Personally, I run Linux almost exclusively; I typically only need to boot Windows a few times a year, so running Linux in a VM on a Windows host makes no sense for my usage patterns.
When I do need to run Windows, its performance in a VM is abysmal, so I stick with dual-booting for performance reasons. On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 6:36 PM, John Hall <[email protected]> wrote: > What is your experience virtualing Linux on Windows, or Windows on Linux? > I want access to both systems so I tend to do one or the other. I do not > consider "dual booting" a solution since I want to run both systems not > either system. > > > Since most laptops come with windows it's less of a hassle and less risky > to just leave it be, and virtualize linux. I currently boot Windows and > virtualize Linux using VMWare Workstation. > > I'd been doing the reverse for years and while I would prefer running > linux native, it was more sensible on a desktop where I could hand-pick the > components. It was also a time when boots were over ten times longer, > windows was much less stable, and required reboot more often. > > I know I've been manipulated by the Microsoft UEFI/secure boot conspiracy > and licensing. Not sure it's legal for my windows license to reverse > virtualization. I have an ultimate license for windows 7 for the old > desktop that specifically allows virtualization. I am not sure windows 10 > upgraded from windows 8 would "like" running in a virtual machine. They > have made it more convenient for me to just virtualize linux. > > For now I plan to leave things as they are but I am researching UEFI and > how to disable it to at least know how I'd boot to a USB key as the > no-opt-out automated Windows 10 updates could break something. I have a > Lenovo laptop. Y50-70. To deal with firmware settings I have to go through > several menus in Windows control panels to trigger it to enter a settings > mode that is bios-like. A few people have said Lenovo is good for Linux. > Does that apply to my model? > > *Advantages of Linux on windows* > Hardware works without fiddling more often. > Less work, so more time to do other things. I have no specific problem with > doing anything I could do running Linux natively. Since it's not broken, I > do not see a reason to fix it. > New hardware was a generation newer and an upgrade to using ssd instead of > HD so I do not notice a performance costs. > > *Disadvantages of Linux on Windows / Reasons to **switch* > It is a bit more productive for me using Linux as my primary OS. > It does not "feel" as secure. It was nice to know I had virtual disk save > points to revert windows if i got a virus on my system. > Not as "cool" or "hip" as Linux native. > System could be more easily possessed by some Cabal. > Performance costs for Linux applications > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix Email [email protected] / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0x920063C6 PGP-Key-Fingerprint A5AD 6BE1 FEFE 8E4F 5C23 C2D0 E885 E17C 9200 63C6 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
