Not a guru but I did dual-boot for years. If you simply let a linux installer use its defaults, it will probably create a big partition that occupies your full [2TB] drive, and will create a file system that fills that partition. In that scenario, when you want to install windows, you must first

• shrink your "main" filesystem to [1TB]
  
• shrink your main partition to [1.01TB]
  
• create your windows partition in the resulting free space.

Doable, but simpler overall to set up the partitions ahead of time.

The very simplest approach for a non-techie is to install windows first, so that the Linux installer sees it and adds it (as a chain load entry) to the boot menu. You can certainly add it later but it takes a tiny bit more research and a few extra steps to re-run (or manually edit) the [GRUB] menu config.

Admittedly this is a chicken and egg situation, where the actual sequence is something like

• research distros
  
• create a bootable USB with your rescue/recovery distro of choice
  
• Use that boot disk to create your partitions
  
• install windows
  
• boot from a live USB of your desktop distro of choice
  
• run install from that live distro

This can be simplified if the live [USB] for your chosen desktop distro works well for general purpose partition setup. Try yours, and if it works well, you're good to go. Otherwise you might search for a recovery oriented distro like gparted live[gparted.org]

This ran long so I won't discuss partition layouts. (Or even discuss how GRUB typically lives on your "main" linux partition, NOT your EFI partition; hence the term chain load

It's definitely more convenient to have windows installed first for dual booting, as lonesh33p pointed out.

I would recommend a separate second drive (if possible) rather than a partition on the same drive, just to keep the OSes cleanly separated.

You can also setup windows in a virtual machine, I've never tried it myself and can't offer any guidance other than a link ... https://itsfoss.com/install-windows-10-virtualbox-linux/

In the past, a separate partition was sufficient.
For easier cooperation, today it is better to choose a separate drive.

This is related, for example, to the fact that, in simple terms, windows no longer turns off, it basically only turns off the screen. That's why it starts so quickly, it just never shuts down.

Therefore, if you install linux on the same disk, your windows may lose the shutdown functionality.

It just won't be able to pretend to turn off anymore, and instead of turning off, it will freeze in the middle of it.

Things like these can be bypassed. But for the typical user, the best solution is any separate drive.

Originally posted by TB_Ray_99:

today it is better to choose a separate drive.

My last dual boot setup was with (gulp) XP. So perhaps it was a bit hasty of me to "contribute".

Originally posted by lonesh33p:

Originally posted by TB_Ray_99:

today it is better to choose a separate drive.

My last dual boot setup was with (gulp) XP. So perhaps it was a bit hasty of me to "contribute".

Using a live cd with gparted has its advantages.
But if you want to fix something, probably every installer of any popular distribution will give you tools to do it.

It will probably be better to repair e.g. debian, with the debian installer you used for installation.

Instead of using a live cd, you can install your favorite live cd on a second usb, the changes you make will remain, and you will have more tools and a more convenient environment. Usb 3.0 is sufficient.

I recommend debian lxde, such debian will probably run on everything, if you choose full initrd for installation, instead of faster init.

You can install it on the second or further partition and windows won't see it, and the first partition can be fat32 or another.
If you want to place the linux partition somewhere far away, remember to create a boot partition closer, not every bios will get up from a distant partition..

Originally posted by temps:

having heard sometimes people partition their hard drive so they can keep windows on part of their PC when needed for compatibility, I'm wondering... is it most convenient to decide you want to do that before installing Linux? Or can you decide to partition the hard drive and add Windows to one part of it at some future date after setting up a Linux PC without a big issue?

Linux installers often have ability to shrink ntfs partition to make room for linux, and installation linux alongside windows is usually automated and easy. When you install windows on a linux system, you should shrink linux partition first, because windows cannot do that. And windows will break linux bootloader, so you also will need to restore linux bootloader after thst, not a hard task, each distribution has a guide for that.

Originally posted by TB_Ray_99:

In the past, a separate partition was sufficient.
For easier cooperation, today it is better to choose a separate drive.

This is related, for example, to the fact that, in simple terms, windows no longer turns off, it basically only turns off the screen. That's why it starts so quickly, it just never shuts down.

Therefore, if you install linux on the same disk, your windows may lose the shutdown functionality.

It just won't be able to pretend to turn off anymore, and instead of turning off, it will freeze in the middle of it.

Things like these can be bypassed. But for the typical user, the best solution is any separate drive.

On windows, I turn off hybernation as soon as I install it, never knew it was a problem in dualboot configuration.

Originally posted by le bomjue:

Originally posted by TB_Ray_99:

...

On windows, I turn off hybernation as soon as I install it, never knew it was a problem in dualboot configuration.

Hibernation has nothing to do with it.

in my experience, it has always been easier to install linux after windows for dualbooting. windows gives two F's about other operating systems, obviously, and tends to happily screw them up.

Linux handles other systems easily and any decent installer detects them and automatically adds them to the boot list.

The installer will also give you an option to resize the ntfs partition to reclaim unused space for your Linux install, if you have to install both operating systems on the same drive.

So generally & if in doubt: Probably easiest to install windows first, install programs and games and see what you need in terms of space, etc., then install Linux after you're satisfied and know your needs.

Remember, it's not just the space and partitions, but the bootloader. If you install windows after linux it will just wipe the bootloader and install its own crappy one and leave your Linux install unreachable (until you reinstall the bootloader yourself), but if you install Linux after windows you will get both systems available in the menu of the bootloader that Linux comes with (ie. Grub bootloader in any normal case).

Originally posted by Cray:

Remember, it's not just the space and partitions, but the bootloader. If you install windows after linux it will just wipe the bootloader and install its own crappy one and leave your Linux install unreachable (until you reinstall the bootloader yourself), but if you install Linux after windows you will get both systems available in the menu of the bootloader that Linux comes with (ie. Grub bootloader in any normal case).

even then, windows can see the fat32 bootloader partition, it will assign it a drive letter and seize control of it, unless you remove the drive letter and hide the fat32 partition in windows Disk Management utility.

Originally posted by Xenophobe:

Originally posted by Cray:

Remember, it's not just the space and partitions, but the bootloader. If you install windows after linux it will just wipe the bootloader and install its own crappy one and leave your Linux install unreachable (until you reinstall the bootloader yourself), but if you install Linux after windows you will get both systems available in the menu of the bootloader that Linux comes with (ie. Grub bootloader in any normal case).

even then, windows can see the fat32 bootloader partition, it will assign it a drive letter and seize control of it, unless you remove the drive letter and hide the fat32 partition in windows Disk Management utility.

The boot partition does not have to be fat32.
And I will even say that there does not have to be any boot partition at all. The boot sector on the disk can simply point to the Linux partitions.

But it contains so many variables that it is not without reason that I have been saying from the beginning that today it is better to have a separate disk and separate partitions.
It's not about home partitions / directory and others. But about the linux root directory (/) and how windows manages boot today. This started with the introduction of gpt and secure boot.

It is better to choose a separate drive, especially for those unfamiliar with Linux.
Remember that you never know what and when your windows will "fix".
In the past, windows did not touch partitions that it did not understand. Today already does. Today does not touch disks that does not understand.

No need for a big disk, 8 gb is completely enough, the rest you can put elsewhere. But such small disks are slow. So if you have a very small disk, you can put only boot partitions on it. It can even be a 500 mb usb stick it is enough

Originally posted by TB_Ray_99:

Originally posted by Xenophobe:

even then, windows can see the fat32 bootloader partition, it will assign it a drive letter and seize control of it, unless you remove the drive letter and hide the fat32 partition in windows Disk Management utility.

The boot partition does not have to be fat32.
And I will even say that there does not have to be any boot partition at all. The boot sector on the disk can simply point to the Linux partitions.

But it contains so many variables that it is not without reason that I have been saying from the beginning that today it is better to have a separate disk and separate partitions.
It's not about home partitions / directory and others. But about the linux root directory (/) and how windows manages boot today. This started with the introduction of gpt and secure boot.

It is better to choose a separate drive, especially for those unfamiliar with Linux.
Remember that you never know what and when your windows will "fix".
In the past, windows did not touch partitions that it did not understand. Today already does. Today does not touch disks that does not understand.

No need for a big disk, 8 gb is completely enough, the rest you can put elsewhere. But such small disks are slow. So if you have a very small disk, you can put only boot partitions on it. It can even be a 500 mb usb stick it is enough

looking at my linux mint drive, which is using the GUID Partition Table, I have 3 partitions ...
1st: FAT (32-bit version) — Mounted at /boot/efi
2nd: Ext4 (version 1.0) — Mounted at Filesystem Root
3rd: Ext4 (version 1.0) — Mounted at /home

I guess it may depend on the distro/installer/options chosen, but it is still a disk format windows wants to control ... I was simply passing along something I experienced a couple times myself.

Originally posted by Xenophobe:

Originally posted by TB_Ray_99:

...

looking at my linux mint drive, which is using the GUID Partition Table, I have 3 partitions ...
1st: FAT (32-bit version) — Mounted at /boot/efi
2nd: Ext4 (version 1.0) — Mounted at Filesystem Root
3rd: Ext4 (version 1.0) — Mounted at /home

I guess it may depend on the distro/installer/options chosen, but it is still a disk format windows wants to control ... I was simply passing along something I experienced a couple times myself.

Most popular now is GPT and before MBR.
Installers, when you press "automatically", create partitions according to the scheduled, flexible pattern. But you can choose the type and amount of partitions itself.


ana@debian:~$ su -l
...
root@debian:~# fdisk -l /dev/sda
...
Device Boot Start End Sectors Size Id Type
/dev/sda1 * 2048 391167 389120 190M 83 Linux
/dev/sda2 391168 16015359 15624192 7,5G 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/sda3 16015360 64843775 48828416 23,3G 83 Linux
/dev/sda4 64845822 976764927 911919106 434,8G 5 Extended
/dev/sda5 64845824 113674239 48828416 23,3G 83 Linux
/dev/sda6 113676288 363980799 250304512 119,4G 83 Linux
/dev/sda7 363982848 976764927 612782080 292,2G 83 Linux
...

As you can see, there are two linux here, and there is no fat32 here.
You can replace any of these linuxes with e.g. win10. After installing win10, the difference would be that one of the partitions would change to ntfs. No new fat16 or fat32 partition would be created.

edit:
Partition tables can be really exotic. And office computers, professional models can boot, for example, from the mbr partition at the end of the disk, which is located outside the limit specified in the specification.
But simple home computers, and low-end office models, will not boot from such a disk.
I used to look for a very long time why I can't boot the system, after moving the disk, to another computer. And it turned out that the partition was not activated. The highest model of the Fujitsu computer did not interfere with the boot of the system
The highest model of the Fujitsu computer, the fact that the partition is not marked as active, did not bother, and booted the system for several years!!