Windows 2000 *didn't* overwrite the MBR

vharishankar · 12-13-2006, 09:04 AM

My very old Windows 98 installation was hosed due to some severe disk problems which kept Windows 98 practically unbootable so I installed Windows 2000 from an old CD of my cousin over it.

The fact is that I expected it to overwrite GRUB in the MBR and was fully prepared for it. Imagine my surprise when Windows 2000 setup completed without even rewriting the MBR and GRUB loaded without a hitch!

Now I've not used Windows in *ages* (I'm doing this installation for my father

) so I really don't remember whether Win2k replaces the MBR or not, but from what I vaguely remember I thought it did.

Can anybody shed some light on this?

(I had earlier removed the Win98 installation completely and it was reformatted to NTFS during the Windows installation.).

Another interesting point - Windows 2000 setup showed all the "partitions" on my system and although it detected linux as undetected, it still gave me a choice to install it wherever I wanted.

Not that I'm complaining or anything, but this behaviour seemed strange enough to warrant a thread.

pixellany · 12-13-2006, 12:43 PM

This is definitely a first. In my quest for the perfect system, I have re-installed Win 2000 more times than I can count. The only thing i can think of is that it detected the Win98 install and concluded that it did not need to install a boot loader.

corbintechboy · 12-13-2006, 02:59 PM

Winows 2kpro always has left the MBR untouched on my system as well. Boy I love windows 2000!

pixellany · 12-13-2006, 03:07 PM

This is weird....The Windows installer does not give you any options about installing a bootloader...How does it think that it is going to boot up???

But wait--is anyone installing Windows on a drive other than #1?? What does it do then?

corbintechboy · 12-13-2006, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pixellany

This is weird....The Windows installer does not give you any options about installing a bootloader...How does it think that it is going to boot up???

But wait--is anyone installing Windows on a drive other than #1?? What does it do then?

I guess it thinks if your smart enough to install it to another drive your smart enough to get it to boot. In the event you have probs with the MBR apon install you could do a fdisk /mbr. I guess win2k assumes your a little geeky.LOL

vharishankar · 12-13-2006, 08:30 PM

I read somewhere else now that Win2k doesn't install the boot loader in the MBR. But there are also many conflicting statements on this issue. Strange.

The article says something about win2k doesn't seem to overwrite the MBR:
http://www.cs.uchicago.edu/docs/opersys/multiboot

(Just search for Windows 2000 in the article)