How to uninstall a dual configuration with Windows2000pro

[LACV]

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?

 

[philo]

"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

 

[Jeff Richards]

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?

 

[Don Phillipson]

> "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)

 

[Guy 98]

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?

 

[Don Phillipson]

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)

 

[Jeff Richards]

"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)

 

[PCR]

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

 

[98 Guy]

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.

 

[Ninety8 Guy]

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.

 

[Dan]

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.
>

 

[Dan]

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)
>
>
>

 

[PCR]

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.

 

[98 Guy]

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.

 

[Bill in Co.]

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?

 

[Dan]

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.
>

 

[Don Phillipson]

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)

 

[98 Guy]

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.

 

[PCR]

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

 

[PCR]

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