I am surprised - if you installed 64bit Windows - you have a VM!
Just go to www.virtualbox.org download it and install and - you have all of them, and simultaneously, and no dual boot mess!

You may test and chose many of them and you even can run 3, 4 even 5 systems in the same time. And more significantly - you may have desktop integration (all windows from both systems - host and guest at the same time). And share some directories between host and guests.

And start/stop/move virtual disks/DVD/USB sticks between them at any time.

And it is free (Oracle behind that) and easy.

Both ubuntu and debian are heavily used probably in the making of the maemo platform so essentially choosing those over <insert_your_own> distribution would be wise in various ways:
- Guides on maemo.org are mostly written for either of these distributions.
- Scratchbox developer environment for maemo has already been made in virtual machine format.
- Essentially the core of the package management system used in maemo is deb packages which are debian package.

Choosing ubuntu over debian would be somewhat a wise choice for a beginner to linux as ubuntu is more lenient towards beginners than debian. However nobody says you are forced to use ubuntu

As for using virtualbox or any virtualised environment, there are some limitations:
- You can only allow raw/direct access of USB based hardware to a guest OS. Any other raw/direct access are not possible with the usual virtualisation software.
- Using virtualisation means that you have to sacrifice a portion of your system's current running resources in order to have more than one OS operating at the same time. The guest OS needs to be allocated a certain set of RAM (which can be a little daunting for linux beginners assuming the bare minimum is enough). Also not everyone has enough system resources to run virtual machines, people with maybe 1-2GB of RAM may struggle here when they try to expand their usage.
- With a virtualised linux environment, you won't be able to get access to raw terminals or even magic sysrq key(for when you're stuck in a bind and you want to quickly finish it up). Most linux distributions comes with at least seven terminals, the first six consists of only pure CLI based terminal whilst the last terminal is usually for the Xorg environment (which is GUI in layman's terms).
- I also personally find that having linux virtualised and with windows being the host, one can find themselves disturbed and willing to switch back to the host. With dualboot, there's no switching back and you're forced in that environment until you either bail out or whatever. This is especially handy if you really want to learn linux properly rather than having linux as a guest OS.

Read OP's first post again

my bad......
(opens mouth, inserts foot metaphorically )

...would still contend AV is worthwhile, if only to limit spread of virus/malware to windows pc's

I have mint, and it works OK. However, if you want something that just works, good old Ubuntu 32 bit is unbeatable, there is always something with the 64 bit.

Do what I do and run Slackware(.com)--that way you won't be a "Linux Dummy(TM)" anymore!

I've been reading as much as I can about the basics of Linux but my head keeps going back to Windows and DOS (at least the Change Directory CD command is the same!). I thought that adding some form of Linux as a second boot option would provide me firsthand experience (as a visual thinker it's necessary) to understand it.
When I changed the OS of my box from Vista Ultimate 64 to Win 7 Pro 64 the first thing I did was tear the whole thing apart to try and find every nook and cranny of the new OS. I then wiped clean and re-installed. I'm thinking I'd be best doing that with whichever Linux I choose also. I must protect my Windows OS 64bit on the other partition though. I cannot allow viruses to bleed over from the Linux version to the unprotected Windows. (if Windows isn't running neither is my Windows Antivirus suite).
Ubuntu has CLAM which could do.
Fedora does not mention any specific antivirus products and no one here seems to be behind that OS so I'm counting it as out (it was the best looking from the screenshots which is why it was my first choice).

Here is a great question which will make my choice easier:
How do I view the programs available in the Repos for each of the Linux OS's with my Windows OS? I tried Google and kept reading "Install the OS and add the Repos." I'd like to know beforehand what's there. It's like buying a car and asking the seller if it has heated leather seats and the seller says "Buy it and find out." NO!

linux CLI is similar to DOS, so if you tinkered with DOS you may find slight similarity between the two, but don't expect every command you see in DOS be made available under linux CLI.

Here is a rough guide to get you started on learning linux CLI via BASH.

If there were any exploits for linux, they'd only depend on linux kernel only. So things like worms or viruses (if any) under linux cannot be executed under linux. Its like trying to make your car run on diesel when it can only run on petrol. The same vice-versa, so really there's no need to fuss over antivirus as linux `viruses' won't harm windows or vice-versa. The only thing you need to worry about if anything is a backdoor that is operated by a real blackhat, and those are fairly rare (unless you piss one of them off coincidentally).

Different linux distributions use different package managers and therefore different repositories. Unlike windows where install files are .exe usually. Under linux you have:
The list above isn't comprehensive but it should be enough to give you a rough idea of how many variations there are for different package types for various distributions and therefore different repositories for those.

To be frank, I do not think you'll need to install linux and add the repositories. On most popular linux distributions, usually downloading the big ISO images (at least 600+MB) you should get all the things that you may find in rough equivalent sense to installing windows and office. For the rest of the things such as a fancy media player, you can later on install them via the repositories from the linux distribution of your choice (and usually those repositories are already pre-set upon installation). You can also add repositories for them if for instance they may contain proprietary portions which cannot be distributed in premade ISO images due to licensing limitations.

I personally disagree, it really depends on how dumbed down you need it to understand a few simple questions.

Compared with XP any Linux distro is easy, nowdays.

rgds

Well then I should have no trouble at all.
__________________________________________________ _

Why is it the Ubuntu download page directs windows users to a secondary page for download? Does the standard Ubuntu 10.4 download not offer a Dual Boot option on install without using the Windows Ubuntu Download page?
Standard: http://www.ubuntu.com/download/ubuntu/download
Windows: http://www.ubuntu.com/download/ubuntu/windows-installer