1. That has nothing to do with virtualization. If you have hd/fs problems then you will have problems with your host machine as well.
My point is that if one drive fails, you still have a running drive. If you're doing windows updates and have a power failure, that can potentially bork up the install. With a dual boot system, I can boot into my second OS and carry on until I've fixed the Windows error. If my second OS is virtualized, I need to invest the time to fix the host boot drive before I can continue doing any work on that machine. Yes not directly related, but I would say still applicable.
2. Not an issue for modern machines.
I agree, however not all of us are blessed with modern machines. My newest x86 hardware is a 2-3 year old laptop, my newest desktop hardware (core system) is at least 6 years old at this point. It still does what I need it to do, so I don't see a need to upgrade. Many others are in the same situation, either for financial reasons or for simply wanting to run hardware into the ground. Much cheaper to pick up a second disk for dual boot than to execute an entire platform upgrade. Definitely cheaper to pick up a disk for dual boot than to pay for VMware.
I would also say how much of an issue the overhead is depends on how much you're trying to do in the VM. If you're editing high-resolution photos, applying image transformations and filters, you may need all the memory you can get. Additional overhead might not be acceptable in that situation.
3. What? Managing VMs is as easy as managing tabs in a browser.
Once the setup has been completed, I agree. Determining allocation of resources, installing virtualization tools, etc. is a little more complicated than hitting the new tab button. Your response does not address my concerns regarding hardware passthrough.
4. True. If you are a serious gamer you definitely need to have a native install of Windows. Now there have been some really good improvements in graphics support with WMware in the last year or two. So, if you are a more casual gamer then you will probably be happy with a Windows VM if you use VMware Workstation on a modern PC with a fairly recent graphics card.
That may be true. I concede that improvements may make casual gaming possible using VMware possible. At that point, it would be a decision between the ~30 seconds less of gaming per session (for a casual gamer, probably only a few times a month) versus the initial financial investment into virtualization software.
5. True (if you don't have another PC with your old OS close by 
)
It makes a difference to me even when I have another machine with the old OS on my desk. I'm already using this machine, I may as well continue to use it. I concede that it may not be as simple for some people or personality types.
The main things I love about virtualization are the ability to test and the ability to restore and migrate machines to different hardware and software platforms. You also have the ability to have separate machines for specific tasks or for running software that is no longer supported. There are tons of reasons to run VMs.
These are definitely good reasons, some of which I mentioned in my previous post. However, several of these concepts go beyond the concept of simply replacing a dual boot environment and confound the issue. I do not deny that virtualization has its benefits, I am simply arguing that virtualization is not superior in all cases to a dual-boot environment. These particular advantages can apply to a dual boot environment as well, perhaps even using the same virtual machines on both hosts. Granted, if one is splitting every task into a VM, there would not be need for a dual-boot environment.
The biggest problem I see people run into when they try virtualization is that they want to use a free hypervisor like Virtualbox or KVM and there is huge difference between those and VMware. I've tried them all and they just don't compare. If you do want to try it out do yourself a favor and use VMware Workstation or Fusion.
The main draw of Linux for a casual user, in my experience, is based on two factors. The first factor is that it is an alternative to Windows that can be legally installed on their current PC, regardless of age or hardware limitations. The second factor is that it is a
free alternative. Paying for virtualization software is significantly more expensive than a second hard drive (cheap SSDs can be found in the $50 range, as can 1TB HDDs), which could have use even if the user decides they don't like the other OS. It's also possible that one might have a HDD left over from an old system that they could use for free. Previewing posts tells me that this concern has already been addressed by some, but I will leave this response for completness' sake.
If you want a thread discussing virtualization, it's easy enough to start one of your own. This sort of discussion might be better suited for such a thread, the primary purpose of this thread is to discuss linux setups in general, rather than dual-boot setups.
VMware? That's the company sued for allegedly violating GNU GPL? No, without thanks.
RMS, is that you? 
I have basic understanding why Linux has been successful (hint: GNU GPLv2), I'm not ignorant to ethical issues, and I'm not a shill. This apparently isn't true for everyone in this thread.
I really can't believe that you are calling me a stupid, amoral, shill. You are a real douche. I don't work for VMware. I've been in the hosting business for a while now and it's the standard for a reason...it's easy to use and it "just works".
Let's all watch the personal attacks, hm? No need for throwing names around.
