Stick With One Os, Dual-boot, Or Triple-boot?

[rayzoredge 2]

So we've debated, all over the Internet, which operating system is better than the other and possibly might through in some factual information as to WHY it's better. I'm going to be possibly attracting trolls with this topic, but I want some factual information to base my decision on whether to stay with one operating system, dual-boot, or even triple-boot.

 

I saw an article today on Cnet with Psystar, still with an Apple bulls-eye target on it, who released yet another piece of controversy: Rebel EFI. It is a bootloader that allows for you to install the highly-toted and esteemed OSX, to include Snow Leopard, onto a PC with an Intel processor. (AMD fans will have to wait.) Wading through the fanboyism, I saw an interesting little snippet: that this was nothing new, and that there was a project already out there called Chameleon that essentially did the same thing. Google led me to a thread about triple-booting Windows 7, Ubuntu, and Snow Leopard, and even though I don't see any immediate desire or need to do so, I thought it would be a pretty cool idea to have three awesome operating systems on my machine... just because I can.

 

Then I came to think about these evil things we call reason and practicality, and that's when I wondered to myself: Why would anybody actually choose to triple-boot three operating systems on one machine? Heck, if you're a native Windows user, why would you even want to consider Linux or OSX?

 

The unfortunate thing about this post is that the Windows platform is ubiquitous, and it makes sense why developers don't really focus their software at less than 10% of the market share of Apple and Linux users. The Windows users love to say how Linux and Apple aren't gaming platforms, that productivity is severely limited with big-name business programs being exclusive to the Windows platform (like Peachtree), that PCs are more cost-efficient than an Apple machine, etc. On the consumer end, the reasons why you would want to have Linux on your machine is for the security and the fact that it is a full-featured operating system available FOR FREE and with such a large supporting community, frequent updates, and a general advancement towards what users want. However, Linux falls short on the consumer end if the end-user wants to play popular games requiring DirectX, and you definitely can't just WINE everything. (It does, however, offer some competitive free alternatives to popular M$ software like OpenOffice and GIMP.) OSX is in a similar boat, offering Apple exclusives to Microsoft counterparts, but still falling behind on the focus of the gaming market. Also, with businesses relying on Microsoft-exclusive software to run their accounting needs (PeachTree) and whatnot, it's a hard sell for Apple.

 

So, on the perspective of the operating system, I can see these essential pros and cons for each, on the consumer level:

 

-

 

Windows (Windows 7)

 

Pros: Owns the developing market and has the most market share, DirectX support, gaming, being the best Windows OS yet by being more user-friendly and even pretty to boot, advanced security features, native 64-bit support, exclusive popular and efficient Windows-platform software

 

Cons: Is the main target for malware users, infamous bugs like the BSOD

 

OSX (Snow Leopard)

 

Pros: Very user-friendly and pretty to boot, security through market-obscurity, exclusive popular and efficient OSX-platform software (iMovie, Vegas, etc.), ability to run on any Intel-based machine, efficient with hardware (?)

 

Cons: Apple-exclusive, takes much effort to get installed on any machine other than an Apple, fewer choices in popular productivity software due to market obscurity, limited gaming library

 

Linux (Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala)

 

Pros: Very user-friendly and pretty to boot, security through market-obscurity, very efficient with hardware (?), constant updates, customization capability, free

 

Cons: Command-line work scares off most casual users, support is mostly user-based, limited gaming library, driver support is a hit-or-miss at times

 

-

 

I am only judging the other operating systems by what I know of them, so please correct me if I'm wrong. And please note that if you are going to compare OSX to Windows that it's strictly an operating system comparison and not a rant on how your MacBook is uber-awesome because it just is.

 

With all of this being said, it seems that I should just stick with Windows 7 to fully encompass everything I want to do with my computer, to include productivity and gaming. Yes, I'm excited for Karmic Koala's release just so I can play with my beloved cube again and to see that 25-second boot come into play, but at the same time, my Asus G50VT-X5 already has a Linux distro on it with ExpressGate, which boots up in 5 seconds as soon as I push that button and gives me access to e-mail, IM, Internet, media sharing, etc.

 

What arguments do people have for multiple-booting with Windows and OSX, or Windows with Linux, or OSX with Linux, or what-have-you? Do you really use both operating systems "equally" (as in for the reasons why you have multiple operating systems, i.e. Linux for secure, casual use and Windows for gaming). Is the case of Vegas being Apple-exclusive worth dual or triple-booting for just so you can edit movies with Vegas but then switch to another operating system for everything else?

[Baniboy 3]

HI! I'm one of those nasty dual-booters you mentioned "Why?", you ask. My response is "why not?". Well, I use Ubuntu for listening to music, browsing, gaming(wined and native), coding and a bunch of other stuff.Windows for synchronizing my mp3 player, my phone and some gaming. (Summary: windows itself has no qualities I enjoy of, only using it because of compatibility with devices and games)When I don't have to use windows to do whatever I want to do, why the hell would I boot to such buggy piece of crap? The only reason windows is popular is because it just has a big market share so consumers get this winblows rammed down their throats because programs come to that platform. That, my friend, is why I dual boot. The other day my friend was at our place and I booted to windows(don't know why, but it happened... ). I got frustrated because of the slowness and bugs when was using windows explorer. He said something like "it's what computers do, it's normal". All the time was thinking that if I had booted in linux, I wouldn't have any problems like now. That is it! It shouldn't be "normal" for something to just stop working. That is typically tells you that something is wrong(in this case it's windows).So, why a mac os too? hmm... Let's see, you like the mac os, the software, the interface... why not? If you own one computer, you like linux for whatever reason and mac for working, you also have windows for compatibility reasons. Seems like a good combo to me.As for "you can't wine everything".. OW YEA? WATCH ME I've already wined programs I think are worth using on linux. Even windows programs run better on wine than on windows, shouldn't that tell something? :)EDIT: You can install directx on wine too, just use winetricks(a program)

Edited October 23, 2009 by Baniboy (see edit history)

[eurobeat 0]

i use linux fedora and windows xp. windows xp for gaming and linux fedora for developingreason? coz i can mess up my desktop in fedora with my files, it bothersome to keep them in my documents or in any directory. too put it simple my desktop in my fedora os = is like a garbage dump. Also i dont like some malware running in my pc while im devand about window 7 it too early to buy that. since evry game developer never minimize there posible franchise. Also there is no game out there that i really like that need a directx support(latest version);

[manish-mohania 0]

I have recently moved to Linux (Debian 5.0 Lenny) and I am not dual or triple booting. I think Linux has more softwares than any other OS, that you can expect to get from a standard operating system.free/open source alternatives exists for other softwares. sometimes they are more feature rich/stable/superior in performance than their non-free/closed counterparts.I use Linux for web development. I use wine; to test my websites on Internet Explorer(worst browser in compliance with standards) and Safari. It is a misconception that Linux users have to use command line to do their work. I don't use it and in fact I never required it, but yes ... Linux command line is way much better that Windows command line.As far as support for new devices is concerned. It becomes available after sometime. You have to understand that Linux is developed by volunteers.By the way, why don't you ask your hardware vendor to give device driver for Linux ? you are paying for the device, right ?why don't you ask your game vendor to develop games for Linux platform ?why do you want to settle with buggy/low grade Operating System which comes with a license that do not allow to gift your OS to your friend/relative ?Software/Hardware Vendors exists to meet our needs/requirement; It is not the other way round.

[truefusion 3]

You start off the post trying to decide whether you should do either but end up questioning why anyone would want to do either. I've never really got to try Mac OS X before, and i would love to install it on my computer (not on a Mac) and test it out, but since i (currently—though probably never will be able to) can't, i can't provide any reasons for users to install it. I have reasons for installing and using Linux; however, i also realize that these reasons were obtained after trying Linux, therefore it may be irrelevant to provide or list them here—in other words, i can only provide reasons for staying with Linux (which i am inclined to say it is the same for any user for any operating system). Since Windows bears the biggest market share, i feel that providing reasons for installing and using Windows is for the most part wholly irrelevant. The only way i can see them being even slightly relevant is when you are comparing a new version of Windows over an older version of Windows (e.g. XP vs 7). Therefore i will only comment on Linux.

 

As mentioned before, since my reasons for choosing Linux over Windows exist because i already use Linux, the only statement i can give for trying out Linux is: First assume throughout your entire experience with Linux: "Linux is not Windows (or Mac)." Then just simply try out Linux (preferably Ubuntu). Failure to assume that Linux is not Windows will only ruin your experience with Linux—and any operating system other than Windows for that matter.

 

---

While the command line may scare users away (i.e. assuming they actually put themselves in a moment that will require them to use the command line), to me i can do a lot of things a lot quicker than just clicking here and there. Take for example a friend of mine: one of his arguments for not using Linux is that he is a "point and click" kind of person. He saw me installing Firefox through the command line and somehow convinced himself that is the only way to install software. I told him i did it through the command line because by the time i had finished clicking through all the interfaces to install Firefox, i would already be using Firefox if i installed it through the command line. Any Windows user (though this may also apply to Mac OS X users) knows that it requires more clicks on a Windows system to install a program than it does in Linux (i.e. this includes searching the internet for a program that does at least a minimal of what you want—even if you have to pay for it).

 

As for my reasons for staying with Linux over Windows, i find myself to be more productive in Linux, especially since Linux was originally made by developers for developers. Most of the time i make my own software if i can't find a suitable one. Under Windows it is not so easy for me to make my own software or to install certain modules for certain (scripting) languages. Of course, this is not to say that only a developer would be interested in Linux, but that because of how easy it is to develop for Linux or under Linux, you will find many programs that provide a lot of convenience and that "fill the gaps" (though to say "gaps," of course, may be to assume that Linux should be like Windows).

 

The only reason why i even have Windows installed on here is because the Windows-only programs i own and have paid for perform better than in Wine, and to figure out how to port some of my programs over to. Since all of the programs i've paid for are in the minority, i therefore only gave Windows no more than 100 gigabytes worth of HDD space (though i probably didn't need more than 30). Personally, i wish Windows was more like Linux.

 

I don't really see you, rayzoredge, as a person who would be afraid of the command line or a new operating system environment, so most if not all the cons you have listed for the operating systems are irrelevant for you. In other words, you would install others "just 'cause you can."

[clintovsina 0]

well i triple boot too. the reason? ubuntu for developing, xp because of compatability(feel forced into this one!) and windows 7 to run it as a HTPC (got a projector wired up too). simple, one computer doing many jobs. thinking of upgrading to a quad core though as my core 2 duo don't support virtualization otherwise i'd be just dual booting

[mahesh2k 0]

I'm comfortable with windows and mac. Most of the softwares i used heavily are on these two platforms. I used to dual boot with linux earlier. But later got tired of fixing boot issues. So switched to virtual machine softwares. VMware is the one i still use for running multiple operating system. And on macintosh i use parallles, it is cheap and works like vmware on macintosh. Virtualization software solved this dual boot issue for me. Besides having larger RAM and support for graphic cards by these two software. You get same experience as of you installed on your disk. For those who want to try virtual machine software can use vmware workstation which is free or use Sun's VirtualBox. On macintosh Vmware fusion or Paralles desktop is for virtualization software. So to avoid issues i'm sticking with virual machine software. I'm comfortable with all three linux,windows and macintosh. It's just that i'm used to windows and mac, so i prefer booting OS from virtual machine. I boot windows from paralles while using macintosh. and boot linux from windows under VMware. So this problem of dual or tripple booting is solved for me as of now. You can say no more multiboot from me.

[rayzoredge 2]

Nice... I'm loving the responses. (I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, either!)

 

Don't get me wrong... I actually loved working with Ubuntu 9.04 when I had my Dell (before I sold it) and preferred it over Windows on my work laptop after-hours because it "felt" so much faster and better. I bring this topic up because from my non-developer's perspective, I didn't see enough reasons for Joe Schmoe to divert away from the 90% market share to try something else.

 

The people I affectionately refer to as elitist Macheads seem to flood every forum and every comment section on the Internet with Macs being so much better than Windows-based machines, and of course, the Linux user occasionally chimes in. Linux has come a LONG way from what it was before, and I agree that it is very easy to use in comparison to how it was for me back in the day when I tried out Kubuntu 7.04. I'm actually a command-line kind of guy (as anyone can witness from my AutoCAD habits), which truefusion nailed, but it was a little frustrating for me to learn simple things that I wasn't used to, like make'ing and compiling, getting used to sudo, using shell scripts, etc. Not to mention that almost every time I installed Ubuntu onto a machine, I ALWAYS had to figure out how to make SOMETHING work, whether it was the stylus for a TPC, or the wireless capability on a network card, etc. Even with the forums out there, it truly isn't always a one-size-fits-all solution every time, and that's when I start getting frustrated with it, wondering why I'm making that hurdle instead of just sticking with Windows which already has drivers for it.

 

From my perspective, however, it seems redundant for me to put yet another operating system for doing what I already do with Windows. I'm probably going to end up installing Ubuntu 9.10 anyway just because I can and plus I do like Ubuntu. I'm not really sure what I was going with my initial post, but it just aroused my curiosity as to why people boot multiple operating systems when for the most part, one out of the three has the most market share and therefore the most software available to it, and if a user didn't care for what Windows had to offer, wouldn't dual-booting Linux and OSX be kind of redundant?

 

FYI, I threw out what I knew for pros and cons for each operating system to try to give some sort of fair perspective to all of them... but it's kind of hard when I only have experience with Ubuntu and Windows.

 

@truefusion: If you want to try OSX out, look at Chameleon 2.0 RC3 and give that a whirl. If you can get your hands on a SL CD, maybe you can give a good comparison between Linux and OSX?

[k_nitin_r 8]

@rayzoredgeHi!I think one of the Cons you should list about Karmic Koala (Ubuntu 9.10) is that it is still in Beta and will be releasing next week. Perhaps you should've had a comparison with Ubuntu 9.04 instead?I wouldn't really want to have a dual or triple boot but would prefer to have a system running a particular operating system that I can access remotely. I've got an old HPQ (with a Pentium 4 processor... it's from the pre-Intel-Core era) which runs Ubuntu 9.04 full-time while my IBM Thinkpad which is my primary machine at home runs Windows XP. My work notebook, however, has a dual boot with both Windows XP and Fedora Linux. The reason for the dual boot is that the virtualization servers at work did not initally have support for running Linux so I had to either connect back home, which was reasonable for doing some command-line stuff but became painfully slow when I had to do anything graphical, and because the office later got their proxy/firewall to block direct traffic so I can only connect via a remote desktop to a server located in a different office. The dual boot gives me access to a Linux environment when I'm trying to do something like a grep on a log file or something similar.The reason why I avoid having a dual boot is the time it takes to switch between the two (, three, or even multiple) operating systems. If I were to accidentally select Windows instead of Fedora or Ubuntu on the boot loader menu, I'd have to wait for Windows to start up, then wait for it to load background services before it can start responding and I can reach for the Start menu to shut it down and get back to the boot loader to select the other operating system. Also, the browser cache from one operating system isn't shared with that on another operating system so if I were accessing a website that I visited previously, my web browser would do a full download of all of the content. Yes, we do have a proxy server at the office, but it doesn't seem to cache anything - it simply blocks access to large files, websites such as Facebook, and IM clients such as MSN Messenger. At home, I don't run a proxy server but would've loved it if my ADSL router could do some caching. Remember the LinkSys routers that ran Linux and could be used for downloading torrents onto USB disks back in the day? LinkSys discontinued the unit, but I guess it could have been used to run a proxy too. I wonder if Tomato running on a LinkSys router provides similar capabilities. When the next generation of ARM-based netbooks are out there, I might consider getting them to deal with the issue of caching, but there's more - the recent documents list, the email clients, and other personalization settings aren't shared between the operating systems and that simply results in repetitive work.I also need to keep a copy of CounterStrike on my work laptop as we occasionally stop for a game. Or perhaps even Transport Tycoon Deluxe (the open-source variant, which is often referred to as OpenTTD) which I have a round of when I'm bored.Between virtualization and dual-booting, I would choose dual-booting but I would rather not dual-boot if I had things my way.

[FouGilang 0]

I'll stay with one osThe main reason why i dont want dual-boot or even triple-boot is because my pc is just a standard home pc for doing what i want when i want :PFor that, i choose windows xp (if i feel it great, i'll change to win7 later) since it is the os i use when i'm just about ten and i dont want to waste my time using some os that have to be studied again before i can have fun with them, not to mention its compatibilitySometimes i think about having new os, or a set of mac pc, but then i think about "how, when, and what will i do with it?"Oh boy, i'll forget it sooner or later and revert back to my old pc =p

[rayzoredge 2]

I wouldn't really want to have a dual or triple boot but would prefer to have a system running a particular operating system that I can access remotely. I've got an old HPQ (with a Pentium 4 processor... it's from the pre-Intel-Core era) which runs Ubuntu 9.04 full-time while my IBM Thinkpad which is my primary machine at home runs Windows XP. My work notebook, however, has a dual boot with both Windows XP and Fedora Linux. The reason for the dual boot is that the virtualization servers at work did not initally have support for running Linux so I had to either connect back home, which was reasonable for doing some command-line stuff but became painfully slow when I had to do anything graphical, and because the office later got their proxy/firewall to block direct traffic so I can only connect via a remote desktop to a server located in a different office. The dual boot gives me access to a Linux environment when I'm trying to do something like a grep on a log file or something similar.

I wanted to make the comparison with Karmic Koala based on what it boasts for features along with the reliability and the goodness that is Jaunty Jackalope, since it would be unfair to pit a contest with Snow Leopard, Windows 7, and an older Ubuntu distro. (Then again, I'm pitting just Ubuntu, which isn't fair in itself, but it is one of the most popular on the Linux list of distributions.)

 

FouGilang is the Joe Schmoe that I'm talking about and what I want to base some of the debate in this topic towards the OS-level. Joe Schmoe wants to do basic stuff like surfing the Internet, word processing, and the essentials. Wouldn't Ubuntu be the brain-dead choice, since it's secure thanks to frequent updates, a great community, and the whole nature of it being obscure in the operating system market (so far)? He could also go with OSX too (on an OS-strict level) and be happy with Snow Leopard, because it still has an advantage over Windows as being secure through obscurity. (However, Ubuntu still wins because it's free and free to install on any machine, whereas OSX is only available to the general consumer via a less-cost-efficient Macintosh.) If for some reason, Joe wants Windows because it runs everything and developers make everything for it, he trades in the market-obscurity for that versatility in software IF he chooses to play games outside the scope of WINE'ing in Linux or what's supported for OSX. I know that Joe probably isn't savvy enough to work a dual-boot or even know what it is, but even if he did, wouldn't the choice be evident in staying with Windows as the all-purpose OS (albeit the target of every piece of malware imaginable) instead of what a power user (note: not expert) like me would do like dual-booting because I can and because it probably would be best to do my casual work in Ubuntu 9.10 and game with Windows 7?

 

Here's my personal issue. On a practical standpoint, it makes sense to me to just stick with Windows 7 because I do everything on it, including gaming. It already has everything that I want to do, thanks to the fact that developers can only go with making the most money by focusing their efforts and offering their products to a Windows-saturated market. If Ubuntu had developers working to replicate those efforts and it had as great of a software library to pick from, the brain-dead choice would be Ubuntu... but unfortunately, it's not. If I decided to dual-boot Ubuntu and Windows, I would have to switch to the other operating system every time I wanted to play a game that works best with Windows, which is a pain in the balls / bullocks / what-have-you. If I didn't play games, it would make sense for me to just go with Ubuntu because in every other department, it rocks as long as your hardware is supported AND it's actually very powerful when you actually get to know it as far as customization, programming, and file and access control. Why dual-boot then, nevertheless triple-boot?

 

The reason why I avoid having a dual boot is the time it takes to switch between the two (, three, or even multiple) operating systems. If I were to accidentally select Windows instead of Fedora or Ubuntu on the boot loader menu, I'd have to wait for Windows to start up, then wait for it to load background services before it can start responding and I can reach for the Start menu to shut it down and get back to the boot loader to select the other operating system. Also, the browser cache from one operating system isn't shared with that on another operating system so if I were accessing a website that I visited previously, my web browser would do a full download of all of the content. Yes, we do have a proxy server at the office, but it doesn't seem to cache anything - it simply blocks access to large files, websites such as Facebook, and IM clients such as MSN Messenger. At home, I don't run a proxy server but would've loved it if my ADSL router could do some caching. Remember the LinkSys routers that ran Linux and could be used for downloading torrents onto USB disks back in the day? LinkSys discontinued the unit, but I guess it could have been used to run a proxy too. I wonder if Tomato running on a LinkSys router provides similar capabilities. When the next generation of ARM-based netbooks are out there, I might consider getting them to deal with the issue of caching, but there's more - the recent documents list, the email clients, and other personalization settings aren't shared between the operating systems and that simply results in repetitive work.

The bookmarking issue can be rectified by utilizing delicious or something along those lines... I haven't jumped onto that bandwagon yet but it makes sense to. (One of these days... ) The history is going to be a pain, though... I know exactly how you feel when I'm trying to find a website I looked at earlier until I realize that I looked at it in Ubuntu instead of Windows.

 

I usually work off of an external hard drive or my USB flash drive for all of my frequently-accessed documents and such, so I don't run into too much of an issue trying to get back at a document in a different operating system. (Yes, you lose the convenience of accessing it via the Recent Documents feature, but I don't use it often enough for it to be much of a concern.) Ubuntu supports NTFS pretty well now, but if you do decide to jump into Microsoft's new exFAT file system, things might get a little hairy there.

 

The waiting period is huge with Windows, and that was one of the things I mentioned earlier. If I want to play a game, I want to just run it then and there... not wait to shut down Ubuntu, reboot, choose Windows in the bootloader CORRECTLY , then wait the minute and a half to two to boot up into Windows to play my game. In all reality, it's not that much time to make it a realistic complaint since you can just take a break from your computer, but what are you going to naturally do when you quit your game and want to surf the web? Shut down Windows and boot up Ubuntu to fire up FireFox, or run FireFox from Windows?

 

I also need to keep a copy of CounterStrike on my work laptop as we occasionally stop for a game. Or perhaps even Transport Tycoon Deluxe (the open-source variant, which is often referred to as OpenTTD) which I have a round of when I'm bored.

Haha... I want to work for your company. When you NEED to have a copy of CounterStrike on your work laptop, you know you struck gold in your career.

[Ash-Bash 0]

I have done all 3 of these mentioned and out of the lot I would go for one OS. If you do Duel or Boot you are using a lot more resources than normal and it is really not necessary. The one OS I would use is Windows 7 seems to do everything you want it to. Though if you are a programmer or something I would do a duel with Windows 7 & Linux. That way you have a good choice to work around the project your are programming .

[Baniboy 3]

Duel booting? never tried that out before, but I'm sure linux would beat the crap out of windows in a duel boot. It's like they're dueling and the winner is the one that boots first? You have to improve your English, Ash. :PAnyway, where did you get the idea that it takes up more recourses than one os? If you want to save recourses, what you should actually do is use linux.

[rayzoredge 2]

Duel booting? never tried that out before, but I'm sure linux would beat the crap out of windows in a duel boot. It's like they're dueling and the winner is the one that boots first? You have to improve your English, Ash.
Anyway, where did you get the idea that it takes up more recourses than one os? If you want to save recourses, what you should actually do is use linux.

I LOL'd. Sorry Bani... calling out someone's English deficiencies and then following up with your own was just plain funny.

All in good fun.

If you read up on Karmic Koala, the goal was for a 25 second boot-up time, which I'm sure doesn't include POST, but that's still faster than my current Windows 7 boot time of about a minute and a half. The release after that is looking at a 10 second timeframe, and if you want to look at Linux as a whole on this goal, they've already got me booting up my ExpressGate "distro" in five seconds, INCLUDING POST.

[Baniboy 3]

I LOL'd. Sorry Bani... calling out someone's English deficiencies and then following up with your own was just plain funny. laugh.gif

Well...

If you do Duel or Boot you ar...

I've yet to try karmic koala, when will it be released or is it already released? I don't mean the beta or anything but the final release.