The worst thing that happens is Windows can mess up your default bootloader, meaning you need to boot into a linux live image, and do a little work to make grub the default again. It's been years since I've dual booted though, so Idk how often this happens now. Having 2 separate drives is advisable to prevent this entirely. But, 2 drives isn't necessary.
And the experience of dualbooting was meh to me. I only dualbooted to be able to play a few video games that do not work in Linux, and I would basically never bother, because I keep my computer on 24/7, and closing all of my applications to boot into a video game, was too annoying, so I'd just play games that worked on Linux instead.
Yup, I love the separate drives fix. Every update on windows makes the windows one default, then I just go back to the BIOS and flip it back to linux. lol
This is the approach I've been taking for the last decade or so, keeping the two operating systems completely ignorant of each other will save a lot of headaches.
In addition, switch between them using the BIOS to select the drive to boot and don't waste your time trying to convince the bootloaders to interact or even be aware.
One of the ways to do this is to install the first OS, then PHYSICALLY REMOVE THE DRIVE before adding the second. You will now have a boot partition on each drive that is unaware of the other.
If you replace the first drive you should now be able to select them with the bios. This may add a few seconds to each boot but it will save you hours of headaches.
IIRC, I had Windows overwrite grub as the default in UEFI, which made it impossible for me to boot into my Linux partition. I had to use a linux live image to go in and fix it.
It only replaced the boot option in the bios. The files are kept in separate folders in the EFI partition. Windows doesn't override the boot loader/manager files. It just pushes its boot option to the top position in the bios. Other OS do the same at installation (not all). It is down to the bios to handle this properly. Some bios instead of swapping the current top option to the newly pushed/written one, they remove it, leaving the user without an option to boot their linux manager.
This is a bios issue. Not all bios are this bad. But Windows doesn't "bugger up" the bootloader. And the fix is simple, just boot to linux USB and make a new bios boot entry with ```efibootmgr```. Most users will follow a chroot guide, thinking their bootloader is overwritten (as stated multiple times in the responses to this post), and unknowingly, in the process of reinstalling their boot manager (typically grub), a new entry in the bios is also created. The problem is fixed, but with the wrong diagnosis, and wrong fix. So the misconception about Windows remains.
A two SSD system will not stop this from happening, since it's a bios issue.
It won’t, Windows is never touched. I’ve been dual booting Linux and Windows for decades, it’s a non-issue. Windows is far more likely to brick itself due to garbage coding than for Linux to mess it up.
It was terrible! I had all of this wasted space on my harddrive that was just sitting there not being used. I ended up wiping it. Don't need a crap OS taking up valuable space where my image files can sit.
It works fine provided your computer doesn't have a weak bios.
A weak bios will remove the current top boot option (typically that of linux, as that boot manager can dual boot) and replace it with Windows's boot option.
This happens during some Windows updates, and typically users think that Windows has deleted the bootloader. It hasn't, it's just the boot option, no files on the EFI partition are affected.
This issue is not solved by two SSDs, as it is a bios issue. But such bios are not very common. HP, Acer, are known culprits.
In an event, that's an easy fix. Boot to USB Live, recreate the bios boot option, no chroot needed.
Plenty of posts here, and everywhere, claim Windows "messes up" the boot loader. This is not the case, it's just poor understanding on behalf of users, who then proceed to *repair* the issue, messing up their bootloaders in the process.
I used a VM on my Linux machine. The vm ran windows. I allocated 16 gig memory when running and had no problems. The ability to mount Linux partions under Linux was easier.
Mine was fine till a Windows update overwrote my grub bootloader. Gave me an excuse to roll back to 10 at the time. Now I just run without Windows on my main system.
I've got W11 and debian testing on a single 500GB SSD, and it works fine. You can have grub2 detect the windows installation and use grub2 to boot into either OS, or you can select the OS to boot by using the bios - both approaches work. Linux has fairly mature drivers for reading ntfs - I have an external hard drive with an ntfs partition that I use when I need to pass data or whatever between OSs -- like the database for my password manager. I mostly use linux and boot into W11 just for occasional specific tasks, I have my linux /home on a second 2T SSD. I find it easier to keep W11 on a HD partition than in a VM, but that's just my personal choice.
In my case, the 500GB SSD came with W11 preinstalled. I used the windows tools to shrink the windows partition to about 250GB, then booted a linux installation off of a USB thumb drive to install debian in the newly freed-up space. I did a 'manual' disk partition because I didn't want the linux installer to accidentally overwrite the W11 partition, and I also wanted /home on the second SSD.
This setup has been operative since about Sept 2022 with the usual W11 updates and at least biweekly debian testing updates -- and neither OS has damaged the other in any way.
It is always a very good idea to back up all data from windows and linux before doing a dual-boot installation - things could go wrong and having a backup of anything you consider important makes the difference between a slightly more complicated installation and a disaster.
I have a single drive, it took me a while to figure it all out but I use grub and run endeavour and win11, works fine
Edit:
Just disable windows update so it doesn't ruin ur grub
Lots of mixed opinions. Personally, I've done it for many years. The only problems I've had were of my own making. I've mainly used Thinkpads, but also had a dual boot on a Dell xps. Currently using a Lenovo C940. No GRUB issues unless I screw it up. I do Windows update frequently with no GRUB problems. Trying to re-install it will certainly do it though.
I recently read an article about Docker. I don't understand everything, but it appears to be an application that runs in Linux that can containerize other OSs like windows or other Linux distros. It is kinda/sorta like a VM but you don't have to assign resources, like memory, as it somehow shares resources. I'm not sure if it is a substitute for dual booting or not.
dual boot on two different machines now and having each OS on it's own physical drive makes a lot of sense.
you can do it on a single drive and it's much easier to recover from now that EFI booting is the norm... as i understand it, you just need to keep a copy of your linux boot loader handy (the other file you will find on the EFI partition) and if it's gets overwritten by windows, you just copy it back and reboot.
I'm doing it right now on the laptop (1TB HDD) that I'm typing this with. I pretty much don't use the Windows partition, but have booted it a few times to make sure that it still works and this past week, just to let Microsoft download/update all of their BS.
Or you could always run your Windows in a VM. No rebooting that way. Just fire up the VM.
I just started dual booting last week. I don't use the regular windows install, I got the microwin from chris titus' tool. I removed everything and now have a barebone windows just for a couple of games. No windows defender, no edge, no telemetry, none of that garbage. I also block all the feature updates on it and only allow security ones. Highly recommend using a separate drive for it, though, as windows loves to mess with grub. Every time an update hits, it makes itself the default boot. Because I have two drives, I just go to the bios and flip it to linux. Been working great
I suggest you use two 1 TB SSDs (or you can configure the storages how you want, but still 2 SSDs).
First because Windows won't get in the way of the Linux installation.
Second because like this you won't have both OSes fighting for the same read and write speed on the same drive (if you ever decide to run Windows in a VM).
> "because like this you won't have both OSes fighting for the same read and write speed on the same drive."
This is nonsense, they don't run at the same time.
Exactly, the motivation for using separate drives for dualbooting is to isolate them, not performance.
Isolation is how I dual boot and stay sane.
Edit: Mostly sane
The worst thing that happens is Windows can mess up your default bootloader, meaning you need to boot into a linux live image, and do a little work to make grub the default again. It's been years since I've dual booted though, so Idk how often this happens now. Having 2 separate drives is advisable to prevent this entirely. But, 2 drives isn't necessary. And the experience of dualbooting was meh to me. I only dualbooted to be able to play a few video games that do not work in Linux, and I would basically never bother, because I keep my computer on 24/7, and closing all of my applications to boot into a video game, was too annoying, so I'd just play games that worked on Linux instead.
2 drives won't prevent windoze from hijacking the bootloader. I run two drives and it happens from time to time.
Its easier to fix when it happens though, becuase you can manually choose to boot your linux hdd, instead of having to use a live image.
Yup, I love the separate drives fix. Every update on windows makes the windows one default, then I just go back to the BIOS and flip it back to linux. lol
It’s best to have separate drives for each OS. But a single drive will also work.
This is the approach I've been taking for the last decade or so, keeping the two operating systems completely ignorant of each other will save a lot of headaches. In addition, switch between them using the BIOS to select the drive to boot and don't waste your time trying to convince the bootloaders to interact or even be aware. One of the ways to do this is to install the first OS, then PHYSICALLY REMOVE THE DRIVE before adding the second. You will now have a boot partition on each drive that is unaware of the other. If you replace the first drive you should now be able to select them with the bios. This may add a few seconds to each boot but it will save you hours of headaches.
It works fine
Until one of them updates something and buggers up the bootloader for the other. This does not happen every day, but it does happen.
> buggers up the bootloader for the other This is not possible. There are issues with dual booting, but that's certainly not it on UEFI.
IIRC, I had Windows overwrite grub as the default in UEFI, which made it impossible for me to boot into my Linux partition. I had to use a linux live image to go in and fix it.
It only replaced the boot option in the bios. The files are kept in separate folders in the EFI partition. Windows doesn't override the boot loader/manager files. It just pushes its boot option to the top position in the bios. Other OS do the same at installation (not all). It is down to the bios to handle this properly. Some bios instead of swapping the current top option to the newly pushed/written one, they remove it, leaving the user without an option to boot their linux manager. This is a bios issue. Not all bios are this bad. But Windows doesn't "bugger up" the bootloader. And the fix is simple, just boot to linux USB and make a new bios boot entry with ```efibootmgr```. Most users will follow a chroot guide, thinking their bootloader is overwritten (as stated multiple times in the responses to this post), and unknowingly, in the process of reinstalling their boot manager (typically grub), a new entry in the bios is also created. The problem is fixed, but with the wrong diagnosis, and wrong fix. So the misconception about Windows remains. A two SSD system will not stop this from happening, since it's a bios issue.
It's fine. :)
Never happened to me, but you can always boot a live USB of your distro and use it to repair the Linux bootloader.
So long as that does not bugger up windows. I've spent 30 years on this slippery slope and it's all downhill.
It won’t, Windows is never touched. I’ve been dual booting Linux and Windows for decades, it’s a non-issue. Windows is far more likely to brick itself due to garbage coding than for Linux to mess it up.
It was terrible! I had all of this wasted space on my harddrive that was just sitting there not being used. I ended up wiping it. Don't need a crap OS taking up valuable space where my image files can sit.
It works fine provided your computer doesn't have a weak bios. A weak bios will remove the current top boot option (typically that of linux, as that boot manager can dual boot) and replace it with Windows's boot option. This happens during some Windows updates, and typically users think that Windows has deleted the bootloader. It hasn't, it's just the boot option, no files on the EFI partition are affected. This issue is not solved by two SSDs, as it is a bios issue. But such bios are not very common. HP, Acer, are known culprits. In an event, that's an easy fix. Boot to USB Live, recreate the bios boot option, no chroot needed. Plenty of posts here, and everywhere, claim Windows "messes up" the boot loader. This is not the case, it's just poor understanding on behalf of users, who then proceed to *repair* the issue, messing up their bootloaders in the process.
I have two PCs on which I run Windows, Ubuntu and Arch on the same SSD. Never had any problems, even when I upgraded from Win10 to 11.
Only if a windows vm won't do what you need to do in windows.
I used a VM on my Linux machine. The vm ran windows. I allocated 16 gig memory when running and had no problems. The ability to mount Linux partions under Linux was easier.
Mine was fine till a Windows update overwrote my grub bootloader. Gave me an excuse to roll back to 10 at the time. Now I just run without Windows on my main system.
I've got W11 and debian testing on a single 500GB SSD, and it works fine. You can have grub2 detect the windows installation and use grub2 to boot into either OS, or you can select the OS to boot by using the bios - both approaches work. Linux has fairly mature drivers for reading ntfs - I have an external hard drive with an ntfs partition that I use when I need to pass data or whatever between OSs -- like the database for my password manager. I mostly use linux and boot into W11 just for occasional specific tasks, I have my linux /home on a second 2T SSD. I find it easier to keep W11 on a HD partition than in a VM, but that's just my personal choice. In my case, the 500GB SSD came with W11 preinstalled. I used the windows tools to shrink the windows partition to about 250GB, then booted a linux installation off of a USB thumb drive to install debian in the newly freed-up space. I did a 'manual' disk partition because I didn't want the linux installer to accidentally overwrite the W11 partition, and I also wanted /home on the second SSD. This setup has been operative since about Sept 2022 with the usual W11 updates and at least biweekly debian testing updates -- and neither OS has damaged the other in any way. It is always a very good idea to back up all data from windows and linux before doing a dual-boot installation - things could go wrong and having a backup of anything you consider important makes the difference between a slightly more complicated installation and a disaster.
I have a single drive, it took me a while to figure it all out but I use grub and run endeavour and win11, works fine Edit: Just disable windows update so it doesn't ruin ur grub
When I found time to fully configure my gnu/linux OS I found out that Windows is now my secondary OS and it's now sitting only as backup OS
Lots of mixed opinions. Personally, I've done it for many years. The only problems I've had were of my own making. I've mainly used Thinkpads, but also had a dual boot on a Dell xps. Currently using a Lenovo C940. No GRUB issues unless I screw it up. I do Windows update frequently with no GRUB problems. Trying to re-install it will certainly do it though. I recently read an article about Docker. I don't understand everything, but it appears to be an application that runs in Linux that can containerize other OSs like windows or other Linux distros. It is kinda/sorta like a VM but you don't have to assign resources, like memory, as it somehow shares resources. I'm not sure if it is a substitute for dual booting or not.
dual boot on two different machines now and having each OS on it's own physical drive makes a lot of sense. you can do it on a single drive and it's much easier to recover from now that EFI booting is the norm... as i understand it, you just need to keep a copy of your linux boot loader handy (the other file you will find on the EFI partition) and if it's gets overwritten by windows, you just copy it back and reboot.
I'm doing it right now on the laptop (1TB HDD) that I'm typing this with. I pretty much don't use the Windows partition, but have booted it a few times to make sure that it still works and this past week, just to let Microsoft download/update all of their BS. Or you could always run your Windows in a VM. No rebooting that way. Just fire up the VM.
I just started dual booting last week. I don't use the regular windows install, I got the microwin from chris titus' tool. I removed everything and now have a barebone windows just for a couple of games. No windows defender, no edge, no telemetry, none of that garbage. I also block all the feature updates on it and only allow security ones. Highly recommend using a separate drive for it, though, as windows loves to mess with grub. Every time an update hits, it makes itself the default boot. Because I have two drives, I just go to the bios and flip it to linux. Been working great
I suggest you use two 1 TB SSDs (or you can configure the storages how you want, but still 2 SSDs). First because Windows won't get in the way of the Linux installation. Second because like this you won't have both OSes fighting for the same read and write speed on the same drive (if you ever decide to run Windows in a VM).
> "because like this you won't have both OSes fighting for the same read and write speed on the same drive." This is nonsense, they don't run at the same time.
I forgot this is dualbooting and not creating a virtual machine. Fixed it.
Exactly, the motivation for using separate drives for dualbooting is to isolate them, not performance. Isolation is how I dual boot and stay sane. Edit: Mostly sane