Slashdot Mirror
MS Tells How to Delete Linux, Install NT or Win2K
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."
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."
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
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?
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.
./'s out their who can't get enough of MS vs. Linux debats, which i am personally sick to death of.
also i don't think this is news worthy except for the
-Jon
this is my sig.
- 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.
/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.
/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.
:)
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
After using the hidden
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.
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.
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!!
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:
I think the lilo README says it far better:
"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.
Good...
Remove LILO. To remove the LILO, type fdisk
Well, no. Since you booted from a Linux disk, assuming that you did that from the shell, you'd get:
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.
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?
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
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.
--
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).J
I think not...(*poof*)