Windows 10 bootable USB has 2 UEFI patitions?

Recent versions of Windows 10 should be fine with a non "FIXED" drive (though the official tool may not let you create it).

Up to another Windows 10 release that I can't recall right now (1803?), you couldn't boot Windows To Go from a non FIXED drive, but Microsoft finally realized that the days of non FIXED equating slow speeds were long gone.

Don't want to to look like I'm blowing my own trumpet here, but provided you use a retail ISO (and soon, with Rufus 3.5, this feature will finally be extended to MCT ISOs, thanks to stumbling upon a completely undocumented option that Microsoft appeared to want to keep to themselves), Rufus will happily create a Windows To Go drive for you.

Just select "Windows To Go" in the "Image Option" dropdown that should appear after you select the ISO. Oh and Rufus will also display a warning if you're trying to use an ISO that's incompatible with non FIXED drives for Windows To Go...

If you have a flash drive with >60 MB/s write speed, regardless of whether it's FIXED or not, you should be able to run Windows To Go on it with little trouble.

Oh, one thing that I'm just remembering and that might be important (it's in the Rufus FAQ), besides removing the "My Documents" folder, Microsoft also screwed Windows To Go in the 1809 release by using a buggy WppRecorder.sys driver, which will make Windows To Go BSOD if you don't replace that driver with the 1803 version. Unfortunately, that's not an issue they fixed with the October re-release of 1809, so it's still a very much active bug. So I would recommend using the 1803 release for Windows To Go, unless you know what you're doing. Btw, next version of Rufus will also warn you about this bug when creating Windows To Go drives (but we can't automatically fix it for the user, since we can't redistribute a 1803 WppRecorder.sys to replace the 1809 version, as that file is copyrighted by Microsoft).

I genuinely have no issue with people wanting to use whichever method they like, even if it happens not to be the one I developed.

However, I'm just going to point out a few things:

First of all, Rufus can be used as a Windows To Go utility that doesn't have the limitations of the official Windows To Go one. That's pretty much how I designed it, to help users who were frustrated with the limitations from the official one (such as Entrprise related stuff, need a FIXED drive and so on).

alphanumeric said:

Too many people seem to get the settings wrong, then install in the wrong mode, legacy when they want UEFI

You do realise that, as I pointed it out before, and as opposed to what the Microsoft Media Creation Tool will let you do, I designed Rufus precisely to avoid the very thing you are alleging Rufus does.

In other words, unless you use a cheat mode, which is not active by default, Rufus will not let you install legacy if you wanted UEFI or UEFI when you wanted legacy.

This is actually one of the biggest gripe users seem to have with Rufus ("Why won't it let me install in either mode, like the MCT?"), so, quite frankly, seeing the one thing Rufus does avoid being put on a list of recrimination against Rufus makes it very difficult for me to believe that you have looked at it seriously.

Again, please look at this FAQ entry that details how Rufus is designed NOT to let people install in the wrong mode by default.

Seriously, Rufus is giving you exactly what you say you want (a drive that is only meant to boot in one mode, so that you can't screw up and install in the mode you don't want), and yet you somehow manage to complaint about Rufus not giving you the very precise feature you asked for.

If I am going to have to defend my work against completely imaginary and false perceptions of what the application does, I don't think I will continue to bother posting here, because there's just no point trying to counter arguments such as "Well, even if your application does X, I'm gonna say that your application dooesn't do X and hold it against it"

Or can't install windows at all and come here for help.

And the reason for that is that, in order to provide the exact feature you say Rufus should (and does) provide, it has not choice but to prevent people from installing in the wrong mode, which, since it's impossible to "guess" whether the user made a mistake in their choice or not before they actually try, it can only do by preventing Windows installation if mistake there is.

Again, there seems to be no way to win this game. Doesn't matter what I try to put forward, it appears that opinions and perceptions are stronger than facts and logic, at least when it comes to a forum discussion.

alphanumeric said:

Me personally, I don't want one drive for each mode.

Then please add a bit of logic to what you wish for.

You want a drive that works in both BIOS and UEFI (which Rufus can do, but which is not the default) but then you complained that users should not end up being put in a situation where they might install in Legacy mode when they want to install in UEFI mode, and vice-versa.

In other words, you if we take you at your words, you are indicating that you want two incompatible things, and go on complaining that, because a decision between two exclusive features has to be made somewhere, Rufus does not give you these two contradictory features at once...

I want one thumb drive I can use on all my PC's. And I can do that with an NTFS formated drive. Up until recently I could do that with a Fat32 formated thumb drive.

And, you can absolutely have what you indicate you want with Rufus (Alt-E). However, this is not enabled by default for the precise reason you indicated you said Rufus should help users with (prevent unwanted Legacy or UEFI installs) and then, very erroneously, complained about Rufus not doing...

Plug said drive in my legacy desktop and i get a legacy install. And my laptop is fine doing a UEFI install from a Fat32 or NTFS thumb drive. So all I do is plug that same drive into it and I can do a UEFI install.

Sooooo... Are you telling us that, in contradiction to what you asserted previously, you are now suggesting that Rufus should enable dual BIOS+UEFI boot by default? That's a nice reversal...

Just the one procedure to create the one thumb drive.

Which Rufus can do through Alt-E but which is not enabled by default for reasons that, not so long ago (when you thought Rufus was not doing that) you seemed to completely agree with but, now that you have found that Rufus actually does that, you now seem to disagree with.

Sorry if i'm rubbing you the wrong way. Just posting what I've observed. I'll grant you a lot of it is user error. The fact remains though that quit a few get it wrong and come here for help.

It's your complete disrespect for not owning up to your mistake, and the strong suspicion I have that at least some of the earlier reasons you put forward against Rufus were elements you pulled out of thin air, to try to back up a foregone opinion, that are rubbing me the wrong way.

Having an opinion is fine. Disliking an application is also fine. But trying to push bullshit arguments, and then their complete opposite, to try to back your opinion isn't.

You have been posting bullshit claims. And rather than acknowledge that at least one of your earlier reasons for telling people not to use Rufus was wrong, what I'm seeing is that you are now attempting to change your tune and saying "Well, no, actually, even if I said otherwise, I just want the opposite of what Rufus does".

So what's next? Once you grasp that, since Rufus does both of the things you allege you (and users) want, but of course has to pick a default, shall we expect your next argument to be "Well, no, actually, even if Rufus can do both of the things that I want, it's simply "wrong" that its default is not set to the opposite of whatever it is currently set to...".

Therefore, I am done trying to reason with you.

Finally, as I have done before, I will also remind you that there's a FAQ that answers the usual pain points that users may have with Rufus. If you don't point users to this FAQ when they come here for help, and especially this and this entry, then sorry, but you are clearly not doing a good job of trying to help users. Still, if you disagree with the above, you can of course also pretend that disagreeing with an application's default choices completely discharges you from wanting to help its users, and instead entitles you to give them a piece of your opinion.