Virtualization vs Dual Boot

[callumacrae]

It might be duel boot, I can never remember which, sorry.

Anyway, do you prefer Virtualization or Dual boot?

Advantages of using Virtualization over a dual boot is that you can use applications from more than one operating systems at a time, but it will use more RAM to do so than a dual boot.

I use Virtualization, purely for the fact that I don't trust windows not to delete GRUB.

~Callum

 

[master257]

well it all depends on what you want to do, someone may physically want to have both on there at all times and those with lower end desktops maybe not be able to run a virtual PC on their comp.

Virtual PC's are very handy aswell, mainly for those in the "support" section of your ISPs IT department lol it enables them to troubleshoot with all the different OS rather then having to switch to a different desktop everytime. (bonus no?, but when does technical support even ever help you hah!).

Anyways to me the winner here would be DUAL BOOT ALL THE WAY (correct terminology "Multi-boot")

 

[Smith6612]

I'm a Virtualization person as I've found it to be quite useful and my hardware has hardware support for it. Sure, it uses more RAM but that's no problem. It keeps things isolated on the same box as well quite nicely. Right now I'm running Virtual Machines using Virtualization and they do prove quite useful.

 

[Danielx386]

Me to. I rather use Virtualization. Why? Because it let me run like the host OC (Window 7) and like 4 other OS at once. This let me test my website with diffeerent OS along with different browsers. Also I could use this for stress testing as well (php scripts). The other thing, it let me use some of my old hardware thank to XP mode in win 7.

 

[ah-blabla]

I use Virtualization, purely for the fact that I don't trust windows not to delete GRUB.

~Callum

I know a few systems that are mainly booted with windows, but still use Grub as the bootloader. The problem is when you install windows, since it just ignores what bootloader you currently have during installation. After that it should be fine.

And I only need 1 OS at all (GNU/Linux) so I don't do either. Back when I still had to use the Devil's own System I dual booted because the hardware just wasn't up to supporting an extra OS.

 

[callumacrae]

At the moment I use Virtualbox in Fedora.

I run Windows purely so I can say "Ha, look how bad the graphics are" and to rip audio from encrypted DVDs.

I can't say I've heard anyone call it multi-boot before :s

~Callum

 

[xav0989]

I currently am single booted under vista, but I'll probably dual-boot with ubuntu. I tried virtualization but my HDD didn't want to take the extra load (my ram was pretty low as well).

 

[ah-blabla]

At the moment I use Virtualbox in Fedora.

I run Windows purely so I can say "Ha, look how bad the graphics are" and to rip audio from encrypted DVDs.

I can't say I've heard anyone call it multi-boot before :s

~Callum

You do know you can access encrypted dvds under Linux? From what I hear the libraries doing it are possibly illegal to use in America because of the whole DMCA joke (Yes, that is correct, in America it is possibly illegal to use unapproved software to play back copyrighted content YOU own), but since there has never been action against it it should be fine.

 

[xav0989]

From what I hear the libraries doing it are possibly illegal to use in America because of the whole DMCA joke (Yes, that is correct, in America it is possibly illegal to use unapproved software to play back copyrighted content YOU own)

Hurray for capitalism!

 

[Smith6612]

You do know you can access encrypted dvds under Linux? From what I hear the libraries doing it are possibly illegal to use in America because of the whole DMCA joke (Yes, that is correct, in America it is possibly illegal to use unapproved software to play back copyrighted content YOU own), but since there has never been action against it it should be fine.

That's the sole reason why I look for non-DRM content, and if it has DRM, I rip it right out before the file is even opened/executed. I've had too many problems with the way the "media companies" are saying we should use the media, or with their programs disabling my software. If I absolutely have to use DRM to play something and I haven't been able to remove the DRM, it's executed in a sandbox or I'll run Anti-Executable software to prevent messing with my stuff.

 

[callumacrae]

I haven't managed to get it to work yet. I can play them fine on my ubuntu laptop, but that doesn't have a dvd drive.

My desktop computer has Fedora running on, which I love, but I can't get encrypted dvds to play. Oooh I forgot about linuxquestions.org...

Anyway, I'm fine with running Windows in the background. I use it for Spotify too, because Spotify isn't very good under Wine in Fedora. It keeps crashing.

~Callum

 

[ah-blabla]

I haven't managed to get it to work yet. I can play them fine on my ubuntu laptop, but that doesn't have a dvd drive.

My desktop computer has Fedora running on, which I love, but I can't get encrypted dvds to play. Oooh I forgot about linuxquestions.org...

Anyway, I'm fine with running Windows in the background. I use it for Spotify too, because Spotify isn't very good under Wine in Fedora. It keeps crashing.

~Callum

It took ages for me to get dvds to work (that was under debian), and since that laptop I haven't actually bothered. (My current laptop has no drive.) Part of the problem might be your missing libdvdcss (the library decrypting the dvds) which I think Fedora doesn't include (wouldn't wonder me, a company like Red Hat doesn't want any controversy).

Spotify somehow works fine for me through wine, and has only ever crashed once, but that's probably distro specific. There is a native linux FLOSS client though (despotify), however it needs a premium account to work, which is slightly annoying.

BTT, I do sometimes use virtualisation, albeit rarely, running DSL from a usb-stick under the Devils own System, whenever I don't have access to anything else.

 

[alexandgruntz]

I use both. On my main system, I used to dual boot Vista and Windows 7, and I had virtual XP, 98 and 95 on Vista.

My Dell, with 6 versions of Windows, is a sept-boot thingy (plus a GRUB loader for booting off removable storage).

 

[digyourpc]

I would prefer dual boot over virtualization. Virtualization is good when you just want to test an os and ofcourse have got high RAM in your pc.
But, dual boot is all the way better.

 

[playminigames]

yea i think multi boot is way better if you want to consistently use two or more op systems. Virtualization is nice to try out a op system before you install it.

 

[kkenny]

I use a MBP (Mac Book Pro, the newest one for 13"), and I virtualize as well as double boot. The handy thing VMWare and Boot Camp for Apple does is that you can either choose to load up Windows only in the start of the loading screen or you can, after logging into your account on MACOSX, you can load windows and do whatever you needed windows on a mac. It's a win win situation, and it only costs around 200$ or less. (VMWARE+OEM is cheap for how much your going to use it imo)

Games-wise, I'd use Dual Boot.
Everything else, Virtualize.

 

[boris333]

Having a machine with 8 GB of RAM, I tend to favor virtualization. It gives me far more flexibility to do what I want with things, without interfering much with hardware.

I swear the fact that I get the latest version of VMWare Workstation free (and legally) has nothing to do with my decision, either

 

[callumacrae]

Whaa? How do you do that?

*envious*

~Callum

 

[techgeek1499]

They both have their good and bads. Like I run a Virtual Machine (Debian (Server)) and it runs nicely, but for my virtual machine software it doesn't make Debian go full screen. Which that is one flaw of it. Another one is that when you run a VM you aren't getting the full performance of the Operating System. If you had it dual boot you can get maximum potential and work nicely and full scree. But on the flip side you can't run any programs on your other Operating System. So it's a 50/50 unless you buy a virtual machine software and allows fullscreen. It doesn't make sense to spend money on something that you can do for free.

 

[callumacrae]

At the moment I have 1.5gb RAM.

I have a WinXP virtual machine, which I have given 1.25gb RAM. Fedora is still faster than Windows, even when Windows is using all of it's RAM.

~Callum