Dual Boot vs VM

[myselfolli]

Hey all!

 

I am becomming more and more fed up with Windows 10, so I am considering finally fully switching to Linux.

I do however enjoy playing a few games that simply will not run on Linux (R6S for example, it usually doesn't even start), so I'm stuck with using Windows for some games. And now I am debating wether setting up a Windows-VM in Linux or dual booting the two OS' would be a better option.

 

Dual booting would offer some performance benefits, while a VM would improve ease of use. And since I don't game all too much anymore and usually not for extended periods at a time, I'm unsure if a dual boot system would be worth the hassle...

 

I'm interested in hearing your 2cents ^^

[nox_]

20 minutes ago, myselfolli said:

Hey all!

 

I am becomming more and more fed up with Windows 10, so I am considering finally fully switching to Linux.

I do however enjoy playing a few games that simply will not run on Linux (R6S for example, it usually doesn't even start), so I'm stuck with using Windows for some games. And now I am debating wether setting up a Windows-VM in Linux or dual booting the two OS' would be a better option.

 

Dual booting would offer some performance benefits, while a VM would improve ease of use. And since I don't game all too much anymore and usually not for extended periods at a time, I'm unsure if a dual boot system would be worth the hassle...

 

I'm interested in hearing your 2cents ^^

Dual Boot would be my choice, and it's really not that much of a hassle.

[keskparane]

I would think it depends on how much space you have available. 1 big advantage of VM is a dynamic file system that can doesn't take up any more room than it needs on your drives. I wouldn't want to be resizing partitions. Also isn't Linux supposed to be light enough that it should run easy in a VM. You could always transfer it later if you want.

 

That's my 5 cents. You owe me 3

[myselfolli]

12 minutes ago, noxdeouroboros said:

Dual Boot would be my choice, and it's really not that much of a hassle.

Care to elaborate?

[myselfolli]

Just now, keskparane said:

I would think it depends on how much space you have available. 1 big advantage of VM is a dynamic file system that can doesn't take up any more room than it needs on your drives. I wouldn't want to be resizing partitions. Also isn't Linux supposed to be light enough that it should run easy in a VM. You could always transfer it later if you want.

I should have been more clear: I was planning to have Linux (probably Ubuntu) as my main OS and then have Windows 10 runnning in a VM.

 

Also I have about 2 TB of SSD storage space, so space shouldn't be an issue

[nox_]

12 minutes ago, myselfolli said:

Care to elaborate?

Well,most of the time I use VM to test something out and not to fully use or especially game, if it was linux, VM might be better, but for Windows and gaming use I would prefer dual boot, other people might think differently, but based on my extensive experience with dual boot and VM, dual boot is better in this case IMO. 

[Steven123123]

i used to dual boot, then i just stopped using windows after steam came to linux

[keskparane]

47 minutes ago, myselfolli said:

I should have been more clear: I was planning to have Linux (probably Ubuntu) as my main OS and then have Windows 10 runnning in a VM.

 

Also I have about 2 TB of SSD storage space, so space shouldn't be an issue

You were clear. I just didn't read it properly.

 

I know that in windows you can assign cores to the VM. Can you do this in Linux?

For some reason I feel Linux running in Windows VM would play games better than Windows running in Linux VM. I dunno why.

If you have heaps of space then dual boot would be best for performance.

[myselfolli]

1 minute ago, keskparane said:

You were clear. I just didn't read it properly.

 

I know that in windows you can assign cores to the VM. Can you do this in Linux?

For some reason I feel Linux running in Windows VM would play games better than Windows running in Linux VM. I dunno why.

If you have heaps of space then dual boot would be best for performance.

Features like assigning cores etc. would most likely be dependant on the Hypervisor used, not the OS...

 

I think I'll be going the dual boot way, although I'll probably get a small SSD just for the dreaded Windows OS (500GB should be fine I think)

[lidrate]

Dual boot. VM is too restricted and the response is slow even on 8G RAM PC. 

[Shoe_Eater]

definetly dual boot, because then you can get the most performance out of linux/windows since is is a bit difficult and unstable when forwarding pci devices to a vm

[TheFlyingSquirrel]

If performance matters for your gaming Dual Boot. If it doesn't use a VM.