Borked windows boot

>>58688914
grub is your bootloader
its too big so its split into stages, this is stage 1 or stage 1.5 or something that fits in the MBR that loads stage 2 on a partition to let you load up an OS. so you seem to have destroyed or moved stage 2 partition when you deleted linux so now stage 1 can't find it.
you either need to reinstall grub from a recovery disk and set it all up to boot windows OR get a windows recovery disk and install the windows bootloader in the MBR (ntdlr or some shit?)

don't feel bad anon booting is hard.

File: team_logo_9943ae91fe224321445c08270dd40200_549[1].jpg (40KB, 418x467px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 418x467px

>>58689022
Thanks a lot for the sympathy, anon. I managed to fix everything and I'm up and running again. I can't thank you enough. Cheers!

>>58689022
ntldr is the equivalent to stage2, it's the bootsector he needs to replace

>>58689314
>>58689022
and yea, booting is a cunt, but don't worry, they fixed it all* with UEFI

*made it worse

>>58689324
I should clarify:
I managed to resolve my initial problem of not being able to access my recovery usb (it was a hardware issue, hence why I wasn't able to get results through google). With that resolved, I just plugged some keywords from that anon's response into google and found out how to fix the MBR using the console. I was more thanking him for taking the time to offer help and point me in the direction that fixed my issue. I understand /g/ isn't meant for tech support issues, but I asked because you guys tend to know your shit and I'm much more comfortable asking the people I regularly interact with than users of forums I've never visited.

>>58689425
that didn't really need explaining

also, use /sqt/ next time, friendly reminder

File: yotsuba.png (19KB, 380x380px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 380x380px

>>58689324
I prefer UEFI. The EFI system partition is large enough for a kernel + initrd image, which means you can use anything for your root filesystem, like F2FS or ZFS.

EFI boot menus can have graphics and mouse support for a modern dual-boot UI. If you don't like that, you can still use a text-mode boot menu.

EFI supports modern 16:9 screen resolutions, so your screen isn't stretched during boot, and console text and splash screens display at the crisp native resolution of your screen.

If you don't have graphics drivers installed yet, your OS can continue using EFI graphics mode and look much nicer.

UEFI is native 64-bit, so your OS is 64-bit from the start, without needing weird legacy code to switch modes during boot.

Even without these features it would be worth it just to make boot more reliable, so you don't find yourself trying to flash SuperGRUB onto a USB drive with a second computer.

If you don't like UEFI you're stuck in the past and hate innovation because you can't handle learning new technologies anymore. You probably hate systemd too.

>>58689595
>The EFI system partition is large enough for a kernel + initrd image, which means you can use anything for your root filesystem, like F2FS or ZFS.
completely meaningless, even possibly a negative
before: if your bootloader supports the filesystem, you can use a single partition
now: 2 partitions required either way
>EFI boot menus can have graphics and mouse support for a modern dual-boot UI. If you don't like that, you can still use a text-mode boot menu.
not unique to EFI
>EFI supports modern 16:9 screen resolutions, so your screen isn't stretched during boot, and console text and splash screens display at the crisp native resolution of your screen.
not unique to EFI
>If you don't have graphics drivers installed yet, your OS can continue using EFI graphics mode and look much nicer.
the "looking nicer" part doesn't concern me, but avoiding some legacy video bullshit is a point towards EFI, though not directly related to booting
>UEFI is native 64-bit, so your OS is 64-bit from the start, without needing weird legacy code to switch modes during boot.
does this really affect anything?

>You probably hate systemd too.
na, systemd is mostly better than what we had before

>>58689661
>reserves first block for boot block
>reserves first MB for second-stage boot loader
>rest of disk for OS

"it's only one partition guys"

>>58689878
>reserves first block for boot block
uses no space not already used by mbr/gpt (they reserve space specifically for this purpose)
>reserves first MB for second-stage boot loader
i think you're confusing this with disk block alignment

>>58688914
>any ideas?

Install Gentoo