Why Microsoft? Why?

[Gamingphreek]

So, on my laptop I dual boot Ubuntu 64bit and Vista 32bit. It had been a year under Vista 32 and, even though I rarely use it, when I lend my computer out to friends, they use it. I didn't like all the left overs of uninstalled files and what not and I was having driver problems.

I reinstalled and realized that Windows, WITHOUT A PROMPT, decided to overwrite my MBR and point the Vista Bootloader instead of GRUB.

WHY WHY WHY would Microsoft be that dumb. I'm a huge supporter of Vista as I believe they did A LOT right with this OS (eventually ); however, what moron decided to implement this feature????

I am still trying to reinstall my grub bootloader (Though I think my problems thus far have been that I was using a 32bit LiveCD on a 64bit Kernel)

Thats it, I'm done ranting

-Kevin

 

[BD2003]

Doesnt pretty much any OS install it's own bootloader when you reinstall it? Besides, cant you just load grub or ubunutu from the vista bootloader anyway?

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Doesnt pretty much any OS install it's own bootloader when you reinstall it? Besides, cant you just load grub or ubunutu from the vista bootloader anyway?

If it does, it prompts you before it does.

No you cannot load grub or Ubuntu from the Vista Bootloader because it doesn't recognize the ext3 partition.

The 64bit Live CD worked flawlessly though!!

 

[Billb2]

MS only recognizes it's own OSs. If you were bill gates, you'd do it he same way.

 

[hans030390]

This surprises you?

 

[The Keeper]

All Windows OSes install their own bootloader without asking you. The only multi-boot environment they support is when you install more than one Windows on same computer, in which case you have to install oldest first and latest last.

So yeah, better keep that linux boot cd at hand if you ever have to reinstall grub.

 

[Nothinman]

No you cannot load grub or Ubuntu from the Vista Bootloader because it doesn't recognize the ext3 partition.

There were hacks to get NTLDR to load GRUB or LILO involving copying the BR to a file and loading it from the Windnows system partition but I have no idea if they still work with the Vista bootloader.

 

[Cogman]

lol, How many people even know what duel booting is? Microsoft hasn't done anything wrong so to speak, they are simply cutting out choices that could lead to bigger problems in the end.

Its kind of like saying "If 99% of the population will never use the feature, Why have an option there to confuse them?"

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: Cogman
lol, How many people even know what duel booting is? Microsoft hasn't done anything wrong so to speak, they are simply cutting out choices that could lead to bigger problems in the end.

Its kind of like saying "If 99% of the population will never use the feature, Why have an option there to confuse them?"

*ding* *ding* *ding*

Adding support for Linux to their bootloader would cause all sorts of headaches for them, mostly increased costs which is bad for any business especially when only a small minority of users would even use the new feature.

Vista has no problem dual-booting multiple installs of Windows.

On top of that, anyone that DOES understand what dual booting is and successfully got Vista and Linux to dual boot I'm pretty sure can figure out to rewrite the Linux bootloader. You can even use dd to copy the boot sector and store it while you install Vista again just so you can rewrite it after you are done.

 

[Nothinman]

lol, How many people even know what duel booting is?

Anytime you use Windows you eventually end up dueling with your PC so more than you think. =)

As for dual booting, that's another story.

Microsoft hasn't done anything wrong so to speak, they are simply cutting out choices that could lead to bigger problems in the end.

So cutting features for no real reason in the name of simplicity is a good thing? Maybe you should look at getting yourself an Apple PC. MS has done a good job at hiding a lot of features behind "Advanced" buttons, cli tools, etc so why not this one?

Adding support for Linux to their bootloader would cause all sorts of headaches for them, mostly increased costs which is bad for any business especially when only a small minority of users would even use the new feature.

The feature existed in NTLDR, it was just a PITA to use. If so few people are going to use it how can it increase their support costs that much?

On top of that, anyone that DOES understand what dual booting is and successfully got Vista and Linux to dual boot I'm pretty sure can figure out to rewrite the Linux bootloader. You can even use dd to copy the boot sector and store it while you install Vista again just so you can rewrite it after you are done.

We're trying to make Linux easier to use not vice-versa and that's what MS did here. No one should have to learn how to use grub-install or dd just to dual boot. Just about all Linux installers handle it for you now during installation so most people won't even know what GRUB is.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

lol, How many people even know what duel booting is?

Anytime you use Windows you eventually end up dueling with your PC so more than you think. =)

As for dual booting, that's another story.

Microsoft hasn't done anything wrong so to speak, they are simply cutting out choices that could lead to bigger problems in the end.

So cutting features for no real reason in the name of simplicity is a good thing? Maybe you should look at getting yourself an Apple PC. MS has done a good job at hiding a lot of features behind "Advanced" buttons, cli tools, etc so why not this one?

Adding support for Linux to their bootloader would cause all sorts of headaches for them, mostly increased costs which is bad for any business especially when only a small minority of users would even use the new feature.

The feature existed in NTLDR, it was just a PITA to use. If so few people are going to use it how can it increase their support costs that much?

On top of that, anyone that DOES understand what dual booting is and successfully got Vista and Linux to dual boot I'm pretty sure can figure out to rewrite the Linux bootloader. You can even use dd to copy the boot sector and store it while you install Vista again just so you can rewrite it after you are done.

We're trying to make Linux easier to use not vice-versa and that's what MS did here. No one should have to learn how to use grub-install or dd just to dual boot. Just about all Linux installers handle it for you now during installation so most people won't even know what GRUB is.

That is what I am saying - I can see that MS didn't think many people would use this, and they are right in thinking so.

Despite this, there should be an option in the installed (Under an advanced tab if they are that concerned) to leave the MBR intact.

In spite of all of this, I did learn how to use the GRUB console commands and how to relink the MBR to the grub install on my Linux partition.

-Kevin

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Adding support for Linux to their bootloader would cause all sorts of headaches for them, mostly increased costs which is bad for any business especially when only a small minority of users would even use the new feature.

The feature existed in NTLDR, it was just a PITA to use. If so few people are going to use it how can it increase their support costs that much?

It's not just support costs, you have the entire development cost of the feature to make it usable for the masses and then continued maintenance costs to make sure they don't break the compatibility.

On top of that, anyone that DOES understand what dual booting is and successfully got Vista and Linux to dual boot I'm pretty sure can figure out to rewrite the Linux bootloader. You can even use dd to copy the boot sector and store it while you install Vista again just so you can rewrite it after you are done.

We're trying to make Linux easier to use not vice-versa and that's what MS did here. No one should have to learn how to use grub-install or dd just to dual boot. Just about all Linux installers handle it for you now during installation so most people won't even know what GRUB is.

[/quote]

Of course we are trying to make Linux easier to use for people, but we are not MS. You have to look at it from MS' point of view, if there are few people who can knowingly take advantage of the feature then why bother putting it in there? The OP asked why MS doesn't support it and I'm throwing out reason I see I fit.

On the philosophy of this whole idea, I totally think it's bullshit that the Windows Installer does what it does how it does it. I have no problems with MS not supporting a dual boot for whatever reason, but to not support it and then blow out another OS' boot loader without warning is the bullshit part.

 

[sourceninja]

How hard is it to add a prompt that says

"The windows installer has detected a non-microsoft boot loader. If you choose to keep this boot loader your windows installation may be unusable. Replacing this bootloader may break any existing non-microsoft operating systems."

Then a simple replace and keep button. And then in true microsoft fashion, ask them if they are sure.

 

[Blazer]

why would anyone think M$ is friendly, prolly run linux servers anyway.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
How hard is it to add a prompt that says

"The windows installer has detected a non-microsoft boot loader. If you choose to keep this boot loader your windows installation may be unusable. Replacing this bootloader may break any existing non-microsoft operating systems."

Then a simple replace and keep button. And then in true microsoft fashion, ask them if they are sure.

If they decide to keep the boot loader, then what does microsoft do? Support every boot loader under the sun to install MS windows? Or should they just error out and say "We're sorry, we could not proceed to install MS windows" To Which the user will be saying "WTF? I want windows, thats why I bought it!"

Not so simple when you consider that some boot loaders aren't open source, All the sudden we need a portion of MS code to go through and check what type of boot loader is on the boot sector, see if it can't inject its own os into the boot loader (if that is even possible) and pray that the standard for the boot loader hasn't changed since the disk was published.

All to keep the 0.001% happy that even care about do that. Generally speaking, that 0.001% already knows how to reinstall a grub boot loader over the ms boot loader (or has sufficient skills to google it up)

 

[Hyperblaze]

This isn't a Vista only feature. They did it since Windows 95. And why on earth would you think MS wouldn't do that?

Do you actually trust Microsoft? Are you that naive?

 

[Hyperblaze]

Originally posted by: Cogman
lol, How many people even know what duel booting is? Microsoft hasn't done anything wrong so to speak, they are simply cutting out choices that could lead to bigger problems in the end.

Its kind of like saying "If 99% of the population will never use the feature, Why have an option there to confuse them?"

They are eliminating choices from users that might be using a non-microsoft operating system.

From their business standpoint, it makes complete sense. They have been doing this since 95.

And you would be suprised how many people know what dual booting is. Back then if win95 rewrote your MBR, then you had the brains to figure out how to get it back.

To get it back old fashion way. boot disk in drive a to boot in linux. recycle through LILO (never done this in grub). lilo -a I believe.

read up on the documnation. I'm sure it's listed there.

 

[degibson]

M$ has a legit reason for this, as well as non-legit ones: When you make OS's for computer-illiterate people, you don't scare them with choices they don't understand. Anybody who notices that their MBR was clobbered probably has the expertise to fix it.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Microsoft hasn't done anything wrong so to speak, they are simply cutting out choices that could lead to bigger problems in the end.

So cutting features for no real reason in the name of simplicity is a good thing? Maybe you should look at getting yourself an Apple PC. MS has done a good job at hiding a lot of features behind "Advanced" buttons, cli tools, etc so why not this one?

Fail.

 

[Nothinman]

It's not just support costs, you have the entire development cost of the feature to make it usable for the masses and then continued maintenance costs to make sure they don't break the compatibility.

It wasn't usable for the masses from NT4->XP so why would they have to worry about that with Vista? The support in NTLDR was pretty much as simple as you can get, blindly execute the target file. There's not much compatibility or support costs there.

You have to look at it from MS' point of view, if there are few people who can knowingly take advantage of the feature then why bother putting it in there?

Because it was there for the past ~10 years, all they've done by not putting it in the Vista bootloader is break compatibility with their older software.

Not so simple when you consider that some boot loaders aren't open source, All the sudden we need a portion of MS code to go through and check what type of boot loader is on the boot sector, see if it can't inject its own os into the boot loader (if that is even possible) and pray that the standard for the boot loader hasn't changed since the disk was published.

Actually it is simple. If MS would let the MBR alone it would work fine. The default MBR blindly boots the active partition, just put their boot loader there and be done with it. Then whatever code is in the MBR can do it's thing.

Anybody who notices that their MBR was clobbered probably has the expertise to fix it.

That is so not the case anymore. More and more non-technical people are playing with Ubuntu, OpenSuSE, etc these days so after a repair/reinstall of Windows all they know is that they can't boot into Linux anymore.

Fail.

It's not a fail when it's true.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Actually it is simple. If MS would let the MBR alone it would work fine. The default MBR blindly boots the active partition, just put their boot loader there and be done with it. Then whatever code is in the MBR can do it's thing.

Meh, Somehow that just looks like a nightmare waiting to happen. Instead of just overwriting it all together, you are installing it in the background. I can see it now "Where did my vista go? It said it installed it but I don't see it anywhere! And all the sudden my Hard drive just got smaller."

It still leaves them open to the problem that when you do this, there is the possibility that the boot-loader is in able to start up windows vista, leaving the consumer with a smaller hard drive and no way to access the OS they just installed.

But I guess we will have to agree to disagree as I can see your side of the argument pretty clearly

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: sourceninja
How hard is it to add a prompt that says

"The windows installer has detected a non-microsoft boot loader. If you choose to keep this boot loader your windows installation may be unusable. Replacing this bootloader may break any existing non-microsoft operating systems."

Then a simple replace and keep button. And then in true microsoft fashion, ask them if they are sure.

If they decide to keep the boot loader, then what does microsoft do? Support every boot loader under the sun to install MS windows? Or should they just error out and say "We're sorry, we could not proceed to install MS windows" To Which the user will be saying "WTF? I want windows, thats why I bought it!"

Not so simple when you consider that some boot loaders aren't open source, All the sudden we need a portion of MS code to go through and check what type of boot loader is on the boot sector, see if it can't inject its own os into the boot loader (if that is even possible) and pray that the standard for the boot loader hasn't changed since the disk was published.

All to keep the 0.001% happy that even care about do that. Generally speaking, that 0.001% already knows how to reinstall a grub boot loader over the ms boot loader (or has sufficient skills to google it up)

No simply do what the prompt implied and leave it to the user to setup their non standard boot loader. Respecting existing bootloaders does not mean microsoft has to support them.