Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
Because it’s something that shouldn’t be done.
Multiboot was a common thing until Microsoft decided to make it difficult.
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.
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.
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?
Why not? It works perfectly fine if you install windows first and Linux afterwards. I’ve done it multiple times and the problems only arose during windows updates, occasionally. If windows wasn’t such a piece of shit, what would be wrong with this configuration?
Lose one drive you now have no OS’s where before you might have had 4. One OS per drive.
That is a risk that should be accepted. Still doesn’t answer my question, why shouldn’t it be done?
Let’s say hypothetically that I’m a student who has a mediocre laptop with only a single internal drive. And I need Linux for college, and I want Windows to play [insert a game with shitty DRM that’s unsupported by Proton] with friends. Why shouldn’t I install two OS’s on the same drive?
You never need Linux for college.
Install windows first. Problem solved.
It does answer your question of why it shouldn’t be done.