Dual boot
Back in the day, there were users who strongly believed everyone should dual boot. My older brother used to install Windows 98SE and Windows 2000 back-to-back for various reasons. In the last six years, I preached dual-booting Linux to all Windows users who are scared to migrate completely to the latest Linux distribution.
These days, however, I hesitate to encourage having two operating systems at once. Having two OSs on the same machine (not through virtualization) may provide plenty of security in case one OS failed, but it could also have an odd impact on productivity and sometimes cause more trouble than its overall worth. The primary reason for dual booting with Windows before was to maintain access to Windows-only applications - which isn't a strong argument for dual-booting any longer. I'd rather have one machine dedicated to Windows and several Linux machines than have one Linux-Windows dual boot.
Despite all the criticisms leveraged by the media and mainstream users toward Windows 7 and Windows 8, both are actually quite exceptional platforms. If you absolutely need Office or Adobe products, consider getting a second system only for Linux rather than installing Windows 8 and Linux on the same machine. Setting up file sharing between Windows and Linux is easier than ever over a network and there's no longer any reason to install the two operating systems side-by-side. I'd add that if you want to seriously learn ArchLinux or FreeBSD, installing a standalone machine provides a better experience than a dual boot. Plus, consider using a Linux LiveUSB with persistent storage - less overhead and hassle.
Some Linux users also go through a phase of dual booting two Linux distributions (I stayed on this path for a long, long time). However, the gains or convenience of having two Linux OSs really wasn't much compared to comfortably managing and becoming exceptionally well-versed in one distribution.
Too much of a good thing (meaning SSD storage and dual booting)
Photo credit: Alex and Bobby
Despite my preference for committing my machines to one OS, I can't ignore that there are still strong reasons for many users to dual boot:
1. Cost. As a guy who struggles to make ends meet, I understand how buying a second machine just to install a different OS can be a challenge. Tons of people who visit CNET and PCWorld boast about having several smartphones and ultrabooks but most people can barely afford just one decent machine. Dual booting lets you learn two platforms at the same time and keep you updated with the ever-expanding IT landscape.
2. Windows withdrawal symptoms can be tough. Linux is easier than ever to learn and use and worldwide adoption is encouraging. Despite being a self-proclaimed Linux evangelist, however, I still believe Windows is very, very relevant. For new Linux users, it offers a safe haven when PackageKit breaks, KDE starts twitching like Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction and Unity causes disunity and Gnome becomes a gremlin.
3. Windows or MacOSX dies on you. It happens. Years of tech support will tell you that it's often the user and not the operating system's fault why a system suddenly breaks down. Thankfully, when Windows or MacOSX fails, Grub (or whichever boot manager you're using) is still there to give you the option to load openSUSE or Lubuntu in your darkest hour.
4. MacOSX. MacOSX fans rave about Apple's OS, but even longtime users accept that the changes in MacOSX aren't as 100% perfect as the Apple zombies want you to think. There are other reasons why so many users dual boot MacOSX with Windows or Linux other than Windows applications/Linux flexibility - productivity, desktop environment, comfort, aesthetics . . . Not everyone blindly worships or ignores the imperfections of MacOSX.
0 comments:
Post a Comment