299
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2026
299 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
86376 readers
2524 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This guy never even attempted to give windows a real shot. He complains about not being able to install windows on a drive that already has an OS on it, without getting rid of the other OS, for crying out loud
It's a feature most big Linux distros support, but Windows doesn't.
Windows does support it tho. You just need to partition them separately on the same drive.
Because it’s something that shouldn’t be done.
Multiboot was a common thing until Microsoft decided to make it difficult.
Having a different OS on a different drive is how it should be done.
No it isn't.
The whole point of partitions is so you can have multiple things on the same drive. Be them data, swap, or... yes, operating systems.
You shouldn’t be partitioning your OS drive and putting multiple OS’s on it. Terrible practice.
The best practice is to buy a separate PC for each system and while you are at it, try buying a new house to perfectly isolate both systems /s
I know more than you.
If you knew anything about operating systems you wouldn’t be saying that.
And? Just because it's a good practice doesn't mean it's okay for Windows to go and fuck up every other OS on the drive. There shouldn't be any technical issues with having two OS on the same drive. What if you just want to test two different OS so you could decide which one to keep? Are you supposed to buy a new drive just because you'll need it for a month?
What you've said is not an argument why Windows gets to fuck up every other OS that's on the same drive.
According to whom? You?
No one who wants to boot into multiple OS’s should want to have them on the same physical drive. That’s complete idiocy. Zero redundancy, lose all of them if the drive dies.
New OS, new disk. Every time.
That's cool that you do it that way. But why do you care how other people do it? And like... You seem really fucking emotional about it.
🤣 playing the old “emotional” card so soon? You have to at least wait until the person says something in a remotely even frustrated way before trying that old chestnut.
No card, buddy.
I'm glad that you have extra income to buy drive per OS to insert into your PC, but there are these things that are called laptops, and sometimes people have them, and sometimes they have quite old ones and non-extensible ones and you get where I'm going with this?
The moment you've written those words, you've already lost. Because they obviously do want it, and operating systems have supported it for decades, which means it's perfectly reasonable for people to expect it to continue.
MacOS doesn’t. Windows doesn’t. The only one that does is Linux, the one that no one in the grand scheme of things wants to use.
There are multitudes of ways to use Linux on windows machines already. You can’t install windows onto a machine that already has an OS installed no doubt got a multitude of security reasons.
Anymore.
Anymore.
So you think making it harder to use is the right path for greater adoption? Bold strategy.
It’s not making it harder to use. No one who knows what dual booting is should be dumb enough to want 2 or more OS’s on a single drive.
Ooh, active hostility toward people who might consider switching. Another bold strategy.
Why not? It works perfectly fine if you install windows first and Linux afterwards. I've done it multiple times and the problems only arose during windows updates, occasionally. If windows wasn't such a piece of shit, what would be wrong with this configuration?
Lose one drive you now have no OS’s where before you might have had 4. One OS per drive.
That is a risk that should be accepted. Still doesn't answer my question, why shouldn't it be done?
Let's say hypothetically that I'm a student who has a mediocre laptop with only a single internal drive. And I need Linux for college, and I want Windows to play [insert a game with shitty DRM that's unsupported by Proton] with friends. Why shouldn't I install two OS's on the same drive?
You never need Linux for college.
Install windows first. Problem solved.
It does answer your question of why it shouldn’t be done.
And?
I think he gave it a fair shot (including spending money on Microsoft apps!), although plenty of the complaints are from the perspective of a Linux user migrating to Windows. For example, the average Windows user won't worry about dual booting.
Personally, I think the biggest mistake was to not try out FOSS versions of things like Firefox and Thunderbird, but I appreciated the insight into Edge for example.