Another "discuss" thread popped this question in my head. To me, with how dead-easy it is to virtualize, I was surprised to see (espcially) Linux-users claiming to dual-boot rather just use some virtualization framework.
I mean, dual-booting between a gaming-OS and a non-gaming OS can still make sense. However, if you don't have a use-case where you need "bare-metal" access, virtualization has seemed to me to be the way to go for well over a decade, now.
I guess my real question, then, is probably, "if you're dual-booting, what drove you to that versus using a virtualization solution?"
Top comments (8)
Yes, I dual boot (Gentoo and Windows 10), because of gaming and the fact that I actually need bare-metal access to block devices for multiple things at work.
Barring that, I cans see it being advantageous to dual-boot for a couple of other reasons:
As a student I used to dual boot windows/ubuntu. I just did that because I forgot to operate windows XD and to find out new features of windows 10 plus ms office for college projects.
Now I prefer virtualization only!
I only have a dual boot option on my laptop from my employer. I am not required to keep Windows but I still keep it for customers I might work for in the future. But making me open Windows the assignment must be really cool for me to stop using Linux on the job.
For all my machines at home: Linux only.
Sounds like a perfect use-case for a VM.
Dual-boot because of unplayable framerates in VM.
Seriously, what kind of PC do you own to run games in VM?
Thus the second paragraph of my original post.
Did not notice :P
But I guess the reasoning is still applicable.
Dual-boot to squeeze best performance.
Yes. I usually use Linux Lite. I use Windows 7 only for college work.