Posted on Feb 4, 2016
Why would you prefer dual-boot machines, especially with Windows/Linux?
7.76K
101
59
6
6
0
Linux
Microsoft
Computer Building
Computers
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 16
Suspended Profile
There are reasons to use multiple OSs, especially if you are concerned about security, hacking, spying, etc... If so, Linux is probably a better choice to run. I suspect, though, that a dual boot machine could probably be hacked in some way. VMs don't provide the same security.
The only true safe machine is one that is not connected to anything. Short of that, separate machines, or separate, removable boot drives are more secure...
Personally I just use Windows. I don't do anything so critical that I'm concerned about getting hacked. And I have two routers and security software, along with practicing "Safe Internet..."
The only true safe machine is one that is not connected to anything. Short of that, separate machines, or separate, removable boot drives are more secure...
Personally I just use Windows. I don't do anything so critical that I'm concerned about getting hacked. And I have two routers and security software, along with practicing "Safe Internet..."
4
4
0
I was using a multi-boot Mac/Windows/Linux for a while.
It was nice. My mac had A LOT of nice features, but it wouldn't run a few games & programs I had. So I used "Bootcamp" & "Windows Parallels" on it. It gave me the option to set up partitions and operate natively. The nice part about that was if I was inside Mac, and I needed something from my Windows system I could launch Parallels and access it.
VMs are great, but every now and then don't respond "as well as" booting from. Just using too much computing power to keep both OS going. The better the hardware the less the problem though.
When I was playing with linux VM was definitely the way to go, but I almost always set up as Dual Boot and then "paralleled" it over. I just liked having both options.
It was nice. My mac had A LOT of nice features, but it wouldn't run a few games & programs I had. So I used "Bootcamp" & "Windows Parallels" on it. It gave me the option to set up partitions and operate natively. The nice part about that was if I was inside Mac, and I needed something from my Windows system I could launch Parallels and access it.
VMs are great, but every now and then don't respond "as well as" booting from. Just using too much computing power to keep both OS going. The better the hardware the less the problem though.
When I was playing with linux VM was definitely the way to go, but I almost always set up as Dual Boot and then "paralleled" it over. I just liked having both options.
(4)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SGT (Join to see) - I generally get in a mood to try something different and go down whatever rabbit hole is next. I had my PS3 running linux at one point (before they discontinued support), then I tried the Mac bit. I'll likely try a linux media server when I swap hardware again (sometime in the summer).
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
SGT (Join to see) - Used to use System Commander to create multiple boot systems. You could boot more than 3 OS's if you wanted. It rewrote the boot sector and pulled itself up at system boot time; you would then select which OS to boot from a menu. Didn't stay resident in memory and added no overhead to your OS's. Unfortunately it didn't keep up with the times and is no longer usable. Perhaps there is another software out there that essentially does the same thing...
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
I just use VMs. I haven't dual booted a machine since desktop virtualization became available. I thin provision so the HD isn't preallocated which saves on storage until needed.
(3)
(0)
(2)
(0)
SSG Nathaniel Bendel
SSgt Aaron P. - This is basically the same concept as thin provisioning in VMWare. It's a very useful feature for oversubscribing storage.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google
As to VMware, if the VM box can see the file system outside the box, it can be attacked. In my dabbling with VM ware, I was able to access files outside the VM...
SGT (Join to see) You're correct about the level of safety in using Virtual Machines... to a point. As it was also brought up, if the VM can "see" another computer or file system (ie. through Samba, FTP, etc) then that other system can be compromised. As there is really no direct access from the Virtual HDD to a bare metal one, that's where the sandboxing/safety lies.
SGT (Join to see) when I've used virtual machines, I've been able to access the bigger file system and the network. If the network is accessed, everything is open...