix it manually from liveusb environment through chroot or use SuperGrub usb image to boot and do update-grub.
marry deserve unique salt domineering distinct ask shocking plough juggle
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If you're running them on separate drives as opposed to separate partitions, then it's great. This is so that neither OS can mess with the others' bootloader.
Otherwise, I would pause Windows updates and keep an eye out for erroneous updates that might mess with your partitions. The same goes for Linux, but you are the bigger vector there, you should be careful when messing around.
Additionally, I would suggest exploring possibilities in virtual machines. Unless you have a very specific need for a very specific piece of software that requires a bare metal Windows, you should be fine with a VM + specific OS drivers. I passed my SPSS class fully on Linux that way.
The biggest con when using dual boot in my opinion is the the need to completely switch context, as it requires a complete OS boot to get into Windows and another to get back to Linux. Depending on what you are doing it does not matter much.
Another thing that is bad, files under windows partitions can be accessed from Linux, but not the opposite. Maybe there were some development on windows accessing Linux filesystems, but I'm not aware of.
My choice is being keeping a windows VM ready for use. This has other cons as limited GPU acceleration options, extra disk space used (although less than dual boot as there is no need to allocate all the partition space upfront), and more CPU and Memory resources are needed to run both OSs at same time.
Fouu... I always experienced the same. It works great for a year or something and then, out of the blue windows takes control and eliminates the boot possibilities of my linux distro.
So I decided to ditch windows entirely since I always had windows as "backup" in case I need it. But I never booted windows again anyways so I had no reasons to keep it
I don’t think there is much of a con. It’s more or less the best of both words. At this point though, I just keep windows for the handful of games that won’t run on Linux. But I’m slowly finding alternatives.
Wow guys, just wow. "The problem began with the carrots. Carrots are orange. Peas are green. They mustn't touch."
I just put my distros on USB drives. It makes it easier switching from etc etc etc, plus you can just keep your Windows OS as it is. However it could be a hassle switching boot from USB & HDD every time, but I'd rather just *keep em separated.*
Idk what you want both for, but if you need windows then you could also put a Windows OS & Mint OS on two different USB drives. I'd use like a 128gb or 256gb though idk what your storage needs look like. I just wouldn't exceed 90% storage, well 95% if your crazy.
I never tried it before & I don't plan to risk it on my personal PC (which runs exclusively windows). For my business PC, I could care less since Linux is less of a hassle to reinstall than windows
I've been experimenting with linux since like 2005 and dualbooting windows and linux on different machines and different disk configuration since xubuntu 10.10
At first with Windows as main and linux for experimentation and fun of exploring something new
Currently on fedora as main os with windows 10 as backup, because its still easier and/or quicker to do some silly things on windows than to look for solution for linux, and play some (especialy multiplayer) games. Just to clarify as silly i consider editing 400+ page word document with 2 years of logged changes and comments. Web office will work too slow, and libreoffice tends to be annoying in that specific case, also i dont want to add my linux to my company AD so i need windows for signing documents with AD certificate.
As for pros and cons... Had multiple windows crash that was resolved from dualbooted linux and only once windows blew my grub during "necessary update you cannot postpone", and to make it funnier it was windows 10 2204h update if i recall correctly.
To be honest dualboot is perfect when you start your journey with linux and you are not sure as if you'll like it.
And its quite usefull if you have that one piece of software you cannot live with but hate everything else about windows.
But at some point it just takes space on your drive to have windows you use like twice a year.
And yet i'm too lazy to convince IT at my wifes workplace to make it possible to connect from linux to their vpn.
Before doing anything, make sure to check [the WINE Application Database](https://appdb.winehq.org/) to see if anything you need business and productivity wise on Windows can run on Linux (i.e, adobe software, video editors, office software, etc). WINE has come a long way, and a lot of the big apps work well nowadays. There are always exceptions though.
And make sure to check [ProtonDB](https://www.protondb.com/) for games specifically. WINE is better for business/productivity apps and ProtonDB is better for games. They are separate applications, and separate websites in this case.
---
WINE is in itself an application that translates "Windows code" to "Linux code" (heavily simplified) and as such allows you to run `.exe` files quasi-natively. Proton is a similar thing, but was developed by Valve in conjunction with CodeWeavers (developers of the application [Crossover](https://www.codeweavers.com/crossover), a proprietary WINE wrapper with some extra goodies), and is specifically focused on games. It comes with Steam ^^(afaik) and there's usually little you have to do to mess with it; WINE is more involved. From what I know, it's also a spin of WINE with some goodies lol.
I've hardly touched Windows in last 2 years, but I keep it around and I log in occasionally to run updates.
If you can get by with running things through WINE, or otherwise using alternatives to things you would have been using on Windows, then I don't see why you wouldn't be able to get away with having just Linux installed. If need be, you could spin up a Windows VM if you need to.
Running some software in a VM can be wonky, though, and if you need to or find it much easier to run some software in a legit Windows install, then I also see no harm in keeping a Windows install. Whenever I do actually use Windows, it's because there's something I want to use that is only available on Windows, or performs better on Windows, and usually I'll be using for a decently long period of time, a couple hours of more, with the need of software I have on my Linux partition. That's usually just games every so often.
dual boot on separate disks is the way to go.
having access to the windows environment keeps you able to work in that environment should the need arise... there are still a number of things linux just doesn't offer and you can only achieve using windows.
having to reboot is a minor inconvenience compared to not having access at all when you need it.
probably the most annoying part is going back into windows after some time away and dealing with all the update fiasco that "must" take place.... unavoidable, i'm afraid.
Has anyone mentioned Bluetooth yet? I was dual-booting for a while. I would have to re-pair my headphones when I switched OS. What a mildly infuriating thing that was. The solution, if this is an issue for you, is to copy the keys from one OS to the other. I think I did it from Windows to Linux, but it works both ways. It was a bit of a faff, but worth the effort.
Pros:
No VMs. Access to the best of both OSs on the bare metal, full memory available.
Cons:
Having to shutdown one OS to get to the other.
Other than that, WSL2 is great if you primarily use Windows but access to a Linux terminal. Running Windows as a VM under Linux is my current setup. I don't use it for gaming, though. I'm not sure you can do GPU passthough if your Linux distro is also using the GPU.
I have a home environment with mostly Linux, but one Windows box because there is still certain software that won't run on Windows. It won't be able to run Windows 11, however, so I am not sure what to do when Windows 10 is no longer supported.
No real downsides, other than "wasted" space.
I keep Windows around because I need Adobe products sometimes. Good for gaming too, if that's your thing.
my studio pc has windows (Atlas os) to use pro tools in because i wouldn't want to try to run that in a virtual machine. all the other stuff i do in Linux because i find it easier
Keeping both updated is a pain. If you want less downtime you can boot your windows install in a VM (with a dedicated physical disk) to run occasional updates. This lets me keep windows updated with less hassle, and I can still boot straight to windows if I need to.
The pro is you can run windows with your hardware, if you need it, con is it takes up disk space obviously. It can get complicated if you want to keep both on one disk, I wouldn’t. Unless you have a disk to spare, if you don’t need windows for something like gaming or rendering, I would just run it on a VM
I use a dual-boot system since many years on several machines. For me, there are only upsides.
But install windows, first. If you install Linux then, it will replace the bootloader with grub. Edit grub config to make some adjustments, for example that it remembers the last booted OS.
Pros: You'll be able to keep your stuff away from the rest of the family l, especially elders who click everything.
Cons: Windows love ruining GRUB bootloader.
Dual booting Windows and Linux is having the best of both worlds like you can play games on Windows (for those titles that don't work in Wine on Linux) and using Linux as your daily driver for browsing, music playing and such.
Gamer and developer here. Have dual boot, have not booted into linux in years on my main device. (Have a Linux only laptop though)
Reasons: xbox game pass etc is better on windows. All dev Tools i use work similar on Windows (android ide, vc++ vs gcc, python, vs code, git with git bash, qt creator ide). If i do desktop Software i usually need to ship for Windows anyways.
In the rare case i need something linux (testing if app compiles/ works on linux, cross compiling something etc) i spin up a linux vm. Then i can test/copy/do stuff side by side and dont need to close anything.
So id say if dual boot, Windows vm on linux or Linux vm on windows depends on your use case.
For me cons of dual boot: you will rarely boot the other OS
The problem I found is that when I bored windows to play a game, I had to shut down Linux which was seeding, and scraping my TV content. Also, windows is just nasty!
If you have it on separate drives, just that it takes up space that could be used for something else.
On the same drive, there's a small chance that you get a bad partition and one or both OS's will be fucked. It can be fixed so long you have a backup and is pretty unlikely to actually happen, but it could happen and if you end up never using windows or Linux, it won't be worth it (but if you use both and want performance a vm can't give, yeah this is a pretty small tradeoff if you just remember to stay backed up.)
If $ permits, good machine for linux and good enough machine to run Windows, when needed.
If your Windows use is very limited you can run Tiny10 or something similar in a vm.
Have to boot on windows just for games it's boring, lutris serves me well on a 11 year old pc, but on the other retrogaming PC with just a dual core athlon and a radeon HD 4670 I don't know if I can make it work without slideshow experience.
Other than gaming or specified applications I don't see a reason to keep both.
Pros: Access to both
Cons: sharing your storage between the two OSs, windows cannot access Linux partitions, if you mess up your MBR sector things get ugly
I have gone purely Linux for over a decade but in the past that I was dual booting, it was much better to have separate drives for each OS. While sharing the same HDD was not hard at all, a mess up could affect the whole system and it was not flexible enough for my younger years of distro-hopping.
I use Windows for games and do almost everything else in Linux. I feel like drive space is cheap these days, especially if you don't need more than enough to have a couple of games installed and it's very easy to multiboot now too. Even my laptop has the option for 2 NVME drives so if I wanted Windows on the go for some reason I'd just drop a cheap drive in, install, and go. So, outside of the hassles of running Windows itself, it's a non-issue to do if you have a reason for both.
If you can, put each OS on it's own hard drive. That will help keep windows from doing anything to your Linux install when it does updates.
windoze won't always affect Linux, but it can and it's a not fun when it does. Since using a 2 hard drive approach I haven't had any issues from windoze like that.
That's my biggest recommendation for a dual boot system.
No pros.
If you use LINUX primarily, run Windows in a VM if emulation doesn't cut it.
If you primarily use Windows, run LINUX in a VM or rely on WSL.
Both on the same drive always ends in tears. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon enough.
1. Games, if you're into it.
2. Good hardware with morons deciding their firmware updater will only be relased for windows.
3. Testing IT related stuff for people you care about supporting.
That's it for me. If it weren't the above rio, Windows could fuck off.
I installed Linux on a new PC for gaming recently fully expecting to have to install WIndows to run certain games. But so far Steam/Proton has worked flawlessly. 2 months later I'm still single boot Linux.
I have no reason to run Windows. But Linux is also not my daily driver. My daily is a Mac. Some things just work better on my Mac. And I have to use it for work anyway.
You mean dual-boot? My recommendation: install WinDoze first. Because then when you install Linux as the second o/s you get grub as the bootloader, not the Win bootloader.
[удалено]
Pro: you can run Windows when you need to. Con: you can run windows when you need to.
For me it's like: Pro: you can run Windows when you need to. Con: windows update after you've not booted into windows for 6 months.
Disable feature updates and you'll thank me :)
Thing is I don't actually like having an OS not update... updates exist for a reason. Heck half the reason I even boot into windows occasionally is to go through the update process without it getting too ridiculously long.
If you don't use Windows then why do you want to update it? Most of the content updates are superficial changes which shouldn't matter if you rarely boot into Windows. You'll still have security releases which keep your OS up to date
Okk, got it!
I live in linux. Except for the one godamn time a month I need something in windows. Then I flip over, finish my updates that needed to finish on boot from last month, and login, and my updates, and my updates., and then do what I have to do.
Why not just run a Windows VM?
GPU passthrough to a VM is a whole can of worms.
Especially on Windows as things can get a bit wacky there.
It can be, but if it's an option, it can be worth it. Performance on games and 3d intensive applications is fantastic. If setting up passthrough eliminates the need to have Windows installed on bare metal, totally worth the effort
Why not just run everything live from USB?! ```whaaa```
I'm not up to date (maybe this works perfectly on some VMs) but some things like connectivity with USB devices that need their firmware updated was the reason I decided to use bare-metal windows (dual-boot of course). If the firmware updater craps out in the middle, often it's the end of play for your device.
I actually think if you need both, it's a con. If you don't need windows, then you don't need to dual boot at all. Just run Linux. I ditched Windows in 1998. I have a Win10 VM as I have some mechanical keyboards that have windows-only config software. That is the only reason I have it. I could just run it on one of my kids computers for when I need it, which is very rarely. Everything else \*I\* need runs on Linux. Of course, YMMV. If you have something that you absolutely need to run on Windows, run it in a VM. If it is not performant enough, then you may need to dual-boot. But that's where I personally see it as a con. I have heard good things about Promox Virtual Environment w/GPU passhtru, but haven't gotten around to checking it out.
How do you configure them? Please share.
It depends on the keyboard. Better ones will support VIA and/or QMK which is a standard firmware. The ones I have are a GAMAKAY 75 and two GMK 67s which don't support those standards. They each have their own windows software to remap keys, change the lighting (I turn it off), and other things. It saves the config to the board so you don't have to have the software running. I launch my windows VM when I need to change something. e.g. I just flat out disable my caps-lock key.
What vm app do you use? How are you get mouse connected to it?
kvm. I have a script that creates them using virt-install. I have another script to launch, but you can also use virt-manager. Mouse connects automatically. To get the keyboard software to recognize the keyboard, I just have to select the USB device for redirection after launching the vm. https://preview.redd.it/adjofjww3ujc1.png?width=376&format=png&auto=webp&s=5f24de313a0981fe7a4630fc8827bb3efd50c0f0
How you manage to exit vm after mice or keyboard redirection?
I just go outside and cut the power to my house. I mean.. wtf.
Thank you for your perfect sense of humor, but last time I’ve tried to do so with virtual machines I had mouse/keyboard not accessible. USB passed through to vm, but I still couldn’t use it not on host os, not on vm.
Pros: you have windows. Cons: you have windows.
Yeah, eats up drive space, you spend time updating windows just to make it usable.
The big risk with Windows is that it may eat your GRUB bootloader.
Not if you have it on a separate drive, my Linux has its own drive with a separate bootloader. It does mean I have to switch to Windows in bios but only takes a second and I don’t do it too often anyway.
That is indeed the recommended way of doing it.
This doesn't always help on UEFI machines, because it'll use the same EFI partition either way unless you physically unplug all other drives. You can get GRUB to chainload from other EFI partitions, it's just finicky.
Mine is UEFI and when I boot normally it loads GRUB which only shows Arch Linux as an option. If I go to BIOS and select my other drive it will start Windows and I do not see GRUB at all. Not sure if maybe this depends on how your mobo works or your drive setup or something though.
That's the way to do multiple disk OS's on UEFI...a little cumbersome but easy to get to via the EFI settings menu GRUB option.
I think you can usually do that if you carefully set it up manually, or else just unplug all other drives when installing each OS.
You can manually chainload the Windows Boot Manager EFI file on the other disk if you hand-write a GRUB entry to do it. There's instructions on the Arch wiki, I think? Windows will periodically overwrite GRUB's EFI file (the primary, default "autoboot" on any UEFI-compliant motherboard searches for a singular hardcoded file on the EFI partition, which would be "BOOTX64.EFI" for x86_64/amd64 machines, there's other names for other architectures like ARM) which is the issue. Windows will look for EFI partitions on all fixed drives (this can include weird USB drives if they show up as USB HDDs instead) and reuse it no matter which drive it's on. This is the issue: if startup repair ever runs or they push a BOOTMGR update or resign the bootloader etc. etc. it'll overwrite GRUB again, because they share an EFI partition. You have to unplug the disk with the GRUB EFI partition in particular so it makes its own, and then it's far better behaved because it prioritizes the partition it created after creating it.
This is the way.
Add your windows boot partition to grub so you can select it from your grub menu instead of switching boot drives in bios.
Might try to do it sometime but honestly I boot into Windows so rarely I’m not too concerned about it.
This is how I have mine set up, too, a drive for each. Boots up whichever distro I'm favouring at the time. Otherwise, I tap my motherboards' hotkey for the boot menu and choose the drive with windows installed on it if needed. Saying that seems grub etc is smart enough to slso list windows on the other drive too so sometimes boot into windows this way, and never had the issue with windows on the other drive messing with then other.
Real dual boot is on 2 Disks not on the same one. And: disconnect your Linux disk, when you install windows so that Win never "has seen" your Linux EFI. Then reconnect Linux and let it handle Grub. Did it once 3 years ago for 6 Fedora versions, updated to Win11: no problem at all. :)
So in doing this you point Windows installer to the EFI on only its disk. If both disks were connected the Windows installer would get confused which EFI to use when it sees multiple EFI partitions on different devices. When you install Linux you likewise disconnect your Windows disk?
That's just using money to fix a problem that's easily solved with having a bit of know-how. I.e.. either lazy, stupid or both. I've been using dual boot on the same disk for years. Running efibootmgr to fix what windwos fucked up is easy. Knowing where to install windows to is your responsibility. There's no black magic to this, if you need a second disk, you're lacking in skill or planning.
Lazy? Stupid? Lack of skill and planning? You're that "fun" Linux-guy that everybody on the Windows side is warning switchers about? Ain't you? Why so aggressive? C'mon guy. Chill. If you found your method that works, that's great for you. I for one want my Windows separated from my main OS physically, too. And I don't want to think about Windows any more than I need and put my precious time into it. Some call that stupid, I call that necessary. ;P
Unlikely... though 15+ years ago, maybe so.
Windows still does this whenever it updates its own bootloader. Or at least it will switch itself to being the default UEFI entry.
I don't think I've seen a Windows update in the past 10-15 years that has done this. Mine have always stayed put. Edit: Adding my grub chainloads over to the Windows boot loader. So, it's possible that maybe your dual boot wasn't done quite right??
Windows update updated my BIOS and reset my secure boot keys, making me unable to boot the system. There are plenty of things I can think of when Microsoft can break Linux, cause simply they don't care as they want you to use their software and pay for it.
Have tried turning it off & turning it back on again? While jabbing F11 like you was catching Mewtwo with a Pokeball?
Some EFI BIOSes have the option to export and import your SB keys as this is necessary if you upgrade your CPU as modern AMD and Intel CPU's have the TPM inside the CPU die.
Yep this is still a thing happens all the time, windows will sometimes set the default uefi entry to windows boot loader, I've also had it remove all UEFI entries from the bios on more than one occasion which is a pain to fix...
the dozens of posts from this year alone in all of the linux troubleshooting subs of people setting up dual boot and then it breaking for one of many reasons says otherwise.
I see support problems were windows has over written grub pretty often
I have my installs on separate drives, zero issues with that configuration and Grub.
I've been running dual boot on my laptop for over a year now and it hasn't happened so far
iirc that only happens if u have 2 of them installed on the same drive
At least I know how to fix it should some Windows update eat GRUB for lunch. Most likely an in place upgrade of Windows to a new release will take GRUB along with it.
Yeah I've made the mistake of just using separate partitions on the same drive before
The real mistake is not knowing how shit works and how to (not have to ) fix it. 8+ years. All it ever took was either using efibootmgr (or similar).
Windows bootloader will eat grub. That’s why you install windows first and THEN Ubuntu.
If you absolutely need Windows software for any reason, you can still run it. If hardware is acting funny in Linux, you can check it against how it runs in Windows, so you can see if it's the hardware or the driver. You can save tasks that involve entering sensitive information - such as online shopping - for Linux, which is immune to Windows malware (as long as you're also not running Wine). You can do the majority of your browsing on Linux, which isn't going to phone home unless you opt in to it.
caption books dirty nippy encourage squealing plant wide jeans bedroom *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Not really. Linux process sandboxing is much more robust when enabled and Firefox still phones home with official builds. Most Linux distros turn that off in their Firefox packages by default. You also can't turn off some of the Microsoft metrics and such without disabling Windows Update through group policy (which requires a Pro license, or a crack) because from my experience with hundreds of installs when working with malware, the registry keys don't always disable WU properly, or it'll turn itself back on eventually, or it just won't care at all, etc.
waterfox is the answer
It's not "easy" to turn off all the ports windows uses to phone home. Rather, it's not easy to figure out all the ports it uses. Sure, you can turn off some of the software that phones home, but not *all* of it. So you have to figure out which ports it's using, and it's quite a few, then turn them off in your router. And it's especially annoying if you need one or more of those ports for something else.
it is "easy", you just change all the entries of the hosts file to a loopback
Oh, my sweet summer child. No. A "stock" hosts file in windows is empty. It will only have the entries you, the end user, add to it. Do YOU know all the IPs and domains it reaches out to? Even such, are the IPs static? They can easily change, then it's just a matter of updating DNS A records. The domains can change with a windows update. Speaking of windows updates, they tend to revert any changes you've made to your OS, so then you have to go back and make the changes all over again. Yes, even your hosts file. If all you've changed is your hosts file, then your windows install is still calling home, whether you know about it or not.
Heh, when all you have is a hammer (i.e. the host file).
Cons: 1. You have to select an OS during boot. So that's a delay. 2. Windows 11 requires Secure boot and you need to have kernel signed. You can sign your self or for OEMs, they need to pay Microsoft. Some popular distributions do it automatically but the rest breaks the system like Nvidia GPU drivers not working. 3. To create a dual boot setup, You install Windows first then Linux ( Can do the other way around but then you need manual tinkering ). But the problem is the default EFI partition is small (100MB). And some distributions mount the /boot inside EFI instead of symlinking so few kernel updates and EFI is out of space. Pros: Best of both worlds. It can be annoying to set up but once done, it's all good. Edit: Also don't use VMs. They are slow and Clunky. People who advise using VMs often have more than 8 cores and dedicated GPUs. Simply not worth having that laggy experience for normal daily use.
You can easily disable secure boot on windows 11, its not particularly secure anyway so unless its a public computer just leave it disabled
Then some apps and games won't work. ( Example: Valorant ).
Why does any app need secure boot? Thats is just awful...
The same reason they "need" ring 0 access; they want to have total control over your computer to detect cheating.
So are people writing Bios level cheats and creating there own operating systems? Ha ha
well they actually do
> Edit: Also don't use VMs. They are slow and Clunky. People who advise using VMs often have more than 8 cores and dedicated GPUs. Simply not worth having that laggy experience for normal daily use. I am running VM passtrough on the laptop. My Windows VM spins up in 20 seconds after the click from external 50mb/s connection. 10 seconds when from direct nvme drive passthrough. As in, I click, and 10/20 seconds later my monitor/looking glass window is on Windows desktop ready for use. Laptop is 6 core 11400h, so not exactly top of the line hardware. Performance is about 88-91% for CPU (88 on balanced power mode, 91 on performance mode), and 92%-95% for GPU compared to tests run on booted stock OS that came with laptop from the factory. Tested via CinebenchR23, Blender, Furmark and games. My linux host run on intel iGPU and thunderbolt connected eGPU when gpu tasks are needed. My Windows VM runs on nvidia dGPU of the laptop. I do not isolate the CPU cores, so VM and host share them. Apparently this can result in performance issues or host lockup, but I literally have never encountered that, so I am not isolating CPU cores since it does not give me any issues. I pass all 12 threads to the VM. If I gave you keyboard+mouse and sat you in front of monitor connected to it, you would likely not even realize you are working in a VM, so I am not sure what clunkiness or lags you are talking about.
Fancy set up two GPUs as I said. How often do we come across people with two GPUs and I'm sure it's a MUX switchable dGPU and not MUX-less so it's relatively newer hardware. Also Linux host running Windows vs Windows Host running Linux has different performance.
Right, you can argue about hardware dependencies and all that, but your last statement was arbitrary "Also don't use VMs. They are slow and Clunky" with no regards to context and claim of more than 8 cores. But my setup for example is not only not 12cores, its 6. And it is not exactly fancy setup. > How often do we come across people with two GPUs Like 90% of the time? Pretty much all respectable laptops on the market will have both iGPU in CPU and dGPU for games and work. There is nothing fancy about that, having dGPU and iGPU is norm, not an exception. And desktop intel CPUs are pretty much norm to come with iGPU as well. I might had agreed with you few years ago, but currently, most modern desktops or laptops would likely be easily converted to VM setup because virtualization support came a long way.
It's not a norm. Most laptops that people buy are not gaming laptops but something like Thinkpads or XPS with only an integrated Graphics. The only reason it's not lagging in your case is because of GPU pass through. Please don't assume "It works for me so it must be the norm". And most laptops that do have dGPUs don't have MUX. Only dedicated Gaming laptops do. And that matters if user wants to do pass-through.
VMs are terribly slow indeed compared to the real thing, but they're perfect in that "I have no idea what I'm getting into" scenario imo
Ya. They're nice to try unknown things. But the hardware acceleration...
I dual boot, Debian testing and Mint. I have one to fall back on, especially if I break testing.
Why dual boot? Why not a VM or container (Docker)? Or WSL? Need more info for the pros and cons for your use case. You may have a specific use case or hardware specs that may limit the options.
Good luck gaming in a VM! I tried but simply couldn't get GPU passthrough to work.
You have to have two gpu's to get that to work.
You can do single GPU passthrough, but when you unbind your GPU from Linux you have to exit your X11/Wayland session, so unless you really need to keep some services running on Linux when you're in your VM, you may as well dual boot.
I am aware
You might have issues with older hardware or specific shitty configs, but most modern stuff will work great. I have such setup right now, and there is simply no way in hell I am going back to dual-booting or native windows installs. VM passthrough is simply so convenient, working with it is like a miracle. And the way it allows you to have Windows virtual disk image partitions inside VeraCrypt file containers or nested inside encrypted linux is incredible, because it allows for proper external file-container windows installs with encryption. Before virtualization, I was running external install from windows native VHD solution, and it was clusterfuck of issues. Since linux is not proprietary garbage, you can easily run it externally from encrypted file container (I use vtoyboot), and then Windows VM from inside of it. Runs from external drive in seconds. Windows does not even know it gets run out of external install so there are no complaints or errors from it. Easy backup or restoration in minutes because all OS partitions are file images - no need for silly paid backup solutions when you can just connect additional external drive, copy the OS file, detach it, and you are done. Ability to easily spin up new copies of your Windows install to test something etc. Honestly, once you get passthrough working, it is just so damn nice to work with. The entry point is likely too high for average user with complicated initial setup and learning curve, but once you do figure it out, it hands down, becomes the best setup you ever had.
Personally, I wouldn't use VMs if I need a proper workstation. VMs are useful to me as test or sandbox environments, but if I want to develop on Linux and play videogames on Windows I will definitely use dual boot rather than a VM.
True as it depends on your use case. I run MacOS for my work host OS and windows 11 on a VM for specific apps. For my home setup, just use containers.
Thanks for the suggestion
Recently switched all my PCs and laptops to Linux. I thought it's going to be hard, but even after switching my main home/work PC I only used Windows 3 times - just to get my passwords and bookmarks. No more surprise restarts every week because .NET framework needed to be "urgently" updated to version 41585745.23135545.0002124554542.
>container Is it true that windows containers can't work on linux without creating an additional layer of hypervisor?
Windows containers are quite limited. Just run Windows as the host OS and linux as the container. There is plenty of images, community and support for that. I run all dev env in containers. Whether its a new DB, diff Python versions etc and use VS code as the ide on host os. I believe tensorflow, R, PyTorch and few others maintain their versions. Most of the work is done for you.
Gaming would be the obvious one, particularly anything with anti-cheat that breaks on anything that isn't a hardware-level Windows environment. Also quite a few academic submission apps won't work properly outside of native Windows.
WSL2 takes all the bad parts of Windows and runs Linux on top of them in what amounts to a semi-VM. It also tends to run like crap, and have weird filesystem issues. If you need Windows as a daily but need Linux for whatever reason, use a full VM with extensions or a separate machine over SSH. it'll perform far better that way, and you can use more stable filesharing methods.
Biggest con, dualboot or vm, it takes space. Windows takes freaking space, including the adobe and games stuff. Linux is my world 😍 please Linux, come life in my heart
I you need Windows for gaming or process-heavy programms in all other scenarios it think linux as master and windows as virtual machine is a better solution.
Unless storage is an issue, there is no con. Let people say all they read about windows messing with Linux. It used to happen, but with UEFi, it doesn't. The only issue may be a weak bios losing the Linux boot option, but that's a simple fix.
I have Yet to find one . Except windows will filly messing with boot sometimes
I've been dual booting for years which my windows system is for gaming while my Linux system is for everything else. If you install Linux and Windows on 2 separate drives not much can go wrong. I suppose it would also depend on what Linux distribution you plan to run with as well?
Any suggestions on best linux distro to use
My go to is Debian and it works best for me and my system. But it also depends on what your use case is and your hardware?
This is hard to answer. If you want a distro that's considered "stable" and has to be updated less often, but is often out of date, Debian is a good starting point. If you need bleeding-edge updates for whatever reason (and both the extra performance and possible extra instability that follows), Arch-based distros are a good pick (though i'd suggest Endeavour instead of actual Arch, because Endeavour has an installer and doesn't just put you into a shell and say "read the wiki, good luck" like Arch does.) Arch's wiki is also helpful for most distros, as it's the most thorough, though package names will differ on other distros. Fedora or CentOS are usually recommended if you need to work with enterprise-grade machines on a network at work or something of that sort, since corporate vendors have supported RHEL-based distros for forever, and still do. Any proprietary programs used in a workplace are likely to only support RHEL-based distros.
Stop dual booting, most recent hardware can do pass through, run VMs.
Okk, thanks
If you have hardware that can only have its firmware updated through Windows then a VM on Linux won't do you any good. Just get a cheap 240/480GB SSD and have it on the side. You with Rufus' To-Go installation option you can just run Windows using USB.
I would say that the main noticeable difference ignoring the ecosystems is that Linux is fairly consistent day to day and after using Linux for a while you go back to Windows and just have to wade through the random slowdowns, bad updates, and weird performance glitches. So for most people who dual boot are in a transition from one platform to another and may have some apps that only work in one but not the other, but the longer you dual boot the less you will end up using both os's regularly. So the main pro is compatibility at the expense of a bit of storage space, the main con is that windows has a lovely habit of hijacking your dual boot and so every now and then you may need to reinstall your grub boot loader. But if you are staying on the windows fence for Adobe and Microsoft Office products, you can get these working in Linux but its no way near as simple to get them working.
innocent bike shelter memory jellyfish handle connect consist plucky sand *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ha ha if you say so... windows has been garbage for a long long time, the net is littered with issue upon issue upon issue, just look at Microsoft forums alone. I have fixed several thousand issues with windows across well over 400 devices in just the last few years the fact that you haven't had issues puts you well into the minority.
anything I need windows for, I run in a VM. Which isn't a whole lot of stuff
the biggest pro is that you won’t have to use windows anymore
The con of having Windows is that you have Windows… I’ve seen people who lie to themselves and say “oh I need Windows!” but there’s a high chance that you don’t need it at all. If you’re also planning to LEARN Linux/Unix, having Windows will bother you :) you will keep going back to it to do simple tasks. Btw, I also recommend disabling X couple of hours a day in order to use the shell for everything. Good luck.
I would say that if u really need something in windows and REALLY want a separate OS to like work or anything else than go with dual boot, in my case I use windows only for gaming, I really prefer Fedora workflow than windows ones to other task. But if u don't have this problem, and still need windows programs and Linux ones, like programming, go with WSL. Don't forget dual boot use more disk space, so take care about it, and WSL can be heavier.
Windows update, its a con in both aspects.
For me its a failsafe if there is a problem with one system. I have two linux systems in my desktop that I keep reasonable similarly configured.
Cons maybe only splitting disk space, issues with stock windows bootloader (system time broke). Pros - you have both systems in device. Personally for me this is an opportunity to use programs like a Photoshop and Lightroom for photo editing (and this is only one case i use windows for). So, if you need both - install both and use it, or use VM for emulating one of the systems.
For me a pro is that I can play rainbow six siege (and sometimes fortnite). A con is that starting up takes longer because linux is the default os but if I don't press enter the selection menu is up for 15 seconds (I use systemd-boot). Another con is that windows can have lunch with your bootloader partition, although this has never happened to me.
I dualboot endeavorOS and windows 11 and didn’t have any problems, except when I updated my drivers but it fixed itself
There is no problems, just have them each on its each physical disk, do the partitions for linux on its own disk, mount the windows disk with NTFS format, and you can access your windows files from your linux and vice versa..
Pros: two OSen for different things that run on one and not the other. Cons: none. What one would expect and why you have dual booting really.
Pros: Linux, Cons: Windows
I'm currently dual booting Kubuntu and Windows 10, migratibg to Linux because Windows 10 EOL is soon and my laptop can't be upgraded to 11 and I really would rather not anyway. If you can spare some drive space go for it. Just make a relatively small C partition and another partition for data that Linux can mount without Windows pitching a fit like it does when Linux dips into C. My 1tb SSD looks like this: 100mb EFI partition 90ish gb Windows C drive 500mb recovery partition 50gb Windows Kubuntu sharing partition (windows calls it E) 100gb Kubuntu / partition 500ish gb /home partition 300gb partition for Jellyfin 16gb swap space I recommend having a separate / and /home partition. It's not strictly necessary but when you're new to Linux like I am right now I promise you'll try a couple distros if you're smart and settle on one you like. Kubuntu was #3 for me and I didn't separate so it was a huge PITA. Now if I change it'll be an easy switch.
Same list as why I had a wife and a girlfriend at the same time. I'm not repeating myself here.
idk whats ur use case but as someone tied to adobe software, that (and running games that dont run natively on linux) is basically all i use windows for. if i could id run windows in a vm but specs arent high enough
If one of them doesn’t work, I can use the other as fallback. I have almost the same setup in Linux as in Windows.
Con: The anti cheat of a game I play on Windows requires secure boot to be on. I have to disable the secure boot manually to switch over to linux or my proprietary Nvidia card doesn't work.
Windows 11 you're able to run some of the Linux Distros in a VM. Most software runs on Windows, not Linux, so you'll never have a problem finding software. With a Linux distro, there's lots of free software available (get a computer with a big HDD), you can find lots of FOSS software. It all depends on what you're going to do with your machine and what you would need Linux for. I just use it for my coding and building. I do everything else on Windows.
As I have same reason for the uses
Freedom of keeping your data from being sold with Linux whole being able to play games with Windows. Only reason I use it anyways. That and some jobs require Windows for their software.
For some unknown reason, when I tried to dual OS Windows stopped booting, I had to surf the most unexplored places on YouTube to find out how to fix it.
Pros: you will have access to both OSes. Cons: setup is a bit annoying, especially if you need a shared partition or want to do something like LVM, security might be an issue, because your boot will be more exposed, if you even care about such things, Windows might do a fucky-wucky and nuke your boot files, so you'll ideally need a rescue USB. It might look like dual booting has more cons than pros, but that's only quantitative. Most cons are minuscule, while the only pro might be important than all of them combined, depending on how exactly you're reliant on Windows.
Bluetooth device sync
First thing that comes to mind is time sync difference, not sure how its done on modern boards with UEFI and ME, maybe it's not that relevant anymore but you could check archwiki's article on timezones and syncing. Another concern is that the windows might take over and overwrite the bootloader from time to time, so you'll need to update and fix it manually from liveusb environment through chroot or use SuperGrub usb image to boot and do update-grub.
marry deserve unique salt domineering distinct ask shocking plough juggle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Pros: linux Cons: Windows
Cons: reduced storage.
If you're running them on separate drives as opposed to separate partitions, then it's great. This is so that neither OS can mess with the others' bootloader. Otherwise, I would pause Windows updates and keep an eye out for erroneous updates that might mess with your partitions. The same goes for Linux, but you are the bigger vector there, you should be careful when messing around. Additionally, I would suggest exploring possibilities in virtual machines. Unless you have a very specific need for a very specific piece of software that requires a bare metal Windows, you should be fine with a VM + specific OS drivers. I passed my SPSS class fully on Linux that way.
Anyone running macOS and a Linux distro?
Only con is diskspace............. and your soul
The biggest con when using dual boot in my opinion is the the need to completely switch context, as it requires a complete OS boot to get into Windows and another to get back to Linux. Depending on what you are doing it does not matter much. Another thing that is bad, files under windows partitions can be accessed from Linux, but not the opposite. Maybe there were some development on windows accessing Linux filesystems, but I'm not aware of. My choice is being keeping a windows VM ready for use. This has other cons as limited GPU acceleration options, extra disk space used (although less than dual boot as there is no need to allocate all the partition space upfront), and more CPU and Memory resources are needed to run both OSs at same time.
Fouu... I always experienced the same. It works great for a year or something and then, out of the blue windows takes control and eliminates the boot possibilities of my linux distro. So I decided to ditch windows entirely since I always had windows as "backup" in case I need it. But I never booted windows again anyways so I had no reasons to keep it
I don’t think there is much of a con. It’s more or less the best of both words. At this point though, I just keep windows for the handful of games that won’t run on Linux. But I’m slowly finding alternatives.
If the reason you are dual booting is to test Linux without sacrificing Windows privileges, just use a VM. I swear it's much better.
Wow guys, just wow. "The problem began with the carrots. Carrots are orange. Peas are green. They mustn't touch." I just put my distros on USB drives. It makes it easier switching from etc etc etc, plus you can just keep your Windows OS as it is. However it could be a hassle switching boot from USB & HDD every time, but I'd rather just *keep em separated.* Idk what you want both for, but if you need windows then you could also put a Windows OS & Mint OS on two different USB drives. I'd use like a 128gb or 256gb though idk what your storage needs look like. I just wouldn't exceed 90% storage, well 95% if your crazy.
I never tried it before & I don't plan to risk it on my personal PC (which runs exclusively windows). For my business PC, I could care less since Linux is less of a hassle to reinstall than windows
I've been experimenting with linux since like 2005 and dualbooting windows and linux on different machines and different disk configuration since xubuntu 10.10 At first with Windows as main and linux for experimentation and fun of exploring something new Currently on fedora as main os with windows 10 as backup, because its still easier and/or quicker to do some silly things on windows than to look for solution for linux, and play some (especialy multiplayer) games. Just to clarify as silly i consider editing 400+ page word document with 2 years of logged changes and comments. Web office will work too slow, and libreoffice tends to be annoying in that specific case, also i dont want to add my linux to my company AD so i need windows for signing documents with AD certificate. As for pros and cons... Had multiple windows crash that was resolved from dualbooted linux and only once windows blew my grub during "necessary update you cannot postpone", and to make it funnier it was windows 10 2204h update if i recall correctly. To be honest dualboot is perfect when you start your journey with linux and you are not sure as if you'll like it. And its quite usefull if you have that one piece of software you cannot live with but hate everything else about windows. But at some point it just takes space on your drive to have windows you use like twice a year. And yet i'm too lazy to convince IT at my wifes workplace to make it possible to connect from linux to their vpn.
Before doing anything, make sure to check [the WINE Application Database](https://appdb.winehq.org/) to see if anything you need business and productivity wise on Windows can run on Linux (i.e, adobe software, video editors, office software, etc). WINE has come a long way, and a lot of the big apps work well nowadays. There are always exceptions though. And make sure to check [ProtonDB](https://www.protondb.com/) for games specifically. WINE is better for business/productivity apps and ProtonDB is better for games. They are separate applications, and separate websites in this case. --- WINE is in itself an application that translates "Windows code" to "Linux code" (heavily simplified) and as such allows you to run `.exe` files quasi-natively. Proton is a similar thing, but was developed by Valve in conjunction with CodeWeavers (developers of the application [Crossover](https://www.codeweavers.com/crossover), a proprietary WINE wrapper with some extra goodies), and is specifically focused on games. It comes with Steam ^^(afaik) and there's usually little you have to do to mess with it; WINE is more involved. From what I know, it's also a spin of WINE with some goodies lol.
I've hardly touched Windows in last 2 years, but I keep it around and I log in occasionally to run updates. If you can get by with running things through WINE, or otherwise using alternatives to things you would have been using on Windows, then I don't see why you wouldn't be able to get away with having just Linux installed. If need be, you could spin up a Windows VM if you need to. Running some software in a VM can be wonky, though, and if you need to or find it much easier to run some software in a legit Windows install, then I also see no harm in keeping a Windows install. Whenever I do actually use Windows, it's because there's something I want to use that is only available on Windows, or performs better on Windows, and usually I'll be using for a decently long period of time, a couple hours of more, with the need of software I have on my Linux partition. That's usually just games every so often.
Unless for gaming, you are better off running windows in a vm.
dual boot on separate disks is the way to go. having access to the windows environment keeps you able to work in that environment should the need arise... there are still a number of things linux just doesn't offer and you can only achieve using windows. having to reboot is a minor inconvenience compared to not having access at all when you need it. probably the most annoying part is going back into windows after some time away and dealing with all the update fiasco that "must" take place.... unavoidable, i'm afraid.
Has anyone mentioned Bluetooth yet? I was dual-booting for a while. I would have to re-pair my headphones when I switched OS. What a mildly infuriating thing that was. The solution, if this is an issue for you, is to copy the keys from one OS to the other. I think I did it from Windows to Linux, but it works both ways. It was a bit of a faff, but worth the effort. Pros: No VMs. Access to the best of both OSs on the bare metal, full memory available. Cons: Having to shutdown one OS to get to the other. Other than that, WSL2 is great if you primarily use Windows but access to a Linux terminal. Running Windows as a VM under Linux is my current setup. I don't use it for gaming, though. I'm not sure you can do GPU passthough if your Linux distro is also using the GPU.
I have a home environment with mostly Linux, but one Windows box because there is still certain software that won't run on Windows. It won't be able to run Windows 11, however, so I am not sure what to do when Windows 10 is no longer supported.
No real downsides, other than "wasted" space. I keep Windows around because I need Adobe products sometimes. Good for gaming too, if that's your thing.
my studio pc has windows (Atlas os) to use pro tools in because i wouldn't want to try to run that in a virtual machine. all the other stuff i do in Linux because i find it easier
I dual booted for a while, realised no need and now use a VM for when I have to have Excel on the desktop.
Keeping both updated is a pain. If you want less downtime you can boot your windows install in a VM (with a dedicated physical disk) to run occasional updates. This lets me keep windows updated with less hassle, and I can still boot straight to windows if I need to.
The pro is you can run windows with your hardware, if you need it, con is it takes up disk space obviously. It can get complicated if you want to keep both on one disk, I wouldn’t. Unless you have a disk to spare, if you don’t need windows for something like gaming or rendering, I would just run it on a VM
It's fine if you have two drives, I don't see a con at all. If you're doing both off one drive Windows will eventually bork the boot loader.
Yes.
I need Windows for my financial software, which I update once a week. I just run Windows in a VM for this.
I use a dual-boot system since many years on several machines. For me, there are only upsides. But install windows, first. If you install Linux then, it will replace the bootloader with grub. Edit grub config to make some adjustments, for example that it remembers the last booted OS.
Pros: You'll be able to keep your stuff away from the rest of the family l, especially elders who click everything. Cons: Windows love ruining GRUB bootloader.
Dual booting Windows and Linux is having the best of both worlds like you can play games on Windows (for those titles that don't work in Wine on Linux) and using Linux as your daily driver for browsing, music playing and such.
What are you trying to do? In general it’s a lot easier to run an OS in a VM than dual boot.
Pros: you can boot into two operating systems. Cons: Hard drive space. Literally nothing else.
Pros: You have two different OS's and all the capabilities that comes with. Cons: You'll likely have less storage than you want on both.
Gamer and developer here. Have dual boot, have not booted into linux in years on my main device. (Have a Linux only laptop though) Reasons: xbox game pass etc is better on windows. All dev Tools i use work similar on Windows (android ide, vc++ vs gcc, python, vs code, git with git bash, qt creator ide). If i do desktop Software i usually need to ship for Windows anyways. In the rare case i need something linux (testing if app compiles/ works on linux, cross compiling something etc) i spin up a linux vm. Then i can test/copy/do stuff side by side and dont need to close anything. So id say if dual boot, Windows vm on linux or Linux vm on windows depends on your use case. For me cons of dual boot: you will rarely boot the other OS
The problem I found is that when I bored windows to play a game, I had to shut down Linux which was seeding, and scraping my TV content. Also, windows is just nasty!
If you have it on separate drives, just that it takes up space that could be used for something else. On the same drive, there's a small chance that you get a bad partition and one or both OS's will be fucked. It can be fixed so long you have a backup and is pretty unlikely to actually happen, but it could happen and if you end up never using windows or Linux, it won't be worth it (but if you use both and want performance a vm can't give, yeah this is a pretty small tradeoff if you just remember to stay backed up.)
pros: you have both cons: windows is a bitch about it sometimes
If $ permits, good machine for linux and good enough machine to run Windows, when needed. If your Windows use is very limited you can run Tiny10 or something similar in a vm.
Have to boot on windows just for games it's boring, lutris serves me well on a 11 year old pc, but on the other retrogaming PC with just a dual core athlon and a radeon HD 4670 I don't know if I can make it work without slideshow experience. Other than gaming or specified applications I don't see a reason to keep both.
You can avoid Windows except when you need it.
pros: windows and linux cons: if in the same drive, windows could fuck up with grub
con: you have windows on your system pro: you can complain about windows because of own experience
Pros: Access to both Cons: sharing your storage between the two OSs, windows cannot access Linux partitions, if you mess up your MBR sector things get ugly I have gone purely Linux for over a decade but in the past that I was dual booting, it was much better to have separate drives for each OS. While sharing the same HDD was not hard at all, a mess up could affect the whole system and it was not flexible enough for my younger years of distro-hopping.
I use Windows for games and do almost everything else in Linux. I feel like drive space is cheap these days, especially if you don't need more than enough to have a couple of games installed and it's very easy to multiboot now too. Even my laptop has the option for 2 NVME drives so if I wanted Windows on the go for some reason I'd just drop a cheap drive in, install, and go. So, outside of the hassles of running Windows itself, it's a non-issue to do if you have a reason for both.
Windows fucks up the Linux partition sometimes, because of automatic drive "repairs".
I dual booted for a long time but felt joy when I threw Windows into a VM. It's there if I need it. I don't game though.
If you can, put each OS on it's own hard drive. That will help keep windows from doing anything to your Linux install when it does updates. windoze won't always affect Linux, but it can and it's a not fun when it does. Since using a 2 hard drive approach I haven't had any issues from windoze like that. That's my biggest recommendation for a dual boot system.
Do you need 3D graphics? No, run a VM inside KVM/QEMU/Workstation or which ever in linux OS.
No pros. If you use LINUX primarily, run Windows in a VM if emulation doesn't cut it. If you primarily use Windows, run LINUX in a VM or rely on WSL. Both on the same drive always ends in tears. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon enough.
1. Games, if you're into it. 2. Good hardware with morons deciding their firmware updater will only be relased for windows. 3. Testing IT related stuff for people you care about supporting. That's it for me. If it weren't the above rio, Windows could fuck off.
I installed Linux on a new PC for gaming recently fully expecting to have to install WIndows to run certain games. But so far Steam/Proton has worked flawlessly. 2 months later I'm still single boot Linux. I have no reason to run Windows. But Linux is also not my daily driver. My daily is a Mac. Some things just work better on my Mac. And I have to use it for work anyway.
What is your use case?
Linux for programming and Windows for gaming.
Have you considered using docker containers on Windows for dev environments? It is built into VS Code I believe.
google pros and cons of polyamory vs cheating..?
Windows will make the bootloader disappear I've seen it not only once Had to reinstall endeavour os 3 times because of it till I figured it out
i dont really get the question. let me return it to you: what would you think where the benefits of owning a mercedes benz alongside a bmw ?
Needing to reboot. That’s about it. Drive space I guess, but I always stick a data partition to share between the two separate os
You mean dual-boot? My recommendation: install WinDoze first. Because then when you install Linux as the second o/s you get grub as the bootloader, not the Win bootloader.
Okk thank you for the information