I do have linux mint on a usb stick and on another usb stick I do have windows 10. On my laptop I do have a internal HDD of 2 TB which I do want to apply as common disk for both systems, and the folders should be accessible from both linux and windows. I have tried to format with UDF and NTFS, but I failed, please do see link. How do I clean up the HDD completely with diskpart on windows to start anew?

https://ibb.co/bw4DHb

You need to install Windows first and then Linux.
You can mount the NTFS+ partition under Linux.

Windows default mode is called fast startup where when shutdown puts the system in a hibernated state. If you want to access Windows drives from Linux you need you need to disable fast startup.

Quite frankly, I would never do this. In my view, it's both risky and unnecessary.

External hard drives (USB 3.x, FireWire, ThunderBolt) with multi-terabyte capacities can be purchased for around $60 (USD), last time I checked, at US office-supply stores. And, perhaps once the UEFI (secure boot) feature has been turned off, most computers these days can be made to boot from them. Therefore, "you don't need to do a damn thing to the 'built-in hard drive' or its contents."

Now, as it happens, I choose to run Linux on virtual machines, using VirtualBox, a free virtual-machine monitor that just happens to be produced by one of the largest (and richest) software companies on the planet. (Think: "Larry Ellison's yacht ...") It runs on everything, and it runs very well indeed. Usually, I point the virtual machines at an external drive as aforementioned, but you can also use ordinary disk-files on the host.

Either way, I see absolutely no reason to do anything at all to "the host operating-system" or any of its hardware. Not anymore. Virtualization, today, is an extremely well-developed technology.

This "the host operating-system" BS, is code for "windows" I've got news for you kiddo, lots of people want the "windows" stuff off of their computer.

But you're right about virtualization, that's why I/we don't need the nasty windows on my/our hardware.

If you would like both Windows and Linux installed on the same PC, you would need to remove whatever partitions are on your internal HDD (backup anything you want to keep first). Then you would need to (as said in post #2) install Windows and then Linux, the installation programs for both, should take care of partitioning for you.

Normally most Linux distro's installation programs will offer to shrink your Windows partition for you. If you need to have access to your Windows files/folders in Linux, you would need to make sure the NTFS-3g drivers are installed (a lot of Linux distro's include these drivers by default, but not all). If you would like to access your Linux files/folders from Windows, you would need to choose the right file system that Windows can understand. You can download the Ext2fsd drivers for Windows to access ext2/3/4 file systems but, you would need to make sure that your Linux distro of choice, formats your Linux partitions with ext3 or ext4 file system.

The UDF file system is for things like DVD's not hard drives.

If you would like to have a partition that both Windows and Linux can use (but not install Windows and Linux on the same PC), format your partition with the FAT32 file system. As, both Windows and Linux can access that file system "natively".

FAT32 has some annoying limitations, like 4GB maximum file size, attribute incompatibility with other file systems, partition size limitation, etc.

You should allocate separate partitions to Windows & Linux.
This will prevent horrible errors.

This allows Linux to provide proper file security.

This info is at least 10 yrs old. Linux hasn't had a problem with NTFS for a long time.

Hi exxonin and welcome to LQ.

Your system specs would be helpful for people to know so that they can advise about what you're facing as far as hardware and BIOS.

I do agree with Keruskerfuerst's advice to install Windows cleanly, then add Linux to that. I don't totally disagree with sundialsvcs' recommendations, however for me it's less about concerns with technical complications and instead just the use cases for me. With a dual boot system, invariably I'd have it booted to one OS and then need the other OS for some reason. Instead, given that I have multiple computers and monitors, I just have the multiple OS's running on the different computers. I found that if I had Linux installed, I pretty much stayed in Linux the whole time. Add to that the fact that I rarely reboot my workstations, and you get the further point there.

2 members found this post helpful.

I wasn't saying (nor trying to imply) that Linux still does have any major (or other) issues with the NTFS file system. But the ntfs-3g drivers run in user space and therefore it is not "native" access to the file system. However, the VFAT driver for FAT* file systems is a kernel space driver and therefore it is "native" access to the file system.

That's the point I was making.

I do agree with rtmistler, the more info the better.

Not only is FAT32 limited on the size of a partition, it also can't hold any files 4GB or bigger. Do you have any files that are 4GB or bigger? I've got 30 Virtualbox VMs that have .VDI files over 4GB in size. I've got one movie that's 26GB.

It just seems to me that given those limitations, FAT32 isn't a very good choice for a data partition.

This thread is not about your fears and competencies. The OP is asking for advice to do what they want to do which is dual boot. It is one thing to suggest virtualization as an option. It is another to scare strangers out of doing something they want to attempt. Hundreds of thousands of people are capable of setting up multi-boot systems. Perhaps the OP can become one of them and be more confident in the future. Then they can decide for themselves if multi-booting is "risky and unnecessary".

If someone had sufficient space (2TB) on a faster internal disk that they already own why would they buy and use a slower external disk ? Since someone else on the internet is afraid of partitioning ? Why would they not use what they already own if they are capable of doing so themselves ?

Also for a desktop it is more efficient and higher performing to buy a second internal SSD/HDD than to use a slower external drive for other OSs.

Do you work for Oracle ? I have read this exact statement dozens of times. You never mention KVM/QEMU or VMWare or anything else.

Computer hardware does not "belong" to the host OS which came with the computer. It belongs to the person who bought the computer. The SSDs and HDDs are owned by them and they can install whatever OS they like on their storage so they can run their preferred OS on their CPU and RAM more efficiently.

Yes I know DVOM, and already knew all of that before. Also, yes I have over 100 movies (among other recordings - recorded via DVB-T) that are well over 4GB in size.

The OP has said nothing about wanting to house VM image files on their "data" partition. Also, if they want access from both Linux as well as Windows, as said in post #6, not all Linux distro's install other file system drivers for Windows/DOS based file systems. And once again, the ntfs-3g drivers are user space drivers, not kernel drivers.

But that said and as said in post #10, let's wait and see if the OP would like to chime back in to this discussion with some more info for us...

What is your data partition formatted as? Mine's formatted as NTFS.