Dual Booting: Windows and Ubuntu

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,421
I still don’t understand why anyone would want to use Linux, it’s awful, it has terrible compatibility.
 

brucek

Posts: 1,126   +1,666
I use WSL2 daily for my web development and it works great. My IDE is running inside the Linux machine and displayed as an X window on my Windows desktop.

For me the reason I'd want to dual boot or single boot just Linux is less about the additional capabilities of Linux, and more about escaping Window's undesirable behaviors I.e., collecting your data, presenting ads on your desktop, artificial limitations based on Windows edition, etc. There are also some PCs that just won't boot if you turn on the virtualization support that it requires, there's a long bug open against the WSL2 project that is still not resolved as of a year later. I have a laptop that will probably go linux for this reason.
 

zamroni111

Posts: 321   +191
I use WSL2 daily for my web development and it works great. My IDE is running inside the Linux machine and displayed as an X window on my Windows desktop.

For me the reason I'd want to dual boot or single boot just Linux is less about the additional capabilities of Linux, and more about escaping Window's undesirable behaviors I.e., collecting your data, presenting ads on your desktop, artificial limitations based on Windows edition, etc. There are also some PCs that just won't boot if you turn on the virtualization support that it requires, there's a long bug open against the WSL2 project that is still not resolved as of a year later. I have a laptop that will probably go linux for this reason.
As wsl2 is basically hyper v vm, using regular Linux vm in hyper v gen 2 + x2go remote desktop can provide better performance.
X2go windows client uses vcxsrv which allows to use native gpu open gl acceleration.
 

Ben Myers

Posts: 197   +78
This is doable. However, while the installation might be easier, your rig would now be tied down to the multiple drives, since the MBR would point to a bootloader on two separate drives. Thus, if you remove one of the drives (or sometimes, if you add a new drive), grub might not be able to pull up and give you your OS choices as originally desired.

Effectively, you'd have to retroactively "fix" the MBR and bootloaders, and get grub to update its directory if that happens. So technically, there is nothing stopping you (and yes, it might be considered cleaner) - but probably not the ideal route for a beginner, nor would it be encouraged unless you are ready to start debugging master boot records and bootloaders.
This is doable. However, while the installation might be easier, your rig would now be tied down to the multiple drives, since the MBR would point to a bootloader on two separate drives. Thus, if you remove one of the drives (or sometimes, if you add a new drive), grub might not be able to pull up and give you your OS choices as originally desired.

Effectively, you'd have to retroactively "fix" the MBR and bootloaders, and get grub to update its directory if that happens. So technically, there is nothing stopping you (and yes, it might be considered cleaner) - but probably not the ideal route for a beginner, nor would it be encouraged unless you are ready to start debugging master boot records and bootloaders.
Simply disable Secure Boot in the BIOS, then hit a key to choose which drive is the boot drive, F12 for Lenovo and Dell, Esc and F9 for HP, and who knows what for others, Del or something else. If one knows which OS will be used most often, set the preferred drive as the first drive in the BIOS. That way, one can install Linux the way she wants on one drive and Windows on the other drive, with no GRUBbing around or alteration of MBRs. Very simple, and I like simplicity. And what about GPT formatted drives? I do not see a problem here with installing each operating system on its own drive.

Now let me make an even more radical statement. Install Linux on one computer and Windows on another computer. Why not?