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
86408 readers
2336 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
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.