How I slayed my OEM partition
Pages: 12
(and why you should too, if you haven't already).
So my dad finally got sick of having been waiting to get our computer repaired by the incompetent idiots who sold it to us, and went and made them give us a new one for free. It's an Acer Aspire, I don't know anything about Acer but I hope they're a relatively decent OEM.
Anyway, so I booted windows 7 and saw that I had two partitions (C: and D:). I only wanted C: for now. I went into the Disk Management program to delete it and saw a sickening sight. There was a 12 GiB recovery partition, as well as a 100 MiB do-nothing-but-remain-hidden partition. :O
I right clicked the partition in the partitioning program but there was no delete option, as I had expected. I ran the windows diskpart program with a glint of malice in my eye.
"select disk 0; select volume 5!" I laughed, "delete volume!"
But to no effect! The diskpart program crashed!
"Well played, Acer..." I said.
Knowing I still had one hand left to play,I grabbed my Linux Mint boot disc, rebooted and ran gParted. I layed my cards on the table, and the Great OEM Partition was slain.
Anyway, that's the story of how I deleted the useless recovery partition my OEM gave me, as well as a totally pointless (and empty) 100 MiB partition. You should probably do the same, because OEM partitions suck
So my dad finally got sick of having been waiting to get our computer repaired by the incompetent idiots who sold it to us, and went and made them give us a new one for free. It's an Acer Aspire, I don't know anything about Acer but I hope they're a relatively decent OEM.
Anyway, so I booted windows 7 and saw that I had two partitions (C: and D:). I only wanted C: for now. I went into the Disk Management program to delete it and saw a sickening sight. There was a 12 GiB recovery partition, as well as a 100 MiB do-nothing-but-remain-hidden partition. :O
I right clicked the partition in the partitioning program but there was no delete option, as I had expected. I ran the windows diskpart program with a glint of malice in my eye.
"select disk 0; select volume 5!" I laughed, "delete volume!"
But to no effect! The diskpart program crashed!
"Well played, Acer..." I said.
Knowing I still had one hand left to play,I grabbed my Linux Mint boot disc, rebooted and ran gParted. I layed my cards on the table, and the Great OEM Partition was slain.
Anyway, that's the story of how I deleted the useless recovery partition my OEM gave me, as well as a totally pointless (and empty) 100 MiB partition. You should probably do the same, because OEM partitions suck
By the way, the reason I didn't put a full stop at the end was because I had 1337 characters and I didn't want to ruin it.
Oh yeah, and if you're wondering what I think of windows 7: it's a huge improvement. The GUI is actually pretty good, but better yet, it's similar to vista's. Why is that good? It means that improvements were made elsewhere (i.e. in the kernel, where they're needed) instead of just in the GUI.
Oh yeah, and if you're wondering what I think of windows 7: it's a huge improvement. The GUI is actually pretty good, but better yet, it's similar to vista's. Why is that good? It means that improvements were made elsewhere (i.e. in the kernel, where they're needed) instead of just in the GUI.
Last edited on
Most users should not destroy their "OEM" partition. It exists so that when the user boogers his system, the people at the computer shop can fix it. Once it no longer exists, you've lost the equivalent of all your CD-ROM disks with the OS and other important files that you bought. Without them, you are up the creek without a paddle...
If you're likely to do that (e.g. you're me), download one of the following.
If you're on XP then just don't delete the partition. Or, realise you're seven years behind everyone else and use a better OS (or even a good one, like Linux or *BSD).
http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/windows-vista-recovery-disc-download/
http://neosmart.net/blog/2009/windows-7-system-repair-discs/
Those are legal, by the way.
If you're on XP then just don't delete the partition. Or, realise you're seven years behind everyone else and use a better OS (or even a good one, like Linux or *BSD).
http://neosmart.net/blog/2008/windows-vista-recovery-disc-download/
http://neosmart.net/blog/2009/windows-7-system-repair-discs/
Those are legal, by the way.
Last edited on
| Once it no longer exists, you've lost the equivalent of all your CD-ROM disks with the OS and other important files that you bought. |
Well, actually it was because it's a rip off, but that was also part of the reason.
| Or, realise you're seven years behind everyone else and use a better OS |
Last edited on
Well, XP was good, but it wasn't great. It was better than vista, I don't think there's any question about that... but 7 wipes it off the table, tbh. It's faster and it's memory footprint is smaller. It also has a much more intuitive GUI (still waiting for windows being able to snap to a grid, though).
I have no choice. I'm saving up, though. Then I'll make my own OEM partition.
| Precisely the reason why I only made the mistake of buying OEM once. Well, actually it was because it's a rip off, but that was also part of the reason. |
I have no choice. I'm saving up, though. Then I'll make my own OEM partition.
Last edited on
1. Release new OS.
2. Receive bad publicity because of new OS.
3. Minimally change OS, rebrand, and rerelease.
4. PROFIT! (There's no ???? step.)
2. Receive bad publicity because of new OS.
3. Minimally change OS, rebrand, and rerelease.
4. PROFIT! (There's no ???? step.)
I have an XP machine that I've been running for ages. It has been the most stable OS that I have maintained since DOS. I'm glad to see how to defeat an OEM partition, and all, but I'm not in agreement with the other sentiments.
I probably wouldn't remove an OEM partition just for kicks, but rather if 1) I thought it had been compromised, 2) I needed the disk space.
Why exactly should I take a chance on anything but what meets all of my needs and has been proven stable?
For the record, I have personal experience with DOS 5.0 and 6.22, Windows 3.0 and 3.11 (if they count), Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP, and Vista, Red Hat Linux 9, RHEL 5, Debian (I forget the version), Fedora Core 6 and 8, Ubuntu (I forget the version), and Knoppix (various versions).
I used to be all about newer versions of software, because theoretically newer versions are better. However, my experience has shown differently in numerous cases.
I probably wouldn't remove an OEM partition just for kicks, but rather if 1) I thought it had been compromised, 2) I needed the disk space.
Why exactly should I take a chance on anything but what meets all of my needs and has been proven stable?
For the record, I have personal experience with DOS 5.0 and 6.22, Windows 3.0 and 3.11 (if they count), Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP, and Vista, Red Hat Linux 9, RHEL 5, Debian (I forget the version), Fedora Core 6 and 8, Ubuntu (I forget the version), and Knoppix (various versions).
I used to be all about newer versions of software, because theoretically newer versions are better. However, my experience has shown differently in numerous cases.
I'm not saying that I think it's automatically better because it's newer, far from it. As a working example, take GRUB 2 vs. GRUB 1 (which actually never reached version 1.0). GRUB had fantastic scripting support... you could colour your menus, you could have a graphical boot menu, all by typing a few characters into a menu.lst file. GRUB 2 has a horrible mess of files intended to add more extensibility... but half of the scripts are read-only, and a bunch of them are hidden away where you can't find them. The menu.lst file was ALWAYS in /boot/grub/menu.lst. Always. But I have no idea where all the other files were.
Having said that, I think 7 is better than XP. I've used both, and I prefer one. I think it's fair to say I think one is better when I've used both. If I had only used one of them, then I wouldn't know enough to form an opinion on which is better... but having used both, I just generally think 7 > XP > Vista.
I have a hard disk with 2k (ME) on it somewhere... but I can't really remember 2k that well. What was your opinion on it?
I've only used FreeDOS...
I see what you're saying (and I can't believe I'm sticking up for windows :O), but 7 is drastically different to vista. Still no window snapping, though, so X is definitely better than the windows DWM.
I don't particularly need the disk space, but I don't need the recovery partition (got the disk from the link above, I've tested it and it works, too); so I don't see the point in not reclaiming that 12 GiB of hard disk space.
Having said that, I think 7 is better than XP. I've used both, and I prefer one. I think it's fair to say I think one is better when I've used both. If I had only used one of them, then I wouldn't know enough to form an opinion on which is better... but having used both, I just generally think 7 > XP > Vista.
I have a hard disk with 2k (ME) on it somewhere... but I can't really remember 2k that well. What was your opinion on it?
| DOS |
I've only used FreeDOS...
| 1. Release new OS. 2. Receive bad publicity because of new OS. 3. Minimally change OS, rebrand, and rerelease. 4. PROFIT! (There's no ???? step.) |
I see what you're saying (and I can't believe I'm sticking up for windows :O), but 7 is drastically different to vista. Still no window snapping, though, so X is definitely better than the windows DWM.
| 1. Release new OS. 2. Receive bad publicity because of new OS. 3. Minimally change OS, rebrand, and rerelease. 4. PROFIT! (There's no ???? step.) |
I don't particularly need the disk space, but I don't need the recovery partition (got the disk from the link above, I've tested it and it works, too); so I don't see the point in not reclaiming that 12 GiB of hard disk space.
You counted your characters?
@helios
So true.
@helios
| 1. Release new OS. 2. Receive bad publicity because of new OS. 3. Minimally change OS, rebrand, and rerelease. 4. PROFIT! (There's no ???? step.) |
So true.
Last edited on
| You counted your characters? |
No. When you make a new post, find the "Submit" button. Then look to the left of it and find the "Preview" button. Then, to the left of that is some text saying "Length:" followed by a number in a grey box and the text "(max=8192)." Do you see it? The number in the grey box is how many characters you have entered.
closed account (S6k9GNh0)
Rather than getting rid of just the recovery partition, I formatted my whole drive and placed Linux on top of it. I spent more time configuring Vista to do what I wanted it to do (such as not defragment my computer or index all of my files) than using the OS itself. In the end, I was getting irritated that it was SO SLOW with certain things and I even found a few bugs that drove me bonkers. I tried reverting to Windows XP but apparently a standard WinXP disc does not work on this laptop as it will give me a blue screen while it's booting (guessing it had to do with OEM drivers that were required). After getting fed up, I had some fun and moved to Arch Linux. :D
Unfortunately, I didn't make a real flexible / partition and it ran out of room after awhile. Then I moved to Fedora since it sets up a logical and dynamic partition for me. :D
Unfortunately, I didn't make a real flexible / partition and it ran out of room after awhile. Then I moved to Fedora since it sets up a logical and dynamic partition for me. :D
Last edited on
closed account (S6k9GNh0)
@chrisname: Gentoo was my first OS and it introduced me to the basic form of a Linux partition. It does have a few problems. emerge seems to get slower after awhile and there is a way to fix this, I suggest you google it. It also gets tedious to download and compiler EVERYTHING. I remember compiling my kernel on my single CPU computer. It took nearly four hours, it was horrid. It took a similar amount of time to compile all of my programming software and my games if not longer. Also, I spent hours of configuration on the OS and I still ended up with a rather unstable setup. I did that to get the feel of a majorly basic LFS although an LFS is so much more explicit, it's not even funny. I've yet to finish an LFS lol...
That's why I decided with Arch Linux when I moved it onto my laptop. It's preoptimized without extended configuration. It's also very light although it still requires all configuration from the user. Fedora is similar (if you get the i686 or whatever architecture you use optimized release) except it configures everything for the user and is quite a bit heavier.
That's why I decided with Arch Linux when I moved it onto my laptop. It's preoptimized without extended configuration. It's also very light although it still requires all configuration from the user. Fedora is similar (if you get the i686 or whatever architecture you use optimized release) except it configures everything for the user and is quite a bit heavier.
Last edited on
Yes. Yes I did.
@DrChill,
Hmmm... Depends on the criteria.
Lightweighted-ness: Minix 3
Artwork, GUI: Linux Mint 8
Flexibility: Archlinux (tried it on a virtual machine briefly)
Games: windows (durr).
@DrChill,
Hmmm... Depends on the criteria.
Lightweighted-ness: Minix 3
Artwork, GUI: Linux Mint 8
Flexibility: Archlinux (tried it on a virtual machine briefly)
Games: windows (durr).
closed account (S6k9GNh0)
Man, I didn't know Minix was still around. I looked into it but it seems a little bit larger than I thought it should be. It's meant for older, smaller computers yet it's 200+ MB? Linux is smaller than that... I wonder if they're including programs or more by default?
Pages: 12