How I can Run Ubuntu and Wondows Simultaneously?

[dezintop]

You can run Ubuntu in Microsoft's very own virtualization product, Hyper-V:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/vir...windows/about/

VirtualBox will not run on a computer that has Hyper-V enabled.
Hyper-V is available on 64-bit versions of Windows 10 Pro, Enterprise, and Education. It is not available on the Home edition.

Thanks for this suggestion.

[sdsurfer]

You can also buy a KVM, if you have two computers. Seems like a bit of a waste of a KVM port to use one for Windows, but if that's your thing, it works. KVM's are getting cheaper and more reliable. I use one to switch between two Linux machines.

[TheFu]

Only 1 other OS? That seems like a little under-use for most current hardware.

$ virsh list
 Id    Name                           State
----------------------------------------------------
 1     regulus                        running
 2     blog44-1604                    running
 3     zcs45-16.04                    running
 4     vpn09-1604                     running
 5     xen41-1604                     running
 6     spam3                          running
 9     WinUlt                         running

Each of those is a separate virtual machine running on the same hardware.

thefu@regulus:~$ uptime
 10:13:48 up 19 days, 13:29,

One of those VMs has been running for 19 days. It is my "desktop" system and available to me from anywhere in the world with internet access. From it, I can access that Windows VM, securely.

virt-top 10:15:32 - x86_64 12/12CPU 1546MHz 32160MB
11 domains, 7 active, 7 running, 0 sleeping, 0 paused, 4 inactive D:0 O:0 X:0
CPU: 1.1%  Mem: 11952 MB (11952 MB by guests)

   ID S RDRQ WRRQ RXBY TXBY %CPU %MEM    TIME   NAME                                    
    1 R             92    0  0.5  6.0  35:41:12 regulus
    9 R    0    0  522  104  0.3  4.0  90:56.46 WinUlt
    3 R             92    0  0.1 12.0  84:39:17 zcs45-16.04
    6 R             92    0  0.1  3.0 217:54.10 spam3
    4 R             92    0  0.1  3.0 134:58.28 vpn09-1604
    5 R             92    0  0.1  3.0 576:01.95 xen41-1604
    2 R             92    0  0.0  3.0 202:38.66 blog44-1604

As you can see from the virt-top output, all these VMs have been running for some time. My systems are very stable. Well, except Windows. I run that usually once a week to do some financial stuff. Forgot to shut it down when I was done yesterday. Windows has been running a little over 1 day, but has used more CPU than an Ubuntu-Mate desktop that has been up 19 days. The "Time" column above, is "CPU Time", not wall clock time.

So, basically, don't use Windows as the hostOS. It wastes too much CPU, too much RAM, and doesn't provide nearly the performance or stablity as almost any Linux hostOS. IMHO.

I use a KVM switch too. It is a 4-port thing to connect to 4 different physical computers, but share the same keyboard, mouse and video/monitor. 4 in and 1 out. It keeps me from moving my hands and swapping keyboards around. The version I have supports keyboard shortcuts to change the input computer that takes over the hardware I'm using.

To add some confusion, my hypervisor of choices is called "KVM" - Kernel Virtual Machine. This is a hypervisor built and maintained by the Linux kernel guys. It is rock solid, stable, and faster than all other hypervisors.

A KVM switch has ZERO, nothing, nada, to to with KVM the hypervisor.

Amazon, IBM, Oracle, and pretty much every VPS hosting company in the world uses KVM, with 2 exceptions. Microsoft Azure doesn't - they have a NIH problem and VMware, also with the NIH problem. Clearly, those companies have their own commercial, expensive, hypervisors they want everyone to pay to use instead. I've only played with MSFT's hypervisor about 10 yrs ago. At the time, it was a toy and not too stable.

I've used 6 of VMware's virtualization products and deployed them at a few client sites. At the time, also about 10 yrs ago, they were the safe, solid, fast enough, answer. I ran VMware ESXi at home, but it only worked on 1 computer due to hardware incompatibility issues. I first used VMware Workstation in 1998. By far, it was the best choice back then for x86 VMs.

In 2008, I used Xen for production needs at work. It was a little funky and not as stable as ESXi.

In 2011, I replaced Xen and ESXi with KVM as the hypervisor after about 6 months of testing. I've never regretted that move. KVM isn't just for servers anymore. Thanks to the SPICE remote desktop protocol, accessing any desktop running inside a VM is crazy fast both if on the same system and over the network. My desktop, regulus, is accessed for almost everything using spice. The windows and programs run so fast that I forget I'm not using the actual physical machine where typing or using the mouse. Plus, the convenience of having a virtual machine rather than a physical install is something people new to virtualization need a few years to understand. I can move regulus to a different VM host here easily with just a few seconds of downtime. Look up "live migration" if that interests you.

Sorry to go on and on. Virtualization is something I'm fairly excited about because it solves so many problems that enterprise clients have and about 20 problems that home users have. VMs are pretty amazing.

[tea for one]

Methinks, a bit of acronym aggravation has materialised:-

KVM = KVM Switch (Keyboard, Video Monitor, Mouse)

KVM = Kernel-based Virtual Machine

I bet the OP is confused

[dezintop]

ok thanks for your comments.

[lammert-nijhof]

If you are new to virtualization, use Virtualbox. It is by far the most user friendly and reliable solution. If you run Windows as Host OS, you need approx 2 GB of RAM for each Linux system you want to run as Virtual Machine. If needed you can easily increase the size later. I use Virtualbox since more than 10 years. To play my music with WMP, I still run occasionally a Windows XP VM. I've created the VM during my Christmas holidays in 2010. That VM has been created on a 32-bits Pentium 4 HT without HW virtualization support and its still runs flawlessly and much faster on my 64-bit Ryzen with virtualization support.

[SeijiSensei]

If you have only 4 GB and are running VirtualBox on Windows, I've gotten away with 1.5 GB for the Ubuntu guest leaving 2.5 GB for Windows on the host. I recently increased my memory to 16 GB on my desktop machine to improve overall performance on both the host system and any virtual machines.

Microsoft has released something called Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) that lets you run Linux on top of Windows. However you're limited to the distributions available for WSL in the Microsoft Store. With VirtualBox you have no such limitations. You can spin up multiple virtual machines and install various flavors of Linux on them. Good for side-by-side testing.

[C.S.Cameron]

+1 for VBox