Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

MS Tells How to Delete Linux, Install NT or Win2K 642

Ion Berkley writes "Should we feel flattered or threatened that Microsoft now provides on-line instructions on how to delete Linux from your hard drive and replace it with 2000/NT? The only thing that suprises me about this is that they don't try to sell you a Microsoft tool to use in place of fdisk."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Tells How To Replace Linux With MS 2000

Comments Filter:
  • They can't be stopped. They started this whole apocolipse idea and are the root that all evil is tapped from.
  • by QBin ( 25383 ) on Tuesday December 21, 1999 @07:04PM (#1454131)
    Anyone else find it amusing that the faq actually only tells you how to delete linux? For installing windows it only says "Install Windows 2000 or Windows NT."
  • Microsoft at least know has a slight respect for Linux, in so far as they want to take back market share lost to it.

    The implications are deep, and Microsoft is pushing buttons we haadn't thought of.

    What if MS starts offering a discount for a paid Linux CD? Then Linux loses nothing. Why? You can get free CDs. You can download it to CD-R. You can't do that w/ Windows legally.

    But now Linux must start becoming even more user friendly, or the MS repo tactic will be very successful.

    However, how many Linux users do you know that want to install Windows on their Linux machine?

    Please go to After Y2K (www.nitrozac.com) and vote for geek number 1 (me!) in the look-a-like contest!
  • "Join the collective, they said.
    Browse the web, they said.
    I'd rather be Linuxing."

    Seriously, it's a true tip of the hat to the Linux crowd that they'd tell people how to "get rid of" the competition. Now that the DOJ has barked at them, they didn't include the usual code that would let the software molest the Linux install :-)

    This seems to be a proper sign that they see us as the enemy, not any of the BSDs or BeOS. Despire the Judges findings of fact, too. I'd chalk the "Halloween" documents of last year up to "look at your competiton, Judge" as the timing was just too perfect, but this...
  • by Foogle ( 35117 ) on Tuesday December 21, 1999 @07:07PM (#1454141) Homepage
    Thank goodness. Now everyone who's gotten a PC with Linux preinstalled with actually have a choice in the matter.


    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • by ColinG ( 86915 ) on Tuesday December 21, 1999 @07:08PM (#1454142) Homepage
    I find it interesting that it states that the file systems that Linux and Windows use are incompatible... they are, to an extent, but they say it in such a manner that dismisses all possibility of a dual boot option- heaven forbid.

    Also noted is how they state that file Linux can recognize the filesystems of Microsoft (and over 40 other) partition types, yet their Windows is ignorant of all but its own.

    Just something to think about.
  • It's possible that they're not putting this here to provide "support", but instead are putting it there to give the illusion that it's a common issue for Linux users to want to delete it and install Windows.
  • Also, Linux recognizes more than forty different partition types, such as:

    FAT 12 (Type 01)

    FAT 16 > 32 M Primary (Type 06)

    FAT 16 Extended (Type 05)

    FAT 32 w/o LBA Primary (Type 0b)

    FAT 32 w/LBA Primary (Type 0c)

    FAT 16 w/LBA (Type 0e)

    FAT 16 w/LBA Extended (Type 0f)

    And here I thought in the FUD war that they would not go about admitting to things like this. AFAIK NT does not adress this number of partiton types, (it can't do 40 can it?).

    This is good. They now formally see us as a threat. The "laughing" stage is over, and the fighting stage it in full swing. (Not that it wasn't before, but it becomes more prominent with this, because Linux is currently more of a threat to Win2K Pro than the 98 kernel.)
  • Ala The Electric CD Acid test [slashdot.org]?

    "Quality software engineering -- we won the browser war!"
  • All of the Linux install instructions I've seen have been designed to coexist with a previous Windows installation. Never have I seen a Linux install which says, "Here is how to delete your Windows partition." Yet here we have Microsoft telling you how to delete your Linux partition in order to install a Windows product, not how to install Windows to coexist with Linux. Quite interesting...
  • by Marcus Aanerud ( 100936 ) on Tuesday December 21, 1999 @07:12PM (#1454150) Homepage
    I followed all the instructions for making a boot disk, backing up my data, starting from the disk, etc etc... I put in the Win2K CD to install, but nothing works! Hmm... I don't think M$ is ready to ship Win2K yet. It's having problems installing on on my Mac. :)

    World domination? Bah. Mighty sad, M$. I wonder whose great idea it was to make THAT document?
  • It's not as though lots of people are getting linux preinstalled on their OEMed purchases and get home and realize they'd rather be using a MS operating system.

    Anyone who knows how to install it will know how to uninstall it. It'd be much more helpful for them to post some better documentation for installing Windows itself. It's not as though that's a walk in the park. But then, they never were quite as willing to improve their own products as they were to tear down their competitors'.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Yeah, but....

    How many (mini)howtos explain how to have linux coexist with other OSes? 4

    how many address winXX specifically? 3

    Yes many of the other howtos will suggest you remove windows, but there is a pragmatic attituse that it makes sense to get along with other OSes.

    When MS publishes a "Howto configure your linux samba server to provide Domain control to Win2K clients", then I'll be impressed.

  • NT 2000 will recognize all of them, except possibly the Fat12.. when was the last time you used a Fat12 filesystem? Isn't that like DOS3.3 or something?


    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • I think this kb article was great! Like ColinG says, who can say it better than these two quotes from the article:
    Also, Linux recognizes more than forty different partition types, such as: . . .
    The partition types used by the Linux and Windows operating systems are incompatible.
    This gives alternative OS's legitimacy you can't BUY! A better solution would be to expand the filesystem options available to WinNT/2000 users. It already recognizes NTFS and the various FAT's. And NT used to do HPFS. Really, how hard would it be?!? -adam
  • by jon_c ( 100593 ) on Tuesday December 21, 1999 @07:17PM (#1454158) Homepage
    The target for this artical is for windows users who tried out linux and want to swtich back. it's obvoisly not FUD or any anti-linux campaining.

    also i don't think this is news worthy except for the ./'s out their who can't get enough of MS vs. Linux debats, which i am personally sick to death of.


  • ROTFL on that one. But what about the preceding sentence:

    The Linux operating system is generally installed on partition type 83 (Linux native) or 82 (Linux swap).

    OK, how many of you out there install linux onto their swap partition?
  • You think that's interesting? WHY would Microsoft help people to use their competition?
    Ohhh... I dunno. Compatability? Wait. No. That's a user concern, not a business tactic. Nevermind. ;)

    Seriously though, Microsoft has released Unix compatible tools (NFS, for one) that are quite cool. Perhapse supporting other file system types will come as demand increases?

  • by mlc ( 16290 ) on Tuesday December 21, 1999 @07:19PM (#1454164) Homepage
    I may not be a genius, but there are quite a few errors in such a short document. For example:
    • The document says: "LILO can be configured to start from... The root folder (superblock) of the Linux partition." First, no Linux user calls anything non-manilla a folder. And the superblock is not the same thing as the root directory.
    • "'Superblock' in Linux terminology means that the Linux partition should be the active partition." Um, no. Active partitions are a separate concept from superblocks. Two wrong, yet conflicting, definitions of superblock in just two sentences. Wow!
    • [Nitpick] They tell you to delete all partitions; perhaps one already has a dual-boot and ought to keep his Windoze partitions.
    • When we type fdisk /mbr, we ought to be in DOS, yet the previous step instructed us to but a Linux bootable CD or disk in and wait for the command prompt. Then again, they could just have us do the whole thing with the MS fdisk, but that'd be too logical, I guess.
    And I haven't even argued with the point of the document yet...
  • Having been in the situation before, there's a reason for them to give you instructions on how to remove any other OS... The Microsoft Windows/DOS fdisk took is rather silly when it comes to removing non-fat partitions.

    In fact, it's pretty well impossible to remove a Linux partition from within Windows, and it's really for no good reason.

    There used to be a hidden switch: FDISK /X that would allow you to blast away partitions that weren't DOS, but I can't say for sure if this is still here.

    After using the hidden /X option, you would normally have to tell FDISK to re-install the MBR, using another hidden option. FDISK /MBR will clean up the mess that /X leaves.

    After all this, it's really clear why they felt the need to give instructions that don't rely on undocumented switches to their software. :)
  • by Duxup ( 72775 ) on Tuesday December 21, 1999 @07:24PM (#1454173) Homepage
    I did technical supervision for a number of techs for a large computer company for some years. You'd be surprised how the numbers of customers calling in for help removing Linux (if they even could pronounce it correctly *tear*) skyrocketed over the last year. Most clients hear the benefits of Linux but find themselves terribly ill prepared to work in such an OS.

    I think it's a bit of a long jump to assume that a single M$ support doc reinforces Linux's competitive value against M$ products, and is somehow an attack on Linux. We also had to develop a support doc for our (less capable) techs to help the increasing # of customers who wanted to go back to Windows. Our more experienced techs assisted clients in dual booting so they could experiment in Linux, but keep the computer productive until they had things going in Linux.

    I think it does provide a good sign that Linux indeed is getting allot of good attention from people who are willing to move to a new OS, but find current distributions too difficult to begin with. Perhaps if newer distributions were easier to use, customers would be more willing to stay. Many of them want to learn how to use Linux, but do not have the resources (or time) necessary to switch without a massive amount of bother.

    In the meantime, the calls keep coming.
  • Oh. Well, I've only heard rumors, but I was under the impression that Windows was floppy-compatible :)


    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • by labiss ( 73193 ) on Tuesday December 21, 1999 @07:25PM (#1454175)
    They said to keep your linux cd so you can reinstall it later... Apparently they have no faith that people who have used linux will keep NT longer than until they realize that there is solitaire on linux too.

    my pathetic opinion

  • by detritus. ( 46421 ) on Tuesday December 21, 1999 @07:26PM (#1454177)
    Ah - so that's why Microsoft is looking for Linux and FreeBSD techies, they needed to know how to "uninstall" it.

    - Detritus

    "The Penguin is Mightier than the Sword"
  • And this brings up two interesting questions:

    1) If you know enough to remove or shrink your Windows partitions and install Linux, will you not know enough to then remove it?

    2) Why in the world would you go through the trouble of installing Linux if you wanted to remove it to install Windows? ;-)

    The only other situation I can think of is if you had a box that came with Linux preinstalled, and you wanted to put Windows on it...but, as it stands now, most machines are cheaper without an OS, or with Windows, than with Linux, simply due to greater competition among machines coming bundled with Windows.

    Oh, well. This was an amusing read, anyway. ;-)
  • Interesting thought. At the present price structure, I believe it's much, much more expensive to buy Windows as a consumer than as an OEM, so it would be a really, really dumb idea to buy a Linux or Be machine and replace the existing OS with Windows. I believe the actual list price of Windows 98 is something like $ 200.


  • by fvzappa ( 117859 ) on Tuesday December 21, 1999 @07:29PM (#1454185)
    Do you guys just search around MS's website looking for stuff that mentions Linux for use in conspiracy theories on Slashdot? For crying out loud... It's not like this was on the front page, it's buried in the middle of a "Personal Support" section -- it's not anti-Linux propaganda. Perhaps MS tech support gets lots of questions about this and wants to alleviate the confusion? Have you thought a little about this before putting your paranoia on this post?

    So you (for example, not you personally, ok?) are a Linux newbie and you trust Microsoft for aid in getting Win NT on your box after Linux has been installed by that Zealot down the hall. Here's how to do it, plain and simple. Nowhere does it say that Linux is inferior. It even makes sure you have a backup of Linux in case you want to install it at a later date. (Go _read_ it!)

    This is hardly Microsoft running scared. Hardly Microsoft taking over the world. Hardly Microsoft killing Linux with one fell swoop. For crying out loud, lighten up!!

  • by Roundeye ( 16278 ) on Tuesday December 21, 1999 @07:29PM (#1454187) Homepage
    My take is that the sequence of "press p.. press d" cryptic commands is what they're displaying there. Face facts -- the typical PHB or M$ drone in corporate America goes to MS' site for the definitive word on matters technical. They hear something about Linux, they enter it as a search term at the M$ site, and this page comes up. They look down it and see that cryptic business with no explanation and are secretly glad they aren't using that cryptic Linux thing ("those stupid Linux people don't know what's good for 'em; buncha commies and hippies I betcha"). And another M$ buying tool spends more dollars on another broken M$ product.

    This is masterful propaganda, and it's disgusting.

  • The MS Fdisk won't delete extended Linux partitions.


    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • by StenD ( 34260 ) on Tuesday December 21, 1999 @07:32PM (#1454192)
    Let the fun begin!

    The partition types used by the Linux and Windows operating systems are incompatible.

    A curious definition of "incompatible". Last I checked, my notebook had Linux and Windows partitions coexisting quite nicely, and Linux could access them all. Is it _our_ fault that _Microsoft's_ product is deficient in this area?

    The Linux operating system is generally installed on partition type 83 (Linux native) or 82 (Linux swap).

    Hey, how many people have installed Linux on the swap partition?

    The Linux boot manager (LILO) can be configured to start from: ... The root folder (superblock) of the Linux partition.

    I think the lilo README says it far better:

    The LILO boot sector is designed to be usable as a partition boot sector.

    (I.e. there is room for the partition table.) Therefore, the LILO boot
    sector can be stored at the following locations:

    - boot sector of a Linux floppy disk. (/dev/fd0, ...)
    - MBR of the first hard disk. (/dev/hda, /dev/sda, ...)
    - boot sector of a primary Linux file system partition on the first hard
    disk. (/dev/hda1, ...)
    - partition boot sector of an extended partition on the first hard disk.
    (/dev/hda1, ...)*

    "Superblock" in Linux terminology means that the Linux partition should be the active partition.

    Well, since every (formatted) ext2 partition has a super block, that would be a bit difficult, wouldn't it?

    Remove native, swap, and boot partitions used by Linux:

    Hey, you told us about the native and swap partition types, but what is this "boot partition" type?

    Insert either a bootable floppy disk or a bootable CD-ROM for the Linux operating system on your computer, and then press CTRL+ALT+DELETE to restart your computer.


    Remove LILO. To remove the LILO, type fdisk /mbr at the command prompt, and then press ENTER.

    Well, no. Since you booted from a Linux disk, assuming that you did that from the shell, you'd get:

    # fdisk /mbr

    Unable to open /mbr

    Also, Linux recognizes more than forty different partition types,

    Closer to eighty, but I guess when comparing it to Windows, which is brain damaged and only recognizes things like

    FAT 12 (Type 01)

    FAT 16 > 32 M Primary (Type 06)

    FAT 16 Extended (Type 05)

    FAT 32 w/o LBA Primary (Type 0b)

    FAT 32 w/LBA Primary (Type 0c)

    FAT 16 w/LBA (Type 0e)

    FAT 16 w/LBA Extended (Type 0f)

    I guess they didn't want to make Windows look too bad in comparison (although they forgot to mention the NTFS partition types which Linux knows about). Well, I guess that I'll just tell them that their "information" didn't answer my question. ;)
  • Well, since Red Hat et al have made installation easy, it's certainly not impossible that someone has installed Linux and doesn't know how to delete the partitions - especially since the process is so arcane.

    If MS is really worried about this, they really /should/ make their own tool to deal with it.

    I agree with others on this thread that the most characteristic thing in this article is the fact that they don't discuss dual booting - they want Windows2000 to be the only OS on your machine, bar none.


  • Hmm, do we see a trend?

    Also, Linux recognizes more than forty different partition types, such as:
    • FAT 12 (Type 01)
    • FAT 16 > 32 M Primary (Type 06)
    • FAT 16 Extended (Type 05)
    • FAT 32 w/o LBA Primary (Type 0b)
    • FAT 32 w/LBA Primary (Type 0c)
    • FAT 16 w/LBA (Type 0e)
    • FAT 16 w/LBA Extended (Type 0f)
    For some reason, they mention it as if it is obvious and common-place, last I checked, Win98 could barely read NTFS filesystems...hehe...

  • What's even better is this one:

    Windo ws Overwrites Linux Boot Manager [microsoft.com]

    When you install Microsoft Windows on a computer that has the Linux operating system installed, Windows may overwrite or deactivate the Linux boot manager (LILO, or Linux Loader). As a result, you can no longer access the Linux operating system.

    They also tell you this:

    Remov ing the Linux LILO Boot Manager [microsoft.com]

    When Linux is installed on your computer, it allows a dual boot by loading a boot manager called LILO directly into the MBR. To remove LILO, perform the following steps...

    Wheeeeee. :)

  • My first Linux distribution CD, in 1994 (ish) was from a company called Yggdrasil. It shipped on a single CD and a boot floppy - just pop the floppy in your PC (booting from CD wasn't even thought of in PC-land back then), stick the CD in your drive, and wait a few minutes - you instantly had a fulling working Linux machine running so you could evaluate it before you installed anything on your disk. That was actually an *awesome* way of showing Linux off to my fellow co-workers - it didn't destroy anything, yet it showed you what you got... and if you wanted, you could move over to your hard disk and thus have a writable filesystem to work on. But it seems that those days are over - I wonder if they'll ever come back? It'd be awesome, given the speed and power (and RAM capabilities - maybe we'd get a small ramdisk for /home or something) of todays PC's, to have a demo CD that booted Linux in read only mode (except for the ramdisk, maybe), didn't change anything, and gave you a glimpse of the OS without any liability whatsoever... If RedHat/Mandrake/SUSE/Debian/etc. could pull this off, demo's of Linux' capabilities would be so much slicker... Anyone know of any distro's that can do that today, like the good old days of Yggdrasil?
  • What's really pathetic about this is that the NT installer apparently doesn't give you the opportunity to correctly repartition/reformat your drive. That would, of course, be the obvious way to handle this situation.

    Screwing up the installer, and then hiding the fix in a very poorly written tech note is typical MS.

  • You just use Loadlin... it boots you into linux and you edit your /etc/lilo.conf and add your windows partition. Then at a command prompt type 'lilo'
  • C'mon guys. This is such stupid immature behavior. Roblimo, that's the most immature article I've ever seen you post. My respect for you just dropped a little bit.

    Guys, take a look at the Red Hat installation manual. I have in my hand a copy of the manual that came with 5.2, but it's basically the same as the 6.0 manual. The Red Hat manual describes, in detail, how to remove Windows from your hard drive. Big freaking deal. Red Hat tells you how to remove Windows, Microsoft tells you how to remove Linux. Do you expect Microsoft to help you install Linux? Or Red Hat to help you install Windows?

    Grow up, folks.


  • I don't mind if Bill is getting rich. More power to him. I'll even consider buying an alternative to Linux that does a better job of providing what I chose Linux for:

    • Ships with standard scripting language(s) that I can expect to find anywhere the OS is installed: bash, Perl, gawk, and optionally Python, Tcl, etc.
    • Ships with development tools so that I can take my source code to any Linux box and compile it (possibly slipping in distribution disk first to install them).
    • Doesn't force me to go through GUI when scripting tasks I do repeatedly is faster.
    • 4 important words: mean time between failures.
    • Nearly every standard tool can be configured for a variety of languages, including ones that the company distributing it has never heard of.

    Originally I just went on listing things I like about Linux, but I thought better of it. The bottom line is that I like having a programmer's environment, and I want it accessible and a part of all of the tools. That's where Unix started. The free software community has carried the idea further. It is a different mindset. It is a different style of usage. It is the idea that the user should not be presented with an interface that makes many common tasks efficient, but in which further optimization is hard. Linux puts the UI optimization into the user's hands if the user wants it.
  • The general rule is to install Microsoft operating systems first, than any other operating systems. Microsoft writes their installation software on the assumption that they can trash any existing MBRs, boot blocks and partitions.
  • You've obviously never installed NT. The NT installer does, in fact, allow you to repartition/reformat your drive as you wish. And, imho, the way it's done in the NT install is far better than the way I've seen it done in many Linux distro installations.


  • I used to man the tech support lines for a leading Linux distributor and we would occasionally get calls from customers asking to uninstall Linux. It wasn't frequent, I maybe took a half dozen of these types of calls a month, but it happened.

    Usually it was people who don't know a lot about computers but just wanted to try something new. Learning to use Linux can be a daunting task to newbies. I really felt bad for them because if somebody would just sit down with them for an hour and explain the differences between Windows and Linux they'd probably be all set.

  • Nothing special needs to be done in order to dual-boot Windows 2000 and Linux. I've been doing that for a while now. Just install Win2000 first, then install your favorite Linux distro and use Lilo. Piece of cake.


  • "In Linux terminology superblock means the" partition is active.

    Huh? In UNIX terminology "superblock" means roughly the same thing as "FAT" on a DOS filesystem (e.g. the place you write central filesystem metadata). You'd think they could use some of those Linux savy people they've been hiring to to a tech eval of these documents.
  • The Red Hat installation manual contains detailed instructions on how to delete Windows. It's not like this is a big deal, people.


  • ... should stop being so naive.

    Careful study of Microsofts previous tactics in the information warfare department reveal that they do indeed use directives such as this to kick off FUD campaigns.

    Maybe you don't have much of a concept of exactly *how* damaging a message from Microsoft such as "this computer is running a non-MS version of DOS, and Windows may not work" type message can be to the average end user in terms of making an informed and intelligent decision, but articles like this on Slashdot are intended to make you *learn* from lessons lost by previous computer people.

    The fact is, this little gem of 'support information' about Linux, and how Linux is so cryptic and 'not compatible with Windows', carefully propagated around the computer user community can be very effective in terms of market control. This 'support information' isn't really support - it's a clever way of indicating that you might be helped by removing Linux from your system, and here's how to do it so that you can install Win2k ...

    If you're in the computer industry and intend to survive in it, you'd be wise to at least stop being so naive a little bit, and start looking behind the curtain. Even if just a little bit.
  • now that your done playing games heres how to put a real OS back on your system

    Well, that is sort of what I do at home - I play some of those 3D-accelerated games in Win98, then boot back into a real OS. Now, once VMware can pass through 3D acceleration, or Wine can do it...
  • In fact, it's pretty well impossible to remove a Linux partition from within Windows, and it's really for no good reason.

    Uhm...no. To wit:

    1. Boot from bootable Win95 floppy
    2. Enter fdisk
    3. Hit 3 (Delete Partition)
    4. Hit 4 (Delete Non-DOS Partition)
    5. Select partition you wish to blow away.
    6. Repeat as needed
    I've done it many, many times. Works wonderfully.
  • I've had mixed experiences with this. DOS fdisk has an option in the menu now to delete non-DOS partitions, but it's pretty brain-dead and gets confused easily. I've deleted ext2 partitions in the past with no problem, but a few weeks ago I was removing linux from the drive of a computer I was getting ready to sell. I went to delete the logical drives (hda5, etc in linux terminology) but fdisk said it could not find any logical drives. I next tried to delete the extended partition, but it told me I couldn't because there were still logical drives present. Kind of a no-win situation. :-)

    As far as using fdisk /mbr, this will be necessary anyway if you have LILO installed in the master boot record. Otherwise, the computer will boot up, print LI, then stop.

    I guess this isn't very useful information, though. Anyone who's willing to take the time to figure this stuff out would probably rather use Linux than any OS Microsoft has produced.
  • Your brain is incompatible with Windows2500. To install Windows2500 you have to first remove your brain. There are some steps to achieve this:

    1. Get a vacuum pump. We recomend an industrial strenght pump for better preformance
    2. Insert a tube into one of your nostrils. On the other insert Windows2500 Install Bug (TM)
    3. Turn on the pump. Note that while your brain is being sucked you may feel a little dizzy.
    4. When our MS Bug Wizard (TM) will detect that no brain remains lay inside your skull, it will preform installation automatically.

    Enjoy your new installation.
  • From DOS 3.3 days to current times, I've never been able to get MS OS'es (And I use the term loosely) to install on my system if something else was already there, such as an OS/2 HPFS partition or a Linux ext2 partition. In DOS days this was easy enough to get around -- simply zip an existing DOS directory up, format /s your partition, and unzip the DOS directory. Ever since the OS got too big to fit on one disk zipped, that procedure is no longer useful.

    So why don't they write some instructions out on installing a 'doze installation AFTER you've installed Linux or OS/2 (or FreeBSD or whatever) without destroying what you already have on the drive. There's absolutely no reason why their install program should refuse to install the software, but every time I've ever tried it, it has.

  • Uh. I've got Slack7 from WC(it was $15 at the local Microcenter...$40 from WC?! no way!). One of the CDs(#3? I think) is a bootable CD. It's got KDE working (type "startx" after logging in as root). I used it to test it out on my Gateway Solo2500 laptop. KDE worked nicely, although the windows were drawn rather slow...? Then I just booted back to Win98 and everything worked as before. I'm not sure what's wrong with SuSE. Slack works for me.

  • Microsoft's support site articals are written when a question is asked repeatedly to the support division. apparently this is a question a number of windows's users want an answer for. it only show's that a lot of windows users are trying out linux.

    btw: i agree with many of the posts the the KB artical is virtually useless and incorrect. i think they just wrote it to shut people up.


  • by Ektanoor ( 9949 ) on Tuesday December 21, 1999 @08:37PM (#1454287) Journal
    How to stop the vacuum pump.

    The relatives of several potential users reported a bug in the installation of Windows2500. According to reports, many users could not install Windows2500 as the vacuum pump remained turned on. Due to this Windows2500 was sucked by the pump, aborting the installation. Due to a bug in the human body, caused by a timeout in certain functions, most users died.

    To issue this problem we have created a workaround. To install Windows2500 you need the assistence of a third person, preferably a person with Windows2500 already installed. He must control the work of the vacuum pump. However this issue should be taken with extreme care:

    1. The pump should not be turned of too early. The vacuum force should give time for Installation Bug (TM) to enter the brain.
    2. Any cerebral remains may cause the Bug to work incorrectly.
    3. If the pump is turned off to late this may result in irrevocable damage.

    We are now working on a Service Patch to conclusively issue the problem.
  • After a zillion years of installing RedHat without a hitch, out comes 6.1 and promptly gives me an X11 fault immediately at the start of an install, on a system that has been running older RedHats happily for ages. To a beginner, that Red Screen of Death ("Change signal timing") would be utterly meaningless, and terminal.

    With that kind of "improvement", newcomers are going to think that Linux is difficult to install and promptly go back to M$ in droves. For goodness sake, make the RH installer drop back to text mode automatically if X11 fails!!!!
  • Once you get the hang of it, compiling your kernel, sound card module, etc is very simple. The soundblaster live! driver is also very simple... Just download from http://opensource.creative.com then just

    make install
    depmod -a
    modprobe emu10k1

    Five easy steps for the most part, once you get the hang of it. As long as you've installed the linux kernel source code, everything should be in order. With loadable modules, recompiling one's kernel is almost unneeded, except for enabling some advanced options, like "Advanced router", and such. If you want a easy-to-use Linux distro, try Corel Linux 1.0 -- my only complaint is sometimes it tries to be too "smart", and overwrites a configuration file that I've customized, and some features are not quite evident -- such as installing a new hardware driver. The real power of UNIX-style systems is that they're not easy to learn, but easy to operate.
  • Human said as an insult BTW... Habbit of mine to use the word "Human" to discribe the worst of humanity as in "I'm only human"...

    This only proves Microsofts people accually believe there own marketting hype....

    Ask yourself the question .. how did Linux get on the computer to start with?
    Here are some posable answers....
    1. User went out of way to buy a computer with Linux preinstalled...
    You allmost have to kill someone to get a system with Linux preinstalled. I hear rummors that some such boxes are accually sold in stores but so far I have found only Windows PCs and Macs.. with the Macs hidden away...
    Thankfully I can buy such units on the Internet... Of course this is becouse I allready have a system so the whole point is moot...

    2. User removed Windows from system and Installed Linux...
    Clearly if a user removes Windows from his system he dosn't want to use Windows anymore so there'd be no reason to go back.

    3. Home built.. It's probably easyer to install Linux on a new hand built machine that it is to install Windows..
    Still if the user had WANTED Windows he'd have installed it in the first place.

    Some how Microsofts people believe your going to want to switch back to Windows after using Linux...

    The reality is it's not going to happen. On the other hand we can now point users to Microsofts website and say "See if you don't LIKE Linux you can allways switch back"...
    Just focuse your efforts on users who would accually benifit from a switch to Linux... Windows experts and gammers arn't going to get as much out of Linux as a newbe who wants to surf the web.

    Just my thoughts :)
  • by Zico ( 14255 )

    Why would it be Microsoft's responsibility to tell you how to configure a Linux server? Sardi's doesn't send out information telling people how to best enjoy their meal at Burger King. I guess they should start writing all Red Hat's documentation for 'em, too, huh?

    But hey, since you brought up the subject, I'm sure they'll welcome you to their free upcoming TechNet briefings which include the following session:

    How to successfully deploy Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional in non-Windows 2000 Server environments.

    • Part 1: Unix
      • Login and connectivity from Windows 2000 Pro client to a Unix server
      • Configuration and utilization of files and printers on a Unix network
      • Internet access via a Unix server.
    • Part 2: Novell Netware
      • Logon and connectivity from Windows 2000 Pro client to a NetWare server
      • Configuration and utilization of files and printers on a NetWare network
      • Internet access via NetWare server.

    Now, you were saying?


  • The Soundblaster Live! is a bit more difficult than the other soundcards for the time being because Creative has only just decided to play ball with the open source community (see lwn.net's timeline in a previous slashdot article) To contrast, when I decided to give Linux Mandrake [linux-mandrake.com] a shot a few weeks ago, the only step required for working sound was to type sndconfig

    Anyway, the most recent fruits of Creative's newfound enlightenment can be had here:

    http://opensource.creative.com/ [creative.com]

    and here:

    http://www.alsa-project.org/ [alsa-project.org] Don't let the version # fool you, ALSA has been awesome on w/ my GUS Max since I started using it 6-8 months ago. You may want to save ALSA for a future go-round, though, until you're feel comfortable configuring drivers not included as part of the stock kernel, as it's completely redone (and backward compatible) sound support for Linux, which is planned to be the next generation drivers and API. Also, it has a user mailing list in case you'd like a helping hand.

    Both have documentation about how to go about setting it up, so given the inclination, you can have sound right now instead of waiting for the next round of distro updates. :)

    Btw, kernel configuration and compiling really isn't very difficult - it's primarily choosing what devices to support, and a few protocols (and each option has a friendly little help display if you're unsure). For more information, you can visit the Linux Documentation Project at http://www.linuxdoc.org/ [linuxdoc.org] and LinuxNewbie.org at (oddly enough) http://www.linuxnewbie.org/ [linuxnewbie.org]- home of the NHFs (Newbieized Help files "in plain english")

  • I'm sorry, but I have to say that this really is a non-issue. Since when does it matter if -anyone- tells -anyone- how to remove a specific OS? I know I read the HOWTO that detailed installing LILO. I heard hundreds of people tell me to just ditch windows (I haven't, yet. DVDs just aren't playable on my hardware yet in linux)

    I suggest a slight level of maturity from the slashdot crow.. ah, hell. Who am I kidding? Flame away, people. Don't forget to repeat yourselves. :)

    I want a rock.
  • I suppose the value of that support is, perhaps, too well known to require comment - especially since I believe all non-premium Microsoft support lines require toll calls to Redmond.

    That's interesting about e-Machines - I didn't know that. Good for them for giving refunds. I wonder how they negotiated such a good deal - I was under the impression that the $80-odd price was pretty inflexible. If the "windows tax" is really just $ 30, I see the financial argument for alternative operating systems fading fast. I wonder how much Be would charge for preloading BeOS?


  • Remove LILO. To remove the LILO, type fdisk /mbr at the command prompt, and then press ENTER.

    Well, no. Since you booted from a Linux disk, assuming that you did that from the shell, you'd get:

    # fdisk /mbr

    Unable to open /mbr
    I found the above error most distressing after reading the Microsoft document.

    In my Technical Writing course at Western Carolina University (not exactly an academic mecca), "test, test, test again, make someone else test it, test it some more" was drilled into our heads when dealing with step-by-step documents we had written.

    Nevermind the lack of research before writing the document -- it's obvious that Microsoft didn't even test their own procedure!

  • I was pleased to find that kernel 2.2.13 came complete with a functional driver for my NeoMagic sound chip, the one used on all the new Sony laptops, so now I can listen to mp3's while I program, etc, etc. One less reason for using Windows. :-)
  • Our more experienced techs assisted clients in dual booting so they could experiment in Linux, but keep the computer productive until they had things going in Linux.

    It seems to me that WinLinux [winlinux.net] would be an ideal choice for people like this as it sounds very unobtrusive (e.g., it requires no re-partitioning). I've been wanting to recommend it to people wanting to try Linux, but having never used it myself I don't know if it's as easy to install and use and as unobtrusive as it sounds. Do other people out there have experience with WinLinux that they could share? I was also thinking of installing it on my laptop to make sure everything works in Linux before shrinking or deleting the Windows partition, so my motivation in asking this is not totally altruistic.

  • I think we should

    1) respect ppl with no more use for a computer than textprocessing. They are humans too.

    2) give the developers of all distros the hint to make dual-booting the DEFAULT option when installing Linux.

    Face it, changing from one OS (and most of the the apps) to another may take some time. Preserving the old system as well will IMHO increase the number of ppl actually making the switch to Linux. It is much easier to get used to the new system in small steps.

    If your computer suddenly is useless to you, you will probably blame the latest change you made - if that is installing Linux, we've lost one (1) user.

    Wouldn't that be a more friendly approach than the current used by MS and most Linux distros?

    "Use our product. Only. NOW. In fact, your current system is deleted."

  • That first sentence you quote, together with the following sentence are actually rather crafty:

    The partition types used by the Linux and Windows operating systems are incompatible. To remove Linux from your computer and install Windows 2000 or Windows NT, you must manually delete the partition used by the Linux operating system.

    Without any context or Linux knowledge, this seems to imply that Linux and Win2K can't reside on the same machine. It's a perfectly deniable implication. If you parse the second sentence fully, it doesn't actually say that. But I find it difficult to believe that the masters of FUD didn't intend it to confuse customers.

    Howard Owen hbo@egbok.com Everything's Gonna Be OK Consulting

  • Lessee... Win3.x would pop up a warning flag if you tried to run it over DR-DOS or the like...

    Win95, at install time, would detect HPFS partitions, and (incorrectly) allege that having OS/2 on your machine could make Windows malfunction.

    And now official help documentation regarding Win2000, claiming that somehow the very presence of a Linux partition on your system is somehow 'incompatible' and must be removed.

    Astounding how the largest software company in the world manages to be somehow ignorant of how to work with anyone else's software.

    Then again, maybe not so astounding....

  • Such an article actually exists: Q1266 71 - Windows Overwrites Linux Boot Manager [microsoft.com]

    It's just a pity that it's completely inaccurate, and therefore mostly useless.

    What's LILOCONFIG?

  • I've installed NT many many times, but I haven't looked at NT2K yet, which is what I assumed the article is pointing towards.

    But if it's so simple, why have this article? Why have people boot linux to delete linux partitions if it's so simple to do during the NT install? Obviously, there's a problem here or else why suggest such a strange workaround? Any ideas?

    I strongly suspect the NT2K installer has problems with Non-MS partitions.
  • Typical. Microsoft's bloat even extends to it's instructions.

    You can make DOS/Windows FDISK remove non-DOS partitions.

    I found this out at a LAN party way back when. And, on occasion, when I've needed HD space for something (usually putzing with a Bloatrosoft product), I can blow away my Linux partition.

    Why blow away Linux?

    • Usually I need the space IMMEDIATELY, so running out for a new drive isn't feasible.
    • Limited budget (can't always be running out for a new drive).
    • Limited space (can't fit any more drives in my case)
    • I can restore my Linux setup to pre-fragged condition in under an hour. Since all my data is backed up regularly, I don't lose anything (other than my high scores in SameGnome).
      NOTE: I am NOT doing this on a server machine. This is my workstation/gaming machine.

    How do you do it?

    At the command prompt, type:
    FDISK /fprmt

    This will enable you to blow away any non-DOS partitions from within FDISK. This works with PC-DOS7, Win95, Win95b, Win95c, Win98, Win98SE, WinNT4, and Win2K.

    Note: I'm not advocating murdering your Linux partition! I'm just diseminating information.

    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!

  • but it looks a hell of a lot like MS is getting ready to produce MS linux

    Precisely what in the Microsoft page in question would lead one to believe that? (The fact that they're telling you how to uninstall it doesn't mean they plan to offer it to you to install; there are plenty of other places you can get Linux....)

    he whole structure of the web page seems to be how to uninstall linux, not how to install Win 2k or Win NT over it.

    Presumably they figured that if you had 2K or NT, you also had documentation on how to install it.

    Notably WinNT 4.0 better not be a beta, or MS has some answering to do.

    NT 4.0 isn't a beta.

    Windows 2000, however, is (they only sent the final version to manufacturing a short while ago, and, as I remember, it won't be available until February). That's the "Beta release of a Microsoft product" that they're "discussing" (to the extent that they mention its existence); perhaps they're paranoid that the final release of W2K will require you to do something different as part of the uninstallation procedure of Linux in order to leave the machine in a state in which you can install it.

  • I'm not intentially trying to milk for karma if that's what you mean.

    I think you've missed my point. I simply wanted to know what company he works for that he's getting so many calls to get NT installed for end users ...

    And by saying I'm in "same boat, different waters", I get *similar* sorts of calls, albeit for people who want to set up Linux and get rid of their hassles with NT - and yes, because Linux is an Internet operating system (whereas NT isn't, thus the apples/oranges factoid, which I can accept as a fair comment to have made about my first post in this thread) this inevitably turns into a network administration type of call for me.

    I wouldn't say I'm off topic, either... the original poster had a point that he gets a lot of "how do I delete Linux" type calls, and I simply wanted to know more about the environment where those calls are being received...

    Well, I guess I've managed to get sucked into the "justify your post to an Anonymous Coward" trap, but oh well...

  • It's not so much the ext2 partion as the swap partition that I have ever had problems with and msfdisk thinks that it is a logical drive and that you have to delete the primary yet there is no primary to delete. Only way to get around it was to either use debug or a linux fdisk utility. The ArsonSmith
  • That's cool, didn't know that about Slack7. I'm happy to see there are still some companies doing this in their distributions - I guess this is one of the disadvantages to sticking with one distribution all this time (after Yggdrasil I've pretty much been RedHat/Mandrake happy).

  • Nevermind the lack of research before writing the document -- it's obvious that Microsoft didn't even test their own procedure!

    Hmm... I'm having visions of MicroSerfs clutching their secret Linux boxes to them saying, "No! You can't test this uninstall procedure on my box!"

    Good... bad... I'm the one with the gun.
  • by xeno ( 2667 ) on Tuesday December 21, 1999 @11:20PM (#1454421)
    It's not so much what the document says about how to remove Linux, it's what the doc says about MS's collective thoughts about Linux. Clearly it shows that MS considers Linux something that needs to be embraced (publicly acknowledged), extended (portrayed as something you migrate *from*), and extinguished (fdisk'ed). How do they go about this? They talk about "upgrading" in a targeted yet nonchalant way so as to ingrain a concept in a consumer's mind.

    MS would like consumers to think that because Windows 2000 has a release date in 1Q2000, one would "upgrade" to it from, say, Suse 6.3 released in 4Q1999. However, the reality is that "upgrading" is a subjective concept. It implies that one is moving to or augmenting a system, resulting in greater value. To my mind, one would "upgrade" from W2K to any kernel 2.2 release. I'm sure that MS apologists would see things differently. The important thing for MS is to squelch this idea and redefine the debate, presenting (a) the notion of "upgrading to W2K" as an objective decision, and (b) drowning out all the other voices to make it seem as if the common wisdom relating to that decision is a nod to W2K.

    Just as AMD and Intel are involved in a race for MHz when the consumer should be interested in actual performance (like attempting to judge the speed potential of a car by only looking at the tachometer), Microsoft attempts to refocus consumers' collective attention away from what's more well-developed or robust, to what's the latest version number, what's the most with-it name, or what's newest and modern.

    There's a lot of Microsoft precedent for this:
    • Version inflation, to make it seem as if the development work and stability present in a product is comparable to the competition. Witness Microsoft products such as MS Exchange 4.0, which was really a 1.0 release, MS Word 2000 (v9) which is really version 6, Schedule+ version 7.0 which was really release 3, etc etc)
    • Association of a product release with a date, such as the OS and Office apps, to make it seem as if there were value in running a application with the current year in the name. One of the admitted original goals was to prepare the consumer for yearly software licensing -- an idea which MS quickly withdrew, at least publicly.
    • Most importantly: The public positioning of the latest product as THE thing to which one upgrades. It's a mindshare thing. For example, when MS released NT 3.1 it supported HPFS, which is/was generally acknowledged to be technically superior to NTFS. However, HPFS was associated with OS/2, and was thus "old" technology. Clients were strongly encouraged to use the lesser NTFS technology, then (with 3.51) refused support if they used HPFS, and then (with 4.0) forced to abandon the superior file system technology entirely. To my mind, NT was used to kill a technically and architecturally superior Warp 4 simply by marketing that portrayed the latter as old and tired. (Not to make any apologies for IBM, which couldn't market a firehose to a common consumer in a burning building...)
    W2K will be marketed as the latest thing, the most "2000" thing, and the best thing -- despite the fact that the first two are valueless, and the last is something that is only determined by the consumer. Personally, I will "upgrade" my NT4/RH52 system at work to W2K (because it will make life easier in a Win-centric office), and then will "upgrade" my new home system that will inevitably come bundled with W2K to the latest RH or SuSE distro (because I don't like sloppy code or bad licenses in my home; it's a poor example for the kids).


  • That's the NM256AV, right? It's not actually a "sound chip" per se - they just stuck SBPro compatibility onto the graphics chip. That's part of the reason why the driver took so long to produce, and even now it's still a hack (you have to reserve a chunk of video memory (!) to use the audio).
  • ...
    "Also, Linux recognizes more than forty different partition types, such as:"

  • I find it interesting that Microsoft admitted that Linux supports more than forty partition types, including Microsoft partitions, while Windows recognises only a few.

    Another implicit reason to buy Linux :-)
  • Roblimo never said he thought that this was in any way reprehensible. But it sure is interesting. That M$ ackowledge our existence is one thing: that we're so widespread that such instructions might be useful to more than a few people is quite another. I'm glad the story was posted.
  • by bero-rh ( 98815 ) <bero@nospaM.redhat.com> on Wednesday December 22, 1999 @12:52AM (#1454451) Homepage
    Microsoft accidentally revealed some details on their upcoming top-secret product, Microsoft Linux NT.

    The partition types used by the Linux and Windows operating systems are incompatible

    Microsoft has added a very valuable patch to the kernel - it has removed support for some inferior, obsolete and insecure technologies (msdos, umsdos, fat, vfat and ntfs filesystems) that have bloated the Linux kernel for quite a while.
    Thank you, Microsoft. It's about time someone dared to do this. Keep up the good work.

    The Linux operating system is generally installed on partition type 83 (Linux native) or 82 (Linux swap)

    Microsoft Linux NT introduces another innovative(TM) technology - the possibility to install the whole system on a swap partition. I've talked with some other Linux developers to see if there's a reason to do this. We came to the conclusion that they're doing this for FUD purposes ("Linux becomes unstable if you use it on machines with less than 64 GB RAM. It will start overwriting arbitrary data on your harddisk.").

    "Superblock" in Linux terminology means that the Linux partition should be the active partition

    Microsoft Linux NT uses a new filesystem that doesn't need superblocks. Since they removed support for fat and ntfs, they must have come up with something really new (cpmfs?) - however, apparently we can't boot from partitions in their new filesystem.

    Insert either a bootable floppy disk or a bootable CD-ROM for the Linux operating system on your computer. [...] To remove LILO, type fdisk /mbr at the command prompt, and then press ENTER.

    Seems Microsoft ported Microsoft fdisk to Linux! I hope it's GPL... Where can I download it? And why would I want to? Microsoft keeps throwing up interesting questions...

    Also, Linux recognizes more than 40 different partition types

    "more than 40" is a neat way to put "about 100 last time I checked" - I wonder if they'll advertise Windows 2000 with "Windows 2000 recognizes more than 10 kB of RAM!"...
  • This is neither surprising nor cause for concern/outrage/whatever. In fact, you could say this isn't news for nerds, but *I* would never say that :-)

    What would definitely be news for nerds is if Microsoft had a technote explaining how to install a MS OS alongside another OS, just in case any of MS's customers might want to do that.

    BTW, can someone please set my mind at ease and dispel a rumour I heard, namely that W2K does away with the PC partition table, making it pretty difficult to share a disk between W2K and any normal OS.

  • by ch-chuck ( 9622 ) on Wednesday December 22, 1999 @01:57AM (#1454468) Homepage
    I was going to title this: "Msft solutions are Msft's problems" - but my first voyage into the world of FreeBSD years ago came with instructions to use the Microsoft&reg undocumented "fdisk /mbr" command - which taught me that those bastards take over the master boot record of you hard disk and don't even tell you about it! Talk about getting your foot in the door to leverage a monopoly...

    Ok, they have a desktop monopoly and billions in revenue for R&D - think that maybe NOW they can deliver a quality product for a change??

  • Microsoft® - Leave the Thinking to Us!

    ASP - a highly poisonous snake indigenous to Washington state. Once bitten, the victim becomes a mindless zombie completely under the control of the mighty snake god who dwells in the temple of Redmond.

  • Very often the tech support memos are written by the companies tech support staff. I remember one company who gave a bonus to every employee who wrote a technote.

    I believe it very likely that Microsoft gets calls from people who install Linux, get freaked out by a shell prompt, and then call to figure out how to get Windows re-installed.
  • Yeah, I know...didn't install on my Sun either :(

  • Are you sure you put your Mac in Turquoise mode first? Windows 2000 is colour-sensitive, and won't operate in Real Colour mode, only Extended Colour mode.

    ObSeriousPoint: As others have noted, the document is wildly inaccurate in places, and is useless as a means for a newcomer to deinstall anything other than their hair, which they'll probably be tearing out in frustration.

    For "obvious" reasons, it's also PC-specific, but I didn't see anything that actually -said- so. In short, whilst it's useful to have de-installation guides for newbies, they need to be technically correct and usable, otherwise what's the point? The poor pleb might as well have used trial-and-error.

    This guide -is- Slashdot-worthy, for it's utter uselessness. (Any newbie who actually followed it is more likely to end up with an unusable system than one with an OS of their choice.)

    Last, but not least, if Microsoft wanted to be helpful, they should develp a "safe" low-level formatter for hard drives. That would de-install ANY OS, without all this faffing about.

  • I'm sure the original author's comments were quite tongue-in-cheek.

    However, the Linux fdisk program is really no worse than its DOS counterpart, but I prefer cfdisk myself :) I know W2K setup is better, but still can be frustrating to a newbie (for example, it still isn't obvious that the boot NTFS partition can only be 4 GBs in size, at least with the install on the Beta copy I have. Trying to make a boot NTFS partition greater than 4 GBs will fail for no obvious reason.

  • Why would it be Microsoft's responsibility to tell you how to configure a Linux server?

    It's nothing to do with the Linux server, but the W2K clients. It's their OS, so wouldn't you think they'd want to help you get it configured in you network which runs Samba servers? Nah, they'd rather have you use Corel Linux on the desktop, then W2K, if they can't have everything.

  • The Linux operating system is generally installed on partition type 83 (Linux native) or 82 (Linux swap).

    Hey, how many people have installed Linux on the swap partition?

    Ehm, I think they mean linux is so stable, you don't even need it on a filesystem, just having it in (virtual) memory is enough :)

    (Don't get me started on not swapping out the kernel etc)
  • by Pilchie ( 869 ) on Wednesday December 22, 1999 @04:00AM (#1454509) Homepage

    To dispel this myth, I have been using Win2K beta 3(well actually, I have had it installed, but I haven't used it more than twice), for about 5 months now, and I haven't had any problems with my system. I also have Caldera 2.2, RedHat 6.1, and Win98 installed.

    Granted, When I got Win2K, I also got a new HD, so I wiped everything, set up my partitions, and installed everything at the same time. I don't see how there would be a difference though, if you just said to install to a given partition.

    Now, I'm sure people are going to say, what the hell are you doing with 2 Windows OS's and 2 Linux distros on the same machine. Well here it is. I have Win98 for Partition Magic (anyone know how that Linux, free tool is coming?). I have Caldera as my primary OS, the one I use all the time. I installed RedHat, because I wanted to check out Gnome, and didn't want the hassle of getting everything to work from within Caldera. And lastly I installed Win2K just to see what it was like. I thought there were a couple of pretty UI enhancements, but overall it is very similar to NT4.0, I still had almost all the same problems setting up devices.

    For some reason, I can't have both my SMC 9??? Network card and my USR 56K modem installed at the same time under either NT4.0, or Win2K, even though Win98, and Linux have no problems whatsoever. Oh well. I don't really care, since I don't use 'Doze for anything anyway.
  • What's the difference?

    We don't jeer at "humor".

  • 1. M$'s fdisk wont delete or recognize any non-dos partition. Therefore you would have to usr linux's fdisk (covered in the directions).

    2. If you are using linux fdisk typing fdisk /mbr would create an interesting error.

    The way I see it the only people who would use these directions are people who normally use windoze and were just seeing what the hype is about. And these people would not have only linuxpartiotions on their system. That brings us to:
    3. Deleting all partitions will remove the dos partitions too.

    4. And as to M$ releasing their own product to do this: fdisk was originally a M$ product, IMHO one of their best.

    I know this has probably all been said already, but now it's in one place. :-)


    Where Do You Want to go yesterday?
  • I guess you can say that, but the problem is that they call linux partitions incompatible with Windows for starters.

    That's absolutely, 100% true. Linux partitions are incompatible with Windows. The problem is that Microsoft makes it seems like that is the fault of Linux, rather then the fault of Windows.

    This passage is a joke. fdisk will not start until you give it a disk name. It responds with a usage message that explains you have to type something like "fdisk /dev/hda" or "fdisk /dev/sda" to go to the first drive.

    Not really, it's only sort-of incorrect. If you only have one drive, it will run fine. Only if you have more then one drive do you need to specify a device.

  • and.., if you 'fdisk /mbr' via linux commandline you get an error yes, it's a DOS /switch, not a linux -switch, so it would speak for itself to be done via DOS commandline

    Yeah, and everyone who is smart enough to be deleting Linux and installing Win2000 can look at a 10-character command-line and determine what OS it was intended to be typed in.

    I doubt that very much.
  • Actually, many high-end x86-based servers, such as those from Compaq or HP, have proprietary hardware for which there are no Linux drivers. I suppose if someone discovered that their $20K ProLiant only half-ass works under Linux, they might want to put NT back on it.

    Or they may just spend 20K on a server that *does* have Linux supported devices. Like from VA Linux. I don't think anyone would be dumb enough to need a Linux server, yet just go and buy one that is marketed for NT.

  • by StenD ( 34260 ) on Wednesday December 22, 1999 @05:20AM (#1454555)
    it's obvoisly not FUD or any anti-linux campaining.

    But Microsoft claims:

    The partition types used by the Linux and Windows operating systems are incompatible.

    This is a false statement designed to make you doubt that you can use Linux and Windows on the same system, sow uncertainty about those who claim to do it, and fear that if you try Linux that it will be difficult to return to Windows. How is that not FUD?
  • by OnyxRaven ( 9906 ) on Wednesday December 22, 1999 @05:26AM (#1454558) Homepage
    What's even more funny is that the 4gb limit is only in the setup/install program as you boot from the disks. If you get lucky enough to modify that partition after you've installed windows NT (I've done this while using Ghost to set up a bunch of desktops) you can get to the REAL limit of 8gb for the boot partition (after that the NTLDR doesn't know what to do with such a big partition).

    at least it tells you you can't make a bootable partition more than 4gb in there - it'd be worse if it would go ahead and extract to a 12gb partition and then you find out it does not work.

    but what a pain - on the new machines we've gotten in, they have 13gb drives, so we are setting up 2gb for old dos/win3.1 (damn old programs that can't handle windowsNT), then we have NT on a ~8gb partition after the Ghost, which leaves about 3gb left over that we don't really want to partition because after the cdrom we're getting into network drive territory (F: for novell).

  • Don't the moderators read their guidelines?

  • Last, but not least, if Microsoft wanted to be helpful, they should develp a "safe" low-level formatter for hard drives. That would de-install ANY OS, without all this faffing about.

    (I like that term, 'faffing' :-)

    Anyway, there is no need to do this... I mean if w2k fdisk doesn't have a clue how to get rid of weird partitions, do this (in linux):

    # dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda bs=1k count=1

    zero out the MBR and the disk looks like it's never been touched. To Linux or to Windows. No ... ahem... faffing involved. :-)
    • "Start your computer with the Linux setup floppy disk, type fdisk at the command prompt, and then press ENTER."

    This passage is a joke. fdisk will not start until you give it a disk name. It responds with a
    usage message that explains you have to type something like "fdisk /dev/hda" or "fdisk /dev/sda" to go to the first drive.

    BZZZZZT! Only with newer versions of fdisk does it force you to choose a drive. Slackware 3.4 and 3.6 worked this way. Slack4 requires the drive. This is a function of fdisk and if Microsoft was using an older distro of Linux their statement is perfectly correct.

    Please note that I only use slackware, Redhat/Caldera/Debian/etc. may have had a different version of fdisk.

    At any rate, that's not FUD; it's just plain (possibly) incorrect information. You could have used a much better example in the document, like where they say to boot Linux and type fdisk /mbr.

I came, I saw, I deleted all your files.