How to uninstall a dual configuration with Windows2000pro

[Guest PCR]

Re: How to uninstall a dual configuration with Windows2000pro

 

LACV wrote:

| Jeff, Philo, Dan

|

| Thanks for your insights.

| I never thought mu question will generate such a discussion, which by

| the way was almost a lecture.

|

| Jeff

| Yes I set the drive up so I can dual boot, that is choose between

| W2k or W98 at start up. Do you have any recommendation where to

| consult the documentation for the boot manager to see what the

| uninstall process is? Answering your other question, YES I installed

| W98 first and then added W2k as a second, alternative system,(but by

| mistake as I was trying to update from W98 to W2K).

| And my last question, how do I know I have erased all the W2K files?

| Perhaps it may be easier as you said, reinstall everyhting from zero.

|

| Thanks in advanced

|

|

| PCR, 98Guy, Bill in Co and MEB

|

| Thanks a lot for the discussion, it was a very good lesson for me

 

You are welcome. And I hope your Win2K removal goes smoothly. (I've

never done that, myself.)

[Guest PCR]

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)

 

John John wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> John John wrote:

|> |> 98 Guy wrote:

|> |

|> |> | Back in 1995, I bet that Micro$oft certainly believed that their

|> |> | support phones would ring off the hook unless Windows 95 was

|> |> | compatible with DOS applications, so in their mind yes, Windows

|> |> | 95 certainly needed to emulate some DOS function calls.

|> |

|> |> PCR wrote:

|> |> I believe that. In their effort to be compatible, how much of Real

|> |> DOS has survived that is important to the functioning of Windows?

|> |

|> | Windows 95 System programming SECRETS by MATT PIETREK

|> |

http://cs.mipt.ru/docs/comp/eng/os/win32/win95_sys_progr_secr/main.pdf

|> |

|> | Big PDF, over 4MB. Read chapters 1 & 2 (about 80 pages). Don't

|> | worry, you don't need to know anything about programming to read

|> | these 2 chapters. It will answer a few questions. I might add

|> | that the NT and W9x Win32 API are *not* the same and that despite

|> | Microsoft's best effort to make users believe otherwise, for

|> | certain functions Kernel32.dll *does* thunk down to the 16-bit

|> | KRNL386.EXE! Reading these chapters should put a few myths to rest.

|>

|> OK, thanks. I'm taking the download now. But I still have MEB's

|> mega-post to read! Seriously, are you saying that KRNL386.EXE is/uses

|> DOS, & that, if Windows thunks down to it often enough, then Windows

|> can be said to be "built upon DOS"? QuickView does reveal a plethora

|> of "functions" to be located inside KRNL386.EXE.

|

| I am not saying that Windows 9x is built directly upon or that it uses

| DOS, but the links or roots are quite obvious. What I am saying is

| that Windows 9x uses a lot of 16-bit components and that many of the

| 16-bit functions bear close resemblance to their DOS counterparts, as

| shown by Matt in his book, there are remnants of real mode DOS code

| that are still being used in Windows 9x. Furthermore, Microsoft has

| always been quite adamant about the 32-bit KERNEL32.DLL not thunking

| down to the 16-bit KRNL386.EXE. According to Microsoft (or according

| to the marketing department at least) it didn't happen, however, as

| pointed out by Matt, "Andrew Schulman proved conclusively in

| "Unauthorized Windows 95" that KERNEL32 does in fact call down to

| KRNL386.EXE."

 

OK. I guess I'll have to read those chapters to see whether KRNL386.exe

& thunking relate to whether Windows is built on top of DOS. If not,

then there is a lot less to go on.

 

I do know "Windows 98 Secrets" (Livingston/Straub) also have quoted

Andrew Schulman on page 1054...!...

 

"Andrew Schulman argued in his book, 'Unauthorized Windows 95', that

with the advent of Windows/386 2.x in 1988, Windows became a real

operating system. Windows is an operating system because it handles the

requests that programs make of the computer. When necessary, it hands

those requests to DOS to let it do some of the work. Since the advent of

Windows for Workgroups 3.11, and especially the 32-bit file access that

came with it, DOS has handled even less of the grunt work to do."

 

"Schulman states early in his book:

 

'If I had to explain how Windows 95 relates to DOS in 25

words or less, I'd say this: Windows 95 relates to DOS in

the same that WFW 3.11 does. Windows provides 32BFA

[32-bit file access]. For non-file calls, it calls (in V86 mode)

the real-mode DOS code in Winboot.sys [called IO.sys since

the released version of Windows 95]. Windows 95 is a

genuine operating system; so were WFD 3.1, Windows 3.1

Enhanced mode, and Windows 3.0 Enhanced mode.'"

 

But, earlier, Livingston wrote:

 

"DOS lives on as a vestige -- still useful, but only a small part of

Windows 95 and 98. In this chapter, we first look at DOS as that thing

that starts up before Windows 98 takes command."

 

SO... Windows does call code in IO.sys, which is DOS, for non-file

functions. (IO.sys must be sitting there even after Windows loads.) Does

it do so for itself-- or only for programs that pre-dated Windows just

to be DOS compatible? And is there any DOS code actually copied into

Windows code? And how much of all that goes on? Those are the questions

that need to be answered to know whether Windows is built atop DOS.

 

| Regards;

|

| John

 

--

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

[Guest Jeff Richards]

Re: How to uninstall a dual configuration with Windows2000pro

 

See here:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/311578

 

This will enable you to operate as though there is only W98 on the machine,

while still retaining the boot loader to manage the boot process.

 

I suspect that, based on the procedure you used, you could simply create a

W98 startup disk, boot to it, and do a FDISK/MBR and SYS C: to restore the

default DOS boot record, which will boot you into W98. However, because

that carries a risk of completely locking you out of your system, it's not

something I would recommend without very careful investigation.

 

Retaining the existing boot loader and simply configuring it to go straight

into W98 is much safer.

 

A Windows 2000 forum may be the right place to get more informed advice,

especially about where the W2k files will be stored when you boot to W98,

and what folders can be safely deleted.. Note that if you have created a W2k

partition then it might be formatted NTFS, which means it is not visible to

W98, and you would not be able to simply delete the contents and use the

space - you would need to remove the partition and re-create it as FAT32.

That's starting to get quite complicated.

 

Don't be embarrassed at the way that your thread seems to have taken on a

life of its own. That is the responsibility of those who have chosen to

hijack it for their own purposes.

--

Jeff Richards

MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

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

news:84ABBBBA-37E7-491B-A5BB-96389ACA7495@microsoft.com...

> Jeff, Philo, Dan

>

> Thanks for your insights.

> I never thought mu question will generate such a discussion, which by the

> way was almost a lecture.

>

> Jeff

> Yes I set the drive up so I can dual boot, that is choose between W2k or

> W98 at start up. Do you have any recommendation where to consult the

> documentation for the boot manager to see what the uninstall process is?

> Answering your other question, YES I installed W98 first and then added

> W2k

> as a second, alternative system,(but by mistake as I was trying to update

> from W98 to W2K).

> And my last question, how do I know I have erased all the W2K files?

> Perhaps it may be easier as you said, reinstall everyhting from zero.

>

> Thanks in advanced

>

>

> PCR, 98Guy, Bill in Co and MEB

>

> Thanks a lot for the discussion, it was a very good lesson for me

>

>