Thanks! That’s exactly what I’m trying now. I disconnected the M.2, and Windows is currently installing on the SATA SSD. Hope it doesn’t make a difference on which drives ROCK and Windows are installed.
After it’s finished, I will disconnect the SSD and reconnect the M.2 to install ROCK. I guess only then I can assume that the other driver is never touched during installation. We will see…
Eureka!!!
Finally, I have both OSs running fine on a NUC 8 with UEFI 
.
Even didn’t dare to make the necessary ROCK 254 → 256 update with the Windows drive inserted 
.
Obviously both ROCK and Windows don’t like other OSs on a separate drive and kill them while installing.
Thanks a lot! You saved my day!
1 Like
So after posting here, 15 minutes ago I opened for the first time my new NUC11PAi7 to install the HDD and RAM and found out that, holly molly, it comes with both M.2 and SATA SSD slots. And then came back to this discussion and found out you were in almost my same conundrum. As in your case, my ROCK will go on the 2Gb M.2; but then I inevitably thought: would it be possible to add a SATA hdd with Windows 10, just for light gaming? Your experience seems to indicate it’s at least possible on a NUC8. But then the unavoidable doubts that you already suggested: even if it’s possible, would it be advisable, performance or update -wise?
Any input on this would be most warmly welcomed.
It does not matter for performance. Only one or the other operating system boots, the other one has no effect whatsoever. (At that point, the other operating system that did not boot is just a bunch of electric charges on an SSD doing nothing)
Update-wise, I don’t know. I can’t rule out that a ROCK update reinitializes everything. I doubt it but can’t rule it out either
1 Like
I’d say even a NUC 8 is worth running more than just ROCK, from time to time. I must say, the way ROCK is being installed is… at least… a little bit inflexible. Because it simply takes the whole drive. In my case it takes all 256GB of the internal NVMe. 100MB partition for it’s own installation and the rest a a share, meant to be used for music files. In my case a waste of space since I have all my files on a NAS.
I will use Windows esp. for video conferencing, and this works pretty well. I have 16GB RAM, and can’t say a lot about the Intel graphic. So, I would say, for non 3D games it may be enough, but hard to say. At least, Windows is booting within seconds up to the login screen.
1 Like
This is part of the whole point of ROCK. It is a near turn-key appliance. It has no options and does not want to have them. It owns the machine. That’s how it can be kept simple and completely reliable.
For anyone wanting something else, there are general-purpose Linux distributions or Windows where Roon Server can be installed.
1 Like
Well, almost any other OS is able to cope with partitioning and multi boot options. That’s rather standard. But ROCK comes from dedicated roon Nucleus hardware where it is the only OS per definition. So, roon took it to intel NUC platform without making it more flexible. For sure roon could make ROCK more friendly, but that would mean… development costs. And they obviously have a completely different focus here. So, take ROCK as it is or leave it 
But, there’s definitely no technical reason not to adapt it to more real life needs.
2 Likes
Yes, but any other OS is not aimed at creating a single-purpose appliance 
Like you say, no fundamental technical reasons but resources are better spent on other things. Hopefully Roon OS 2.0 will come with some additional things that benefit Roon OS users. (Like UPS support with a shutdown daemon)
1 Like
Sure, but for ROCK it’s more a historical reason, not initially by purpose. It’s meant to run exclusively on a single hardware platform. That was sufficient for Nucleus, but it’s not when used on other hardware. roon decided not to adjust to real life here. It’s somehow okay, but you have to live with these rather old fashioned limits. We live in the 21st century
Roon have repeatedly stated their goals for ROCK and it is not to coexist with other things. It is to be a dedicated appliance for Roon, doing one thing and doing it well, even if on a NUC and not on a Nucleus. “Take it or leave it” like you wrote. For everything else there is already Roon Server for general purpose OSes.
Yes, I would interpret it as “we invest effort and money into different things. Making ROCK more flexible is not our priority”. Their own words sound more like “uuhhh, that’s no good to allow other OSs using the same host. That’s bad”. And we know for sure, this is not true. Different OSs live in peace side by side on the same host.
I have no idea what words that would be. All I have read is what I paraphrased: we have limited resources and Roon OS is aimed to being an appliance that only does Roon perfectly on a limited set of hardware. For everything else there is Roon Server.
I don’t understand what your issue is. On the one hand you get it, on the other hand you keep complaining about it Just use a pared-down Linux distro, install Roon Server and be done with it
Oh, it’s very simple. I see the technical and user perspective. From a technical view point I see effort in making ROCK able to allow other OSs on the same host. This is not for free. But on the other side, as a user, I like it as simple as possible, without any major hurdles to be taken. Two hearts
1 Like
For most casual users of the typical Roon demographic it is as simple as possible if it does one thing without any options. There are continually questions on writing the image to USB sticks, please don’t make Roon add dual booting complexity
Well, I personally am a kind of professional IT nerd, and I don’t give up so quickly, esp. if I feel there MUST be a solution. I did it, today. But others would have given up far earlier. They would keep on saying “sh*t”
As a user, I want a music appliance, not a general purpose computer. Same as I want a microwave oven (which presumably has Linux somewhere deep inside it) to be a microwave oven, not a general purpose computer.
Then you should stay with Nucleus . roon opened their environment to a broader platform range. Now, they have to take care that they don’t forget about it. Otherwise, they’d better stick to their own customized hardware 
Nope, I’ll stay with my ROCK/NUC, thank you. Perfectly good enough for me.
Same with me 
. But again, a versatile ~500$ mini PC for solely running ROCK, from time to time, is some sort of waste
No, we will stay with ROCK for what it is. It fills its niche quite perfectly. Nucleus is way too expensive but is a great option for those who are challenged by writing an image to USB.
You, as a professional IT nerd (which I am too, by the way, I just don’t need it for Roon) who wants more options, should go with the minimal Linux distro of your choice on your NUC and install Roon Server