Is there any practical reason to dual-boot Linux alongside Windows?

Question

I am planning on getting an extra hard drive for my Windows tower, and am thinking about trying out Linux again as a dual-boot.

However, I can't really think of any pros to this, only cons:

• More complicated to switch OSes. (Edit: because I have to shut down every time!)
• Less storage space. (Edit: because the Linux partition will take up space)
• I can already run Unix programs on Windows via Cygwin.
• I have to store data on FAT32 instead of NTFS. (Edit: FAT32 is the only platform supported enough by Windows and Linux, yet is less reliable then NTFS.)

Is there any practical reason to do this, or should I just format the hard drive as 100% non-bootable NTFS for storage?

Now a community wiki.

Answer 1

• More complicated to switch OSes.

Not hugely. Pick one at boot time via a menu.

• I can already run Unix programs on Windows via Cygwin.

Running natively is always better. As any who plays games on Wine will tell you.

• I have to store data on FAT32 instead of NTFS

Wrong (depending on your distro). All distros I have used have had no problems reading NTFS.

Reasons to have Linux

• Programming apps. Might not apply before you, but apart from Visual Studio, all the best tools are Linux first, Windows second.
• Virtual Desktops. You can have multiple (usually 4, but you can change it) screens of apps at once. It's like having 4 monitors without the expense and space problems of having 4 screens.
• Money. Most Linux programs are free. A lot of the best free server and programming software doesn't even have Windows versions. Linux itself is also free, which is an obvious plus.

Reasons not to have Linux

• As you can see, most of the reasons people like Linux (apart from being free) are for advanced users, and nerds. If you feel Windows does all you need, and you've already paid for it, and you're not interested in broadening your skills, there isn't a huge need to install Linux.
• Learning. Some people (myself for one) are good at picking up new things, and get the basics of Linux in a day or so. Others have more difficulty.
• Command Line. The Linux command line isn't the object of abject horror some Windows fanboys make it out to be (mainly because cmd.exe (Windows command line) is an object of horror). Neither is it nessecary for day to day use. But you will find loads of Linux users/tutorials will assume you are able to use the command line.

Answer 2

When you want to try out Linux but aren't really sure, just consider using a Virtual Machine, such as VirtualBox. You can install Linux in that VM without having to bother about partitioning, dual booting and all the other stuff.

Using a VM is easy and can't really mess up your existing configuration. When you're done with it you can just delete it. Also, one other great advantage of VMs is the ability to easily switch between the 2 operating systems, including dragging and dropping of files from one OS to the other.

Answer 3

There are hundreds of practical reasons to use Linux and hundreds of practical reasons not to run it.

Your real question, I think, is "Do I have any particular reason to install Linux?" Based on what you wrote above, the answer seems to be "No."

It's hard to say much more unless you give more information. What sorts of things do you use your computer for? Why did your previous experiment with Linux end?

Ultimately, nobody else can tell you what's good for you. I suppose they can try (and often do) but it rarely does either side any good.

Answer 4

The only real benefit in dual booting (as opposed to running a virtual machine) is that you have full access to the host machines hardware instead of "virtual" hardware.

Answer 5

The situation is not so XOR as the OP frames the discussion.

Because Linux can read and write to NTFS perfectly well, Linux can just live on a small partition on your new disk, say 20 GB for Linux, and that will hold all you'll ever need if data is stored on the NTFS partitions.

I did this a year ago but quickly found Linux so convenient that I rarely ever boot into Windows, even when I'm developing apps for Windows. I develop them with cross-platform tools, and boot into Windows every week or so to tweak any OS related problems.

I strongly disagree with the VM crowd of answers here. Before I dual booted I ran Linux in VMs, and it was always just a bit of a hassle. Things were just slightly off enough (a bit slower, USB drives weren't discovered when I wanted or were when I didn't want, etc) that it wasn't a pleasure to use.

And if you don't end up liking Linux, then your costs are very small 20GB and a boot screen that lasts for a few seconds.

While installing a new drive is the perfect time to dedicate a little slice to making a dual boot with Linux.

Answer 6

Linux saves time. Both the OS and applications from repositories take less time to install and applications are automatically updated.

Answer 7

Practical? You need a practical reason to run Linux?

Well, fun can be practical, can't it?

That said, unless you like to experiment and explore, or unless you've got apps that really need a native linux environment, Windows should suffice. Basically, if you need to run Linux, you'll know you need to run it, and if you don't...

Answer 8

Sort of yes with all your points - aprt from the last 2.

• It isn't really about running UNIX programs, it is about running the whole Linux environment.
• No need for Fat32, you can just have two seporate partitions. Fat32 is only needed in order to transfer data between both OS's unless you want to install a NTFS addon for Linux or a EXT (?) addon for Windows.

The real reason is people want to use Linux if they want to - May have a program that only works on it, want to do testing or something else. They could use virtualisation, but it is faster just to run.

It is the same reason why people with Macs want to run Windows. It is hard to explain unless you are in the position and need to do it yourself.

Answer 9

IMHO there isn't any reason today to waste a whole disk on another installation, when you can run both operating systems at the same time with one boot (that of Windows).

See the following two linux distributions:
andLinux.org -- Run Linux natively inside Windows
Wubi -- an officially supported Ubuntu installer for Windows

Answer 10

Here's a take on it: if you don't really think you need to run it, it would probably be better not to dual-boot. If you need to do something Linuxy, you could use a LiveCD or stick a tiny distro on a thumb drive.

If you were a Linux user, dual-booting just might be helpful. You could do a lot of stuff in Linux, but you might need to boot into Windows for a few things (like some gaming). And Windows is somewhat harder to use LiveCD style or from a thumb drive (just because it's not really designed for that).

Answer 11

There is one huge reason to run Linux as well as Windows, you can browse the internet without worrying about viruses. Use Linux for web browsing and Windows for other apps abd you have a secure system which runs whatever software you want to use.

If you choose to dual boot, there are programs like Wubi (used for Ubuntu) which make installation very simple - it creates a virtual "partition" to install Linux into, and if you decide you don't like it, run Wubi a second time and your system is back to normal.

HOWEVER, a better option is tp run Linux in a virtual machine, as it makes switching between OSs much simpler and easier. VirtualBox (www.virtualbox.org) is a free way to do this which works very well.

Answer 12

• More complicated to switch OSes.

Actually booting an OS from a different hard drive is less complicated than booting an OS from the same drive (another partition).

• Less storage space.

A Linux distribution usually takes less space than a modern Windows.

I can already run Unix programs on Windows via Cygwin.

Frankly, doing that is like using a rubber doll instead of a woman :-)

I have to store data on FAT32 instead of NTFS.

While Linux handles NTFS reasonably well with ntfs-3g, it is adviced to avoid using NTFS completely if you can afford that. Say thanks to Microsoft for hiding the specifications of their proprietary filesystem. NTFS is a good, reliable filesystem, but there are tons of open alternatives that are not worse.