From what I have read I suspect this may have been an intentionally created incompatibility. They wanted dual boot to be inconvenient. As a user, that is not the sort of design I want.

Dual boot has always been relatively easy among PC OS via Boot.ini, in what concerns Windows and OS/2, the OSes originally thought for PCs.

It is not as Apple, Atari or Commodore provided dual boot alternatives as well, and Boot Camp was more a result from survival than anything else.

But if the user prefers some other bootloader instead of Microsoft's or Apple's, then all bets are off. The idea of the "primary" OS being something other than Microsoft's or Apple's is not contemplated. For me, the non-GUI OS is the primary OS and the GUI OS is something kept around out of necessity, only used occasionally.

For that there are pizza boxes.

For me, I prefer NetBSD on computers of all shapes and sizes.

> It's way less painful these days if you're using UEFI.

Interesting. My experience has been the opposite; I've had much more issues with UEFI than I ever had using BIOS, even when after disabling Secure Boot in the settings.