trying for two days to install windows..

Reply

  #1  
Old 02-19-14, 03:12 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: coquitlam bc canada
Posts: 19
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
trying for two days to install windows..

New sata 750 GB Hard drive .. formatted partitioned to 100 GB then .., using a factory cd windows xp disc with key ... installed the windows three times .. but there was always soem thing that didn't work.. couldn't get drivers to install couldn't get sp3 to install .. etc .. so kept formating the hd oevr and over again to reinstall windows now for the past days now . .the program hangs at 58% and then erro messages
pop up missing a dll or incomplete installation ..

what is the best way? / I even contemplated installing windows 98 then upgrading to windows xp in the windows environment rather than dos ..
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 02-19-14, 06:21 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
You can install Windows XP on an SATA drive but it isn't very easy as Windows XP was never really written for SATA drives. Also Windows XP is about to sunset in April and that means no more support from Microsoft or even peripheral manufacturers like hp or any other manufacturer of printers or anything else.

I suggest you upgrade to Windows 7 as it is written for SATA drives or one of the free Operating Systems like Linux. If however you still want to try here are a couple of links that might help you Windows xp doesnt see my sata hard drive, but the bios does - Chipsets - Motherboards . http://knowledge.seagate.com/article...S/FAQ/196169en .
 
  #3  
Old 02-20-14, 10:15 AM
Forum Topic Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,648
Received 19 Votes on 18 Posts
I'd agree. As much as I procrastinated moving to Windows 7, I haven't missed XP one bit. It was worth the cost to buy a new (or upgrade) license rather than futz with getting XP to work on a new SATA drive as you are.

Also at this point, it may even be worth the jump to Windows 8. As much as some people dislike it, I think it's like anything else - once you start using it and get used to it, it'll be fine.
 
  #4  
Old 02-20-14, 01:14 PM
Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 429
Received 10 Votes on 8 Posts
My first recommendation would be to stop doing installs from CDs/DVDs (if possible). In my experience, installation via SD/thumb drive is more reliable, doesn't require you buy more disks, and eliminates the disks wasted due to failed burns. Plus, there can be compatibility quirkies depending on exactly whose disk you've burned, and whether the disk is being read from the same device as it was burned on. But obviously your hardware has to be capable of booting form a USB or this is a non-starter. I still prefer to use the thumb drive, even if I have a factory disk.

You can get a freeware here to transfer a bootable CD/DVD image to the thumb drive. And you can get a freeware here for creating disk images from the physical disks.


XP only occasionally has a problem with SATA, else they couldn't have sold PCs configured that way in the hundreds of millions. I have installed XP on at least a few hundred PCs with SATA HDDs myself, and never have found it to be a problem. Including immediate family, I have five PCs in that configuration running under my roof right now.

SATA HDDs were introduced about midway between the initial releases of XP and Vista (pardon my french). So unless they intended for their spanking-new HDDs to sit on store shelves for two years, waiting for Vista (pardon my french) to be released, they were going to have to jury-rig some sort backwards compatibility for XP. Which they did, in the form of IDE-emulation built into the MoBo's BIOS.

Without IDE emulation, XP cannot run on SATA HDDs unless it has had the Advanced Host Controller Interface enabled. You can load ACHI at installation either by "slipstreaming" the drivers into the installation media (which takes a fair amount of tech savvy) or by loading them manually by pressing <F6> when offered in the installation dialogue. Except it can only search for drivers in a floppy device called "Drive A:". End result, the overwhelming majority of the XP boxes in use today with SATA HDDs still are running in IDE-emulation mode.

So if you edited your BIOS before installing, and if you changed your HDDs from IDE to SATA, that could be the source of your problem. If that is the case, I would suggest to try again after switching back to IDE. Some but not all BIOSes are clever enough to detect that the OS is not AHCI-enabled and countermand the setting, forcing the BIOS into IDE-emulaton mode. And if your MoBo was built pre-SATA, and your SATA controller card is a late add-on, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Another possible source of the problem is the version of installation media you are using. It isn't clear from your OP whether your media has SP3 slipstreamed, or whether you are installing SP3 separately. If it's a factory CD, and if it has a service pack slipstreamed, it will be printed on the label, "Includes Service Pack X." Un-patched XP, SP0, cannot recognize any hard drive, IDE or SATA, larger than 137GB because it lacks support for 48-bit Logical Block Addressing. 48-bit LBA was added to XP in SP1 (and to W2K in SP3). So if your media is XP SP0, your HDD's 750GB capacity, and not its SATA architecture, probably is to blame.

Also, SP3 cannot be installed on unpatched XP. Either SP1.a or SP2 must already have been installed (unless SP3 is slipstreamed into the installation media).


I'm not giving up XP, for a number of reasons. For one thing, I have too many 32-bit PCs. In anticipation of the arrival of 64-bit hardware, M$ shifted philosophy with Vista (pardon my french) to make their OSes much more aggressive and less economical in their utilization of RAM (prefetch and the like). Add to that that memory leaks only have gotten worse since XP and the end result is that all the M$ OSes from Vista (pardon my french) onward are woefully underpowered when limited to no more than 4GB of RAM. I dual-boot Win7&8 on 32-bit platforms (not with each other) and it is a red-letter occasion if either platform runs normally for more than 3-4 days without requiring a reboot. One thing I despise is a Linux pimp, those people who think using Linux makes them morally superior, smarter, more virile, and more attractive to wimmen, so they advertise to anyone who'll listen the fact that they are a Linux user by offering Linux as a solution to every PC problem, regardless whether the OP expressed any interest in changing OSes or not. All that said, if and when I decide the risk is too great to my 32-bit XP PCs, I will convert them all to something in the *NIX family, probably Linux Mint. If my work did not require that I be conversant in both Win7 & 8, I would long since have thrown both in the nearest trash receptacle. XP is more than capable of everything I require a Windoze PC for, and it runs with more authority than any other offering from M$ on 4GB of RAM.

For another thing, XP support isn't altogether going away. It might never. There are 400,000+ ATMs in the world running an XP derivative called POSReady 2009, and they are promised full factory support through 2019. To get their large-volume corporate customers over the horror of Vista (pardon my french), M$ resorted to promising them they could trade in their Win7/8 for XP any time through 2020. So M$ is committed to providing these people XP support for at least six more years. And M$ also has "custom support" clients who are paying through the wazoo for continued XP support, essentially as for as long as they are willing to lay out the long green.

Even if you don't know what a bittorrent is, ask a local teenaged geek how widely available bootlegged M$ applications are via a bittorrent client. Knowing how pervasive the bootlegging is, I will be astounded if what patches and updates that M$ will create for all those XP clients do not "leak out" and in short order turn up on The Pirate Bay.

I'm not remarking to the ethics of using all those bootlegged patches and such, I'm simply pointing out the unlikelihood of M$ choking off support from all users of an artificially obsoleted XP.

Nor do I think it is possible that peripheral manufacturers would forsake all the tens of millions of people who haven't given up on XP just because M$ is pressuring them to.

Another dilemma that M$ has created for itself, because it has not had an OS since XP that sold itself (one that consumers did not have to be bribed or bullied into buying), is that come 09 April, there still will be 350-400 million PCs on the Internet running on XP. There could be dire consequences to letting fully one-forth of all the PCs on the planet inhabit the Internet in an unsecure state. If hackers/crackers could compromise a significant number of them, they could use them to cripple the Internet. I'm sure all those special XP customers would be livid to learn that M$ was giving away the product support they were paying so dearly to receive, but not nearly so livid as they would be to find the Internet had been transformed into a combat zone because M$ has a corporate tradition of engaging in unethical business practices.

Bottom line, I think rumors of XP's death are greatly exaggerated. Which is not to say added precautions are not in order.
 
  #5  
Old 02-20-14, 01:58 PM
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,446
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
I have to respectfully disagree with Fred_C_Dobbs. I take one example and that is Windows 98 sure you can still get Widows 98 disks they are available on the internet and some of them fairly cheap too. I used to really like Windows 98 too but when Windows XP came along realized after about five years that my computer was no longer being protected. It meant that my files and everything I thought was important were very vulnerable.

I started seeing anti-virus companies no longer supporting Windows 98 and some that did still support the os were kind of shady characters and not to be trusted as they had a bad reputation and many complaints against them on various review websites. I knew then I needed to upgrade to Windows XP and fast too so I copied my files and put them on disk for transfer to another computer or the same computer. If you could see my office you would know I have more than one desktop.

The reason I mention more than one desktop is because at one time all of them were running Windows 98. One of those has now been retired and just sits in an upstairs bedroom gathering dust but had been in my office for a long time. I had just removed files from one of my desktops and was surfing the internet when suddenly with that desktop I could no longer navigate on my computer a Trojan Horse had taken over my computer. It didn't matter that much because I was going to wipe the drive anyway.

The point being though that Windows XP will soon be very vulnerable and I was just lucky during that five year window. The reason too that I mention Linux at all as an alternative is because I have used Linux on older computers and it works fine on them and I happen to know it works great on newer computers too.

Many people use Linux because hackers are not as interested in trying to destroy Linux like they are with Windows and it is also harder to hack into. I though am not trying to sell Linux it has its faults like little support for newer printers to name a few but also has some good points too. The choice though is yours to make as to what you do I can only make suggestions and will not pretend that my suggestion is better for you or not.
 
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes
 
Ask a Question
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: