Is it possible to dual boot two OS's at the same time?

This site has tons of links, please visit:

http://superuser.com/questions/333297/is-it-possible-to-dual-boot-two-oss-at-the-same-time

24
down vote
favorite
3
Is it possible to dual boot two OS's at the same time?

For example: I'm currently dual booting Ubuntu 11.04 and Windows 7. Ubuntu is running on a single 500gb HDD, Windows 7 is running on 1TB RAID 1 mirror. To switch between the two OS's, a reboot is required. Is it possible to switch between the two OS's without a reboot?

NOTE: I'm fully aware of the capabilities of VirtualBox and VMWare Player - I use both. Please don't answer "Use Virtualization!"

EDIT: If this is not possible can you share why it's not possible? To me, it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult. Keep in mind that my vision is unencumbered by knowledge!

windows-7 ubuntu multi-boot
shareimprove this question
edited Sep 8 '11 at 13:28
asked Sep 8 '11 at 12:33

James Hill
4193620
12
+1 for my vision is unencumbered by knowledge! – Andrew Neely Sep 8 '11 at 15:28
 
On a mainframe with partitioned memory... – Fiasco Labs Dec 27 '13 at 8:04
add a comment
9 Answers
active oldest votes
up vote
30
down vote
accepted
Most, if not all, mainstream operating systems expect to have exclusive acccess to the host computer's low-level functionality (eg: hardware, ports etc.) and do not have any concept of sharing with anything else - it just won't work - so to try and run two OSs simultaneously on the same system requires some form of transparent arbitrator to shield the operating systems from each other - in other words, a virtualization application.

shareimprove this answer
answered Sep 8 '11 at 13:17

Linker3000
20k33356
 
Virtualization application seems to be the consensus. Are there any free or open source options that you would recommend? – James Hill Sep 8 '11 at 13:27
1
It really depends on what you are trying to do as some VM apps are better at some things than others, but in general: Choose your main default OS (ie: boot to Ubuntu or Windows) and then install Virtualbox, VM Player (my two faves) or your favourite VM app then install the other OS as a virtual machine in that environment. – Linker3000 Sep 8 '11 at 14:30 
 
you could create an ubuntu distro based off of colinux. colinux runs the linux kernel as a process on windows, so it is not really virtualization. in a sense, what the original question asked is possible, it just has not been done yet. – Jay R. Wren Sep 8 '11 at 17:38
 
However, some have been ported to run on operating systems, as opposed to actual hardware - UserModeLinux is the perfect counterexample. colinux (as mentioned by @Jay) is another example of an operating system being "ported" to another. – new123456 Sep 8 '11 at 20:10
add a comment

up vote
12
down vote
You seem to be dismissing Hyper-V and Xen (so called "bare-metal" hypervisors) even though they're closest to what you seem to be asking for. Yes, it's virtualization, but not in the same way that VirtualBox works.

Imagine something like VirtualBox was its own operating system, so you could install a tiny VirtualBox OS, and then run Windows and Ubuntu side by side as virtual machines on top of the VirtualBox OS. Well, that's essentially what Hyper-V or Xen do. It's just a thin virtualization layer between the hardware and the guest operating systems, and it's as close as you can get to directly running them side by side with existing hardware and existing operating systems.

You don't need a separate server for either of these, you'd just install the hypervisor as if it was the first operating system on the machine, and then add Windows and Ubuntu as virtual machines under the hypervisor.

Both Xen and Hyper-V will run Ubuntu and Windows as guest operating systems, although it may not be a supported configuration. Xen is more Linuxy and Hyper-V is an MS product, so I'd suggest picking the hypervisor based on whichever OS you're more comfortable with.

shareimprove this answer
answered Sep 9 '11 at 0:09

Kevin
1,636188
add a comment
up vote
8
down vote
The closest thing you could do... is make use of hibernation. Unfortunately, the operating systems are alien enough to each other that there is no way for both OS'es to be running at the same time without implementing virtualization. Honestly, virtualization isn't as bad as you think anymore... especially when you are using a virtualization platform that supports the "VT" extensions. The guest OSes get the ability to communicate directly with hardware, and have much better memory mapping & such. I've actually setup a guest OS installed directly on a SSD... and it ran faster than the host OS.

shareimprove this answer
answered Sep 8 '11 at 13:18

TheCompWiz
6,4301217
 
I have no problem with virtualization, I use VirtualBox on every computer that I have. Can you explain the VT extensions that you mentioned a bit more? FYI - This is for home use so I'm looking for a cheap (read:free/open source) way of doing this. – James Hill Sep 8 '11 at 13:22
 
VT = Hardware Virtualization. Basically, the CPU has some additional extensions (sometimes requires being enabled in the BIOS) designed to facilitate running OSes in parallel. VirtualBox can do this... but if you're stuck with software virtualization it isn't going to perform well. Sometimes called VT-x, VT, AMD-V, Hardware Virtualization, or a myriad of additional names. – TheCompWiz Sep 8 '11 at 13:25 
 
Does VMWare have this "VT" extensions creature you speak of? if so, does it need to be enabled explicitly? – MasterMastic Aug 6 '14 at 13:26 
 
VT is a processor feature. It is a matter of weather or not your CPU has the bits built in or not... and also if the motherboard has support for it. (the processor extensions can be disabled in many BIOSes) Usually it is enabled by default... but can be disabled. My HP Laptop had it turned off... but my supermicro servers have it turned on. – TheCompWiz Aug 11 '14 at 21:48
add a comment
up vote
6
down vote
Here's the simple, short reason the answer is 'no': What software would control your hardware?

If OS 1 does it, then you are not running OS 2. If OS 2 does it, then you are not running OS 1. If they both do it, then then some other software would have to mediate their shared access to the physical hardware, and that's virtualization (which you ruled out).

shareimprove this answer
answered Sep 8 '11 at 16:47

David Schwartz
45k56294
6
Unless OS 1 is OS/2. Then your running OS/2 as OS 1. :D – Kenneth Cochran Sep 8 '11 at 19:32
 
@KennethCochran - That made me grin ;-) – Unsigned Dec 14 '11 at 18:49
 
That's just plain Warped... Remembering a neat operating system created by a company that couldn't market its way out of a wet paper bag. – Fiasco Labs Dec 27 '13 at 8:07
add a comment
up vote
2
down vote
Things that come to mind are :
- Memory management ( ram and cache )
- Process management (process threads running )

So you would probably need a man in the middle juggling memory usage and processes between the two OSs .

That would be another os/firmware.
So if somebody has implemented it os will implemented it , you might end up with 3 instead of 2 Oss running simultaneously

EDIT-
Adding what linker3000 wrote : managing of ports

This 'man in the middle ' will essentially become your host OS and the other OSs virtualized , leading you back to what you already knew was a solution

shareimprove this answer
edited Sep 8 '11 at 13:31
answered Sep 8 '11 at 13:20

Shekhar
4,09622341
add a comment
up vote
2
down vote
All OSs I'm aware of demand total control of the computer hardware.

It is theoretically possible though. Both OSs would need to be designed to:

Run as both a master(total hardware control) and a slave(requests resources from the master OS)
Relinquish control of the hardware upon request from another OS
If both of these conditions are met it would be possible to run two OSs simultaneously without any kind of virtualization. It would be akin to two OSs using cooperative multitasking. Of course, cooperative multitasking has all but been abandoned because of the issue of poorly written applications refusing to cede control. Perhaps two properly written OSs would play nice. Then again what would be the incentive?

shareimprove this answer
answered Sep 8 '11 at 19:53

Kenneth Cochran
1,66911215
add a comment
up vote
1
down vote
Let me address the "why" part.

One of the reasons for a modern OS is to allow multiple programs (processes) to run at the same time on a system. If you want to do this safely, the following needs to happen:

You probably (unless you have special needs) don't want to divvy up the RAM in the system in a fixed fashion - e.g. 256MB fixed per process - limits you to 8 processes in a 2GB system. You'd like each process to be able to "ask" for memory and return it when it's done.
You also don't want to divvy up I/O devices in a fixed fashion among devices. Typically you want some or all the hardware, like memory to be a shared resource, or at least only temporarily exclusive to specific processes at specific times. This requires that all processes not try to do I/O on their own, but "go through" something to schedule and coordinate the I/O. The scheduling is important since most I/O is much slower than the CPU, so you can have the CPU do work for other processes while it is waiting on I/O even on a single-core system.
To do the above right, one needs to take advantage of several CPU hardware features. One of these is the MMU, the other is protected mode. Could two OSes share these hardware features cooperatively to run two or more OSes?

Sure, but there is nothing in hardware able to stop one OS from stomping all over the other OSes memory. If the CPU is in kernel mode (it only has one kernel mode), any code can do anything. It's 100% possible for code from one OS to run over the code or data of the other OS. And we know operating systems have had vulnerabilities in the past and will have more in the future. So it's very bad for security.

Now, wouldn't it be cool if you could put another "layer" over this and have that needed hardware support for multiple OSes? That's exactly what the hardware virtualization features do, they put a hardware barrier between multiple running OSes, and there is a top-level "interface" for them called a hypervisor. You can only have one hypervisor. And yes, processes running under either OS must go through three layers to do I/O (process - local kernel - hypervisor)

shareimprove this answer
answered Jun 10 '15 at 1:01

LawrenceC
45.6k572136
add a comment
up vote
0
down vote
I know you said no Virtualization, but something like MS Hyper V server may fit your needs

shareimprove this answer
answered Sep 8 '11 at 12:39

Akash
3,127928
 
Hyper-V would require a second machine to act as a server. If I had a second machine that was that powerful, I'd set it next to my other tower and start them both up with different OS's :). Also, from what I understand, getting set up would cost no less than $2k. – James Hill Sep 8 '11 at 12:41 
 
I think you can run Hyper V on a single machine.. – Akash Sep 8 '11 at 12:43
2
the V in hyper-v is for virtualization. if the constraint is no virtualization, then hyper-v is not a solution. – Jay R. Wren Sep 8 '11 at 17:39
add a comment
up vote
0
down vote
There is no other way than virtualization. I find it difficult to get definitve information which guest systems will work for the different hypervisors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervisor Should be a good start to get some information and Xen might be worth a try, though I would wait for someone to definitely confirm or deny if it supports Windows 7 guests.

shareimprove this answer
answered Sep 8 '11 at 13:32

Nornagest
644
add a comment
protected by bwDraco Nov 13 '15 at 20:43

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site. 

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged windows-7 ubuntu multi-boot or ask your own question.

Progress with Ubuntu

*I'm an infant with Linux and I realize I'm probably performing 100s of unnecessary tasks. There is help for those who require it: https://www.edx.org/

 Everyone is different, I browsed some entries such as finding a root yet I find that reading and applying is too much like work.

 So, I play with OS's / applications and turn it into a game.

 Notes: When downloading I have failed to see, "Run, install, .exe" etc. I have begun the download for screen capture and I'd like to think I will no longer have to provide camera pics.

 Here are a few pics that somewhat convey what you're in for if you want to use Ubuntu / Linux.

 

 I'm outside my comfort zone where learning occurs.

Back to Ubuntu

*I pretty much squared away "SAD" Systems and the mobile command center so while we wait on the bureaucratic process, lets work with implementing and networking a Ubuntu partitioned old heap of a craptop.

 

The first thing I noticed was that my Firefox wouldn't connect until I loaded it to the Windows side of the partition. (Keep in mind, my expertise is not in software)

After that quick fix, I believe I can get all my goodies such as Virtual Box.

 

 This is going to be a work in progress and all I can say is, "Play with it". Don't make it a serious affair.

 Learning the Linux methods of procedure is the goal.

 

 

Success requires sacrifice

*I'm not going to share my specific goal, I'm not certain of it. I will say this, "I sacrificed a wife, dog, home, Lexus and Porsche to be as I am". Collateral damage.

 I'll go anywhere in the world if I believe my answers to my questions are there.

Blue and Orange Morality

"For one of dragon's blood to not take up weapons, to not prepare night and day to slaughter any enemies that would come against them—it is unthinkable. It is—one who does such a thing, who believes the world will not be dangerous, will not strive to kill him… That is what we call insane."

— Embers

To say that questions of morality are thorny and filled with gray when they aren't being hammered between stark absolutes is putting it mildly. Because of this there can be great drama when characters who represent a wide range of moral viewpoints come together or into conflict.

The strangest of these characters are those who espouse Blue And Orange Morality. These characters have a moral framework that is so utterly alien and foreign to human experience that we can't peg them as "good" or "evil". They aren't a Chaotic Neutral Unfettered, though they may seem to act terrifyingly randomly; nor are they necessarily a Lawful Neutral Fettered, because our and their understanding of "law" as a concept may not even be equivalent. There might be a logic behind their actions, it's just that they operate with entirely different sets of values and premises with which to draw their conclusions. It's also worth noting that such cultures are just as likely to be something we'd find appalling, as they are to be something we'd find benign and/or weird. They may also find us appalling, benign, or weird even if we don't see them that way.

And although they are often likely to commit acts we would see as horrific, some are unusually benign. Either way they tend to act as if nothing were the matter. Because in their world/mind, that's just what they do. This trope is one of the trickier to pull off well, because Most Writers Are Human, and it's often hard to portray alien truly foreign.

This is similar to Values Dissonance, but the main difference is that societies with Values Dissonance can, at least on a basic level, generally measure one another by the same concepts of Good and Evil, or even Order and Chaos. With Blue and Orange Morality, the values are so foreign, that such concepts can no longer be applied. They may not even know what these things are, or even if they do, will often find them confusing. The concepts are not necessarily beyond their grasp, mind you, but just aren't something which they'd place any importance on.

Conversely, they may have these concepts, but apply them in vastly different ways. Such as regarding motionlessness as the epitome of evil, or viewing exploration as an element of chaos.

Note that cases involving solely a misapprehension of facts and consequences do not count here no matter how alien the reasons; if, for example, a race of aliens thinks killing is okay because its own members respawn within a day with no harm done, and mistake humans as working the same way, that doesn't mean they wouldn't balk at killing if they realized the degree of harm it causes to other creatures. In this case, they may be working by comprehensible moral standards and just gravely mistaken about the implications of their actions.

Likely candidates for Blue and Orange Morality include The Fair Folk, who follow rules of their own making; Eldritch Abominations that are beyond comprehension; the more exotic Starfish Aliens; AIs and robots, especially when super smartand/or incapable of emotion. An individual human (or single members of any species whose majority falls into darker morality) who operates on this is the Übermensch of Nietzschean philosophy (a human being who has developed their ownBlue/Orange set of morals). A Nominal Hero may have this motivation as well. Moral Sociopathy overlaps strongly with this trope for obvious reasons, though this is not always the case.

Compare Xenofiction, Humans Are Cthulhu, Humanity Is Infectious (all often involving this), Above Good and Evil, Affably Evil/ Faux Affably Evil (they sometimes can come across as this), Even Evil Has Standards (when handled poorly or bizarrely),Evil Cannot Comprehend Good (less elaborate forms that resemble this in practice), and Non-Malicious Monster (which occasionally requires this). When two sides go to war and nothing will stop them except total annihilation, that's Guilt-Free Extermination War. If the character genuinely knows everything will turn out okay, allowing the plot to treat them as a good guy no matter how cruel, irresponsible or fascist this makes them by our standards, that's Omniscient Morality License.

Has nothing to do with the following: Bucknell University, The University of Illinois, The University of Virginia, The University of Florida, Auburn University, Syracuse University, Hope College, Gettysburg College or Boise State University (the colors of all of which are blue and orange, albeit different shades in each case). Nor the Denver Broncos, Chicago Bears, New York Knicks, New York Mets, New York Islanders, Edmonton Oilers, or Mango Sentinels. Or the City of New York, for that matter. Furthermore, do not confuse with Blue and Orange Movies. Also has nothing to do with the Karma Meter in Mass Effect nor the Aperture Science Hand Held Portal Device or even the light scheme in TRON and its universe.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality

Alternative Title(s): Orange And Blue Morality, Red And Green Morality, Green And Red Morality, Yellow And Purple Morality,Purple And Yellow Morality, Kaleidoscope Morality, Rainbow Morality, Complementary Color Morality, Infrared And Ultraviolet Morality

America Has Fallen Victim To The Normalcy Bias, Do You Suffer From Normalcy Bias?

Trying to warn people to be prepared because of a probable crisis can bring you grief and frustration because of the human condition called normalcy bias. Just as people in Pompeii watched for hours as the volcano erupted without evacuation, many people do not react until it is too late. Although you may try to warn others, the reality is some people will never take preventative action even when they are staring crisis 

The Normalcy Bias condition is well known to psychologists and sociologists. It refers to a mental state of denial in which individuals enter into when facing a disaster or pending danger. Normalcy Bias leads people to underestimate and minimize both the possibility of a catastrophe actually happening, as well as its possible consequences to their health and safety.

   The Normalcy Bias often results in situations where people fail to prepare for a likely and impending disaster. The Normalcy Bias leads people believe that since something has never happened before, that it never will happen. Therefore, like an infant with a security blanket we cling to our habitual, repetitive, and normal way of life, despite overwhelming proof that serious danger lies ahead.

   The Normalcy Bias is part of human nature and, to some extent, we are all guilty of participating in it. Unfortunately, the Normalcy Bias inhibits our ability to cope with a disaster once it is underway. People with Normalcy Bias have difficulty reacting to something they have not experienced before. The Normalcy Bias also leads people to interpret warnings and to inaccurately reframe information in order to project an optimistic outcome which leads to the person to infer a less serious situation. In short, it is kind of a pain-killing drug which numbs a person to an impending danger.

   Do you suffer from Normalcy Bias. Could you become a victim of the “my people parish from a lack of knowledge?”  If you are being honest with yourself, and do not see a threat in the existing power structure, then you do indeed suffer from Normalcy Bias.

   The Nazi Holocaust provides the best example of Normalcy Bias in a way that is most applicable to what is beginning to happen in America.

The Normalcy Bias explains why so many Jews ignored and underestimated the omnipresent signs of danger even after they were forced to wear identifying yellow stars, possess a J stamp Identification card and discriminatory laws were passed which targeted the Jews and their businesses of which many were destroyed in The Night of the Broken Glass.

Many of the Jews could have afforded to move out of the country, but stayed, and were subsequently exterminated. It could be accurately stated that they ultimately perished because of their Normalcy Bias.

   Bill Ayers, the leader of the 1960′s Weatherman Underground terrorist organization, the man who financed Obama’s Harvard education and launched his political career in his Southside Chicago home, told FBI informant, Larry Grathwohl, that his people would have to murder 25 million Americans which could not be re-educated after these “Read Diaper Babies” had taken over the government.

I hate to be the one to bring cognitive dissonance to your Normalcy Bias party, but the communist thugs of Ayers, his convicted criminal spouse, Bernardine Dohrn, Senior White House Advisor,Valerie Jarrett, Frank Davisand his real son, Obama, have taken over this government and they have the means, the motive, the opportunity and the desire to commit genocide against you and other freedom-loving American.

For example,  Valerie Jarrett, has stated that the Obama administration is going to enact revenge against their opponents in a “there is going to be hell to pay” threat. Have you ever criticized the President using any form of electronic media? Did you vote for Obama in both elections? Remember, they actually know if you have been naughty or nice!

   The sad fact remains, that most of us will not even know what has hit us until it is too late. Part three will examine the factors which will determine if your fellow countrymen will acquiesce to authority and carry out the globalist genocidal plans and fire on you and your family when ordered to do so.

Knowledge is power. My hope is that you will use this information to empower yourself and your family for protection in emergencies. Decide today that you will not be a victim of normalcy bias. Sit and make a plan for a few scenarios that you think could take place. Familiarize yourself and your family with escape routes at home, at work, and at school. Decide on places where you can meet should something occur when you’re apart.

Prepare an emergency bag/bug-out bag. You may never have to use any of these skills, but should you have to, its better to be able to act without having to think. Better to be able to take the information you prepared and be ready to go within the shortest amount of time possible instead of walking in circles making phone calls. 

It could make all the difference.

http://tinyurl.com/z5ue9xn

Finland ranked world's most literate nation

Report pooling studies of ‘literate behaviour characteristics’ from around the world puts the Nordic country first, 16 places ahead of the UK

Finland is the world’s most literate nation, according to new research, with the UK coming in 17th, behind countries including the US, Canada and Australia.

Home to Tove Jansson, the author of the much-loved Moomin books, and awidely praised education system, Finland topped a table of world literacy in a new study conducted by John Miller, president of Central Connecticut State University in New Britain. The research looked at literacy achievement tests and also at what it called “literate behaviour characteristics” – everything from numbers of libraries and newspapers to years of schooling and computer availability in the countries.

Rather than measuring a country’s ability to read, the World’s Most Literate Nations says it ranks nations on their “literate behaviours and their supporting resources”. It set out to look at data from 200 countries, drawing from sources ranging from Unesco to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), but only 61 made the final cut, “due to lack of relevant statistics”. Population was also considered, to give per capita ratios.

The Nordic countries dominated the top of the charts, with Finland in first place and Norway in second, and Iceland, Denmark and Sweden rounding out the top five. Switzerland followe in sixth, with the US in seventh, Canada in 11th, France in 12th and the UK in 17th place. Botswana was last, in 61st place, behind Indonesia in 60th and Thailand in 59th.

Miller said that “the factors we examined present a complex and nuanced portrait of a nation’s cultural vitality”, and that “what the rankings strongly suggest … is that these kinds of literate behaviours are critical to the success of individuals and nations in the knowledge-based economics that define our global future”.

Advertisement

“The power and value of being literate in a literate society is played out every day around the world,” says the report. “Many individuals, and even whole societies, make considerable sacrifices to become literate just as others take it for granted. Societies that do not practice literate behaviour are often squalid, undernourished in mind and body, repressive of human rights and dignity, brutal and harsh.”

The report discovered that if it only ranked nations on their reading assessment results, the final tables would have been very different. When this is the only factor considered, Singapore comes in top, with South Korea, Japan and China in second, fourth and fifth places respectively. Finland is the only non-Pacific Rim country to make the top five, in joint second place. The UK is 26th.

Sign up to our Bookmarks newsletter

 

Read more

Adding in the numbers of academic, public and school libraries, and the numbers of books in libraries – Estonia, Latvia and Norway top this list– as well as statistics on years of schooling, computer penetration and newspapers, changes the results significantly. “When factors other than test scores are included, there is not a single Pacific Rim country among the top 25,” says the report.

Miller said that a consistent finding from the report was that “there is no meaningful correlation between years of compulsory schooling and educational expenditures on the one hand and test scores on the other”.

He believes that Finland, Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Sweden took the five top slots in the study because “their monolithic culture values reading”.

Finnish author Aki Ollikainen, whose debut novel White Hunger has just been longlisted for the Man Booker International prize, said: “The most important thing is that schooling is equal, reading and educating have been appreciated also by working class and that the profession of teaching and education is also appreciated.”

He added: “I have to say, that I´m very proud of the Finnish school system and also our libraries, which have very versatile collections available to all. Everybody has an equal opportunity to learn and to read. In Finland we are use to keeping this obvious, but globally it is luxurious.”

Commenting on the US’s performance, Miller said that while the country had seen its years of compulsory education increase, its practice of literate behaviours had decreased, while the ability to read had stayed relatively the same. “It is not so much that we are slowing down in this world race, but rather that others are speeding up,” he said.

Diana Gerald, chief executive of UK reading charity BookTrust, said the message to draw from the research was that “we have to get children reading more, and enjoying it more”.

“We’re not going to change this ranking unless we have a nation that is reading. And it’s a virtuous circle – if you read more for enjoyment, you enjoy reading more, and so you read more,” she said. “And that will show up in these figures.”

Gerald said the 17th place was not “absolutely dreadful, but why wouldn’t we want to be top?”

“We come from the nation of Dickens and Shakespeare, we have an extraordinary literary background,” she said. “I believe we are doing lots of good work on core literacy and phonics, which are vital, but we need to add … getting children from a young age into loving reading, and wanting to read ... We’ve got to get the fun and enjoyment back into reading.”

Top 10 most literate countries

1 Finland
2 Norway
3 Iceland
4 Denmark
5 Sweden
6 Switzerland
7 US
8 Germany
9 Latvia
10 Netherlands

Top five by educational investment1 Brazil
2 Israel
3 Mexico
4 Belgium
5 Argentina

Top five by test scores1 Singapore
2 Finland
3 South Korea
4 Japan
5 China

By libraries1 Estonia
2 Latvia
3 Norway
4 Iceland
5 Poland

By newspapers1 Finland
2 Norway
3 Germany
4 Switzerland
5 Czech Republic

By households with computers1 Netherlands
2 Iceland
3 Denmark
4 Luxembourg
5 Norway

The United Kingdom ranks:17 overall
11 by computer
12 by educational investment
29.5 by libraries
31 by newspapers
26 by tests

• The subheading on this article was amended on 11 March 2016. An earlier version described Finland as a Scandinavian country.

---

Topics

• Literacy
 
• Booktrust
 
• Libraries
 
• Finland