this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2026
220 points (94.4% liked)
Technology
86219 readers
2845 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.