Mac/Windows/Linux HDD Dead? Use Linux or Windows!

As most of my readers may know, I am not the biggest fan of Apple or its products. However, that does not mean I rigidly hate Apple or that I do not work with their products from time-to-time. The following is one of my experiences and how it may helps others out there in similar circumstances.

Windows/Linux Dead?, Linux Method, Windows Method

Background
I randomly got an invitation to visit my dad, which I willingly accepted. Upon my arrival one of my tasks was to see if I could find a way to fix his two iMacs. Apparently, they were on the fritz.

I took a look at both and tried what I could without ripping them open. Essentially, they both had faultering hard drives. The iMacs could turn on and get to the boot screen (apple logo), but then they would just hang. Unless we did a hard drive transplant, the iMacs would become all but useless, or so it seemed...

Different OS
In my searches I found two possible methods that could help keep the iMacs "alive" until they could get new hard drives. One involved using Linux, the other Windows. As for the Windows, I will explain more on that later since it is not a free OS.

As a side note, the steps I will be using will strictly involve a dying iMac. Yet, most of the steps described will be the same if trying to use a dying or dead Windows or Linux system. The only difference should be how to get to the respective boot managers of each OS. 

Linux
The Linux method involved downloading a Linux flavor ISO (I prefer Ubuntu or Mint, Mint of which I found to be the faster of the two through my tests), then making a Live CD or a bootable USB flash drive with the ISO. Sounded simple enough.

I first tried to see if I could partition any of the iMacs hard drives and install Linux on the partition. Of course, being that the hard drives were failing, this was not possible.

In short, it took me a bit of time and work, but I was able to find a way to make the iMacs run Linux without issue.

Note I: This should work for either a Mac or iMac.

Note II: If the (i)Mac you are attempting to use has full-disk encryption, this may cause problems for rEFInd, which we will need to use.

How To Install Demo Linux to USB/HDD/CD
The prerequisite for this method is to have at least two USB flash drives, or two external hard drives, or one of each (or just a blank CD and a USB flash drive or external hard drive). One needs to be at least 8GB, while the other should be much larger (20GB+) depending on how much stuff you want to save for later use.

So there is no confusion, an external SSD will work too, but I will be referring to an external HDD as that is what I used for this process.

Another major component is the use of a separate computer. Otherwise, there is no way to burn images to devices, unless your Mac still works and you are doing this for fun.

You will also need a program like Rufus to make a bootable USB flash drive or external drive from an ISO. There are plenty of other programs, but this is extremely small and fast (fastest according to its own description and my own experience). For this tutorial I will be using Rufus, if you are using a blank CD instead, use something like ImgBurn to the burn the ISO.

1. Download a Linux ISO (e.g. Ubuntu, Mint, etc.).
2. Insert a USB flash drive or external HDD to your computer.
3. Download Rufus (portable is fine).
4. Open Rufus.
5. Change "Device" to the USB flash drive or external HDD inserted earlier.
6. Click on the small CD/ROM icon.
7. Find and select your Linux ISO.
8. Press "Open". (Rufus will automatically select the necessary options according to the ISO.)
9. Change the "New volume label" (optional).
10. Press "Start".

Note: Rufus may ask if you wish to choose between "ISO" or "DD". It should recommend "ISO", if not, select it and continue. 

Once Rufus has finished, the first part is done.

Why Not Stop Here?
At this point, the Linux USB flash drive or an external HDD will just have a copy of Linux to test with, but not save to. Meaning, files can be saved but are not persistent on later boots (the files will disappear after shutdown).

In essence, one could use cloud services and save any files or items there. But the bigger problem is that programs (i.e. Skype, Chromium, etc.) need to be saved to the device being used. So every time a person booted into the Demo Linux, they would need to reinstall all of the applications they wish to use.

How to Install rEFInd
This step is important for later, and needs to be done. Unless there is an external USB CD/DVD drive at your disposal, I would suggest using a USB flash drive or an external HDD.

The following steps will use Rufus as well...

1. Download the USB flash drive image of rEFInd.
2. Insert a USB flash drive or external HDD to the computer.
3. Open Rufus.
4. Change "Device" to the USB flash drive or external HDD inserted earlier.
5. Click on the small CD/ROM icon.
6. Find and select your rEFInd image.
7. Press "Open". (Rufus will automatically select the necessary options according to the image.)
8. Press "Start".

Note: Rufus may ask if you wish to choose between "DD" or "ISO". It should recommend "DD", if not, select it and continue.

rEFInd originally started as rEFIt. It is a boot manager, and perfect for our purposes. I will explain why later.

How to Install Linux to USB/HDD
While a USB flash drive will work fine for this, I do recommend an external HDD since they are cheaper and carry much more storage space for equivalent prices.

One problem that may come about is if the USB flash drive or external HDD is using MBR instead of GPT. There are plenty of free programs that should be able to convert a drive from MBR to GPT, and Ubuntu and Mint both come with GParted, which should be able to do this. However, I received an error when attempting to convert from MBR to GPT. As an alternative, I used Windows' DiskPart.

If Windows is available to you, insert your USB flash drive or external HDD first [important!]. Open up a Command Prompt (WinKey + R, then type "cmd", push ENTER key), then type "diskpart" > "list disk" > "select disk #" > "clean" > "convert gpt". After each quoted term push enter. The disk list should show you the available devices and their corresponding sizes. This will help for which number to type in place of "#".

There should be no problems, and if there are, then you may have a faulty device. (Worst case scenario, download MiniTool Partition Wizard Free Edition and try formatting the device to NTFS or FAT32 to see if it becomes operational.) If successful, the drive should be clean. DO NOT FORMAT the drive if asked by Windows, Demo Linux will do that for us later on.

1. Ensure the (i)Mac is turned off.
2. Insert the blank USB flash drive or external HDD into the (i)Mac.
3. Insert the Linux USB flash drive or external HDD into the (i)Mac.
4. Turn on the (i)Mac.
5. Hold the ALT/OPTION key as soon as the computer dings.
6. Let go of the ALT/OPTION key once the boot manager screen appears.
7. Select "EFI Boot", right of the (i)Mac HDD if nothing else is plugged in.
8. A screen with options for Linux will appear. Choose "Try Ubuntu without Install", or the respective option if using a different Linux flavor.
9. Once Linux boots, on a flavor like Ubuntu, there should be an icon on the desktop that states "Install Ubuntu...". Double-click on it.
10. The usual options of selecting a language, connecting to a network, etc. should occur. Pick the options that best suit your preference.* (Stop when you reach the "Installation type" page...)
11. At the "Installation type" page choose "Something else".
12. The next page will show a list of connected devices and their sizes. Double-click the check box for your USB flash drive or external HDD.** A small window will appear with options for partitioning the USB flash drive or external HDD.
13. Change "Type for the new partition:" to "Logical".
14. Change "Use as:" to "Ext4 journaling file system" if it is not already selected by default.
15. For "Mount point:", place just a "/", and nothing else.
16. Click "Install Now".

*If you want the fastest install possible, do not connect to a network. Connecting to a network allows Linux to download items through the install process. This can be done after the install, as Linux should prompt you when it needs additional packages.

**To discern which device is yours, check the size. It should also be sda#; # being the highest of the ones available is the safest bet, but not always correct depending on how many external storage devices are connected.

Note I: This can be done with a computer other than a (i)Mac. The steps to access the bootable media will be different, but all other steps will remain the same.


Note II: For step 13 "Primary" always gave me an error. I was only able to change it to "Primary" after first installing through "Logical", then going back through the process and choosing "Primary" and reinstalling. Making this change seems to add no benefit and is thus unnecessary.

Linux should now be installed on a USB flash drive or an external HDD.

The Reason For rEFInd
The reason we need to use rEFInd instead of the Mac boot manager is because the Mac boot manager is unable to see any drive with Linux already installed. It will recognize that the drive is available, but not that it should be bootable.

The same thing happens with Windows, however, it does not even recognize that the drive exists.

How To Boot Into Linux
This will show you how to boot into Linux and use it as a daily driver.

1. Ensure the (i)Mac is turned off.
2. Insert the CD/USB/HDD with the installed Linux OS into the (i)Mac.
3. Insert the USB/HDD with rEFInd into the (i)Mac.
4. Turn on the (i)Mac.
5. Hold the ALT/OPTION key as soon as the computer dings.
6. Let go of the ALT/OPTION key once the boot manager screen appears.
7. Select "EFI Boot", right of the (i)Mac HDD if nothing else is plugged in.
8. rEFInd will start. The far right option will show a Linux flavor icon with a smaller external HDD icon inside it. Click it. (Other options shown should have different smaller icons displayed, like an internal HDD.)

This will start Linux and anything downloaded or saved will persist on future startups. The only problem some might find is that the boot process can be long and tedious if having to constantly reboot for whatever reason.

Windows, Why Not?
If I had been given the choice between Linux or Windows, I would have installed a fresh copy of Windows 7. Unfortunately, iMacs from 2008 or before do not recognize Windows To Go drives. I believe one iMac I was working with is from 2008, and the other from a couple years before. Because of this, I could not use the Windows route as a possible solution for my situation. However, others can...

How To Install Windows 7/8/10
The prerequisites for using making a Windows To Go drive is to have a USB flash drive or an external hard drive with ample amount of space (8GB or more suggested).

An external HDD is the way to go here. Never mind that purchasing an external HDD can gain you massive amounts of storage space inexpensively. The issue here is that there are certified Windows To Go USB flash drives that make this process painless. However, a "normal" USB flash drive can take forever to install Windows on. An external HDD does not have this problem.

The other prerequisite is using WinToUSB. Microsoft has its own proprietary software to perform a Window To Go install. But there are two downsides to Microsoft's software: 1) The software is only available on Windows 8 or higher, and will also not allow a Windows 7 install. 2) WinToUSB is said to be faster in terms of the install procedure.

1. Download a Windows ISO from here.
2. Download the free version of WinToUSB.
3. Open WinToUSB.
4. Click the small folder icon on the upper-right corner.
5. Find and select your Windows ISO.
6. Click "Open".
7. Highlight the Windows version (that should now appear) by clicking it.
8. Click "Next".
9. Click the drop-down arrow in the upper-right corner.
10. Select the USB flash drive or external HDD to be used.*
11. In the next window there will be radio buttons to choose the system and boot partition. There should only be one option for each. Select both the radio buttons.
12. Select "Legacy" for an external HDD, and "VHD" for a USB flash drive. (Either should be the defaulted option depending on the storage device.)
13. Click "Next".

*If you chose a USB flash drive, it will ask if using a non-certified drive is desired. If so, click "OK". If not, click "Cancel". "OK" will format the drive and then bring up the next page.

The process will proceed showing a percentage until 100% is reached. Once done, the USB flash drive or external HDD will have Windows installed and ready for use.

First Time Windows Use
Before the Windows To Go drive is completely ready, you will need to boot it up. The process is just like installing any Windows OS. It will run through the choices and options and then begin setting up.

I had an interesting problem where (twice) the Windows setup would hang when finalizing the setup. What seemed to make it work was waiting about 15-20 minutes, just to be sure that everything was finalized, then rebooting the system. On reboot, Windows would boot up and work like a charm.

Finalizing Thoughts
This should work on other systems than an iMac, I just happened to go through it because of an iMac. Of course the steps may vary slightly, but not too much as to be difficult in performing.

Linux works quite well on the iMac. I found Mint a bit faster in reacting than Ubuntu, but not enough to matter greatly. I also found the Windows To Go drive (with Windows 7) a bit slow to startup on a MacBook Pro. However, once booted, it seemed to operate decently.

This is also a great way to bring an entire OS with you wherever you go. The benefits of this are portability and the ability to use programs others may not have available or be able to afford. In either case, at the very least, it is a great way to have a backup system waiting and ready to go.

Furthermore, if a multi-boot situation is out of the question, this may be of help. I have done some dual-boots in my time but stopped once a debilitating issue prevented me from getting into either OS. I now prefer virtualization, but that can be costly in terms of RAM usage.

Want to Make a RAID from USB Flash Drives on Windows? Ready for Disappointment (& Possible Solutions)?

Some time ago I had read an article about how someone made a RAID array out of some unused USB flash drives in Windows 7. I found it very interesting and recently realized I had a few USB flash drives I could use to attempt the same thing. After reading this article, and it hinting that using it on a "PC" (Windows) would be possible, I decided to try it out for myself...

The Experience of Failure & Definitive and Possible Ways to RAID USB Flash Drives

Tip for Downloaders
A friend of mine and I were catching up on our lives over a phone call and we segued onto the topic of downloading. After a brief discussion he mentioned that his friend had told him of a good idea, which is really just good practice. If you are downloading small files (not gigs upon gigs, and even if so), it was smart to use a USB flash drive as the designated area for downloading. On browsers and download managers you can tell each where to write a saved file to. By default, these programs usually download to your C drive, or whatever drive your system is on.

You see, every time you write a file, it puts a bit of stress on your OS drive. Even if you have partitioned your one drive into two, and are downloading to the second partition that does not contain the system, it is ultimately still putting stress on the OS drive because it is truly one drive. While a file or two really does nothing, if you download often, you are essentially draining the life of your drive bit-by-bit.

Instead, you should be adjusting your downloads to go to a USB flash drive. USB flash drives are generally inexpensive, so if they die it's easy to replace. You can use an external drive, but those are normally a bit more pricey, so a USB flash drive is ideal for your downloading means. 

This does not mean that your drive will die anytime soon, as most of us don't employ this trick. However, it will help you keep that drive alive that much longer by doing so.

A Bit of Background
Ever since that phone call I realized how right my friend was (actually his friend). So, I made sure to use a USB flash drive for any and all downloads. I initially used a Toshiba 32GB USB flash drive that cost around $30-$40 at the time of purchase, which worked just fine. Once in a while I would run out of space before cleaning it out and decided to upgrade when I could. I then bought a generic 64GB USB flash drive that also worked great, and cost about $10 (due to a promotion). I soon began out of room again, which led me to a generic $10 128GB USB flash drive from China. It worked good to start...

I soon saw issues with it. While my 64GB would sometimes cause a slow down to the point of 30-60 seconds before opening folders inside it, that was survivable. However, the 128GB seemed to always work good after a format. But when I'm doing too many things with it at one time, it will slow down to minutes upon minutes! Testing it showed that it was working as well as could be expected. Not wanting to give up on my 128GB, I decided to try to put some of these USB drives into an array.

Note: All of my USB flash drives are USB 2.0.

The Mac Article
In the second article I read it explains how the author bought 4 PNY 128GB USB 3.0 flash drives and put them into a RAID using OS X. He did not have enough USB 3.0 ports available, so he bought a USB 3.0 hub to attach them all. Using Mac's Disk Utility, he chose RAID and placed each PNY drive into the selection area. He then created a RAID and unleashed some real speed! After doing some tests, he found that the optimal amount of USB flash drives (for speed) are four.

Food for Thought
There are a couple of things to note about this process. The author states that to use the RAID on a PC you would have to use FAT (FAT32) in order for a Windows system to recognize it. While FAT32 is usable, if you plan to move any files onto the RAID larger than 4GB, FAT32 will be unable to do this. And while you can get a Mac to write and format to NTFS or exFAT, you do not have the option to use these formats for RAID.

The author also bought all the USB flash drives, yet, this would be counter-intuitive. The cost for all of these would equate to purchasing a decent SSD, which should be able to top the speeds he gets even if used as an external drive via USB 3.0. On top of this, a SSD would be a much better solution.

RAID Knowledge
There are many types of RAIDs, but the ones we are concerned with are RAID 0, RAID 1, and JBOD. These are the options any OS X will give you in Disk Utility.

RAID 0 is also known as striped RAID. It is all about speed. One thing many people get wrong, including myself for some time, is that RAID 0 does not require same-size disks in order to be used. However, it is common practice to buy and use identical sized drives as the RAID can only be as big as your smallest drive. The downside from RAID 0 is that if one of the drives dies, then so does the RAID, leading to a loss of data.

RAID 1 is also known as mirrored RAID. It is all about data redundancy. For a RAID 1, you do need to have identical size drives to use it. In addition to this, your drive size will only be half as much as the total amount of storage space for all drives. For example, if you have 4 100GB hard drives in a RAID 1, it will show one drive as 200GB. Likewise, if you have 2 50GB hard drives in a RAID 1, you will only have 50GB. The upside to a RAID 1 is that if one drive fails, the data on it will still be present on the other drive(s).

JBOD (Just a Bunch Of Disks) is also known as concatenated RAID. This is normally used when you have numerous drives of similar or dissimilar sizes. There is no advantage to using this type of RAID except if you want a bunch of drives to act as one drive. Maybe you have a 1GB, a 1.5GB, and 4GB drive. You need to store a 6GB video, and using JBOD would be a perfect example of how to accomplish this task.

So, just in case you're wondering how this would apply to the aforementioned article. The author is using a striped RAID for speed, so if one of those PNY drives dies, he loses all his data. If he were to use a mirrored RAID, he would not get a speed increase, and the setup would be that much more costly as he would only be able to use 256GB of that storage. He could use a JBOD, but then he would have no data redundancy or speed increase, just a large 512GB drive (that would cheaper to buy than create).

Mac on Win Pt. 1
So the requirements to do this are an OS X computer and at least two USB flash drives.

I no longer have a Mac, but I do have OS X on VMWare. This works great for me and will see any USB flash drive I put on. Unfortunately, VMWare will not recognize a USB hub, so I needed to directly connect my USB flash drives to my desktop.

As for USB flash drives, I have quite a few, but I decided to use my generic 128GB and 64GB USB flash drives. I measured them on write and read speeds beforehand and they were approximately the same.

Once I booted up my OS X and it recognized my USB flash drives, I went ahead and started experimenting. Immediately, I ran into my first problem. I had chose a FAT RAID and was trying to drop the drives from their volume names into the RAID selection area. A message would come up stating that I could not put them into a RAID because they used MBR instead of GPT (See my "USB 3.0 Hub Drive Fix..." for more information on this). I did not realize at the time that all I needed to do was to actually select the generic name (with the GB size) above the volume name and drop that into the RAID selection area to make this work.

Instead, I went ahead and formatted each USB flash drive as FAT in Disk Utility. I tried the (wrong) method of dropping the volume names again into the RAID selection area, and was met with the same error. I then decided to go back to Windows and change it from MBR to GPT.

Mac on Win Pt. 2
Back in Windows, I opened an elevated command prompt and started DiskPart (do not use this program unless you really know what you're doing). I went ahead and changed one USB flash drive from MBR to GPT and reformatted as NTFS.

I then went back into OS X to see if this would give the error message before converting the other USB flash drive. This time I could drop the volume into the RAID area. So I went back into Windows and did the same conversion for the other USB flash drive. I dropped the second volume into the RAID area and started the RAID.

Immediately I got an error. Confused, I tried again with the same results. So I decided to see if a HFS+ (journaled) RAID could be done, just to be sure OS X could at least perform that operation. It worked.

In Windows it is possible to read and write to HFS+ drives, but a RAID array is another story. If you have MacDrive 9 Pro, you can apparently read and write to RAID arrays formatted with HFS+. I downloaded the trial and disconnected the drives from OS X. MacDrive 9 Pro would acknowledge there was a RAID array present, but it would not show anything. I could see the two USB flash drives from MacDrive's format utility, and in Windows' Disk Management, but that was it.

Another program to just read HFS+ drives is TransMac. While it would recognize that both of the drives were in HFS+, it could not do more than that. It would throw out errors whenever I tried everything. I did notice that it seemed that the RAID array was connected to the 64GB USB flash drive...

Mac on Win Pt. 3
I connected the USB flash drives back to the OS X, they showed up again as a RAID. I went back into Disk Utility and then discovered I could make the FAT RAID if I used the generic names of the USB flash drives instead of the volume names.

I started the RAID and it finished successfully. It functioned perfectly on OS X, and I even threw on a file just in case there was something weird about it being empty when showing in Windows. I disconnected the drives from OS X and went back into Windows.

Again, the drives did not show. They would show in MacDrive (as just USB flash drives) and Disk Management, but not in Windows Explorer. I decided to try to see if I could do anything in Disk Management. From here, I could see the two drives, and the RAID drive it created.

I decided to delete the RAID volume and see if I could reformat it in Windows. It did delete, but it could not be reformatted. Since it was pointless to try anything further, as there was nothing else to do, I decided to delete the volumes in Disk Management...

Mac on Win Pt. 4
My mistake was trying to do anything in Disk Management. While it does come in handy, it somehow screwed up both the USB flash drives to the point that when connecting back to OS X, VMware would give errors when trying to connect them.

After a few tries (and reboots) I decided to use DiskPart. I deleted the volumes and converted both the USB flash drives back to MBR. I then was able to use Disk Management to reformat them, but the RAID volume would not disappear...

I performed another reboot in order to get the RAID volume to disappear from showing. I then used a third-party tool (MiniTool Partition Wizard) to reformat both drives as NTFS. I did this because Disk Management never seems to use all the space available, but third-party tools will allow this.

I did seem to have a residual empty volume after I restarted my computer, but I just used DiskPart to delete it and reformatted the USB flash drives again with my third-party tool. This fixed the issue.  

I went ahead and assigned different letters in Disk Management and made sure they worked before stopping as it had been an all-day event. Most of this ordeal is just summarized with frustration and agitation put aside.

Win on Win Pt. 5
So the next day I decided to see what else I could try since the Mac method was not working for me. I finally found an article where someone had used VirtualBox (like VMware, but completely free) to access their USB disk directly from the host OS (known as accessing a RAW drive), which would show the USB flash drives as fixed disks instead of removable. They were able to use another Windows OS in Virtualbox and with this technique created a RAID from two USB flash drives. For them, when they disconnected the drives from VirtualBox and reconnected to their host Windows OS, the drives showed up as "foreign" disks and they were able to allegedly complete the RAID...

In VirtualBox, this is somewhat a technical and tedious process. Fortunately, in VMware, it's a bit easier, or so I thought.

I first installed a copy of Windows 8 on VMware. I then upgraded to Windows 8.1 (which was troublesome due to an issue with the Windows Store and Windows Update). I then loaded up my two USB flash drives and checked their functionality.

The USB flash drives were working, so I turned off Windows 8.1 in order to setup the access to a RAW disk. I first selected SCSI, which is recommended by VMware, and selected the correct USB flash drives (as they are only listed as numbers, and I have a ton of drives connected). I started up Windows 8.1 and waited. I got the usual message that the drives were being disconnected from the host and then got an error. The system would boot but with the regular USB flash drives as removable.

Win on Win Pt. 6
I went through the RAW disk process again, using SATA, and tried started Windows 8 again. This time the system couldn't even get to the startup screen... I took some time to peruse the Internet and found out my first mistake. Apparently, you have to add your RAW disks, close VMware, then re-open VMware as an administrator (right-click on VMware and "Run as administrator"). That will allow the RAW disks to run properly.

Following this tip, I tried SCSI again, but to no avail. I recalled that sometimes IDE was needed for certain situations. So I tried IDE for the RAW disks. I used only one USB flash drive and actually got it to boot as a fixed disk! I shut down Windows 8.1 and tried the second drive, but it wouldn't boot...

I thought maybe it was a size or generic drive issue, but then realized my second mistake. The USB flash drives were already configured to automatically show up in Windows 8.1, so there was likely some conflict in Windows 8.1 during boot up. I deleted the RAW disks from VMware and booted up Windows 8.1. After ejecting both USB flash drives, I shut it off.

I made both USB flash drives RAW IDE disks and Windows 8.1 finally booted up with both drives as fixed disks! Success, but how much? I really had two options in Windows 8.1. The first was to use Disk Management and try a RAID 1, or I could use Storage Spaces and make what can be considered a RAID array. I opted for the first option as Windows 7 does not have Storage Spaces, so I doubt that it would be recognized by Windows 7 even if Storage Spaces were able to implement a RAID on these fixed disks. There might be a chance if I was running Windows Server 2012...

Win on Win Pt. 7
So I setup a normal RAID 1 from within Windows 8.1's Disk Management. It worked without issue and I now had a 64GB RAID array created by Windows. The hard part was done, but now the real test was about to begin.

I shut down Windows 8.1 and checked Windows Explorer. The two USB flash drives were shown, but they were inaccessible, and there was definitely no RAID array present. I checked Disk Manager and the two USB flash drives were there, but no third volume that would indicate a RAID was made from the two.

I had another trick up my sleeve, but I had spent some time before on it without success. Essentially, I needed to trick the USB flash drives into thinking they were fixed drives on my OS. There are plenty of tricks out there, but the ones I was able to perform didn't work. One was just impossible due to how Device Manager reacts to uninstalled drivers, the others always had me perform a reboot. Once done, the system would break and require a restore point in order to be fixed. Even if I had accomplished this trick, I would still need to convert the disks from basic to dynamic disks (read "Toshiba Canvio..." for more information).

Win or Lose Pt. 8
My final hoorah was using my two Toshiba 32GB USB flash drives. Oddly enough, they are about 100MB off from one another... However, I thought, why not try similar sizes as the original article had.

I started off with deleting their volumes from within Disk Management. No problem there. But now it was time to make the disks "active" (dynamic), and this I already had experience with so I could only presume the worst. There was no option given by Disk Management, so I tried the other two recommended options. The first was using MiniTool Partition Wizard, which should give you an option to convert from basic to dynamic disk if applicable. No such option came up. I then tried DiskPart, but messages came up telling me the USB flash drive was not an ordinary basic disk and therefore could not be converted to dynamic disk. Again, I had already tried these methods to convert the USB flash drives from basic to dynamic disks before, so this was no surprise.

My final attempt was using a special hex editor to open up and read/write to a USB flash drive. I needed to change a certain value from NTFS to a dynamic disk. I know, a bit odd since those two things aren't of the same subject matter, but from what I have read they use the same location for their values. The change was simple, but the risk was big since it could make my USB flash drives inoperable. I made the change on one USB flash drive and saved it. I ejected and reinserted my drive, which did not show up in Windows Explorer. This could be good or bad. I checked Disk Management, and saw the drive but only as a removable disk. I went into DiskPart which saw the drive twice, one as an error. I tried to change the USB flash drive back to a basic disk, which would tell me that changing it to dynamic had worked. DiskPart would not let me change it. I then reformatted the USB flash drive, took it out, and reinserted it in order to get it show in Windows Explorer again.

This brought me to the end of my journey.

So What Does This Mean?
This means that Windows cannot make a software RAID from USB flash drives. While it can be done within a virtualized environment, it will not carry the actual RAID array over to the host OS.

There are still some tricks out there for those who are willing: If you are on a Windows XP OS you have the ability to install CFAdisk as a driver to a USB. This requires going into Device Manager, finding the USB flash drive, clicking on Properties, and "updating" the driver manually to the aforementioned drivers. It should then change the USB flash drive to a fixed drive. To get back to a removable drive you need to go back to the Properties in Device Manager and uninstall the drivers. Windows XP should then reinstall the regular driver for it. However, allowing this to create a RAID is unknown to me.

Supposedly, there is a method to change FireWire devices to be seen as fixed disks. This entails a registry hack. Yet, I don't know anyone who still has FireWire ports, letalone devices that use FireWire. Again, I have no idea if this would work for a RAID array, but I feel that it could for external hard drives or SSDs.

Another, much more intricate, and pricey measure, is by using actual hard drives. Apparently you can put two hard drives (SSDs?) into a desktop system and RAID them. You can then put them in external enclosures and they will purportedly still be recognized in a RAID formation when connected to a computer. While this is better than buying an expensive hardware RAID setup, it seems like a lot of work.

What's more is that for a USB flash drive, this would be huge risk and a lot of work. You would need a USB female to SATA male adapter, which I don't exist. You could try a USB female to USB header cable, but that will only be seen as a USB connection. And if you could force a RAID, you wouldn't want them just hanging in your system, especially with all the heat accumulating. This means you need an external enclosure, which means you have a USB flash drive connected to the SATA adapter (if it were possible), that is connected to the external enclosure, which has a firewire or eSATA. I included firewire because of the trick above, but USB won't work as I have tried and failed with external drives connected via USB 3.0 (see "Toshiba Canvio..."). A RAID cannot be done over a USB connection for external drives, from what I have read. At the end of the day, even with all the right adapters, it may not work at all.

Another solution where the opportunity for a USB flash RAID may become possible is using the SanDisk Cruzer USB flash disks. Initially, when they came out, they would connect to a Windows OS as a fixed disk. This created an uproar in the user community as there was no way to eject it, causing data mishaps. SanDisk stated they had done so because it was required of Microsoft's licensing in order to officially add support for Windows 8. They have since changed their tune and made newer versions removable. If you happened to get a couple of these, you might be able to actually RAID them with as much effort it takes for actual hard drives or SSD's. To take this thought a bit further, and make it more complex, we could attempt to use an external enclosure that has inputs for a micro USB device. This creates a whole host of other problems that are unnecessary to state since it just won't be possible.

Note: It is not recommended to RAID SSD's. From the research I have seen it will at first give boosts in speed, then it will soon degrade past the point of what one SSD should be doing. In other words, a single SSD will maintain its high speeds a lot longer than if it is in RAID array.  

There is still the possibility of Storage Spaces, which is included in Windows 2012 and Windows 8+. Microsoft may be setting up to do away with RAID done through Disk Management, so maybe they will allow USB RAID at some point. While I have not tested this with Storage Spaces, as I have no host OS that supports it, I do not feel the results would be any different. I do know that Storage Spaces did not even see my USB flash drives in Windows 8... And even if it could be done through virtualization, I have a feeling you still will not get it to come up on your host system.

Lastly, there was trying to use identical size USB flash drives. Now, while my USB flash drive brand was the same, the actual storage size was not (for whatever reason). One was purchased a few years before the other, so that could be a potential reason. Regardless, as simple as the article made it sound, it did not work. I even made the two USB flash drives logical drives at one point (just in case), and still came to the same unsuccessful conclusion. Now, there is a very slight chance that they need to be identical USB flash drives, but I doubt it would matter. The article is from 2010, so the only logical assumption I can come up with would be that somehow the actual USB flash drives being used matter (or it was just author writing something exciting they hadn't actually accomplished). While I can't wholeheartedly admit to that, I can neither contest it as the drives used were a Geek Squad brand, that is no longer sold; so testing with the same hardware cannot be done. One final thought on this is that maybe the system was 32-bit. I use 64-bit, but again, this is just another thing I doubt would matter.

So, you pretty much have only seven options to do this. The first is to use a Mac or Linux. It evidently works and is not hard to setup (on a Mac). As a side note, Macs can also use a special PCI Express card that has RAID integrated and USB 3.0 ports, whether it works or not I have yet to discover. The second option is to perform it in a guest (virtualized) OS of Windows and only use in that environment. The fourth is to use one of the tricks I mentioned, which it seems only Windows XP can do. The fifth option is to find and buy the SanDisk Cruzer USB flash drives that come as fixed disks, but that will become increasingly difficult as time goes on. The fifth option is to use the USB flash drives designated in the original article (if you can find them) and try your luck. The last option is to try to use a hex editor, or a program, that will change a USB flash drive to a fixed disk instead of removable.

I should mention that Super Talent is coming out with the USB 3.0 RAIDDrive, which is supposedly already in a RAID array. But this really takes the fun out of trying! And I'll also add that I have no experience with Thunderbolt, but at those speeds and prices is it even worth trying?


What Did I Use?
I used Windows 7 SP1 x64, Windows 8.1, and OS X Mountain Lion. Again, the USB flash drives I have are USB 2.0. MacDrive 9 Pro and TransMac was used, while HFSExplorer is also another free alternative for viewing HFS+ drives. I also tried the free drivers from Seagate (through Paragon) to view HFS+ on a Windows system. These drivers will force you to uninstall MacDrive first, likely since it is also a Paragon product trying to perform some similar functions.

If you are a Windows XP user there are a set of drivers from Apple (meant for Bootcamp) that many people have said allow them to see HFS+ formatted drives. You can get the official drivers from Apple here.

And...
That's really it. I have become dejected that only a Mac will allow this. While a USB flash RAID is not a widely sought solution, I personally would have some use for such a technique. There is no way to make comments on the original article for Windows 7. Yet, the author can be emailed from ZDNet as he is a contributing editor for ZDNet articles. I have asked a few questions and will hopefully get a response, but it has been a matter of days with no reply.

As for my 128GB USB flash drive, I was eventually able to mitigate some of the lag. You can read about it here at "USB Flash Drive Getting Sluggish?..."

Why I Choose Windows over OS X. Or, Mac vs. PC

I am a big fan of Windows, but I use Mac from time-to-time. This is not article meant to start a flame war, and it is not an article to show who's the "best". I wanted to write this to hopefully give some insight to those who are proponents of one or the other. Reading up on some Premiere Pro and Final Cut Pro articles prodded me to lay out some ideas people on either side may have not considered.

It is important to remember that I will may use Mac and OS X interchangeably throughout the article, as you are only meant to be able to use OS X on a Mac.


Why You Prefer Mac or PC
First, I find it very interesting that most people use PC in opposition of Mac. PC is an initialism for Personal Computer. Isn't Mac a personal computer? This falsity could be perpetuated by the successful Apple commercials, which they may have been legally obligated to use to avoid lawsuits from Microsoft. Or maybe, Mac truly wants to be considered something more than a PC.

But here's the skinny: In my lifetime I have found certain general observations to hold true. One such being that depending on which side of the road your country drives on is also the same side of a sidewalk those people will walk up or down.

Similar to this, most people's propensity to use a Mac or Windows-machine is dependent on what was first readily available to them and thus became familiar with. Many of the people I have talked to have admitted that their preference was also their first OS that they began using on a regular basis. This makes sense not just for this situation, but many, if you think about it.

The Exception to the Rule
I am an exception to this general rule. I was first introduced to computers with the Apple IIe, and shortly thereafter, Macintosh. I used them throughout school until about Junior High. The reason I became a Windows fan was because of my father. His first laptop (which was Windows-based) cost about $5,000 USD. I was already fairly comfortable with Macintosh computers by this time, but laptops were a luxury, and now my family had one.

The first time I was allowed to use this laptop was quite soon after my father brought it home. Within 2 hours of messing with it, I had deleted the entire OS. I don't know how I did it, but I did! My mother was furious because she thought it was destroyed, and considering how expensive the laptop was, I understood why. Luckily, my father, being the technologically-inclined person he is, knew he could reinstall the OS, and did so.

One could argue that I had more exposure to the laptop since it was at home. But during that time, while I did enjoy using computers, I was rarely allowed to use his laptop, and we had no desktop. It wasn't until just before Junior High that I would sneak out of my room late at night and use his IBM ThinkPad to scour the web using Netscape. For those of you reading this that were not born or too young to know, Lenovo did not originate the ThinkPad, and Netscape was essentially the Firefox of the day (with a #1 browser spot!).

Fanboy, much?
I have never been a huge Apple fan. I have always championed Microsoft, but just for Windows. I have enjoyed Xbox in its many iterations, but I was a Sega Dreamcast fan (more for the hacking ability), and before that I was purely a Nintendo user. I have owned both Playstations and Xbox's - in their many forms, and find their quality and uses comparable.

I have owned an iPhone, iPad, and a Mac. While I even use a Windows-machine, I have made and continue to use virtual machines for OS X (along with others like Ubuntu). So, while I am partial to Windows, I can easily switch between the two.

If someone were to tell me I could only use a Windows 8 or OS X machine for the rest of my life - without customization - I would be hard-pressed to choose either. However, if I could customize the machines, I would probably choose Windows 8 since I could alter it enough to be similar to Windows 7!

Usability vs. Upgradability
I feel that in the arena of usability, unless you are already prone to one OS or another, Mac is easier to get used to. I think this true of all their consumer products, which is why they are so highly regarded by the public. Windows on the other hand, especially Windows 8, can take quite a bit of time to get to know the ins-and-outs of. However, I do feel that if you need more access to advanced customization and capabilities, Windows is the better platform.

As for upgrading, Windows wins out. Every Mac machine "needs" special Mac parts that come with exorbitant price tags. For a Windows counterpart, it can have a substantially lower cost. Sure, there are hacks that can get Windows parts to work on Mac, but not everyone can (or is willing) to perform these hacks; furthermore, not all upgradeable parts can be hacked.There are "hackintosh" machines, but these are essentially PC-part machines with OS X installed. These are not officially support by Apple, and they can have multiple issues in operating or functioning.

Integration
Apple is king when it comes to integration. They have iPhones for smartphone users, they have iPad tablets for those needing more screen real estate and portability, Apple TV, and they have iMacs, Mac laptops, and Mac Pro towers. In terms of software, they have items such as iTunes, FaceTime, Final Cut X Studio, iCloud, and the App Store. All seamlessly integrate and work as intended.

While price is of course still an issue, the only other company that comes close to this type of hardware integration is Samsung. They have their own Android (and Windows) Samsung smartphones, Galaxy tablets, Samsung TV's, and numerous household appliances that can be controlled with Samsung devices. It should be noted that the Samsung TV is an actual TV, while the Apple TV is a device that connects to your TV. In addition, there are ways of setting up your iPad or iPad to control household items as well. A combative, interesting point is that Apple has always used Samsung CPU chips in their iPhone...

As far as software, there is nothing quite on par. There are music players, editing suites, VOIP programs, and cloud services to compete with Apple; but no single company that offers all these and is as popular or purchased with the purposes of integration in mind.

Adobe Suite (CC) vs. Final Cut Studio
Before I begin this section, I wanted to give a little background on Final Cut Pro. Final Cut Pro was originally made by two men who had worked on the first three version of Premiere. They then went to work for Macromedia and created what would become Final Cut Pro based on Apple Quicktime. This created issues concerning Apple Quicktime as they could not offer the product due to a licensing deal with Microsoft. They later demoed both a Mac and Windows version, and when no one chomped at the bit, Apple bought Final Cut as a defensive measure. Macromedia would later be bought acquired by Adobe... Funny how the world works.

In my mind, until their later versions, Premiere and Final Cut were essentially the same thing for different OS's. Their intertwined history helps prove that somewhat.

But, I am an avid Adobe fan. I have always loved their workflow and have been able to utilize all the tools available in their suite at one time or another. Keep in mind, their full suite heavily outweighs Apple's because Apple's suites is for video post-production, while Adobe's is for that and so much more. Less we not forget, there is nothing, NOTHING, that comes close to Adobe Photoshop's features and functions.

But what's more, Adobe is cross-platform. It can be on a Windows or Mac. Giving it a huge advantage over Final Cut Studio. While this does not help the cause of deciding on Windows over Mac, it is something noteworthy of mention.

My only gripes are what Apple has done to some of their products and Final Cut Studio. I originally became interested in wanting to use a Mac for the purposes of special effects through Apple's Shake. Shake was a professional, node-based, compositing program that helped make such films as Peter Jackson's King Kong. But Apple discontinued the product in 2009 and supposedly integrated some features into Final Cut Pro. I then learned how to properly color grade with Apple's Color. Color was originally called FinalTouch and developed by Silicon Color, which was acquired by Apple in 2006. It was amazing and by far the best program (to me) in Final Cut Studio. Of course, Apple decided to discontinue it in 2010 - a year after Shake - and allegedly integrated a better color grading system in Final Cut Pro X.

Thanks to these many changes, especially Final Cut Pro X itself, many people have since jumped ship to Adobe. Adobe has since included their own color grading program called SpeedGrade.

Program Support
While Mac does have a lot of programs that can accomplish similar tasks to that of a Windows-based machine, there are numerous instances where programs are only supported for Windows systems.

One major program like this is 3ds Max. 3ds Max is owned by Autodesk and is a 3D-creation program for making models, animation, games and images. It can be compared to a CAD program of sorts, like AutoCad (also owned by AutoDesk), but far superior in its capabilities. Autodesk is also the owner of Maya, a program very similar to 3ds Max. However, in simplistic terms, I have read that most use 3ds Max more for buildings and other inanimate objects, while Maya is better for modeling and texturing. Some use 3ds Max for making a model (like a person), then bring it into Maya to apply a texture.

The one thing about 3ds Max that is important to this article is that it is only Windows-based. While Maya can run on Windows or Mac, 3ds Max is purely a Windows program. This means that movies like Transformers were made with Windows. They may have used Macs for other things, but the Transformers themselves were all done in Windows. You might ask, but the transformers are humanoid-like figures, wouldn't that be best performed by Maya? No, because remember that Transformers are machines, machines that turn into cars, and 3ds Max is great for such objects.

Another popular program is Access, which used to be part of the MS Office suite. While Macs can use MS Office, but they do not support Access. For most of us, that's okay, but for those of us who use Access to create and use databases, that's an issue.

There are many other great programs that do not support OS X. This is one impacting drawback when one comes across it, as there as some incredibly useful applications for Windows that would be just as useful for Mac. The only solace one can take, if they are on a Mac, is that there are a few programs like Wine that try to allow Windows-based programs to run on Mac. The downside is that sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes you get a combination of both.

Unless You've Got Power!
The one debate I always seem to get into with professional or consumer enthusiasts is which OS (but really machine) is better. The easiest way I put a stop to this is with one question. This is how the conversation usually goes: "Macs are better." "Why?" "Because they're better for [insert reason]." "Okay, but what actually makes Mac better at that than Windows?" "...I don't know." Mac is also interchangeable with Windows in this conversation. People can give me preferential reasons (or excuses) as to why one OS is better than another, but no actual hardware or technical information as to why.

There have been rumors for many years that Macs are better in terms of digital photography or video editing, but this is largely untrue, especially now. One of the most popular rumors was that the graphics power was far superior, and thus better for photography or video. The most I ever read supporting this was that at one point in the '90's Mac's were able to get better throughput (not to be mistaken with bandwidth) of graphic processing from the graphics card itself to the operating system. However, this was still marginal in comparison. Whether this was true or not, I am unaware as I only saw one lengthy post on this from many years ago, however, it did give a feeling of legitimacy from the knowledge the author had on computer workings.

I feel that Windows is far superior in this arena. Not only do we have more CPU choices at our disposal for desktops, but we have undoubtedly more choices for motherboards, RAM, and other components.

The only thing Apple had was Thunderbolt, an esoteric technology that allows for unbelievable fast transfer speeds from specified-devices. SuperSpeed USB3.0 (not to be confused with the first iteration of USB3.0) is now as fast as Thunderbolt. But Thunderbolt 2 is now out and twice as fast as the first. Thunderbolt was very limited for Windows enthusiasts when it came to availability. Now Intel (who developed Thunderbolt in cooperation with Apple), has released it for both markets. So this advantage will soon be gone.

Maybe just to give a more modern perspective on the power of a Windows machine, I will use Pixar as an example. Everyone Knows Pixar, it's Disney and non-Disney 3D-animated movies have touched our hearts. They are probably the best known 3D animation company, alongside Dreamworks. But did you know that Pixar creates their animation on HP (Hewlitt-Packard) workstations? In case there is any confusion, HP does not make any Mac machines. It takes a lot of processing power to make a Pixar film, and it seems Windows is the way to go for them. Kinda funny given that Steve Jobs somewhat helped put Pixar on the map...

Maintenance & Repair
From what I have found, Windows definitely needs more maintenance. Windows may get sluggish over time depending on how many programs I install and whatnot. I constantly use Disk Cleanup to free up what space I can, and find that when I do that on others computer's, they'll often get a few gigabytes of space back. I periodically use the built-in defragmentation program, and if it is severe enough, I go ahead and perform the defrag. It is said that the NTFS filing system should not need to be defragmented, but why would Microsoft put it in Windows otherwise? I even clean the registry, which many people are unaware even exists. I have found this to incredibly speed up computers at times. I should note that Mac does not have a registry.

On the other hand, I never found the need to do any type of maintenance with my Macbook Pro. I could load up programs, save videos, and anything else and it never really seemed to slow down. There is no native tool to defrag on Mac, but there are tools on the Internet that will do this for Macs.

The only reason I had before to not choose Windows over Mac was disk failure. From what I had heard, and read, when a Mac died, it was dead. There was no way to get your data back and start anew. I thought this true because many people saved all important data to an external drive, but this is just good practice for either OS. Whether this was true, and still holds true, is not something I am privy to. I have had Windows disks die in the past, but was able to extract the data from the disk.

Networking
I have read many articles for and against using Macs for networking. Most are about long-term costs vs. upgrading. Some argue that while the initial costs for a Mac setup may be high, that long-term issues are normally non-existent. While Windows-based machines are cheap to setup, but always have problems sooner or later.

As far as upgrading goes, many argue that Windows systems will be easier to upgrade. Opponents argue that while upgrading a Mac system can be costly (if applicable), integration of newer Mac systems are simple.

I have talked to many IT professionals and was surprised to find that when I asked which OS caused the most issues, it was always Macs. I must also admit that I have never seen many Mac-networking setups in the wild (with the exception of post-editing facilities), so is that the way to go, or are they simply feeding into the popular trend?

Viruses & Issues
Contrary to the common belief that Macs cannot get viruses, they can and do. The Apple site at one point even touted this, but that bit of information has long since been taken down. If order to know why it seems like Macs do not get viruses, you have to look at a virus creator's perspective. If the OS market is dominated by Windows, thanks to cost (and piracy), which is a better target? Windows. You would want a virus to reach as many people as possible, so you choose the most used OS. So while Windows has and will always have the potential to contract viruses, so do Macs.

Arising issues is an interesting topic. I have been told, and have read, that Mac issues are much more frustrating. Why? Because, while they may not appear often, the error messages received give little or no information as to what the issue could be. Thus, without knowing the issue, it makes finding a solution that much harder. I wasn't sure if this was really true until it happened to me. Generally, when I have a Windows issue, I can solve it rather quickly. Sometimes I get almost no information, but the little I do get usually aids me in resolving it. When this has happened to me on a Mac, I was lost and it took me an abnormal amount of time to resolve the problem.

I have to say though, this is a toss up between Windows and Mac as far as issues are concerned. I get issues on Windows much more frequently than on OS X (largely due to how often I am trying new things or modifications), but the time to solve the issues on Windows as compared to OS X seem to balance themselves out.

SO, OS?
Each OS has their strengths and issues, some of which have already been discussed. One last circumstance I would like to voice is that different OS versions warrant different reactions. When Apple stopped creating their OS solely based on their own work and switched to a Unix-based system, lots of people were outraged. Some swore to never go back to Macs, others forced themselves to stay.

But this is very similar to Windows 7 and Windows 8 arguments. Microsoft wanted to integrate their Windows RT tablets and Windows 8 interfaces so users could easily switch from one to the other, if need be. People either love it or hate it. I definitely hate it. Windows 8 was good for those who were using a Windows OS for the first time, but Windows enthusiasts hated the learning curve. While there were modifications that could make it almost like a Windows 7 OS, you would have to figure that out on your own. The most jarring thing was the absence of a Start button. In either case, Microsoft seemed to take notice as they immediately started development on Window 9 ("Threshold").

One other thing, which is more of a hardware-based aspect, is the use of a BIOS. I won't get too detailed about a BIOS, but it is a firmware interface that allows your computer to run hardware and continue on into the OS. When Intel-based Macs first arrived, they started using EFI, which was a much more user-friendly firmware interface. While EFI was first introduced into PC workstations, it did not gain popularity for Windows-based systems until later. Many newer Windows-based systems now boast UEFI, a newer version of EFI. I believe there was a bit of lag, but newer Mac-based systems now have UEFI.

My Computer, My Choice
Ultimately, the choice is always up to the consumer. What they like? What they want? What they need? The answer is that is completely depends.

A consumer new to computers may find using a Mac ultimately easier. A consumer looking for easily accessed advanced customization and modifications may prefer Windows. Someone may only be able to afford Windows, while another person who is well-off may want to purchase a Mac just because they can (and it shiny!).

What is my computer? My choice? I have a custom-built Windows 7 desktop. I have had the case for many years, but have upgraded its innards several times. I have a AMD FX-9590 with 32GB DDR3 RAM in a ASUS Crosshair V Formula-Z, running Windows 7 off a Kingston 96GB SSD. This also includes two hybrid drives, and two SATA III drives, both running RAID 0. I have 3 external drives, one via USB2.0, one via eSATA, and one via USB3.0. I have well over 13TB of storage space (soon to be almost 20GB).

I chose this setup primarily for two reasons:

1. Cost
2. Upgradability

Other reasons are that I have always enjoyed the Windows OS since 3.x, and can do things with it I would be unable to do in OS X. I love the Adobe suite, but far prefer it on my Windows system. I should also mention, again, that I do run OS X off of virtualization software within my Windows machine. However, at the moment, I really only use it because there is a great HTML5 web developing program that can only be used on OS X (ironic, right?).

A final reason I chose Windows as my OS was because that, at the time, you could use a NVIDIA card hack with Premiere Pro CS5.5 and get the MPE (Mercury Playback Engine) to run. The MPE allows for certain effects and filters to run without any need to render. While MPE was meant to only be used with NVIDIA Quadro cards, a simple hack allowed for many (cheaper) NVIDIA cards to be used. While Macs allowed this hack too, I read many were hit-and-miss. This hack could also be used for AMD/ATI cards, but was also very restricting in what cards would work. Now there is a lot of support for both NVIDIA and AMD cards on both Mac and Windows in Adobe Premiere CC.

If you are wondering what kind of phone I use, I now only use Android-based phones. I am partial to Samsung or LG - and currently have a LG G3 - but do have other brands. I find them easy to use and modify, and many apps I seek out are free from the Google Play Store. I have a Samsung Galaxy tablet as well. Other than the program mentioned above, I only have iTunes (for my wife) and Quicktime Pro (for video editing purposes).

Dual-Boot vs. Virtual Machines
For those few who read this in hopes of a definitive answer, then you have not had to go through all the forums and articles bad-mouthing each other. However, there is a way to have your cake and eat it too!

I will not be detailing the following techniques as dual-booting can be potentially dangerous, and virtualization software setup information can easily be found from a simple web search.

Dual-booting, or multi-booting as it is often referred to, is the process where one computer hosts two OS's (or more). There will usually be a way to choose which OS to boot when the computer first boots. This is a common procedure for Windows machines, and can allow you to jump from one OS to the other easily.

The major drawback here is space. You will need to partition a hard drive, or use another blank hard drive, if you wish to install the OS. You may be able to grab files from one OS drive and transfer to the other, but this is not a good way to go. It is better to allot enough space for the OS and all your programs and files. Another drawback I found was that I once made a multi-boot on the same hard drive. The computer eventually became unstable to the point it wouldn't boot up anymore. For others I have talked to about this, they have never seen that issue. Maybe there was just too much going on in one OS, or maybe it was a fluke. But I would advise anyone attempting this to only use a separate hard drive for a multi-boot OS, just to be safe.

Virtual machines are by far safer, and fairly simple in implementing. You setup a program like VMware, VirtualBox, or any other virtualization software just as you would any other program. You then install the OS of choice. On a Mac, Bootcamp is for this exact purpose. However, you can still use different virtualization software with a Mac if desired.

The drawbacks here are mainly RAM and support. Virtual machines are notorious RAM hogs, and the more you have the better it will perform. If you have a small amount of RAM on your machine, and don't intend to upgrade, be aware a virtual OS may act extremely sluggish. Another point is that certain items may not be fully supported, or at all. Bootcamp warns not to use a wireless mouse, while it can be used, it may not function perfectly. I use a wireless mouse with VMware and have not encountered an issue... yet.

But wait! Can Macs multi-boot? Well, actually, they can. I have not done this myself, but there is a program called rEFIt located here. And it seems as though it should be easy enough to install an OS through Bootcamp. Bootcamp itself has had support dual-booting for some time. I have to warn as I did before that it seems the documentation indicates the OS can instead be installed on the drive, which I will reiterate can bring about mayhem later... Please note that this software is only applicable to Intel-based Mac machines.

Summation
To sum up, the OS for you is just that, for you. I tried my best to be impartial as I do read up on both platforms to increase my technological knowledge. I have even proven that I am loyal to Windows, but not Microsoft itself. Maybe this article will help show that each has a place among the people for a variety of wants and needs.

Side Note
While not mentioned above, I am happy that Apple is around. Samsung and LG are huge companies that are in many of the same markets as Apple, and they have quality products to compete with. (I own a TV from each, and they are both incredible!) However, those giants are both Korean; Apple is American. While I do understand that those companies probably wouldn't be where they are today without American consumers, it is still nice to know that at least one American company has the know-how to favorably compete against giants like those in international markets.