Comment 1253 for bug 1

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 09:30, Tom <email address hidden> wrote:
> Dual-boots allow the person to change over to linux at their own pace so that
> they resent the new system less.

It might be that people do need Windows later for particular tasks
although they already prefer Linux. In any case, a VirtualBox running
the Windows is quite always the better solution. It is better for
exchanging data back and forth and offers to use both in parallel.

The only case where I would say choosing the dual-boot option is best
is for a gamer because in the VirtualBox the games might not get
enough resources (don't know - just a guess).

One advantage of the dual-boot is that you don't need to reinstall
Windows on the virtual machine - but you could also try to backup the
original installation with CloneZilla and restore it in the virtual
machine (however I experienced cases where this did not work due to
poor flexibility to hardware change).

> Also their word-of-mouth stories will reduce other people's anxiety about the
> big switch from Windows to Linux.  If people are given the impression that
> slash&burn is the only route in then they might be wary about trying it,

I would say a very potential situation for switching to Linux is
having XP on an old machine and now need (or want) to buy a new
machine. You could keep the old machine (if it is still working) and
put Linux on the new one. This is not very different from getting
Windows 7 which is also not any familiar to those users.

> especially as the slash&burn fiction is part of the FUD that is spread to
> prevent Linux usage. Undermining FUD seems fairly crucial to getting people more
> relaxed about trying Linux.

I don't really agree - for many users it is normal to slash & burn the
Windows installation once a year after virus infection.

--
Martin Wildam