Is dual booting Windows and Ubuntu Safe?

I have recently dual booted Windows and Ubuntu without any issues, Is there any changes should I make after doing it. In some sites I saw that for few people after upgrading windows versions the grub changes and can face some problems. And some people say that they do not recommend dual booting. Is dual boot really safe??

1 Like

Yes.

Not “changes”, per sé, but you should always keep backups of everything. Then you are also prepared for anything that might go wrong.

See Q5

Hi,
Windows tends to ruin (take over precedence of) GRUB sometimes.
Because Win wants to be the first entry in UEFI startup list.
The trick is to fulfill this whish of Windows, let it be the very first entry, but deactivate it, so it won’t boot in the first place.
The utility to dp that is efibootmgr.
You need 3 calls of it:
1: get the list of entries
2: set windows be the first entry, Grub the second one
3: deactivate the first (Windows entry)
You could look up man efibootmgr, or wait for me tp come back. I’m far from my PC, and can’t lookup this for you on my phone. I’ll do it for you later, if you still need it :slight_smile:

Do you mean should I change my grub order to windows first and Ubuntu to next.

I have set my default boot loader as windows.
Please have a look of the attached image it shows order of my grub, In this my Ubuntu is at the ‘0’ position and windows is at ‘2’ position, should I interchange this??

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you.

No way! Efi boot order is not the grub boot order!
If you are unsure, wait until I’m able to help in detail.

Ok sure I will wait…!:+1:

1 Like

So, here I am :slight_smile:
I show you an example, rather than putting here command to copy/paste.
I hope you’ll get the idea :wink:
So the tool is efibootmgr, if you start it without parameters,
it will just list the entries.
Because I’m lazy, I don’t write many sudo commands usually, just login as root, or enter ‘sudo su’ to get the privileges.
So for the example, as the first step, just display the EFI boot entries (this doesn’t need to be root):

gazda@gep:~$ efibootmgr
BootCurrent: 0000
Timeout: 1 seconds
BootOrder: 0000,0002,0001,0004,0005
Boot0000* debian
Boot0001* UEFI:CD/DVD Drive
Boot0002* 1 Windows Boot Manager
Boot0004* UEFI:Removable Device
Boot0005* UEFI:Network Device

This is exactly the setup, that Windows will likely ruin at some time, because Debian is the first entry here.
You see, the second in the boot order is 0002, which is the Windows boot manager.
We want to get it into the first place and deactivate it.
To do this I need to be root of course… :slight_smile:
sudo su
efibootmgr -b 0002 -A

That will deactivate the 0002 entry, which is here the Windows boot manager.
You may have a different number, apply the number you got for Windows boot manager at the first step.
Result looks like:

root@gep:/home/gazda# efibootmgr -b 0002 -A
BootCurrent: 0000
Timeout: 1 seconds
BootOrder: 0000,0002,0001,0004,0005
Boot0000* debian
Boot0001* UEFI:CD/DVD Drive
Boot0002 Windows Boot Manager
Boot0004* UEFI:Removable Device
Boot0005* UEFI:Network Device

So the Windows boot manager got deactivated, it will not be started, even if it’s the first entry in the list.
But it’s still the second on the list (see ‘BootOrder’).
I tell efibootmgr to rearrange the entries by giving it the new order:
efibootmgr -o 0002,0000,0001,0004,0005
Again, you will likely have different numbers and entries on your list, so you need to adapt this example to your system)
So Windows boot manager (already deactivated) will be the first entry, the second will be my Linux install (well, the GRUB of it, which will also show me the option to start windows).
Result looks like this:

root@gep:/home/gazda# efibootmgr -o 0002,0000,0001,0004,0005
BootCurrent: 0000
Timeout: 1 seconds
BootOrder: 0002,0000,0001,0004,0005
Boot0000* debian
Boot0001* UEFI:CD/DVD Drive
Boot0002 Windows Boot Manager
Boot0004* UEFI:Removable Device
Boot0005* UEFI:Network Device

That’s it. Time to time (probably at big updates?) windows installs new boot manager for itself, but so far it only checks that it’s the first entry in the EFI boot list, doesn’t check wether it’s active or not.
So Windows will update itself as it wishes, but won’t hurt GRUB, because Windows boot manager being inactive, never started by EFI, always the first active (GRUB in our case) will be the really booted entry.
That’s all. As long as windows doesn’t check it’s own entry being active, this trick protects GRUB from windows updates effectively.
Hope I could help :wink:

3 Likes

Thanks a lot.

“You see, the second in the boot order is 0002, which is the Windows boot manager.
We want to get it into the first place and deactivate it.”

Do you mean I should change it to '0’th position??

Simple is better.
I dislike dual booting as it’s inherently problematic. Especially given hardware prices these days.

1 Like

With the older computers I never had issues dual booting. The newer? I’ve had constant battles after updates using Dell. That just made me finally go full mode Linux. Now I just run windows 7 in a virtual box so I can do my time card with excel. I was using Libre calc for that for years but after a newer version it was horrible to try and use. That’s the only thing I use windows for anymore and I suppose if I spent more time I could work out the problems with Libre office.

Linux tends to be more stable, the older the hardware is it runs on. I explained that already in an older post, however I didn’t find it.

When hardware is 10 years or older, Linux developers had more than enough time to fix all the Linux problems and quirks related to the hardware.

However, if you use new(er) hardware, you are likely to encounter issues, especially if you do not use the most bleeding edge kernel. I’d say, from the perspective of a Linux power user, any hardware that is younger than 5 years, is “very new” and might cause issues.

If you use absolutely brandnew hardware, like some that just released up to two weeks ago, then you might even experience issues on Windows.

1 Like

I bought a Dell XPS 13 with Ubuntu preinstalled and I ain’t looking back! :slight_smile: My dual booting days are over. I’ve come to the dark side.

1 Like

The only issue I had with Dual booting, was with the time in Windows, but doing a setup in one of those weird machine files, for time to display properly fixed it.

They call my machine old, yet it plays the latest games with no issues.

System:    Kernel: 5.4.0-74-generic x86_64 bits: 64 compiler: gcc v: 9.3.0 Desktop: Xfce 4.14.2 
           Distro: Linux Mint 20.1 Ulyssa base: Ubuntu 20.04 focal 
Machine:   Type: Desktop Mobo: ASRock model: B450M Pro4 serial: <filter> 
           UEFI: American Megatrends v: P1.10 date: 06/19/2018 
CPU:       Topology: 6-Core model: AMD Ryzen 5 2600 bits: 64 type: MT MCP arch: Zen+ rev: 2 
           L2 cache: 3072 KiB 
           flags: avx avx2 lm nx pae sse sse2 sse3 sse4_1 sse4_2 sse4a ssse3 svm 
           bogomips: 81434 
           Speed: 1374 MHz min/max: 1550/3400 MHz Core speeds (MHz): 1: 1377 2: 1458 3: 1378 
           4: 1383 5: 1379 6: 1459 7: 1377 8: 1385 9: 1375 10: 1376 11: 1547 12: 1547 
Graphics:  Device-1: NVIDIA TU116 [GeForce GTX 1660] driver: nvidia v: 460.80 bus ID: 23:00.0 
           Display: x11 server: X.Org 1.20.9 driver: nvidia resolution: 2560x1440~60Hz 
           OpenGL: renderer: GeForce GTX 1660/PCIe/SSE2 v: 4.6.0 NVIDIA 460.80 
           direct render: Yes 
Audio:     Device-1: NVIDIA TU116 High Definition Audio driver: snd_hda_intel v: kernel 
           bus ID: 23:00.1 
           Device-2: AMD Family 17h HD Audio vendor: ASRock driver: snd_hda_intel v: kernel 
           bus ID: 25:00.3 
           Sound Server: ALSA v: k5.4.0-74-generic 
Network:   Device-1: Realtek RTL8111/8168/8411 PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet vendor: ASRock 
           driver: r8169 v: kernel port: f000 bus ID: 1f:00.0 
           IF: enp31s0 state: up speed: 1000 Mbps duplex: full mac: <filter> 
Drives:    Local Storage: total: 5.46 TiB used: 28.73 GiB (0.5%) 
           ID-1: /dev/sda vendor: Crucial model: CT1000MX500SSD1 size: 931.51 GiB 
           ID-2: /dev/sdb vendor: SanDisk model: SSD PLUS 1000GB size: 931.52 GiB 
           ID-3: /dev/sdc vendor: Crucial model: CT2000BX500SSD1 size: 1.82 TiB 
           ID-4: /dev/sdd vendor: SanDisk model: SSD PLUS 2000GB size: 1.82 TiB 
Partition: ID-1: / size: 915.84 GiB used: 28.72 GiB (3.1%) fs: ext4 dev: /dev/sda1 
Sensors:   System Temperatures: cpu: 36.2 C mobo: N/A gpu: nvidia temp: 36 C 
           Fan Speeds (RPM): N/A gpu: nvidia fan: 38% 
Info:      Processes: 263 Uptime: 1h 08m Memory: 15.63 GiB used: 1.48 GiB (9.5%) Init: systemd 
           runlevel: 5 Compilers: gcc: 9.3.0 Shell: bash v: 5.0.17 inxi: 3.0.38

It always depends on who you ask. If you mean those masterminds, who always buy the “best” graphics card, then they have 0 idea what they are talking about.

This graphics card generation shows it very well again, as it is almost always the case: buying an RTX 3080 Ti is proven to be just plain dumb, if you do not have infinite money to throw away.

1 Like

Not to mention the fact you can’t get a 3080 anyway, because of all the bitcoin mining going on again.

I’m after another 1660 as they are powerful enough, to handle the latest games. Ebuyer are getting some soon. I don’t want to have to upgrade to something bigger, as it means upgrading the PSU as well. I used to swear by the 1050ti to being the go to card for gaming, but graphics have gotten so damn superior, that I had to upgrade to a 1660. Even though it’ll probably mean in the future I’ll have to upgrade again, but for now 1660 does the job. I don’t care what a game looks like, it’s how immersive, addictive, fun and playable a game is. I don’t get why developers have to make what’s on screen so realistic?

Because 12 year olds kids don’t know, what we know. Sometimes they will never know, as is evident from the Fortnite/PUBG player plague or whatever is the cancer of the year, right now.

They did not grow up in the eighties, when all you needed is 2 stick figures fighting each other, to have fun.
They did not grow up in the nineties, when you could play adventure games, that even had “real” people in it, but displayed in the worst gif quality.
They did not grow up in the 2000s, when you had Gothic or Half-Life 2, where it was “extremely realistic”, just because the game was rendering highly polygonal and low-res 3D models of characters in game.

Back then, you did not need graphics that were astounding and “noteworthy”.

Then came Crysis.

Back then, I was just as fascinated of this game, like seemingly everyone else was. I did not realise back then, what it would make of the games we are getting today. Of course, this game is just one of the most famous examples and not the one at fault for everything that came after that.

  1. Think of how many man-hours and teammembers of a Game Development Studio have to be invested in graphics.
  2. Imagine all (or most of) those people and all their man-hours would be invested in the game’s tale, instead of its looks.
2 Likes

Back then I played Testdrive on CGA (on a 16MHz 80286 AT). The graphics was just basic, but when the police car chased me, it was the most fun… did not care of fps at all, just to drive fast enough and take the curve even faster, to leave the police behind :smiley:

I mean, if you manage to get Windows boot manager entry the first item, and deactivate it, chances are that you wont be bothered by a Windows captured startup after certain updates.
If it is 0002 or 0017 for you, I don’t know.

Thanks for the memories.
I started with computers in the mid 70s when my friends still Dungeons and Dragons on pieces of paper and pencils and had to keep track of everything manually. Back then the forward thinking ones used to dream of the day when it could all be computerised.