How to uninstall a dual configuration with Windows2000pro

September 19, 2007

I succesfully generated a dual configuration in my HD, windows98 with

windows2000pro. However i Would like to undo the Windows2000pro installation.

How can I uninstall Windows2000pro and leave the PC as it was before?

September 19, 2007

Re: How to uninstall a dual configuration with Windows2000pro

"LACV" <LACV@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:731D5E66-3FEB-4A1E-AF08-059C294AD989@microsoft.com...

> I succesfully generated a dual configuration in my HD, windows98 with

> windows2000pro. However i Would like to undo the Windows2000pro

installation.

> How can I uninstall Windows2000pro and leave the PC as it was before?

If you mistakenly installed win2k on the same partition as win98...

the win2k installation will have partially damaged some of your win98

installation...

so be sure to repair that first.

It might have been as little as just trashing Outlook Express.

Now all you need to do is delete the win2k folder

and either remove the win2k reference in boot.ini

or simply repair the mbr

September 19, 2007

Re: How to uninstall a dual configuration with Windows2000pro

Do you mean that you set the drive up so that you can dual boot - choose

between W2k or W98 at start up?

If so, then the uninstall procedure will depend on the boot manager that you

are using, and you should consult the documentation for the boot manager to

see what the uninstall process is. It will probably involve preparing a

boot disk using your selected OS (W98 in your case), and then using that

boot disk to overwrite the boot manager and restore a direct boot into W98.

However, the detail will depend on how the boot manager has arranged things,

and whether the partition and folder arrangement that W98 requires has been

preserved through the installation of the boot manager. Generally, if you

installed W98 first then added W2k as a second, alternative, system, then

removing the boot option for W2k should be straightforward.

This process does not remove W2k - it simply removes the option to choose it

as an OS at startup. Removing the files for W2K is probably going to be a

manual process.

Another option is to back up all your data from W98, clear the disk,

reinstall W98 to a clean disk, and restore your data.

--

Jeff Richards

MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

"LACV" <LACV@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:731D5E66-3FEB-4A1E-AF08-059C294AD989@microsoft.com...

>I succesfully generated a dual configuration in my HD, windows98 with

> windows2000pro. However i Would like to undo the Windows2000pro

> installation.

> How can I uninstall Windows2000pro and leave the PC as it was before?

September 19, 2007

Re: How to uninstall a dual configuration with Windows2000pro

> "LACV" <LACV@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:731D5E66-3FEB-4A1E-AF08-059C294AD989@microsoft.com...

> >I succesfully generated a dual configuration in my HD, windows98 with

> > windows2000pro. However i Would like to undo the Windows2000pro

> > installation.

> > How can I uninstall Windows2000pro and leave the PC as it was before?

"Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote in message

news:OYoww8p%23HHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Do you mean that you set the drive up so that you can dual boot - choose

> between W2k or W98 at start up?

>

> If so, then the uninstall procedure will depend on the boot manager that

you

> are using, and you should consult the documentation for the boot manager

to

> see what the uninstall process is. It will probably involve preparing a

> boot disk using your selected OS (W98 in your case), and then using that

> boot disk to overwrite the boot manager and restore a direct boot into

W98.

>

> However, the detail will depend on how the boot manager has arranged

things,

> and whether the partition and folder arrangement that W98 requires has

been

> preserved through the installation of the boot manager. Generally, if you

> installed W98 first then added W2k as a second, alternative, system, then

> removing the boot option for W2k should be straightforward.

>

> This process does not remove W2k - it simply removes the option to choose

it

> as an OS at startup. Removing the files for W2K is probably going to be a

> manual process.

>

> Another option is to back up all your data from W98, clear the disk,

> reinstall W98 to a clean disk, and restore your data.

If you have the right Win98 CD and bootup floppy, complete

reinstallation is best. Web site

http://home.satx.rr.com/badour/html/w98_restore.html

describes the process in detail with check lists (e.g.

verify the CD number key you must input as part of

the installation process.)

Option no. 2 is to boot DOS from your Win98 floppy and

A> A:SYS C:

This rewrites DOS boot code to the boot sector of your

hard drive, thus overwriting your dual-boot manager and

anything Win2K may have left there.

--

Don Phillipson

Carlsbad Springs

(Ottawa, Canada)

September 19, 2007

Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is builtatop MS-DOS)

Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is builtatop MS-DOS)

Don Phillipson wrote:

> This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop

> MS-DOS which requires a KB

What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built atop

MS-DOS" ?

Is there some reason why you, Don Phillipson, won't respond with an

explanation for your own statement quoted above?

September 19, 2007

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

"Guy 98" <Guy@98.com> wrote in message news:46F12E94.6E16C5FF@98.com...

> Don Phillipson wrote:

>

> > This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop

> > MS-DOS which requires a KB

>

> What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built atop

> MS-DOS" ?

>

> Is there some reason why you, Don Phillipson, won't respond with an

> explanation for your own statement quoted above?

Readers concerned about altering a dual-boot

system can ignore this interpellation, borrowed Sept 14

from a different thread. This poster ignored the

(true and reliable) answer offered to an OP's question

and demanded justification of one of the explanatory

comments. Two other posters gave (true and reliable)

factual explanations but 98 seems to have misliked those,

thus has flown off on this tangent. He seems to think

someone owes him an answer.

--

Don Phillipson

Carlsbad Springs

(Ottawa, Canada)

September 19, 2007

Re: How to uninstall a dual configuration with Windows2000pro

"Don Phillipson" <d.phillipsonSPAMBLOCK@rogers.com> wrote in message

news:%23rI6LIs%23HHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> snip <

>

> Option no. 2 is to boot DOS from your Win98 floppy and

> A> A:SYS C:

> This rewrites DOS boot code to the boot sector of your

> hard drive, thus overwriting your dual-boot manager and

> anything Win2K may have left there.

>

This assumes that the boot manager has arranged things so that the required

W98 files are in the primary partition. Often, boot managers fiddle with

the partitioning so that each OS appears to run from its own 'primary'

partition. The above action is strongly not recommended without knowing

what boot manager is being used and how things are arranged.

--

Jeff Richards

MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

September 19, 2007

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

Guy 98 wrote:

| Don Phillipson wrote:

|

|> This might be impossible because Win98 is built atop

|> MS-DOS which requires a KB

|

| What exactly do you mean when you say that Win-98 is "built atop

| MS-DOS" ?

|

| Is there some reason why you, Don Phillipson, won't respond with an

| explanation for your own statement quoted above?

Put your interpellations in the right threads, 98 Guy! I agree with

Phillipson on that!

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

September 20, 2007

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 isbuilt atop MS-DOS)

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 isbuilt atop MS-DOS)

PCR wrote:

> Put your interpellations in the right threads, 98 Guy! I agree

> with Phillipson on that!

I tried that, but Don didn't respond to the original thread.

So to get his attention, I tried again - in threads he was

participating in. But I changed the subject so there should have been

no confusion / disruption to those threads anyways.

September 20, 2007

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 isbuilt atop MS-DOS)

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 isbuilt atop MS-DOS)

Don Phillipson wrote:

> > Is there some reason why you, Don Phillipson, won't respond with

> > an explanation for your own statement quoted above?

>

> This poster ignored the (true and reliable) answer offered to an

> OP's question

Tangent. I was never concerned with the "no-keyboard" thread - until

I noticed your comment about win-98 being "built atop MS-DOS".

> and demanded justification of one of the explanatory comments.

Yes, I am asking ->YOU<- for more clarification for your statement

that "windows-98 is built atop MS-DOS".

> Two other posters gave (true and reliable) factual explanations

In both cases, Dan and Tim Slattery gave superficial, incorrect or

incomplete explanations. Do they now speak for you? Does this mean

you endorse their explanations (which I rebutted)?

> He seems to think someone owes him an answer.

If you don't have the balls, or the knowledge, to stand up and support

your own mis-statements, then don't make stupid statements like the

one in question. And if you do, don't be surprised for it to be

pointed out.

September 20, 2007

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98

I see you posted as Guy 98, Ninety8 Guy and as 98 Guy. Which one is it? The

thing that I am so puzzled about is that you seemed so reasonable before and

it makes me wonder if someone is pretending to be the previous 98 Guy who

would test patches for Internet Explorer by unzipping them from Windows 2000

and then determine if they worked with 98 Second Edition. I think this kind

of testing is useful but probably less needed especially since one has the

alternative to browse with Mozilla Firefox or Opera or another browser that

is supported in 98. I just kind of wonder how much longer these companies

will continue to support 98 for the small audience that still enjoys using it

for backwards compatibility like myself and for other reasons. I can only

hope 98 and especially 98 Second Edition which I use along with Windows XP

Professional and now Vista Home Premium on a laptop will still be supported

for a few more years.

BTW, what is your full interpretation of your argument and why do you feel

this way. If you have stated it before then just copy and paste for my sake

so I can try to see your logic in this. There is no point in trying to

attack Don and if you just want to start arguments then you may want to

consider another Microsoft newsgroup where arguments are much more common. I

see this newsgroup as one of the few where people are generally respectful,

caring and helpful to each other and not so angry at each other as is the sad

case in many other newsgroups even within the Microsoft Community. Have a

nice day and please remember to respect and follow the newsgroup rules.

"98 Guy" wrote:

> PCR wrote:

>

> > Put your interpellations in the right threads, 98 Guy! I agree

> > with Phillipson on that!

>

> I tried that, but Don didn't respond to the original thread.

>

> So to get his attention, I tried again - in threads he was

> participating in. But I changed the subject so there should have been

> no confusion / disruption to those threads anyways.

>

September 20, 2007

Re: How to uninstall a dual configuration with Windows2000pro

Thanks for your comments, Jeff and helping to bring the topic back in focus.

I for one appreciate it and you have a nice day.

"Jeff Richards" wrote:

> "Don Phillipson" <d.phillipsonSPAMBLOCK@rogers.com> wrote in message

> news:%23rI6LIs%23HHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> > snip <

> >

> > Option no. 2 is to boot DOS from your Win98 floppy and

> > A> A:SYS C:

> > This rewrites DOS boot code to the boot sector of your

> > hard drive, thus overwriting your dual-boot manager and

> > anything Win2K may have left there.

> >

>

> This assumes that the boot manager has arranged things so that the required

> W98 files are in the primary partition. Often, boot managers fiddle with

> the partitioning so that each OS appears to run from its own 'primary'

> partition. The above action is strongly not recommended without knowing

> what boot manager is being used and how things are arranged.

> --

> Jeff Richards

> MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

>

September 20, 2007

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

98 Guy wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|

|> Put your interpellations in the right threads, 98 Guy! I agree

|> with Phillipson on that!

|

| I tried that, but Don didn't respond to the original thread.

|

| So to get his attention, I tried again - in threads he was

| participating in. But I changed the subject so there should have been

| no confusion / disruption to those threads anyways.

OK, I see that now-- you did change the subject. That's a horse of a

different color. OK, then. I'm staying out of the argument, but probably

I do agree with you that Win98 is an OS all its own. It may depend on

BIOS, but not on DOS. If one boots to DOS, one has a DOS machine. But

once Win98 is loaded, it takes over completely. It cannot be controlled

by DOS.

September 20, 2007

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98

Dan wrote:

> I see you posted as Guy 98, Ninety8 Guy and as 98 Guy. Which one

> is it?

It is anything I want it to be.

I was changing it in case Don Phillipson was kill-filing me - just to

make sure he would have seen my posts.

I see he's decided to lay low. A wise move Don.

> BTW, what is your full interpretation of your argument and why do

> you feel this way.

Because many people like to bad-mouth windows 9x by saying that it's

not a true 32-bit OS, or worse (and false) that it runs "atop DOS".

I feel it's important to counter claims like that.

> If you have stated it before then just copy and paste for my

> sake so I can try to see your logic in this.

I don't recall it ever coming up in this forum (as far as I've read it

anyways).

> There is no point in trying to attack Don

I may be badgering Don to either remove his foot from his mouth - or

stick it in further, but I wouldn't say that I'm attacking him.

September 21, 2007

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

PCR wrote:

> 98 Guy wrote:

>> PCR wrote:

>>

>>> Put your interpellations in the right threads, 98 Guy! I agree

>>> with Phillipson on that!

>>

>> I tried that, but Don didn't respond to the original thread.

>>

>> So to get his attention, I tried again - in threads he was

>> participating in. But I changed the subject so there should have been

>> no confusion / disruption to those threads anyways.

>

> OK, I see that now-- you did change the subject. That's a horse of a

> different color. OK, then. I'm staying out of the argument, but probably

> I do agree with you that Win98 is an OS all its own. It may depend on

> BIOS, but not on DOS.

Is that completely true? That NONE of the dos exe, dll, (or whatever)

programs are being used, or have a resident footprint in memory in windows?

Are you sure? I do know that there are some 16 bit processes still

running, but that may be tangential to this.

> If one boots to DOS, one has a DOS machine. But

> once Win98 is loaded, it takes over completely. It cannot be controlled

> by DOS.

I don't like the expression "controlled by", whatever that means. How

about whether or not ANY of the DOS based exe, dll, or whatever, programs or

code are resident in memory?

September 21, 2007

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98

Thanks for your explaination. BTW, are you the same 98 Guy who unzipped the

patches for Windows 2000 Internet Explorer so you could apply them to Windows

98 Second Edition and the Internet Explorer 6 there or are you a new 98 Guy?

I am only asking because I have dealt with identity theft and sometimes

people pretend to be other people on this forum. I appreciate your responses

and please do not badger Don because perhaps Don feels somewhat threatened

and has decided to lay low because you know more about this area than he

does. I want this to be a newsgroup that is focused on helping people with

their issues in Windows 98 and it is fine to discuss other things about the

operating system but I only ask that everyone be respectful to each other.

Finally, I for one am man enough to apologize if I have hurt anyone in the

past because I feel that it is not worth it to hold a grudge. It makes you

upset, can raise blood pressure and I feel in many ways shortens your life or

at least can make it less happy. I for one enjoy going to this newsgroup to

get away from the pressures of life and to vent sometimes too much as I have

done in the past. Have a nice day to everyone.

"98 Guy" wrote:

> Dan wrote:

>

> > I see you posted as Guy 98, Ninety8 Guy and as 98 Guy. Which one

> > is it?

>

> It is anything I want it to be.

>

> I was changing it in case Don Phillipson was kill-filing me - just to

> make sure he would have seen my posts.

>

> I see he's decided to lay low. A wise move Don.

>

> > BTW, what is your full interpretation of your argument and why do

> > you feel this way.

>

> Because many people like to bad-mouth windows 9x by saying that it's

> not a true 32-bit OS, or worse (and false) that it runs "atop DOS".

>

> I feel it's important to counter claims like that.

>

> > If you have stated it before then just copy and paste for my

> > sake so I can try to see your logic in this.

>

> I don't recall it ever coming up in this forum (as far as I've read it

> anyways).

>

> > There is no point in trying to attack Don

>

> I may be badgering Don to either remove his foot from his mouth - or

> stick it in further, but I wouldn't say that I'm attacking him.

>

September 21, 2007

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message

news:eFGf4u9%23HHA.700@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> I do agree with you that Win98 is an OS all its own. It may depend on

> BIOS, but not on DOS. If one boots to DOS, one has a DOS machine. But

> once Win98 is loaded, it takes over completely. It cannot be controlled

> by DOS.

"Controlled by DOS" may not be quite precise enough in

this context. After Win98 loads, the OS protects itself

in (largely undocumented) ways, e.g. will not copy or

delete certain system files, will not delete files currently

loaded and so on. But DOS is older than these protection

protocols, thus is not bound by them, and DOS functions

were prerequisite before Windows could load.

So we can load via Windows THIS.EXE and THAT.DLL,

and Windows will then refuse to delete these source files.

But we can do so in a DOS box. This looks as if in at

least some respects a Win98 installation may be "controlled

by DOS:" or you might say Win98 is built atop MS-DOS.

--

Don Phillipson

Carlsbad Springs

(Ottawa, Canada)

September 21, 2007

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98

Dan, nothing personal, but I'm going to stop replying to your posts as

long as you keep full-quoting your replies.

In both of your most recent replies to me (and in practically all your

posts in general), you (a) top-post and then (b) full-quote without

trimming. I find that behavior particularly disgusting,

inconsiderate, and lazy. You're not the only one here with that

posting style, and I do my best to avoid reading their posts too.

September 21, 2007

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> 98 Guy wrote:

|>> PCR wrote:

|>>

|>>> Put your interpellations in the right threads, 98 Guy! I agree

|>>> with Phillipson on that!

|>>

|>> I tried that, but Don didn't respond to the original thread.

|>>

|>> So to get his attention, I tried again - in threads he was

|>> participating in. But I changed the subject so there should have

|>> been no confusion / disruption to those threads anyways.

|>

|> OK, I see that now-- you did change the subject. That's a horse of a

|> different color. OK, then. I'm staying out of the argument, but

|> probably I do agree with you that Win98 is an OS all its own. It may

|> depend on BIOS, but not on DOS.

|

| Is that completely true? That NONE of the dos exe, dll, (or

| whatever) programs are being used, or have a resident footprint in

| memory in windows? Are you sure?

I have a fat book that says Win98 is its own OS! Also, 98 Guy found a

helpful MS TechNet article...

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/win98/reskit/part5/wrkc26.mspx?mfr=true

........Quote...............

Technical Notes on MS-DOS Components in Windows 98

Many users have wondered whether Windows 98 contains MS-DOS code and, if

so, whether that means that Windows 98 is somehow built on top of

MS-DOS. Many of these questions relate to how Windows 98 achieves the

highest possible degree of compatibility with existing devices and

applications created for MS-DOS and Windows 3.x.

....snip...

Some functions, however, are handled by MS-DOS code, although the code

itself is running in virtual 8086 mode, not real mode. Functions

implemented in this manner ensure backward compatibility with existing

real-mode software, such as the Novell NetWare client.

....snip...

An important example of how Windows 98 reclaims memory from real-mode

device drivers is MSCDEX, the CD-ROM driver. After Windows 98 Setup is

completed and Windows 98 starts from the hard disk for the first time,

special code runs to determine whether the protected-mode compact disc f

ile system (CDFS) drivers have taken over the CD-ROM drive completely.

If so, the real-mode MSCDEX driver in memory is matched to the related

lines in Autoexec.bat, and the MSCDEX entries are then commented out.

This provides a trail in Autoexec.bat to show what has happened. Similar

methods are used for other device drivers that Windows 98 knows to be

safe to remove, such as other vendors' real-mode disk cache utilities

and redundant protected-mode virtual device drivers (VxDs).

As a final example, some users have wondered whether the fact that

Io.sys loads Win.com (rather than loading Vmm32.vxd directly) is an

indication that Windows 98 is built on Windows 3.x code, with the

addition of new VxDs. Actually, Io.sys is used to load Win.com only to

ensure backward compatibility. Certain real-mode drivers and

terminate-and-stay-resident (TSR) programs insert themselves at various

places in the Windows 3.1 startup process. If Windows 98 were to bypass

the loading of Win.com and instead load VxDs directly, any driver that

needs to insert itself when Win.com is loaded would never be called.

Instead, Windows 98 starts in precisely the same way as Windows 3.1 and

loads the same components in the same order, ensuring compatibility with

earlier versions of applications and device drivers.

........EOQ..................

So...

(a) The DOS in a Windows DOS box is a part of Win98 & it runs in virtual

mode not real mode.

(b) Real mode DOS device drivers loaded in Autoexec.bat are removed when

Win98 starts for the first time. Win98 doesn't use them.

It does seem to be true some device drivers may escape (b) & remain as

TSRs (Terminate & Stay Resident) for backward compatibility reasons. But

it is unclear to me that those are actually running on DOS. They were

loaded by DOS, but who knows whether they need DOS after that? Anyhow,

it WON'T mean Win98 is built on DOS-- but just that Win98 will tolerate

drivers that are DOS-dependent.

| I do know that there are some 16

| bit processes still running, but that may be tangential to this.

Yes, I can see those in "START, Run, DrWatson, 16-bit Modules tab". I'm

not sure what that's about. One day I swear I will investigate! HOWEVER,

I can think Win98 is running them in 32-bit, protected mode no matter.

One of them after all is... KB891711.exe-- a fairly recent critical

update! Also, I see KB918574.exe is there.

|> If one boots to DOS, one has a DOS machine. But

|> once Win98 is loaded, it takes over completely. It cannot be

|> controlled by DOS.

|

| I don't like the expression "controlled by", whatever that means.

| How about whether or not ANY of the DOS based exe, dll, or whatever,

| programs or code are resident in memory?

I think that would just prove WIN98 is DOS-tolerant!

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

September 21, 2007

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

Don Phillipson wrote:

| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message

| news:eFGf4u9%23HHA.700@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

|

|> I do agree with you that Win98 is an OS all its own. It may depend on

|> BIOS, but not on DOS. If one boots to DOS, one has a DOS machine. But

|> once Win98 is loaded, it takes over completely. It cannot be

|> controlled by DOS.

|

| "Controlled by DOS" may not be quite precise enough in

| this context. After Win98 loads, the OS protects itself

| in (largely undocumented) ways, e.g. will not copy or

| delete certain system files, will not delete files currently

| loaded and so on. But DOS is older than these protection

| protocols, thus is not bound by them, and DOS functions

| were prerequisite before Windows could load.

That's true. But, as you say, Real DOS can only delete files before

Win98 is loaded. Once Win98 is loaded, there is no Real DOS available

for that until a reboot is done. So, Win98 is the whole OS. It has its

own device drivers. There may be TSRs (Terminate & Stay Resident) device

drivers still running that were loaded by DOS. If, after loading, they

use Real DOS to run-- still I say it only shows Win98 is DOS-tolerant!

Win98 doesn't actually use Real DOS at all, I think.

| So we can load via Windows THIS.EXE and THAT.DLL,

| and Windows will then refuse to delete these source files.

| But we can do so in a DOS box. This looks as if in at

| least some respects a Win98 installation may be "controlled

| by DOS:" or you might say Win98 is built atop MS-DOS.

Before Win98 is loaded, DOS can do anything to Win98 files. After Win98

is loaded, Win98 can delete DOS files. So?

BUT, I don't consider Win98 is built atop DOS just because DOS loads it.

The question is... does Windows use DOS to control devices? I think it

does not.

| --

| Don Phillipson

| Carlsbad Springs

| (Ottawa, Canada)

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

September 21, 2007

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98

<snip>

You do not have to be rude. You just can request that I trim my posts.

BTW, you never answered my question and yet you expect Don to answer yours.

How dense can you be?

September 21, 2007

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98

<snip>

I should have added not to take my response personally as well. I ask you

now 98 Guy to reflect and think about whether or not that makes it that much

easier to swallow a criticism. In my opinion, this is what is greatly

lacking in society today and that is respect for one another. It is so easy

to go on the attack and challenge each other and say without really saying

how great we are because in effect we can tear others down. I think a true

measure of greatness is how many people did you encourage and build up today.

September 22, 2007

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 isbuilt atop MS-DOS)

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 isbuilt atop MS-DOS)

Don Phillipson wrote:

> After Win98 loads, the OS protects itself in (largely

> undocumented) ways, e.g. will not copy or delete certain

> system files, will not delete files currently loaded and so on.

Yea, and NT-based OS's do the same. So?

> But DOS is older than these protection protocols, thus is not

> bound by them,

I don't know what kind of strange logic you're invoking with this

example.

Do you know of a file that Windows-9x will not allow to be deleted or

renamed from the explorer or find window, but will allow the operation

in a DOS shell?

> and DOS functions were prerequisite before Windows could load.

In my previous post (which you are avoiding replying to) I quoted MS

when they said that IO.SYS loads win.com. I take that to mean that

command.com is actually never loaded prior to windows being started -

which would make your statement (above) false.

> So we can load via Windows THIS.EXE and THAT.DLL, and Windows

> will then refuse to delete these source files. But we can do

> so in a DOS box.

Please provide an example of a file that windows is protecting but

which can be renamed or deleted from a command shell (dos window).

> This looks as if in at least some respects a Win98 installation

> may be "controlled by DOS:" or you might say Win98 is built

> atop MS-DOS.

Again your logic is bizarre.

"...a win98 installation may be "controlled by DOS".

A win-98 installation is launched by the user - it is not "controlled"

by DOS. Once win-98 setup is launched, then win98 is controlling it's

own installation. What a load of horse-shit to say that DOS is

controlling the win98 install process.

"or you might say that Win98 is built atop MS-DOS"

Not even that is true, because no version of win98 requires that the

system hard drive already have DOS or a DOS license, and the

non-upgrade version of win-98 includes a startup disk (boot floppy) so

that win98 can be installed on a completely empty hard drive.

September 23, 2007

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 is built atop MS-DOS)

So what's the upshot of all of this? That it is incorrect to say that

Win98 is "built on top of DOS"? Or that it is only partially correct (and

ONLY for some backwards compatibility applications)? Or is not even true,

at all?

Or can we say that Win98 is its own operating system that can run without

any DOS program code whatsoever (as long as one doesn't try to run some

older app?)

Or - maybe the expression "built on top of", is just too ambiguous?

Unlike, perhaps, the case of Windows 3.1.

PCR wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> PCR wrote:

>>> 98 Guy wrote:

>>>> PCR wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Put your interpellations in the right threads, 98 Guy! I agree

>>>>> with Phillipson on that!

>>>>

>>>> I tried that, but Don didn't respond to the original thread.

>>>>

>>>> So to get his attention, I tried again - in threads he was

>>>> participating in. But I changed the subject so there should have

>>>> been no confusion / disruption to those threads anyways.

>>>

>>> OK, I see that now-- you did change the subject. That's a horse of a

>>> different color. OK, then. I'm staying out of the argument, but

>>> probably I do agree with you that Win98 is an OS all its own. It may

>>> depend on BIOS, but not on DOS.

>>

>> Is that completely true? That NONE of the dos exe, dll, (or

>> whatever) programs are being used, or have a resident footprint in

>> memory in windows? Are you sure?

>

> I have a fat book that says Win98 is its own OS! Also, 98 Guy found a

> helpful MS TechNet article...

>

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/win98/reskit/part5/wrkc26.mspx?mfr=

true

>

> .......Quote...............

> Technical Notes on MS-DOS Components in Windows 98

>

> Many users have wondered whether Windows 98 contains MS-DOS code and, if

> so, whether that means that Windows 98 is somehow built on top of

> MS-DOS. Many of these questions relate to how Windows 98 achieves the

> highest possible degree of compatibility with existing devices and

> applications created for MS-DOS and Windows 3.x.

>

> ...snip...

> Some functions, however, are handled by MS-DOS code, although the code

> itself is running in virtual 8086 mode, not real mode. Functions

> implemented in this manner ensure backward compatibility with existing

> real-mode software, such as the Novell NetWare client.

>

> ...snip...

> An important example of how Windows 98 reclaims memory from real-mode

> device drivers is MSCDEX, the CD-ROM driver. After Windows 98 Setup is

> completed and Windows 98 starts from the hard disk for the first time,

> special code runs to determine whether the protected-mode compact disc f

> ile system (CDFS) drivers have taken over the CD-ROM drive completely.

> If so, the real-mode MSCDEX driver in memory is matched to the related

> lines in Autoexec.bat, and the MSCDEX entries are then commented out.

> This provides a trail in Autoexec.bat to show what has happened. Similar

> methods are used for other device drivers that Windows 98 knows to be

> safe to remove, such as other vendors' real-mode disk cache utilities

> and redundant protected-mode virtual device drivers (VxDs).

>

> As a final example, some users have wondered whether the fact that

> Io.sys loads Win.com (rather than loading Vmm32.vxd directly) is an

> indication that Windows 98 is built on Windows 3.x code, with the

> addition of new VxDs. Actually, Io.sys is used to load Win.com only to

> ensure backward compatibility. Certain real-mode drivers and

> terminate-and-stay-resident (TSR) programs insert themselves at various

> places in the Windows 3.1 startup process. If Windows 98 were to bypass

> the loading of Win.com and instead load VxDs directly, any driver that

> needs to insert itself when Win.com is loaded would never be called.

> Instead, Windows 98 starts in precisely the same way as Windows 3.1 and

> loads the same components in the same order, ensuring compatibility with

> earlier versions of applications and device drivers.

> .......EOQ..................

>

> So...

>

> (a) The DOS in a Windows DOS box is a part of Win98 & it runs in virtual

> mode not real mode.

>

> (b) Real mode DOS device drivers loaded in Autoexec.bat are removed when

> Win98 starts for the first time. Win98 doesn't use them.

>

> It does seem to be true some device drivers may escape (b) & remain as

> TSRs (Terminate & Stay Resident) for backward compatibility reasons. But

> it is unclear to me that those are actually running on DOS. They were

> loaded by DOS, but who knows whether they need DOS after that? Anyhow,

> it WON'T mean Win98 is built on DOS-- but just that Win98 will tolerate

> drivers that are DOS-dependent.

>

>> I do know that there are some 16

>> bit processes still running, but that may be tangential to this.

>

> Yes, I can see those in "START, Run, DrWatson, 16-bit Modules tab". I'm

> not sure what that's about. One day I swear I will investigate! HOWEVER,

> I can think Win98 is running them in 32-bit, protected mode no matter.

> One of them after all is... KB891711.exe-- a fairly recent critical

> update! Also, I see KB918574.exe is there.

>

>>> If one boots to DOS, one has a DOS machine. But

>>> once Win98 is loaded, it takes over completely. It cannot be

>>> controlled by DOS.

>>

>> I don't like the expression "controlled by", whatever that means.

>> How about whether or not ANY of the DOS based exe, dll, or whatever,

>> programs or code are resident in memory?

>

> I think that would just prove WIN98 is DOS-tolerant!

>

> --

> Thanks or Good Luck,

> There may be humor in this post, and,

> Naturally, you will not sue,

> Should things get worse after this,

> PCR

> pcrrcp@netzero.net

September 23, 2007

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 isbuilt atop MS-DOS)

Re: Don Phillipson - where are you? Why don't you respond? (Win98 isbuilt atop MS-DOS)

"Bill in Co." wrote:

> So what's the upshot of all of this? That it is incorrect to say

> that Win98 is "built on top of DOS"?

The term "built on top of" can mean two things:

1) it can pertain to the installation of win-98 on a (presumably)

virgin system or hard drive.

2) it can mean that the software programmers built Win-98 "on top

of" the DOS code-base - or that Win-9x/Win-98 is a functional

extension of DOS, and that win-9x is a OS layer that is operating

"on top of" a lower DOS operating layer.

Item (1) would require that a hard drive must have the DOS system

files on it in (including command.com) order for win-9x to be

installed on it. There is a condundrum here, in that at the time that

win-9x/win-98/se was introduced, the "boot from CD" option in the

system BIOS was not a common option (if at all), hence there never was

a bootable win-9x installation CD. So a given system must be able to

be booted with *something* that gave the user access to the win-9x

setup.exe (which was usually on a CD-rom). That *something* was a

bootable floppy disk, which contained and loaded CD drivers and then

launched the install program, which then installed (or built) the

operating system on the hard drive - which can be done without

requiring any DOS files be present on the hard drive.

Which means that win-98 can be "built on top of" a completely blank

(but presumably formatted) hard drive.

Item (2) can be dismissed by noting the simple fact that in order for

DOS to form a foundation (of any sort) for Win-9x, that it would need

to operate in and support 32-bit protected mode operation (in the very

least) and presumably that it support multitasking as well. It does

neither, therefore it can't be said that win-9x is "built on top of"

DOS in a functional or operational sense. What is known about the

win-9x boot and startup process confirms this (io.sys calls win.com -

not command.com at startup).

> Or that it is only partially correct (and ONLY for some backwards

> compatibility applications)? Or is not even true, at all?

Win-9x loads and runs DOS in a virtual environment as if it were just

another driver because of a paltry handful of functions that Microsoft

figured would be necessary to insure backwards-compatibility with

older win-16, novell, and DOS software that were still in common use

back in 1995.

> Or can we say that Win98 is its own operating system that can

> run without any DOS program code whatsoever (as long as one

> doesn't try to run some older app?)

To what extent Win-9x calls those various DOS functions for it's own

use, and how frequently, isin't clear to me, but none of them are

significant or influence the design specs of the win-9x family.

> Or - maybe the expression "built on top of", is just

> too ambiguous?

Since Don is reluctant to directly engage me in this discussion, we

will likely never know what he meant. I would speculate that he is

one of many in the IT world who downplay the ranking of win-98 in the

MS operating system hirearchy. Saying (incorrectly) that win-98 is

"built atop of DOS" is one way to achieve that.

(remainder of full quote of entire thread not reproduced in order

to enhance readability and reduce clutter)

Sign In

How to uninstall a dual configuration with Windows2000pro

Recommended Posts

Guest LACV

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest philo

Guest Jeff Richards

Guest Don Phillipson

Guest Guy 98

Guest Don Phillipson

Guest Jeff Richards

Guest PCR

Guest 98 Guy

Guest Ninety8 Guy

Guest Dan

Guest Dan

Guest PCR

Guest 98 Guy

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Dan

Guest Don Phillipson

Guest 98 Guy

Guest PCR

Guest PCR

Guest Dan

Guest Dan

Guest 98 Guy

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest 98 Guy

Similar Content

Dual Booting

How are print servers setup and configured?

How to configure PIN password

Radius server configurations

How do I Uninstall Get started , Get Help and To DO List

Browse

Activity

Site Info