Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Dual boot or no dual boot?

  1. #1

    Default Dual boot or no dual boot?

    I have a current dual boot desktop that I must reload. Currently, it has Windows XP and openSUSE 13.2. I never use XP. And, it appears that the application software has been corrupted.

    This box is only used with a single Linux application, and the provider of the application has certified it for use with Leap 42.2. Therefore, I plan to install this version of openSUSE.

    My question now is whether or not there is any good reason to install this as a dual boot machine again. I seem to recall that there were some reasons to go dual boot if the machine being used was a former Windows machine. That may or may not be the case, but I am sure the folks on this forum can tell me whether or not to be concerned about this.

    Any advice would be appreciated.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Chicago suburbs
    Posts
    15,681
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Dual boot or no dual boot?

    When WinXP reached its end-of-support, I changed my dual booted machine to openSUSE only.

    And that worked fine. Alas, it was a 32-bit system, so I could not upgrade it to openSUSE Leap. And it was old and slow. So I eventually sent it to the electronics recycling center.
    openSUSE Leap 15.3; KDE Plasma 5.18.6;

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kamloops, BC, Canada
    Posts
    4,029

    Default Re: Dual boot or no dual boot?

    Quote Originally Posted by straysaver View Post
    I have a current dual boot desktop that I must reload. Currently, it has Windows XP and openSUSE 13.2. I never use XP. And, it appears that the application software has been corrupted.

    This box is only used with a single Linux application, and the provider of the application has certified it for use with Leap 42.2. Therefore, I plan to install this version of openSUSE.

    My question now is whether or not there is any good reason to install this as a dual boot machine again. I seem to recall that there were some reasons to go dual boot if the machine being used was a former Windows machine. That may or may not be the case, but I am sure the folks on this forum can tell me whether or not to be concerned about this.

    Any advice would be appreciated.
    You have no need for dual boot, then.

    However, I caution you that 42.2 is past EOL, no more updates, program fixes or Security.

    You should install 42.3. You do not say what application you are referring to, but I would expect it to run in 42.3 if it runs in 42.2.

    If you have problems, come back.
    "Take a Walk on a Sunny Day, Greet everyone along the way, and Make Somebody Smile, Today"
    Gerry Jack Macks"Walk On A Sunny Day" GerryJackMacks.net

  4. #4

    Default Re: Dual boot or no dual boot?

    Thank you both for the quick replies.

    One thing I must check now is the minimum hardware specs for Leap 42.3. As mentioned, this box may be too old for this.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kamloops, BC, Canada
    Posts
    4,029

    Default Re: Dual boot or no dual boot?

    Quote Originally Posted by straysaver View Post
    Thank you both for the quick replies.

    One thing I must check now is the minimum hardware specs for Leap 42.3. As mentioned, this box may be too old for this.
    42.3 must be on a 64-bit processor, 32-bit is no longer supported in Leap.

    If 32-bit, though, there is Tumbleweed, although I have not used it myself, so do not know current state of 32-bit there.

    I have had 42.3 running in 1-GiB memory, though it is slow, but then use a light weight desktop such as Xfce instead of KDE or Gnome.
    "Take a Walk on a Sunny Day, Greet everyone along the way, and Make Somebody Smile, Today"
    Gerry Jack Macks"Walk On A Sunny Day" GerryJackMacks.net

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    357

    Default Re: Dual boot or no dual boot?

    to make you aware that you can download and use windows 10 for free. VMs are the way to go but i dont think you have enough ram. other reasons to keep windows native might be bios updates though unlikely required on an old machine.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    FL, USA
    Posts
    3,384
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Dual boot or no dual boot?

    If it has an Intel CPU and shipped after 2004 it's more likely 64bit than 32. AMD CPUs went to 64bit sooner. 13.2 can tell you if it's 32bit or not by checking the last several lines of 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' or running 'uname -p' (or -a or -i).

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    FL, USA
    Posts
    3,384
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Dual boot or no dual boot?

    I have 32 bit TW running on a bunch of PCs, most of which have less than 2G RAM. To run only OP's single app, there's no reason I can think of that TW shouldn't do at least as well as 13.2 did. IceWM is seriously light weight, installs as a part of the base Xorg pattern, and should be more than adequate for most any single application even with only 1G RAM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    29,818

    Default Re: Dual boot or no dual boot?

    Your question says "dual boot or not?", but IMHO it really means "multi boot with Windows or not?"

    I always wipe Windows from all my systems (without ever using it for one moment) immediate after delivery by installing openSUSE using the "use whole disk" feature. But that will not say I am not using multi boot. Often I install a newer openSUSE version alongside the production one to check it and thus have dual boot between two openSUSE versions.

    In any case having no Windows on a system is something you can do very easy. In fact that is where it is made for. The whole multi boot feature was specially made for those poor people who think they can not live without it.
    Henk van Velden

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    FL, USA
    Posts
    3,384
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Dual boot or no dual boot?

    Quote Originally Posted by hcvv View Post
    The whole multi boot feature was specially made for those poor people who think they can not live without it.
    Multiboot was invented long before Linus had his kernel up to v1.0, while IBM and M$ were still partners in OS/2 development, for having DOS and OS/2 bootable from and in separate partitions on the same or separate HDs. Dual boot, released in conjunction with multiboot, was for making both DOS and OS/2 bootable from the same partition.

    I've been multibooting around 25 years, since long before Win95 and OS/2 Warp.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •