Starting with Windows 8 you can install Windows to an external drive but it is limited to the Enterprise version. The feature is called Windows To Go. According to Wikipedia it was possible prior to this with Windows Embedded Standard 7. But that's kind of irrelevant to consumers.
I have Windows 10 (current build 9926) installed in a VM but its not at the point of being usable as a daily driver. Too buggy. They are also going to be releasing a new build almost any day now so I'd just wait for that. Their current internal builds are somewhere around 10036. Screenshots of 10036 leaked just yesterday.
I like a quote Elon Musk made a while back during a video. He mentions one of his reasons for going to space is due to the open "window of opportunity". Suppose open-source and free software are not adopted and simply forgotten, ten years down the road what will the web and internet look like?
Linux is really really cool, the ability to have open source software make it in the real world market is awesome and truly awe inspiring, but, it's touted as the god operating system when it still has flaws. I'd like to use @Zoltan's post "What If I want everything" for example.
Nobody is touting Linux as a god operating system. Even Stallman says that open-source is about sacrifice, (learning vs being spoon-fed) but tell me one person who has learned linux and said "oh gee, well that was a waste of time" and i don't mean quote the person who wiped their hard drive during install because they didn't understand what they were doing, I'm talking about the users who actually take the time to learn the operating system.
I feel that Linux is great if you have the time for it. Windows still wins for productivity and ubiquity. A lot of people do not have time to sit and configure Linux, or learn the console. I understand that open source is a great thing, but we all have to remember that just because something is cool, doesn't mean that it's cool for everyone.
The next thing I'd like to address is the complete bashing of Windows throught out the forum. We used to have Max Haxks, and random videos about how to do cool stuff with Windows. I know that's not all we're about, but when the first 10 threads are about Linux, it doesn't seem like we're a very diverse forum.
Look, Windows is obviously here to stay. I appreciate your post, but I don't appreciate you calling out Wendell, Logan, or Zoltan. We should celebrate diversity. I would make a promise to you "not to bash Windows" but honestly its not Windows, it's Microsoft as a company.
For an end-user it wouldn't look significantly different from the way it is right now. The question is still pointless because open source is not going anywhere.
Define "learn linux". How much do I need to know about it to become the person who "has learned linux and said "oh gee, well that was a waste of time"". What's there to learn anyway?
When someone says "learn linux", they're generally describing the transition from Windows to GNU/Linux.
There is a lot to learn, including a completely different file system, terminal commands, repositories, dependencies, customization, etc. A lot of this stuff is automated and abstracted in Windows/OS X (although lots of Linux programs have GUI frontends), but I think its inherently important to have a basic understanding of what actually happens.
I generally try not to side with any products, but Linux I will support because I want to see at least two operating systems having a fair market share. OS X I don't think can do it because of Apple policy.
Do I now have authority to say that desktop linux is a total waste of time? Yeah, sure you are free to indulge in this waste of time if you so desire, but I can't really take someone seriously when they claim that desktop linux is better than windows. Both are messes, each excelling in some things and terribly failing at others.
However, the reason why linux still has 1.6% market share on desktop is simply because it's not good enough. If it ever stops being a mess and starts providing better experience than windows, it will become mainstream.
I love both OS as for me they are complmentary. I appreciate Windows as a daily driver as it's just work and the great majority of programs and games are made to work on it and I just simply prefer the Windows ecosystem over the Linux one (I love Windows 8.1 (deal with it) and have already 10 TP installed on another computer).
But for some task like partitionning, cloning drives, the possibility to install it easilly on a thumb drive and use it and other stuff, it's Linux all the way for me. And I would like someday to fully customize Linux and run it at the same time alongside Windows. It comes at the end to personnal taste and uses.
Well, it's actually pre-installed on many laptops so that they could be sold cheaper with the same hardware. People then wipe the drive and install windows instead, for obvious reasons. If desktop linux was actually good, there would be way more power users running it, more people switching to it, and more people installing them on their mother's PC etc. This "people aren't running linux because it's not pre-installed" mindset is entirely unproductive, at least if linux community wants to see it become mainstream. If you make a good thing, word of mouth will to the rest. If people don't use your thing, it's because it's not good enough.
uh... where? As far as I know, Windows 8.1 is the "sold" OS right now. There are resellers that sell name-brand laptops with Linux pre-installed, but they are usually not popular resellers (you probably know about Linux before you know System76).
Well, good for you for being a proficient Linux user. You are however, gonna have to explain to me how Linux is "not good enough" and what that actually means.
If you're referring to usability, then yeah I can kinda agree.
Here is a couple of reasons why Linux only has 1.6% desktop market share (I will trust your source on this) - It doesn't have a large "pusher" like OS X has with Apple, or Andoird with Google - It generally doesn't come preinstalled on computers/phones (courtesy of @Chronos) (Again Android is a good example) - It's very fragmented - Regular users generally do not want to learn a new system when they're proficient/comfortable with Windows
So what is the solution then, force everyone's thinking who you disagree with to change to something acceptable to you.
Freedom of speech is not a comfort thing, sometimes you won't like a discussion, if you don't then just ignore it. Logan's answer to me is the solution.
Too much murrika for me. Not everywhere is murrika. I went to a website from where I usually get laptops in Latvia, filtered them by linux and got 30 models (out of 626 sold there). That's 5%-ish, but it's a thing.
Marketing is one thing, quality is also a thing. One thing that I know for sure is that something good never has 1.6% market share. Linux would easily have more than 5% if it solved its major problems, without any marketing whatsoever. There's a demand for an OS that is better than Windows, it's just that linux doesn't deliver.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Uhh... what?
Of course, let's forget that Linux has taken over every sector of the operating system department other than the desktop, because that's not an important statistic.
Android is the prime example that the issue with Linux on the desktop is not usability - it's fragmentation.