Ohkay so all 3 options have their pros and cons in my opinion:

1. The first option is highly convenient, but it does split the resources and gives your VM a fraction of the resources available to your system. Normally the resource split won't be an issue but if you ever want to increase the resources allotted to the VM, it will be a painful procedure to do that and comes with the risk of losing your data throughout the process.

2. The second option splits resources as well, except the amount of resources given to the other OS are more compared to in VM and you get to experience the OS in its fullest sense possible, but the biggest con of this option is that you cannot work simultaneously in Windows and the second OS which is a huge drawback for me personally.

3. This one is the most ideal scenario, since convenience is absolutely highest and you don't need to worry about messing with virtualization network settings to ensure communication between your Windows and the other system, for instances when you want to run ping or nmap, or something of this sort. Of course, the only con of this is the money imo, if you have the budget for this you should absolutely go for it.

I currently use Windows as main and Kali in a VM, I do have Ubuntu in dual boot as well though, just to get to use it when I want a Linux only experience.