|
tech
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Is it possible to install XP if the XP-CD is pre-copied to a blank hard drive?If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will
boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process after the machine starts and boots itself into DOS? There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you can do that. I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a protected mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess). Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install can be started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate command-line switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. So, it it possible? Actually youre trying to install xp as the "preffered method" instead of a
windows explorer installation..You dont install the cd to the hd however,one simply installs xp cd,set the BIOS to boot to xp cdrom as 1st boot priority,hd 2nd (for installation),save & exit BIOS,boot to xp cd (DOS),select install xp, delete the partition,create one,then xp formats & installs auto.The copy cd to hd will only cause a malfunction,also,FAT32 is not a preffered file system,its outdated,use NTFS. Show quoteHide quote "XP Guy" wrote: > If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will > boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the > drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process after the > machine starts and boots itself into DOS? > > There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you can do > that. > > I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a protected > mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess). > > Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install can be > started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate command-line > switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. > > So, it it possible? > Andrew E. wrote:
> Actually youre trying to install xp as the "preffered method" Since he has a DOS boot partition, FAT32 is actually REQUIRED! Where > instead of a windows explorer installation..You dont install the cd > to the hd however,one simply installs xp cd,set the BIOS to boot to > xp cdrom as 1st boot priority,hd > 2nd (for installation),save & exit BIOS,boot to xp cd (DOS),select > install xp, > delete the partition,create one,then xp formats & installs auto.The > copy cd to > hd will only cause a malfunction,also,FAT32 is not a preffered file > system,its > outdated,use NTFS. have you been? Show quoteHide quote > > "XP Guy" wrote: > >> If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will >> boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the >> drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process after >> the machine starts and boots itself into DOS? >> >> There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you >> can do that. >> >> I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a >> protected mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess). >> >> Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install >> can be started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate >> command-line switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. >> >> So, it it possible? Twayne
Andrew is the resident idiot who always posts wrong info and a lot times dangerous ones at that -- Show quoteHide quotePeter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:eabQM1CxJHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Andrew E. wrote: >> Actually youre trying to install xp as the "preffered method" >> instead of a windows explorer installation..You dont install the cd >> to the hd however,one simply installs xp cd,set the BIOS to boot to >> xp cdrom as 1st boot priority,hd >> 2nd (for installation),save & exit BIOS,boot to xp cd (DOS),select >> install xp, >> delete the partition,create one,then xp formats & installs auto.The >> copy cd to >> hd will only cause a malfunction,also,FAT32 is not a preffered file >> system,its >> outdated,use NTFS. > > Since he has a DOS boot partition, FAT32 is actually REQUIRED! Where have you > been? > > >> >> "XP Guy" wrote: >> >>> If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will >>> boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the >>> drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process after >>> the machine starts and boots itself into DOS? >>> >>> There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you >>> can do that. >>> >>> I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a >>> protected mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess). >>> >>> Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install >>> can be started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate >>> command-line switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. >>> >>> So, it it possible? > > > Peter Foldes wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Twayne Yeah, I've too much time on my hands the last few days so checked out > > Andrew is the resident idiot who always posts wrong info and a lot > times dangerous ones at that > > > "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:eabQM1CxJHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Andrew E. wrote: >>> Actually youre trying to install xp as the "preffered method" >>> instead of a windows explorer installation..You dont install the cd >>> to the hd however,one simply installs xp cd,set the BIOS to boot to >>> xp cdrom as 1st boot priority,hd >>> 2nd (for installation),save & exit BIOS,boot to xp cd (DOS),select >>> install xp, >>> delete the partition,create one,then xp formats & installs auto.The >>> copy cd to >>> hd will only cause a malfunction,also,FAT32 is not a preffered file >>> system,its >>> outdated,use NTFS. >> >> Since he has a DOS boot partition, FAT32 is actually REQUIRED! Where >> have you been? >> >> >>> >>> "XP Guy" wrote: >>> >>>> If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and >>>> will boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd >>>> to the drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation >>>> process after the machine starts and boots itself into DOS? >>>> >>>> There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you >>>> can do that. >>>> >>>> I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a >>>> protected mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess). >>>> >>>> Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install >>>> can be started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate >>>> command-line switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. >>>> >>>> So, it it possible? the lunacy factor just for entertainment value. Fortunately that's about to come to an end. The extra time, I mean<g>. Cheers, Twayne XP Guy said this on 4/22/2009 10:56 PM:
Show quoteHide quote > If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will If you've been around a while, you might remember the old days of win 95 > boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the > drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process after the > machine starts and boots itself into DOS? > > There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you can do > that. > > I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a protected > mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess). > > Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install can be > started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate command-line > switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. > > So, it it possible? or win 98 that required a boot floppy to load drivers etc. I think it was win98se that actually made the first bootable CD to install from. If you replicate a win9x boot floppy, that might work. And there are many utility boot CD's like BartPE etc that can be created, but as others have said, if you boot from a CD why not just boot from the Windows XP cd and do it right. All the tools are there! Big_Al wrote:
> > So, it it possible? Why can't you people just answer the god damn question?> If you've been around a while, you might remember the old > days of win 95 or win 98 that required a boot floppy to > load drivers etc. I think it was win98se that actually > made the first bootable CD to install from. > If you replicate a win9x boot floppy, that might work. > And there are many utility boot CD's like BartPE etc that can be > created, but as others have said, if you boot from a CD why > not just boot from the Windows XP cd and do it right. All > the tools are there! First of all, even for win-98, even if the CD is bootable, it was still possible to run setup.exe from DOS and to install 98 from a CD image that was pre-copied to the hard drive. What I'm trying to do is to pre-copy the XP cd onto a hard drive that will then be installed into a system that does not have a CD drive and for which may not have any ability to boot from any external device. Does that help you wrap your head around this question? Now can we get back to answering this question? Is there a way I can launch the XP installation process from a hard drive if I pre-copy an XP cd to the drive? XP Guy wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Big_Al wrote: Not with that attitude. Understand your frustration to a degree, but you're > >>> So, it it possible? > >> If you've been around a while, you might remember the old >> days of win 95 or win 98 that required a boot floppy to >> load drivers etc. I think it was win98se that actually >> made the first bootable CD to install from. >> If you replicate a win9x boot floppy, that might work. >> And there are many utility boot CD's like BartPE etc that can be >> created, but as others have said, if you boot from a CD why >> not just boot from the Windows XP cd and do it right. All >> the tools are there! > > Why can't you people just answer the god damn question? > > First of all, even for win-98, even if the CD is bootable, it was > still possible to run setup.exe from DOS and to install 98 from a CD > image that was pre-copied to the hard drive. > > What I'm trying to do is to pre-copy the XP cd onto a hard drive that > will then be installed into a system that does not have a CD drive and > for which may not have any ability to boot from any external device. > > Does that help you wrap your head around this question? > > Now can we get back to answering this question? > > Is there a way I can launch the XP installation process from a hard > drive if I pre-copy an XP cd to the drive? the supplicant here.
Show quote
Hide quote
"Olórin" wrote: And you're obviously the arrogant, stuck-up ass hole here.> > What I'm trying to do is to pre-copy the XP cd onto a hard drive > > that will then be installed into a system that does not have a > > CD drive and for which may not have any ability to boot from any > > external device. > > > > Does that help you wrap your head around this question? > > > > Now can we get back to answering this question? > > > > Is there a way I can launch the XP installation process from a > > hard drive if I pre-copy an XP cd to the drive? > > Not with that attitude. Understand your frustration to a degree, > but you're the supplicant here. And nice try, by the way, to essentially show that even you can't answer the question. By deflecting the question, you are essentially telling everyone that you can't answer it. I would think that a person that goes by "XP Guy" would be able to figure
this out on his own. At the very least he would know how to use a search engine. -- Show quoteHide quoteCrosspost, do not multipost http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm How to ask a question http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 "XP Guy" <X*@Guy.com> wrote in message news:49F06D61.58D728F9@Guy.com... > "Olórin" wrote: > >> > What I'm trying to do is to pre-copy the XP cd onto a hard drive >> > that will then be installed into a system that does not have a >> > CD drive and for which may not have any ability to boot from any >> > external device. >> > >> > Does that help you wrap your head around this question? >> > >> > Now can we get back to answering this question? >> > >> > Is there a way I can launch the XP installation process from a >> > hard drive if I pre-copy an XP cd to the drive? >> >> Not with that attitude. Understand your frustration to a degree, >> but you're the supplicant here. > > And you're obviously the arrogant, stuck-up ass hole here. > > And nice try, by the way, to essentially show that even you can't answer > the question. By deflecting the question, you are essentially telling > everyone that you can't answer it. Top Poaster and Full Quoter "David B." wrote: You obviously can't read.> I would think that a person that goes by "XP Guy" would be able > to figure this out on his own. At the very least he would know > how to use a search engine. I said that from what I've found on the net, there are lots of people asking this question, and no real definative answers. Was there a reason why you also did not answer this question? Is there a reason why your contribution to this thread was nothing more than to take a lame shot at me? condescending hooplehead.
Show quoteHide quote "XP Guy" <X*@Guy.com> wrote in message news:49F1130C.21E6A194@Guy.com... : Top Poaster and Full Quoter "David B." wrote: : : > I would think that a person that goes by "XP Guy" would be able : > to figure this out on his own. At the very least he would know : > how to use a search engine. : : You obviously can't read. : : I said that from what I've found on the net, there are lots of people : asking this question, and no real definative answers. : : Was there a reason why you also did not answer this question? : : Is there a reason why your contribution to this thread was nothing more : than to take a lame shot at me? Yeah, right, as you continue to spread this tripe to multiple groups.
Tom [Pepper] Willett wrote: Show quoteHide quote > condescending hooplehead. > > "XP Guy" <X*@Guy.com> wrote in message > news:49F1130C.21E6A194@Guy.com... >> Top Poaster and Full Quoter "David B." wrote: >> >>> I would think that a person that goes by "XP Guy" would be able >>> to figure this out on his own. At the very least he would know >>> how to use a search engine. >> >> You obviously can't read. >> >> I said that from what I've found on the net, there are lots of people >> asking this question, and no real definative answers. >> >> Was there a reason why you also did not answer this question? >> >> Is there a reason why your contribution to this thread was nothing >> more than to take a lame shot at me? XP Guy wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "Olórin" wrote: "Even I" can't answer the question? Well, you sure as **** can't; but more > >>> What I'm trying to do is to pre-copy the XP cd onto a hard drive >>> that will then be installed into a system that does not have a >>> CD drive and for which may not have any ability to boot from any >>> external device. >>> >>> Does that help you wrap your head around this question? >>> >>> Now can we get back to answering this question? >>> >>> Is there a way I can launch the XP installation process from a >>> hard drive if I pre-copy an XP cd to the drive? >> >> Not with that attitude. Understand your frustration to a degree, >> but you're the supplicant here. > > And you're obviously the arrogant, stuck-up ass hole here. > > And nice try, by the way, to essentially show that even you can't > answer the question. By deflecting the question, you are essentially > telling everyone that you can't answer it. importantly, you can't even ask politely. Whatever I may have been telling everyone else, the one thing I *was* trying to tell you has clearly gone right over your immature head. So long. Full-Quoter "Olórin" wrote: What - you can't read?> "Even I" can't answer the question? Yes. Even YOU can't answer the question. > Well, you sure as **** can't; Brilliant Sherlock. Maybe that's why I'm asking you dimwit.> but more importantly, you can't even ask politely. I did ask, and not impolitely. If my follow-ups were too harsh, they atleast were not incorrect. > Whatever I may have been telling everyone else, the one thing And just what was that *one* thing you were trying to tell me?> I *was* trying to tell you has clearly gone right over your > immature head. Did it have anything to do with answering my original question? XP Guy wrote:
> Full-Quoter "Olórin" wrote: My point here was your demeaning use of the word "even". Well, "even you" > >> "Even I" can't answer the question? > > What - you can't read? > > Yes. Even YOU can't answer the question. > >> Well, you sure as **** can't; > > Brilliant Sherlock. Maybe that's why I'm asking you dimwit. don't know the answer either, so don't slag off others who (you think) don't. <snip> >> Whatever I may have been telling everyone else, the one thing Okay, I'll spell it out. You didn't get the answer you wanted. Instead of >> I *was* trying to tell you has clearly gone right over your >> immature head. > > And just what was that *one* thing you were trying to tell me? > > Did it have anything to do with answering my original question? either correcting without abuse, or moving on and waiting for other answers, you chose to lay in to people. So when you then asked, "Now can we get back to answering this question?" I replied with, "Not with that attitude... you're the supplicant here." What I was trying to say here, and it clearly was too subtle for you somehow, is that your rudeness may well put people off *wanting* to answer you - it certainly did me. My post obviously didn't help you technically; nor was that its aim, which I'd thought was equally obvious. If you'd learned a lesson and (heaven forfend) apologised for your lambasting, it's just possible that someone might have had a change of heart and chipped in with a nugget of information you found useful. You're the one coming here asking volunteers for help; you'd do well to remember that. Yes, answers may have been off-base; and as I said, I "understand your frustration to a degree". But in case you didn't realise, part of the question-and-answer process in these groups can go along the lines of: Q: I'm trying to do X. Is this possible, and how? A: Well, it might be, but why are you trying? I suspect you may be trying to achieve This Goal, in which case you would be better off doing Y then Z. Possible response 1: Oh yeah, I see, thanks for that, that's what I needed, got it working now. Possible response 2: OK, but actually I really do need to do X, because of this-and-this [which I didn't bother saying in my OP]. Any more ideas, anyone? Possible response 3: Why can't you people just answer the god damn question? A recent example was when someone asked how to turn off auto-compaction in OE. The answer the OP adopted was, "You shouldn't do that because your store will sooner or later get corrupted if you do." Sometimes the answer is "mu" - neither "yes" nor "no" but "unask the question" or "there is no answer because the question as stated depends on incorrect assumptions." People here are volunteers, willing and trying to help, and deserve the benefit of your doubt, not to mention common courtesy. [My exception here to "benefit of the doubt" is Andrew E., who regularly provides partially or completely wrong information that is a danger to others. He's something of a hit-and-run driver: only ever makes one post in a thread then moves on, never defending himself or apologising.] If you want to toddle off and get paid-for support with justifiable recourse for wrong or off-base answers, feel free. If you'd wanted to have a serious exchange about this, with no abuse involved, I'd continue with this sub-thread. But as you can't seem to manage to do that, this is end of thread for me. Have the last word if you must, I'm sure it'll be scintillating; but I won't be reading it. "Olórin" wrote: I took great pains to detail exactly what the question was.> People here are volunteers, willing and trying to help, and deserve > the benefit of your doubt, not to mention common courtesy. It is an insult to that effort to disregard those details when the response is completely off-base, or even worse, when the response is along the lines of "you shouldn't be asking that question because there can be no good reason to do what you want to do". I make no appology for the responses I gave to those that answered the question along those lines. Perhaps it will make them stop and think about how they answer future questions posed by others. > If you'd wanted to have a serious exchange about this, with no I'm still here, and I'm still waiting to see an answer posted.> abuse involved, I'd continue with this sub-thread. > But as you can't seem to manage to do that, this is end of thread This newsgroup is not alt.conversation.etiquette or> for me. alt.please.dont.offend.me. If you want to discuss the finer points of conversational or interpersonal etiquette, then I suggest you might find more satisfaction elsewhere. You've spend a considerable amount of bandwidth on those topics, and not on the XP-centric issue at hand. > Have the last word if you must, I'm sure it'll be I'll do my best.> scintillating; > but I won't be reading it. Sure you will. You just did.Guy that is XP wrote:
> "Olórin" wrote: <snip>>> but I won't be reading it. Rats, foiled by an ego that needed to change address to make itself heard.> > Sure you will. You just did. *plonk* for the second time, this time saying so. Guy that is XP wrote:
.... Show quoteHide quote > With the exception of your opinion on netiquette having nothing to do >> If you'd wanted to have a serious exchange about this, with no >> abuse involved, I'd continue with this sub-thread. > > I'm still here, and I'm still waiting to see an answer posted. > >> But as you can't seem to manage to do that, this is end of thread >> for me. > > This newsgroup is not alt.conversation.etiquette or > alt.please.dont.offend.me. > > If you want to discuss the finer points of conversational or > interpersonal etiquette, then I suggest you might find more > satisfaction elsewhere. with all this, I pretty much agree with everything you said. But you're letting a few dummies make you lower yoruself to a trolish stance with your insistance on the last word or whatever you're thinking. No one on any group can cuase you to have negative feelings about anything unless you let them, and to let them do so is just plain silly. I'm surprised to see olorin(SP) allowing it too as IIRC he's usually above this kind of tripe. Carrying on such off-topic discussions with a shot-gun address list to groups that have nothing to do with your quest only places all participants onto all the post archives for all posterity to see and hate, on top of dilluting their content. Then to continue the diatribes without setting followups is sheer stupidity, actually. All you do is advertise your attitudes and lose credibilityfor you actions in more places than is necessary. Looks like I have a few more names to add to my don't bother with list as I'm sure others are also doing. f'ups set to first group that highlighted easily. You can see it' just look. XP Guy wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > "Olórin" wrote: Olorin's a good guy. And there was some uncalled for language used. > >>> What I'm trying to do is to pre-copy the XP cd onto a hard drive >>> that will then be installed into a system that does not have a >>> CD drive and for which may not have any ability to boot from any >>> external device. >>> >>> Does that help you wrap your head around this question? >>> >>> Now can we get back to answering this question? >>> >>> Is there a way I can launch the XP installation process from a >>> hard drive if I pre-copy an XP cd to the drive? >> >> Not with that attitude. Understand your frustration to a degree, >> but you're the supplicant here. > > And you're obviously the arrogant, stuck-up ass hole here. > > And nice try, by the way, to essentially show that even you can't > answer the question. By deflecting the question, you are essentially > telling everyone that you can't answer it. It's a pity it got this far but this group is like that lately which should tell you you're dealing with a bunch of newbies. God=anything thous is always pretty rude & crude, don't you think? Take the high road; you'll be glad you did. HTH, Twayne Olórin said this on 4/23/2009 9:22 AM:
Show quoteHide quote > XP Guy wrote: I agree. Go to bed and get up on the right side.!!>> Big_Al wrote: >> >>>> So, it it possible? >>> If you've been around a while, you might remember the old >>> days of win 95 or win 98 that required a boot floppy to >>> load drivers etc. I think it was win98se that actually >>> made the first bootable CD to install from. >>> If you replicate a win9x boot floppy, that might work. >>> And there are many utility boot CD's like BartPE etc that can be >>> created, but as others have said, if you boot from a CD why >>> not just boot from the Windows XP cd and do it right. All >>> the tools are there! >> Why can't you people just answer the god damn question? >> >> First of all, even for win-98, even if the CD is bootable, it was >> still possible to run setup.exe from DOS and to install 98 from a CD >> image that was pre-copied to the hard drive. >> >> What I'm trying to do is to pre-copy the XP cd onto a hard drive that >> will then be installed into a system that does not have a CD drive and >> for which may not have any ability to boot from any external device. >> >> Does that help you wrap your head around this question? >> >> Now can we get back to answering this question? >> >> Is there a way I can launch the XP installation process from a hard >> drive if I pre-copy an XP cd to the drive? > > Not with that attitude. Understand your frustration to a degree, but you're > the supplicant here. > > Olórin wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > XP Guy wrote: Yeah, but you have to admit, there are an awful lot of non-answers here >> Big_Al wrote: >> >>>> So, it it possible? >> >>> If you've been around a while, you might remember the old >>> days of win 95 or win 98 that required a boot floppy to >>> load drivers etc. I think it was win98se that actually >>> made the first bootable CD to install from. >>> If you replicate a win9x boot floppy, that might work. >>> And there are many utility boot CD's like BartPE etc that can be >>> created, but as others have said, if you boot from a CD why >>> not just boot from the Windows XP cd and do it right. All >>> the tools are there! >> >> Why can't you people just answer the god damn question? >> >> First of all, even for win-98, even if the CD is bootable, it was >> still possible to run setup.exe from DOS and to install 98 from a CD >> image that was pre-copied to the hard drive. >> >> What I'm trying to do is to pre-copy the XP cd onto a hard drive that >> will then be installed into a system that does not have a CD drive >> and for which may not have any ability to boot from any external >> device. Does that help you wrap your head around this question? >> >> Now can we get back to answering this question? >> >> Is there a way I can launch the XP installation process from a hard >> drive if I pre-copy an XP cd to the drive? > > Not with that attitude. Understand your frustration to a degree, but > you're the supplicant here. lately plugging up the archives to make searches impossible. I also expect to see responses to the query when I look at a thread; not a bunch of egotistic and even sometimes nacissists just wanting to see themselves in print. The OP has come into the group at a time when those types seem to be crawling out of the walls for every question asked. The only think I really object to is the x-post to so many irrelevant groups, but at least he didn't multi-post, so ... Regards, Twayne XP Guy wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Big_Al wrote: LOL! I couldn't have said it better! Dontcha know them egos just gotta > >>> So, it it possible? > >> If you've been around a while, you might remember the old >> days of win 95 or win 98 that required a boot floppy to >> load drivers etc. I think it was win98se that actually >> made the first bootable CD to install from. >> If you replicate a win9x boot floppy, that might work. >> And there are many utility boot CD's like BartPE etc that can be >> created, but as others have said, if you boot from a CD why >> not just boot from the Windows XP cd and do it right. All >> the tools are there! > > Why can't you people just answer the god damn question? make thmselves known whether it's relevant or not? :^) Twayne Show quoteHide quote > > First of all, even for win-98, even if the CD is bootable, it was > still possible to run setup.exe from DOS and to install 98 from a CD > image that was pre-copied to the hard drive. > > What I'm trying to do is to pre-copy the XP cd onto a hard drive that > will then be installed into a system that does not have a CD drive and > for which may not have any ability to boot from any external device. > > Does that help you wrap your head around this question? > > Now can we get back to answering this question? > > Is there a way I can launch the XP installation process from a hard > drive if I pre-copy an XP cd to the drive? Windows 95 [versions of] was the first Bootable CD.
-- Show quoteHide quoteCheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. "Big_Al" <Bi***@md.com> wrote in message news:eK%23BwhAxJHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > XP Guy said this on 4/22/2009 10:56 PM: >> If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will >> boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the >> drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process after the >> machine starts and boots itself into DOS? >> >> There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you can do >> that. >> >> I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a protected >> mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess). >> >> Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install can be >> started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate command-line >> switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. >> >> So, it it possible? > If you've been around a while, you might remember the old days of win 95 > or win 98 that required a boot floppy to load drivers etc. I think it > was win98se that actually made the first bootable CD to install from. If > you replicate a win9x boot floppy, that might work. > And there are many utility boot CD's like BartPE etc that can be created, > but as others have said, if you boot from a CD why not just boot from the > Windows XP cd and do it right. All the tools are there! The Windows 95 CD was NOT bootable, nor was the 98 CD.
-- Show quoteHide quoteCrosspost, do not multipost http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm How to ask a question http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 "Tim Meddick" <timmedd***@gawab.com> wrote in message news:uC7nMcDxJHA.4452@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Windows 95 [versions of] was the first Bootable CD. > > -- > > Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. > > > "Big_Al" <Bi***@md.com> wrote in message > news:eK%23BwhAxJHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> XP Guy said this on 4/22/2009 10:56 PM: >>> If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will >>> boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the >>> drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process after the >>> machine starts and boots itself into DOS? >>> >>> There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you can do >>> that. >>> >>> I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a protected >>> mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess). >>> >>> Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install can be >>> started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate command-line >>> switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. >>> >>> So, it it possible? >> If you've been around a while, you might remember the old days of win 95 >> or win 98 that required a boot floppy to load drivers etc. I think it >> was win98se that actually made the first bootable CD to install from. If >> you replicate a win9x boot floppy, that might work. >> And there are many utility boot CD's like BartPE etc that can be created, >> but as others have said, if you boot from a CD why not just boot from the >> Windows XP cd and do it right. All the tools are there! > > David,
You're probably right, please forgive me I wasn't thinking (just assuming). I can only speak for the Win98SE CD, which I have, and that is bootable. -- Show quoteHide quoteCheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. "David B." <m***@nomail.net> wrote in message news:OwOt2fDxJHA.988@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > The Windows 95 CD was NOT bootable, nor was the 98 CD. > > -- > > Crosspost, do not multipost http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm > How to ask a question http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 > > > "Tim Meddick" <timmedd***@gawab.com> wrote in message > news:uC7nMcDxJHA.4452@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Windows 95 [versions of] was the first Bootable CD. >> >> -- >> >> Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. >> >> >> "Big_Al" <Bi***@md.com> wrote in message >> news:eK%23BwhAxJHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> XP Guy said this on 4/22/2009 10:56 PM: >>>> If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will >>>> boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the >>>> drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process after >>>> the >>>> machine starts and boots itself into DOS? >>>> >>>> There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you can >>>> do >>>> that. >>>> >>>> I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a protected >>>> mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess). >>>> >>>> Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install can >>>> be >>>> started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate command-line >>>> switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. >>>> >>>> So, it it possible? >>> If you've been around a while, you might remember the old days of win 95 >>> or win 98 that required a boot floppy to load drivers etc. I think it >>> was win98se that actually made the first bootable CD to install from. If >>> you replicate a win9x boot floppy, that might work. >>> And there are many utility boot CD's like BartPE etc that can be >>> created, but as others have said, if you boot from a CD why not just >>> boot from the Windows XP cd and do it right. All the tools are there! >> >> > XP Guy wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will Yes.> boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the > drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process > after the machine starts and boots itself into DOS? > > There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you > can do that. > > I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a > protected mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess). > > Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install > can be started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate > command-line switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. > > So, it it possible? Google could have told you that. ;-) -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html Shenan Stanley wrote:
> > Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install If that's true, I haven't found it yet.> > can be started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate > > command-line switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. > > > > So, it it possible? > > Yes. > > Google could have told you that. ;-) If you have, is there some reason you're not posting it? XP Guy wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will Shenan Stanley wrote:> boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the > drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process > after the machine starts and boots itself into DOS? > > There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you > can do that. > > I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a > protected mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess). > > Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install > can be started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate > command-line switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. > > So, it it possible? > Yes. XP Guy wrote:> > Google could have told you that. ;-) > If that's true, I haven't found it yet. You didn't/haven't asked how.> > If you have, is there some reason you're not posting it? You asked is there a way/if it was possible. You seem (according to your own responses) just want to be given the answers to the questions you ask. I was/am obliging. -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html Shenan Stanley wrote:
> > So, it it possible? And actually, no. Google didn't tell me that.> > Yes. > > Google could have told you that. ;-) I didn't actually come across anything or anyone who gave a catagorical "yes" to that question, and certainly no one who claimed they've done it (let alone explaining how). > > If that's true, I haven't found it yet. And until you actually say how, then what basis do I have to believe the> > > > If you have, is there some reason you're not posting it? > > You didn't/haven't asked how. > > You asked is there a way/if it was possible. accuracy of your answer? How do I know that by answering "yes", that you have actually understood the question? Others have put forward an affirmative answer, yet their corresponding explanation as to the "how" indicates they did not actually address or understand the question. > You seem (according to your own responses) just want to be given I think any reasonable or rational person would have realized that my> the answers to the questions you ask. question was framed in such a way as to invite an explanation of how to do it (if indeed it can be done) and not simply to seek a "yes" answer without the corresponding details. Clearly, in the context of the question, an answer stating simply "no" is possible, while an answer stating only "yes" is incomplete (if not useless) without the corresponding details of how. So, now I ask you how it can be done. XP Guy wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will Shenan Stanley wrote:> boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the > drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process > after the machine starts and boots itself into DOS? > > There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you > can do that. > > I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a > protected mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess). > > Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install > can be started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate > command-line switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. > > So, it it possible? > Yes. XP Guy wrote:> > Google could have told you that. ;-) > If that's true, I haven't found it yet. Shenan Stanley wrote:> > If you have, is there some reason you're not posting it? > You didn't/haven't asked how. XP Guy wrote:> > You asked is there a way/if it was possible. > > You seem (according to your own responses) just want to be given > the answers to the questions you ask. > > I was/am obliging. Show quoteHide quote > And actually, no. Google didn't tell me that. Yes/No *is* all you asked for. Quibble the point all you want - but yes/no > > I didn't actually come across anything or anyone who gave a > catagorical "yes" to that question, and certainly no one who > claimed they've done it (let alone explaining how). > > And until you actually say how, then what basis do I have to > believe the accuracy of your answer? > > How do I know that by answering "yes", that you have actually > understood the question? Others have put forward an affirmative > answer, yet their corresponding explanation as to the "how" > indicates they did not actually address or understand the question. > > I think any reasonable or rational person would have realized that > my question was framed in such a way as to invite an explanation of > how to do it (if indeed it can be done) and not simply to seek a > "yes" answer without the corresponding details. Clearly, in the > context of the question, an answer stating simply "no" is possible, > while an answer stating only "yes" is incomplete (if not useless) > without the corresponding details of how. > > So, now I ask you how it can be done. is a useful answer if someone is trying to learn something on their own and just wants to know if they are wasting their time before they jump in to do so. You seemed to imply that was your intent with your phrasing and very specific questions without asking "how". You had no basis to believe the accuracy of my answer - nor did I see the need to provide one when I answered your direct questions. You cannot even be sure I understood the question - actually - even after you see the "how". You can never be sure I understood the question in the manner you want me to. ;-) You did find the answer, winnt.exe, as you mentioned it originally. To me - this again implied intent to try the answer you had found, given you mentioned trying another method right before that. I install many of my setups (Windows XP anyway) from DOS (essentially the level of DOS - or beyond - that came with Windows 98 SE - known from now on in this response as "Windows 98 DOS") using a method similar to this: http://unattended.sourceforge.net/ Where you can use either *nix or Windows 98 DOS to install Windows XP onto a machine. No CD has to be involved - just network in that case. The main difference is that you have copied all installation files to same drive and thus you cannot *format* the drive again (not getting into partitions here - I'm sure you can sort that out.) Be sure to load SMARTDRV too - otherwise things will take *forever*. You can get the right DOS from www.bootdisk.com. Should have SMARTDRV, etc. In case you think the answer is unclear and/or you still cannot find your answer using Google... Here's a Google search: http://www.google.com/search?&q=install+%22Windows+XP%22+from+DOS+copied+onto+the+same+drive Here's the first 'hit': http://www.overclock.net/faqs/101421-how-install-windows-xp-hard-drive.html Although the Microsoft instructions assume you have a CD drive still: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307848 They give you some of the same basics. The following is my opinion - based on this conversation (entire - not just my part) and is added because I felt like adding it - not because anyone requested it. Any reasonable or rational person wouldn't be an @$$ to people just trying to help them, especially when said person *asked* for their help. They might clarify things, they might say that was not what they wanted in some polite manner - as they are reasonable and rational - but they wouldn't insult or attack them and still expect an answer from them. See the entire conversation - it's archived indefinitely here: http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment/browse_frm/thread/edc5ecd7bf5d67ac/a409b97eb470a76 *shrug* You have your answer and your how - now you should try it to verify for yourself it is what you wanted. If it is not - please come back and follow-up. -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html XP Bloke,
As far as I am aware, yes, it is possible. If you have copied the i386 folder to the [fat] hard-drive, type: c:\i386\WINNT.EXE ....and XP should install. It will start the installation with a process that will not happen with a direct install from the cd-rom. It will begin by copying the XP cd boot files to a temporary folder. The machine will then reboot with these files as if it were the cd. These are the same 'files' that you would have on the floppy-set of startup disks that begin installation with computers that do not have 'boot from cd-rom' capability. It will then continue the installation process by copying the XP installation files to a temporary folder on your computer as it would normally. Why you would want to do this, I don't know, as if you have a bootable fat332 DOS partition, all you have to do is the same [above] command but choosing the cd-rom as the target. You don't need to copy the i386 folder to the hard-drive. But, you asked the question, and I have answered it for you, being as clear as I can be. Is your problem that you can't access the cd-rom from DOS? If so I will explain how, just give us the word. -- Show quoteHide quoteCheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. "XP Guy" <X*@Guy.com> wrote in message news:49F13BF2.3E4A9C96@Guy.com... > Shenan Stanley wrote: > >> > So, it it possible? >> >> Yes. >> >> Google could have told you that. ;-) > > And actually, no. Google didn't tell me that. > > I didn't actually come across anything or anyone who gave a catagorical > "yes" to that question, and certainly no one who claimed they've done it > (let alone explaining how). > >> > If that's true, I haven't found it yet. >> > >> > If you have, is there some reason you're not posting it? >> >> You didn't/haven't asked how. >> >> You asked is there a way/if it was possible. > > And until you actually say how, then what basis do I have to believe the > accuracy of your answer? > > How do I know that by answering "yes", that you have actually understood > the question? Others have put forward an affirmative answer, yet their > corresponding explanation as to the "how" indicates they did not > actually address or understand the question. > >> You seem (according to your own responses) just want to be given >> the answers to the questions you ask. > > I think any reasonable or rational person would have realized that my > question was framed in such a way as to invite an explanation of how to > do it (if indeed it can be done) and not simply to seek a "yes" answer > without the corresponding details. Clearly, in the context of the > question, an answer stating simply "no" is possible, while an answer > stating only "yes" is incomplete (if not useless) without the > corresponding details of how. > > So, now I ask you how it can be done. Tim Meddick wrote on 24-04-2009 :
> Is your problem that you can't access the cd-rom He did that yesterday. The "DOS-equipped" drive is meant to be moved to > from DOS? If so I will explain how, just give us the word. a system with no means of accessing external devices. I don't know if this means no network port either. If there is a PXE capable network port (and a 2003 server), I'd install from a RIS server. -- /klaus Klaus,
I only know the limitations of my own knowledge, what you say is beyond me, unfortunately. The guy asked a question and wanted an answer to it, not other suggestions (he said). I haven't read 'every one' of the posts in this thread as most seem to be just bickering at one another, so didn't pick up on that fact. So anyway, I gave him the answer to the question he wanted answering. Sorry if it was too late, but then I'm sure lots of people are queuing up to tell you that I am quite slow. -- Show quoteHide quoteCheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. "Klaus Jorgensen" <kj@address.invalid> wrote in message news:%23RWrGOPxJHA.2140@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Tim Meddick wrote on 24-04-2009 : >> Is your problem that you can't access the cd-rom from DOS? If so I will >> explain how, just give us the word. > > He did that yesterday. The "DOS-equipped" drive is meant to be moved to a > system with no means of accessing external devices. > > I don't know if this means no network port either. If there is a PXE > capable network port (and a 2003 server), I'd install from a RIS server. > > -- > /klaus > > After weeding thru all of the crap and whining instead of answereing the
question, I will answer it. According to tech support at MICROSOFT, that is what I was told to do when I could not get XP to install on a newly built PC. I don't remember the exact procedure, but I know that it was in the \i386 folder if I remember correctly. I could not get it to work due to the CD being bad. They sent me a new CD subsequently. That CD worked. It would be easier to do if you could use another PC to do the copying. Then put the HD in the new PC, if that is what you are doing. You can then use any CD that will boot to get you to the DOS prompt A:\. I hope this helps. Show quoteHide quote "XP Guy" wrote: > Shenan Stanley wrote: > > > > So, it it possible? > > > > Yes. > > > > Google could have told you that. ;-) > > And actually, no. Google didn't tell me that. > > I didn't actually come across anything or anyone who gave a catagorical > "yes" to that question, and certainly no one who claimed they've done it > (let alone explaining how). > > > > If that's true, I haven't found it yet. > > > > > > If you have, is there some reason you're not posting it? > > > > You didn't/haven't asked how. > > > > You asked is there a way/if it was possible. > > And until you actually say how, then what basis do I have to believe the > accuracy of your answer? > > How do I know that by answering "yes", that you have actually understood > the question? Others have put forward an affirmative answer, yet their > corresponding explanation as to the "how" indicates they did not > actually address or understand the question. > > > You seem (according to your own responses) just want to be given > > the answers to the questions you ask. > > I think any reasonable or rational person would have realized that my > question was framed in such a way as to invite an explanation of how to > do it (if indeed it can be done) and not simply to seek a "yes" answer > without the corresponding details. Clearly, in the context of the > question, an answer stating simply "no" is possible, while an answer > stating only "yes" is incomplete (if not useless) without the > corresponding details of how. > > So, now I ask you how it can be done. > cact25 wrote:
> After weeding thru all of the crap and whining instead of Dollar short, Day late...> answereing the question, I will answer it. According to tech > support at MICROSOFT, that is what I was told to do when I could > not get XP to install on a newly built PC. I don't remember the > exact procedure, but I know that it was in the \i386 folder if I > remember correctly. I could not get it to work due to the CD being > bad. They sent me a new CD subsequently. That CD worked. It > would be easier to do if you could use another PC to do the > copying. Then put the HD in the new PC, if that is what you are > doing. You can then use any CD that will boot to get you to the > DOS prompt A:\. I hope this helps. -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html Looks to me like you are doing some whining of your own. XP Guy's
question was answered but his attitude was to come back and insult everyone who replied to him, if he expected to get more help with that kind of attitude he misjudged. People have been installing NT operating systems from flat folders for eons, this is nothing new. This group is followed by many who know how to do a flat installation and they could have helped XP Guy further but because of the insults in his first reply most of the folks decided to ignore him. John cact25 wrote: Show quoteHide quote > After weeding thru all of the crap and whining instead of answereing the > question, I will answer it. According to tech support at MICROSOFT, that is > what I was told to do when I could not get XP to install on a newly built PC. > I don't remember the exact procedure, but I know that it was in the \i386 > folder if I remember correctly. I could not get it to work due to the CD > being bad. They sent me a new CD subsequently. That CD worked. It would be > easier to do if you could use another PC to do the copying. Then put the HD > in the new PC, if that is what you are doing. You can then use any CD that > will boot to get you to the DOS prompt A:\. I hope this helps. > > "XP Guy" wrote: > >> Shenan Stanley wrote: >> >>>> So, it it possible? >>> Yes. >>> >>> Google could have told you that. ;-) >> And actually, no. Google didn't tell me that. >> >> I didn't actually come across anything or anyone who gave a catagorical >> "yes" to that question, and certainly no one who claimed they've done it >> (let alone explaining how). >> >>>> If that's true, I haven't found it yet. >>>> >>>> If you have, is there some reason you're not posting it? >>> You didn't/haven't asked how. >>> >>> You asked is there a way/if it was possible. >> And until you actually say how, then what basis do I have to believe the >> accuracy of your answer? >> >> How do I know that by answering "yes", that you have actually understood >> the question? Others have put forward an affirmative answer, yet their >> corresponding explanation as to the "how" indicates they did not >> actually address or understand the question. >> >>> You seem (according to your own responses) just want to be given >>> the answers to the questions you ask. >> I think any reasonable or rational person would have realized that my >> question was framed in such a way as to invite an explanation of how to >> do it (if indeed it can be done) and not simply to seek a "yes" answer >> without the corresponding details. Clearly, in the context of the >> question, an answer stating simply "no" is possible, while an answer >> stating only "yes" is incomplete (if not useless) without the >> corresponding details of how. >> >> So, now I ask you how it can be done. >> Top-Poaster and Full-Quoter cact25 wrote:
> After weeding thru all of the crap and whining instead of Ok, great. I'm waiting. What is your answer?> answereing the question, I will answer it. > I don't remember the exact procedure, but I know that it was sigh...> in the \i386 folder if I remember correctly. Yet another fool. I forgot to mention that you would be better off if you format the drive as
NTFS. Show quoteHide quote "XP Guy" wrote: > Shenan Stanley wrote: > > > > So, it it possible? > > > > Yes. > > > > Google could have told you that. ;-) > > And actually, no. Google didn't tell me that. > > I didn't actually come across anything or anyone who gave a catagorical > "yes" to that question, and certainly no one who claimed they've done it > (let alone explaining how). > > > > If that's true, I haven't found it yet. > > > > > > If you have, is there some reason you're not posting it? > > > > You didn't/haven't asked how. > > > > You asked is there a way/if it was possible. > > And until you actually say how, then what basis do I have to believe the > accuracy of your answer? > > How do I know that by answering "yes", that you have actually understood > the question? Others have put forward an affirmative answer, yet their > corresponding explanation as to the "how" indicates they did not > actually address or understand the question. > > > You seem (according to your own responses) just want to be given > > the answers to the questions you ask. > > I think any reasonable or rational person would have realized that my > question was framed in such a way as to invite an explanation of how to > do it (if indeed it can be done) and not simply to seek a "yes" answer > without the corresponding details. Clearly, in the context of the > question, an answer stating simply "no" is possible, while an answer > stating only "yes" is incomplete (if not useless) without the > corresponding details of how. > > So, now I ask you how it can be done. > Top-Poaster and Full-Quoter cact25 wrote:
> I forgot to mention that you would be better off if you format More foolishness from the fool.> the drive as NTFS. Go back and re-read the original, first post in this thread. Shenan Stanley wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > XP Guy wrote: And doing so in many newsgroups for no good reason.>> If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will >> boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the >> drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process >> after the machine starts and boots itself into DOS? >> >> There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you >> can do that. >> >> I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a >> protected mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess). >> >> Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install >> can be started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate >> command-line switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. >> >> So, it it possible? > > Shenan Stanley wrote: >> Yes. >> >> Google could have told you that. ;-) > > XP Guy wrote: >> If that's true, I haven't found it yet. >> >> If you have, is there some reason you're not posting it? > > You didn't/haven't asked how. > > You asked is there a way/if it was possible. > > You seem (according to your own responses) just want to be given the > answers to the questions you ask. > > I was/am obliging. > > -- > Shenan Stanley > MS-MVP Why do you feel the need to comment on picqiune points? What are you obliging? You say "am" but ... fail to mention what it is. Why do you find it necessary to use so many newsgroups? Do you know the answer or not? If so, what is it? Are you for real? If so, how come? These questions all need to be answered before a good response can be coming your way. XP Guy wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will Shenan Stanley wrote:> boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the > drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process > after the machine starts and boots itself into DOS? > > There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you > can do that. > > I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a > protected mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess). > > Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install > can be started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate > command-line switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. > > So, it it possible? > Yes. XP Guy wrote:> > Google could have told you that. ;-) > If that's true, I haven't found it yet. Shenan Stanley wrote:> > If you have, is there some reason you're not posting it? > You didn't/haven't asked how. Twayne wrote:> > You asked is there a way/if it was possible. > > You seem (according to your own responses) just want to be given > the answers to the questions you ask. > > I was/am obliging. > And doing so in many newsgroups for no good reason. - Why do you feel the need to comment on picqiune points?> Why do you feel the need to comment on picqiune points? > What are you obliging? You say "am" but ... fail to mention what it > is. Why do you find it necessary to use so many newsgroups? > Do you know the answer or not? > If so, what is it? > Are you for real? > If so, how come? > > These questions all need to be answered before a good response can > be coming your way. Given that 'picqiune" is not a word I know of - I might ask for clarification (I won't.) It could have been a typo/spelling mistake. I will infer it means 'little' in some way - if so - all points are valid discussion topics once they are presented. - What are you obliging? You say "am" but ... fail to mention what it is. The OP asked a question - I did not infer more than what was actually asked. I answered the direct questions. When the OP followed up, I answered the follow up. - Why do you find it necessary to use so many newsgroups? I replied to the newsgroups the OP cross-posted to. Nothing more, nothing less. As did you. - Do you know the answer or not? Assuming you mean to the expanded "how" question of the OPs - yes - and I gave said answer some time ago. - If so, what is it? Assuming this is in reference to the last question asked, I am not going to repeat it verbatim again in this reponse - but I will link to the entire conversation so that you might peruse over it at your leisure. http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment/browse_frm/thread/edc5ecd7bf5d67ac/a409b97eb470a76 - Are you for real? Yes. - If so, how come? Assuming reference to the last question, answer would be sentience. I did not ask a question - so an answer will not be coming my way. Yes - you meant to inject sarcasm, I'll let you judge your success. -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html XP Guy wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will Yes, and maybe. An actual straight install of XP I think would work; > boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the > drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process after > the machine starts and boots itself into DOS? > > There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you can > do that. > > I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a > protected mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess). > > Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install can > be started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate > command-line switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. > > So, it it possible? I've done similar things but not exactly what you're trying. A bastardized XP disk supplied OEM may or may not work. I had an Acer with MCE here awhile back that wouldn't allow it; I was trying to make it easy for the user to reinstall because he was, well, just plain stupid if he had to do much more than press a button. It was hard coded somehow to know whether it was seeing a hard drive or an optical drive, something not real hard to tell in code. I'd say try it and see what happens. But be sure your catastrophic recovery methods are all in place, just in case. I think it may work though unless it's a seriously bastardized OEM version. OR, install it somewhere "safe" where it won't mess your production drive should it fail. HTH, Twayne XP Guy laid this down on his screen :
Show quoteHide quote > If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will I was curios so I just tried it in a virtual pc using MS Virtual PC > boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the > drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process after the > machine starts and boots itself into DOS? > > There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you can do > that. > > I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a protected > mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess). > > Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install can be > started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate command-line > switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. > > So, it it possible? 2007. Booted an old Win98SE CD, created a DOS-partition and launched it. XCOPY'ed an XP CD to C:\XPCD and ran the WINNT.EXE setup program with no switches. When XP setup finishes, the Win98 DOS files are still on the C-drive and there is an option in boot.ini allowing me to boot Win98 DOS, so I just deleted the old files and removed the corresponding line from boot.ini. -- /klaus Why have you re-posted this thread in another group?
-- Show quoteHide quoteCheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. "Klaus Jorgensen" <kj@address.invalid> wrote in message news:Ol0OdaSxJHA.4452@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > XP Guy laid this down on his screen : >> If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will >> >> >> Tim Meddick wrote:
> Why have you re-posted this thread in another group? What other group, beyond these original 3:- microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment - microsoft.public.windowsxp.configuration_manage - microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize ? Klaus Jorgensen wrote:
> I was curios so I just tried it in a virtual pc using MS Virtual PC Why did you do all that?> 2007. Booted an old Win98SE CD, created a DOS-partition and launched > it. XCOPY'ed an XP CD to C:\XPCD and ran the WINNT.EXE setup program > with no switches. That really doesn't duplicate the setup in my original question. XP Guy,
Please, tell me you read my original post saying how it was possible (as I have done it before) and giving you the straight answer that (I thought) you deserved? -- Show quoteHide quoteCheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. "XP Guy" <X*@Guy.com> wrote in message news:49F24B0B.D900B0AA@Guy.com... > Klaus Jorgensen wrote: > >> I was curios so I just tried it in a virtual pc using MS Virtual PC >> 2007. Booted an old Win98SE CD, created a DOS-partition and launched >> it. XCOPY'ed an XP CD to C:\XPCD and ran the WINNT.EXE setup program >> with no switches. > > Why did you do all that? > > That really doesn't duplicate the setup in my original question. XP Guy wrote :
> Klaus Jorgensen wrote: I know, but testing this in a virtual environment gives me a clue if it > >> I was curios so I just tried it in a virtual pc using MS Virtual PC >> 2007. Booted an old Win98SE CD, created a DOS-partition and launched >> it. XCOPY'ed an XP CD to C:\XPCD and ran the WINNT.EXE setup program >> with no switches. > > Why did you do all that? > > That really doesn't duplicate the setup in my original question. works in a true environment. In this setup, a virtual pc is as close to a real setup as any other hardware platform. It does not guarantee it works, but given the differences between hardware platforms, you wouldn't have any guarantee it could work on your hardware if I did a successful test on my hardware. And it wasn't a "do all that" thing - I was watching "Open Range" on tv while the setup did all it's work, me doing the manual part during commercials (picking up another beer at the same time). May I ask what kind of equipment you are targeting with a setup like this - some sort of embedded device or what? -- /klaus It sounds like he's doing it on a system with no cd-rom access (copying the
xp setup files on to hd on a different system)? -- Show quoteHide quoteCheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. "Klaus Jorgensen" <kj@address.invalid> wrote in message news:OFNdEYXxJHA.2588@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > XP Guy wrote : >> Klaus Jorgensen wrote: >> >>> I was curios so I just tried it in a virtual pc using MS Virtual PC >>> 2007. Booted an old Win98SE CD, created a DOS-partition and launched >>> it. XCOPY'ed an XP CD to C:\XPCD and ran the WINNT.EXE setup program >>> with no switches. >> >> Why did you do all that? >> >> That really doesn't duplicate the setup in my original question. > > I know, but testing this in a virtual environment gives me a clue if it > works in a true environment. In this setup, a virtual pc is as close to a > real setup as any other hardware platform. It does not guarantee it works, > but given the differences between hardware platforms, you wouldn't have > any guarantee it could work on your hardware if I did a successful test on > my hardware. > > And it wasn't a "do all that" thing - I was watching "Open Range" on tv > while the setup did all it's work, me doing the manual part during > commercials (picking up another beer at the same time). > > May I ask what kind of equipment you are targeting with a setup like > this - some sort of embedded device or what? > > -- > /klaus > > Tim Meddick submitted this idea :
> It sounds like he's doing it on a system with no cd-rom access (copying the To me "not have any ability to boot from any external device" also > xp setup files on to hd on a different system)? means no USB ports, and what kind of system does not have USB ports? That's why I mentioned if it mabye at least featured a network port that could load the setup files from a RIS server. Btw, using a RIS server you can load the setup files directly by booting from network - the BIOS downloads setup files using the simple TFTP protocol from a 2003 server. -- /klaus Klaus,
But maybe limited knowledge is a factor. I know, myself, that I would not be confident in setting up a network install from DOS although I have done it once in a training environment. Someone might even be too cautious to ask for help when it comes to accessing cd / USB devices from DOS. They may rather ask about a question that they KNOW will solve their problem. Altogether, I think that his insistence, that his original question be answered and his not wanting to volunteer any answers to questions like these, proves it. -- Show quoteHide quoteCheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. "Klaus Jorgensen" <kj@address.invalid> wrote in message news:e7EhRpXxJHA.1096@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Tim Meddick submitted this idea : >> It sounds like he's doing it on a system with no cd-rom access (copying >> the xp setup files on to hd on a different system)? > > To me "not have any ability to boot from any external device" also means > no USB ports, and what kind of system does not have USB ports? > That's why I mentioned if it mabye at least featured a network port that > could load the setup files from a RIS server. Btw, using a RIS server you > can load the setup files directly by booting from network - the BIOS > downloads setup files using the simple TFTP protocol from a 2003 server. > > -- > /klaus > > Klaus Jorgensen wrote:
> > It sounds like he's doing it on a system with no cd-rom access Yes (see previous post)> > (copying the xp setup files on to hd on a different system)? Yes (by slaving the drive to a win-98 system).> To me "not have any ability to boot from any external device" While the target device does have USB ports, it's not worth my time to> also means no USB ports, and what kind of system does not have > USB ports? figure out how to get the device to boot from a USB stick (if indeed that option is available in the device's bios). I do not yet have my hands on the target device (that will happen next week). And because the target device does not have a hard drive, I figured the most ergonomic course of action would be to pre-load the drive with a copy of the XP cd prior to installing the drive into the device. XP Guy explained on 25-04-2009 :
> While the target device does have USB ports, it's not worth my time to A couple of weeks ago I managed to do an XP installation from a USB > figure out how to get the device to boot from a USB stick (if indeed > that option is available in the device's bios). I do not yet have my > hands on the target device (that will happen next week). stick. A SanDisk Cruzer with U3 support can be modified to have an XP ISO image copied onto its CD partition - unfortunately this partition is recognized as a USB CDROM boot device only in fairly new systems like Lenovo T500 or M58. Fortunately my employer doesn't mind if I spend some time digging into stuff like this. (c: -- /klaus Klaus Jorgensen wrote:
> May I ask what kind of equipment you are targeting with a setup HP 2133 Mini-Note PC> like this - some sort of embedded device or what? I believe that product is on the verge of being (or already has been) discontinued. Availability seems very limited at this point. It was introduced by HP about exactly a year ago. I recently purchsed 2 of them for about $220 each (the last two available from that vendor). The 2133 came in 2 basic configurations: a) 512 mb ram, 4gb solid-state drive, 1.0 Ghz Via C7 CPU, Suse linux b) 1 gb ram (or 2?), 160 gb hard drive, 1.6 Ghz Via C7 CPU, Vista XP was never offered, but XP drivers are available for it. I purchased the (a) version, and intend to bring the ram up to 1 gb and replace the existing SSD drive with a conventional hard drive. The 2133 is unique in that for an 8.9" display it's resolution is 1280 x 768 (most netbooks have 1000 x 600 resolution). All aluminum chasis too. Way to go Klaus. Somebody finally came up with an answer besides myself.
Show quoteHide quote "Klaus Jorgensen" wrote: > XP Guy laid this down on his screen : > > If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will > > boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the > > drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process after the > > machine starts and boots itself into DOS? > > > > There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you can do > > that. > > > > I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a protected > > mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess). > > > > Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install can be > > started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate command-line > > switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. > > > > So, it it possible? > > I was curios so I just tried it in a virtual pc using MS Virtual PC > 2007. Booted an old Win98SE CD, created a DOS-partition and launched > it. XCOPY'ed an XP CD to C:\XPCD and ran the WINNT.EXE setup program > with no switches. > When XP setup finishes, the Win98 DOS files are still on the C-drive > and there is an option in boot.ini allowing me to boot Win98 DOS, so I > just deleted the old files and removed the corresponding line from > boot.ini. > > -- > /klaus > > > cact25 wrote:
> Way to go Klaus. Somebody finally came up with an answer besides Answer was given over 36 hours ago - with link to a 2+ year old web page > myself. that laid out the steps - which was found by a google search (also given) in the same response. ;-) -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html I have performed the following steps today on a real PC (and not in a
virtual environment) so this concludes this thread as far as I can tell. Given: A) a hard drive (or more specifically, a volume on a hard drive) that has been formatted as FAT32 and for which MS-DOS system files have been placed on it such that the drive will boot MS-DOS from that volume, and B) given that the contents of an XP-sp3 CD (specifically system builder version, and perhaps any or all versions) has been copied to it's own directory on said volume (while maintaining any long file names and directory names that may exist on the CD), and C) given that himem.sys and smartdrv.exe have been started as part of the autoexec and/or config.sys DOS environment, then D) it is possible to start and successfully complete the XP-sp3 installation process simply by running the file "winnt.exe" from the /i386 directory of the CD image as copied to the hard drive. The XP cd need not be present in the CD drive during the installation. No other command line arguments are necessary. As I prefer to install XP directly to a FAT32 volume (not NTFS) there is no other preparation needed. Those that seek the imaginary benefits of NTFS would first need to prepare the hard drive such that the desired NTFS volume exists and is positioned appropriated to be your C drive and the startable FAT32 installation volume later presumably becomes the D drive as the XP installation proceeds. After the installation is complete, the secondary FAT32 volume can be deleted and it's space can become incorporated into the primary NTFS partition, or the FAT32 volume can remain and act as a "recovery disk" should re-installation be required later. Now, regarding the file winnt.exe in the /i386 directory, I don't know what other purpose that file has, but if it's only purpose is to be an alternate launch point for the installation of XP, then perhaps someone else can explain why it wasn't simply named setup.exe as per usual conventions. I don't believe there is any other file named setup.exe in the i386 directory. Anyone that wants to run XP on a device that does not have any external boot capability (but who can remove the device's internal hard drive and slave it to another machine to perform steps A and B above) may want to follow these steps in order to effect the installation of XP onto the target device. XP Guy wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > I have performed the following steps today on a real PC (and not in Those steps look familar... ;-)> a virtual environment) so this concludes this thread as far as I > can tell. > > Given: > > A) a hard drive (or more specifically, a volume on a hard drive) > that has been formatted as FAT32 and for which MS-DOS system files > have been placed on it such that the drive will boot MS-DOS from > that volume, and > > B) given that the contents of an XP-sp3 CD (specifically system > builder version, and perhaps any or all versions) has been copied > to it's own directory on said volume (while maintaining any long > file names and directory names that may exist on the CD), and > > C) given that himem.sys and smartdrv.exe have been started as part > of the autoexec and/or config.sys DOS environment, then > > D) it is possible to start and successfully complete the XP-sp3 > installation process simply by running the file "winnt.exe" from the > /i386 directory of the CD image as copied to the hard drive. The > XP cd need not be present in the CD drive during the installation. > No other command line arguments are necessary. > > As I prefer to install XP directly to a FAT32 volume (not NTFS) > there is no other preparation needed. Those that seek the > imaginary benefits of NTFS would first need to prepare the hard > drive such that the desired NTFS volume exists and is positioned > appropriated to be your C drive and the startable FAT32 > installation volume later presumably becomes the D drive as the XP > installation proceeds. After the installation is complete, the > secondary FAT32 volume can be deleted and it's space can become > incorporated into the primary NTFS partition, or the FAT32 volume > can remain and act as a "recovery disk" should re-installation be > required later. > > Now, regarding the file winnt.exe in the /i386 directory, I don't > know what other purpose that file has, but if it's only purpose is > to be an alternate launch point for the installation of XP, then > perhaps someone else can explain why it wasn't simply named > setup.exe as per usual conventions. I don't believe there is any > other file named setup.exe in the i386 directory. > > Anyone that wants to run XP on a device that does not have any > external boot capability (but who can remove the device's internal > hard drive and slave it to another machine to perform steps A and B > above) may want to follow these steps in order to effect the > installation of XP onto the target device. http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment/browse_frm/thread/edc5ecd7bf5d67ac/17d06fe9553e5671 "setup.exe" was the consumer product line convention (Windows 95, 98, 98SE, etc.) and winnt.exe was/is the original NT product line (Windows NT, Windows 2000) and now consumer and business product line merged convention. Why doesn't really matter - they could have called it anything they wanted - their product. Almost 8 years now (XP) - good track record.. Glad you got it sorted and thanks for posting back so others might find it along with the other hits in the future! -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html XP Guy,
It was called WINNT.EXE to differentiate it from setup.exe on all the previous DOS Windows versions because they [Microsoft] were so proud of their new NT system and didn't want anybody to get confused over which they were using (I guess). Did you even look at my post in amongst all the 'angst' I'm sure I was the first with a definitive answer that really tried to answer the question you asked. (Namely, that is was very possible) -- Show quoteHide quoteCheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. "XP Guy" <X*@Guy.com> wrote in message news:49F25204.4502187B@Guy.com... >I have performed the following steps today on a real PC (and not in a > virtual environment) so this concludes this thread as far as I can tell. > > Given: > > A) a hard drive (or more specifically, a volume on a hard drive) that > has been formatted as FAT32 and for which MS-DOS system files have been > placed on it such that the drive will boot MS-DOS from that volume, and > > B) given that the contents of an XP-sp3 CD (specifically system builder > version, and perhaps any or all versions) has been copied to it's own > directory on said volume (while maintaining any long file names and > directory names that may exist on the CD), and > > C) given that himem.sys and smartdrv.exe have been started as part of > the autoexec and/or config.sys DOS environment, then > > D) it is possible to start and successfully complete the XP-sp3 > installation process simply by running the file "winnt.exe" from the > /i386 directory of the CD image as copied to the hard drive. The XP cd > need not be present in the CD drive during the installation. No other > command line arguments are necessary. > > As I prefer to install XP directly to a FAT32 volume (not NTFS) there is > no other preparation needed. Those that seek the imaginary benefits of > NTFS would first need to prepare the hard drive such that the desired > NTFS volume exists and is positioned appropriated to be your C drive and > the startable FAT32 installation volume later presumably becomes the D > drive as the XP installation proceeds. After the installation is > complete, the secondary FAT32 volume can be deleted and it's space can > become incorporated into the primary NTFS partition, or the FAT32 volume > can remain and act as a "recovery disk" should re-installation be > required later. > > Now, regarding the file winnt.exe in the /i386 directory, I don't know > what other purpose that file has, but if it's only purpose is to be an > alternate launch point for the installation of XP, then perhaps someone > else can explain why it wasn't simply named setup.exe as per usual > conventions. I don't believe there is any other file named setup.exe in > the i386 directory. > > Anyone that wants to run XP on a device that does not have any external > boot capability (but who can remove the device's internal hard drive and > slave it to another machine to perform steps A and B above) may want to > follow these steps in order to effect the installation of XP onto the > target device. Tim Meddick wrote:
> XP Guy, Good grief, is it really so important to you that you get credit for > It was called WINNT.EXE to differentiate it from setup.exe > on all the previous DOS Windows versions because they [Microsoft] > were so proud of their new NT system and didn't want anybody to get > confused over which they were using (I guess). > Did you even look at my post in amongst all the 'angst' I'm sure I > was the first with a definitive answer that really tried to answer > the question you asked. (Namely, that is was very possible) being the first to offer something? IIRC he responded to you in one of his collective responses. Did you just guess at being the first, or did you reassemble the thread to see if you were? Then you wouldn't have to be guessing and could pitch your ego a little stronger. Who cares who was first? It got sorted, which is the important thing. Twayne Show quoteHide quote > > > "XP Guy" <X*@Guy.com> wrote in message > news:49F25204.4502187B@Guy.com... >> I have performed the following steps today on a real PC (and not in a >> virtual environment) so this concludes this thread as far as I can >> tell. Given: >> >> A) a hard drive (or more specifically, a volume on a hard drive) that >> has been formatted as FAT32 and for which MS-DOS system files have >> been placed on it such that the drive will boot MS-DOS from that >> volume, and B) given that the contents of an XP-sp3 CD (specifically >> system >> builder version, and perhaps any or all versions) has been copied to >> it's own directory on said volume (while maintaining any long file >> names and directory names that may exist on the CD), and >> >> C) given that himem.sys and smartdrv.exe have been started as part of >> the autoexec and/or config.sys DOS environment, then >> >> D) it is possible to start and successfully complete the XP-sp3 >> installation process simply by running the file "winnt.exe" from the >> /i386 directory of the CD image as copied to the hard drive. The XP >> cd need not be present in the CD drive during the installation. No >> other command line arguments are necessary. >> >> As I prefer to install XP directly to a FAT32 volume (not NTFS) >> there is no other preparation needed. Those that seek the imaginary >> benefits of NTFS would first need to prepare the hard drive such >> that the desired NTFS volume exists and is positioned appropriated >> to be your C drive and the startable FAT32 installation volume later >> presumably becomes the D drive as the XP installation proceeds. After >> the installation is complete, the secondary FAT32 volume can >> be deleted and it's space can become incorporated into the primary >> NTFS partition, or the FAT32 volume can remain and act as a >> "recovery disk" should re-installation be required later. >> >> Now, regarding the file winnt.exe in the /i386 directory, I don't >> know what other purpose that file has, but if it's only purpose is >> to be an alternate launch point for the installation of XP, then >> perhaps someone else can explain why it wasn't simply named >> setup.exe as per usual conventions. I don't believe there is any >> other file named setup.exe in the i386 directory. >> >> Anyone that wants to run XP on a device that does not have any >> external boot capability (but who can remove the device's internal >> hard drive and slave it to another machine to perform steps A and B >> above) may want to follow these steps in order to effect the >> installation of XP onto the target device. XP Guy wrote:
> As I prefer to install XP directly to a FAT32 volume (not NTFS) there is Sheesh! You could have just booted with the Windows XP CD and formated > no other preparation needed. it to FAT32 with the Setup utility, what a complete waste of time just to install XP to a FAT32 drive! > Those that seek the imaginary benefits of NTFS Only someone who understand absolutely nothing about NTFS would ever say such an ignorant thing! > would first need to prepare the hard drive such that the desired No, DOS can't install to an NTFS drive from a flat folder installation > NTFS volume exists and is positioned appropriated to be your C drive and > the startable FAT32 installation volume later presumably becomes the D > drive as the XP installation proceeds. because DOS cannot see or write to an NTFS drive. John John,
I thought that NT systems could only be installed to FAT volumes. If you select format it NTFS it actually formats it FAT and then converts it to NTFS later in the setup process. Is tis not true? -- Show quoteHide quoteCheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. "John John - MVP" <audetw***@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message news:%23yTahCUxJHA.4380@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > XP Guy wrote: > >> As I prefer to install XP directly to a FAT32 volume (not NTFS) there is >> no other preparation needed. > > Sheesh! You could have just booted with the Windows XP CD and formated it > to FAT32 with the Setup utility, what a complete waste of time just to > install XP to a FAT32 drive! > >> Those that seek the imaginary benefits of NTFS > > Only someone who understand absolutely nothing about NTFS would ever say > such an ignorant thing! > >> would first need to prepare the hard drive such that the desired >> NTFS volume exists and is positioned appropriated to be your C drive and >> the startable FAT32 installation volume later presumably becomes the D >> drive as the XP installation proceeds. > > No, DOS can't install to an NTFS drive from a flat folder installation > because DOS cannot see or write to an NTFS drive. > > John On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:12:37 +0100, "Tim Meddick"
<timmedd***@gawab.com> wrote: > John, As far as I know, what you say isn't true, but I don't pretend to be> I thought that NT systems could only be installed to FAT volumes. > If you select format it NTFS it actually formats it FAT and then converts it > to NTFS later in the setup process. Is tis not true? an expert on this. If you're right, I'd like to see confirmation of it from others. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup I know that it's not the case for Windows 2000 Professional so I doubt
that it would be any different for Windows XP. I had heard about this quirk a few times but had never seen any real information on this, then sometime ago I was reading up on Server 2003 and I found the detail mentioned on a web site: "Unlike its predecessors, if you elect to format the operating system volume using NTFS, (Server 2003) Setup actually formats it using NTFS rather than starting with FAT/FAT32 then converting later on. The system restarts after this phase." http://codeidol.com/windows/inside-windows-server-2003/Installing-and-Configuring-Windows-Server-2003/Functional-Overview-of-Windows-Server-2003-Setup/ ( http://tinyurl.com/claw53 ) This intrigued me, I didn't think that anything post NT4 would work this way. I had no Server 2000 version to verify this but I did a test with Windows 2000 Professional, during the setup I deleted the partitions on the disk and created a new one and selected to format it NTFS. I then let the setup program finish the text mode part of the setup and when the computer started to reboot I powered it off and removed the disk from the computer and mounted it to another Windows 2000 installation and inspected it, my findings were contrary to what was stated by the folks at codeidol, the disk was formated to NTFS during the text mode part of the setup. Now, if you read the information on the codeidol page it looks like these guys know what they are talking about, one can kind of tell that the information there wasn't written by a bunch of clueless dipsticks! So I'm not sure if this only applies to Server versions or if the folks at codeidol meant to say that the conversion happened during the text mode portion of the setup, in my test the Windows 2000 drive was formated to the NTFS file system after the text mode portion of the setup, before the first reboot. I have looked for information or confirmation about this on the Microsoft site as well as others and I haven't been able to find any further information so I'm not too sure what to make of this. Perhaps this conversion happens during the text mode part of the setup, I don't know. I may try this test again and power off the machine immediately after the formating finishes and see what the disk looks like at that early stage of the setup process. John Tim Meddick wrote: Show quoteHide quote > John, > I thought that NT systems could only be installed to FAT volumes. > If you select format it NTFS it actually formats it FAT and then converts it > to NTFS later in the setup process. Is tis not true? > "Tim Meddick" <timmedd***@gawab.com> wrote: No, thats simply wrong.> I thought that NT systems could only be installed to FAT volumes. Windows NT3.5 and later install to NTFS without any problems. > If you select format it NTFS it actually formats it FAT and then converts it This was how NT3.x/NT4 did the job, their SETUP was not able to format> to NTFS later in the setup process. Is tis not true? NTFS (although able to write to a previously formatted NTFS file system). Starting with Windows 2000 the SETUP can format NTFS, and even prepare a partition to be used in another computer with no CD-drive at all to complete the installation there. Go figure! AND: converting FAT* to NTFS has some major drawbacks: the cluster size will be set to ONE sector (XP and later do better IFF the FAT32 clusters are aligned) and the filesystem performs really bad, and ACLs aint set properly. Stefan [ overlong sicknature removed, fup2 appropriate group ] John John - MVP wrote:
> XP Guy wrote: ,,,> >> As I prefer to install XP directly to a FAT32 volume (not NTFS) >> there is no other preparation needed. > > Sheesh! You could have just booted with the Windows XP CD and > formated it to FAT32 with the Setup utility, what a complete waste of > time just to install XP to a FAT32 drive! > >> Those that seek the imaginary benefits of NTFS > > Only someone who understand absolutely nothing about NTFS would ever > say such an ignorant thing! Sheesh is right. There you go, jumping right into name calling because someone disagrees with your opinion. You didn't even bother to ask why he thought that way. There could be a valid reason it wasn't necessary to give here. He seems to be inexperienced in some things, but ... maybe not. Twayne wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > John John - MVP wrote: If you think that the NTFS benefits are imaginary then you belong to the >> XP Guy wrote: >> >>> As I prefer to install XP directly to a FAT32 volume (not NTFS) >>> there is no other preparation needed. >> Sheesh! You could have just booted with the Windows XP CD and >> formated it to FAT32 with the Setup utility, what a complete waste of >> time just to install XP to a FAT32 drive! >> >>> Those that seek the imaginary benefits of NTFS >> Only someone who understand absolutely nothing about NTFS would ever >> say such an ignorant thing! > > ,,, > > Sheesh is right. There you go, jumping right into name calling because > someone disagrees with your opinion. You didn't even bother to ask why > he thought that way. There could be a valid reason it wasn't necessary > to give here. He seems to be inexperienced in some things, but ... > maybe not. same club as XP Guy (aka 98 Guy). John
Show quote
Hide quote
"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message Lol. Sheesh indeed! You sure sing a different song when it comes to yournews:Oaf4oPcxJHA.2588@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > John John - MVP wrote: >> XP Guy wrote: >> >>> As I prefer to install XP directly to a FAT32 volume (not NTFS) >>> there is no other preparation needed. >> >> Sheesh! You could have just booted with the Windows XP CD and >> formated it to FAT32 with the Setup utility, what a complete waste of >> time just to install XP to a FAT32 drive! >> >>> Those that seek the imaginary benefits of NTFS >> >> Only someone who understand absolutely nothing about NTFS would ever >> say such an ignorant thing! > > ,,, > > Sheesh is right. There you go, jumping right into name calling because > someone disagrees with your opinion. You didn't even bother to ask why he > thought that way. There could be a valid reason it wasn't necessary to > give here. He seems to be inexperienced in some things, but ... maybe > not. registry cleaners! There is no one that you haven't insulted and there is no insult that you haven't thrown at anyone who disagrees with your opinion about your favorite snake oil! You're the last person around here who should be lecturing others on manners! XP Guy's comment was ignorant, anyone who knows the least bit about NTFS would never claim that its benefits are imaginary. You might think that FAT32 is better than NTFS but that doesn't mean that NTFS benefits are imaginary. XP Guy and 98 Guy are one and the same. He hasn't changed his posting habits when he's in the XP groups. Big Al gave him a very polite answer and offered a well meaning response and in his usual manner 98 Guy/XP Guy decided to thank Big Al by insulting him, what a jerk! Then he proceeded to insult just about everybody else who posted, a real class act! Then as his final show of ignorance he decided to have a kick a Microsoft by telling us what he thinks he knows about NTFS. 98 Guy is well known in the Win98 group, go over there and follow the group and you will see what he's all about. He's a TROLL, just like YOU! M lol, normally I won't reply to crap like this, but this one's
entertaining enough to do so. Marianne wrote: Show quoteHide quote > "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message Since you're so anxious to see another registry cleaner thread, let me .... >> ,,, >> >> Sheesh is right. There you go, jumping right into name calling >> because someone disagrees with your opinion. You didn't even bother >> to ask why he thought that way. There could be a valid reason it >> wasn't necessary to give here. He seems to be inexperienced in some >> things, but ... maybe not. > > Lol. Sheesh indeed! You sure sing a different song when it comes to > your registry cleaners! There is no one that you haven't insulted > and there is no insult that you haven't thrown at anyone who > disagrees with your opinion about your favorite snake oil! You're > the last person around here who should be lecturing others on manners! say that you can not read and lack any reading comprehension abilities because I've never said anything even similar to what you're intimating. I disagree with MISINFORMATION! Those who spout the boilerplate that all such are ... and so forth deserve to be caught in the collaterals. Like you with the ignorance you're displaying here. You're apparently a fanatic looking for a fight but you wont' get one from me. I've also noticed by the way that you are a poser. > Well, again, you have to learn to read. I never said that. You're > XP Guy's comment was ignorant, anyone who knows the least bit > about NTFS would never claim that its benefits are imaginary. You > might think that FAT32 is better than NTFS but that doesn't mean that > NTFS benefits are imaginary. mixed up as usual. I am only curious about why FAT would be a benefit over NTFS in one's mind and never said anything at all that it was. Nor did I say FAT was. > Takes one to know one, doesn't it?> XP Guy and 98 Guy are one and the same. He hasn't changed his posting > habits when he's in the XP groups. Big Al gave him a very polite > answer and offered a well meaning response and in his usual manner 98 > Guy/XP Guy decided to thank Big Al by insulting him, what a jerk! > Then he proceeded to insult just about everybody else who posted, a Me? Now, who put out the troll bait here? Hmmm?> real class act! Then as his final show of ignorance he decided to > have a kick a Microsoft by telling us what he thinks he knows about > NTFS. 98 Guy is well known in the Win98 group, go over there and > follow the group and you will see what he's all about. He's a TROLL, > just like YOU! lol, yer funny! Show quoteHide quote > > M How did your test posts to alt.test go yesterday?
Everything work out ok Marianne? Hi,
Thanks for coming back with the verification/clarifications. Always nice to see the results and I'm glad to see it's sorted out. If you have any energy for this thread left, now that it is sorted out, I do have a couple comments/questions inline: \XP Guy wrote: > I have performed the following steps today on a real PC (and not in a IMO VMs are a good indicator of whether something won't work. Sort of > virtual environment) so this concludes this thread as far as I can > tell. like a pregnancy test in reverse - if it say no, it might still be yes. Once automated it's pretty simple to run. > I thought there would be in "install.bat" file; no? It probably only .... > > D) it is possible to start and successfully complete the XP-sp3 > installation process simply by running the file "winnt.exe" from the > /i386 directory of the CD image as copied to the hard drive. The XP > cd need not be present in the CD drive during the installation. No > other command line arguments are necessary. did the same thing anyway. > I am really curious why you think NTFS benefits are "imaginary"? Is > As I prefer to install XP directly to a FAT32 volume (not NTFS) there > is no other preparation needed. Those that seek the imaginary > benefits of NTFS would first need to prepare the hard drive such that this something particular to your setup or are you saying there is no benefit to NTFS regardless, ever? Or is it an experience thing? What? Show quoteHide quote > the desired NTFS volume exists and is positioned appropriated to be I guess I can see that: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you mean there is > your C drive and the startable FAT32 installation volume later > presumably becomes the D drive as the XP installation proceeds. > After the installation is complete, the secondary FAT32 volume can be > deleted and it's space can become incorporated into the primary NTFS > partition, or the FAT32 volume can remain and act as a "recovery > disk" should re-installation be required later. > .... > > Anyone that wants to run XP on a device that does not have any > external boot capability (but who can remove the device's internal > hard drive and slave it to another machine to perform steps A and B > above) may want to follow these steps in order to effect the > installation of XP onto the target device. no CD/DVD drive, no USB ports or the BIOS won't allow booting from them, same for thumb drives, etc.? I saw your machine descrip elsewhere and it's hard to imagine a machine from a year ago wouldn't have some sort of external boot capability. Just for grins, I did a quickie lookup at HP for the specs and there was a paragraph that led me to think you could boot to a USB or ?Bluetooth? device. -------------------------- Wireless support: Broadcom 802.11a/b/g, b/g, optional Bluetooth 2.0, HP Wireless Assistant Communications Broadcom Ethernet Integrated Controller (10/100/1000) Expansion slots: (1) ExpressCard/54 slot, Secure Digital (SD) slot Ports and connectors: (2) USB 2.0 ports, VGA, power connector, RJ-45/Ethernet, stereo headphone/line out, stereo microphone in, optional VGA webcam Input device: 92% full-sized keyboard, touchpad with scroll zone Software: HP Backup and Recovery Manager, Roxio Creator 9, Microsoft Office Ready 20078 ------------------------ Thanks; I'm quite curious about the non-boot and NTFS questions. Regards, Twayne -- Twayne wrote:
> I thought there would be in "install.bat" file; no? It probably If I recall correctly, there are relatively few unpacked executable> only did the same thing anyway. files in the i386 directory, and no .bat files. As for the comment (by someone else) that MS called the file "winnt.exe" to differentiate it from other previous versions of windows, that doesn't explain why the "real" setup file (in the root directory of the CD) was named "setup.exe". > I am really curious why you think NTFS benefits are "imaginary"? If we're going to have a conversation about the pro's and con's of NTFSvs FAT32, then I stongly suggest you read the following first: http://cquirke.blogspot.com/2006/01/bad-file-system-or-incompetent-os.html http://cquirke.blogspot.com/2008/03/ntfs-vs-fatxx-data-recovery.html http://cquirke.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-bad-sector-often-kills-you.html http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm I really haven't come across any other detailed or critical analysis of NTFS anywhere else on the net. What I usually find is very superficial comments that NTFS is obviously better than FAT32, without any real understanding of what NTFS is "under the hood". Once you've had a look at the above material, come back and let me know. > > Anyone that wants to run XP on a device that does not have any If the target device has no CD drive, and it doesn't allow for booting> > external boot capability (but who can remove the device's internal > > hard drive and slave it to another machine to perform steps A and B > > above) may want to follow these steps in order to effect the > > installation of XP onto the target device. > > I guess I can see that: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you mean there > is no CD/DVD drive, no USB ports or the BIOS won't allow booting > from them, same for thumb drives, etc.? from a USB port, then besides putting files directly on the device's hard drive I don't know how else you'd be able to install the OS of choice on it. And since I'm putting the drive into the netbook anyways, why not pre-load it with what I need? > I saw your machine descrip elsewhere and it's hard to imagine Well, depending on the model, it does come with either a 160 gb hard> a machine from a year ago wouldn't have some sort of external > boot capability. drive (with Vista already installed on it) or a 4 gb solid-state flash drive (with Linux already installed on it) so it's not like it's not usable "out of the box". And like I said, since I'm getting the version with the 4 gb SSD that I'm going to replace with a real hard drive, then why not pre-load the hard drive with the software first? Show quoteHide quote > Thanks; I'm quite curious about the non-boot and NTFS questions. > Regards, > Twayne "XP Guy" <X*@Guy.com> wrote : Chris Quirke doesn't say that the benefits of NTFS are imaginary, to the > If we're going to have a conversation about the pro's and con's of NTFS > vs FAT32, then I stongly suggest you read the following first: > > <snip... links to cquirke.blogspot.com>> contrary he says that NTFS is superior to FAT32. What he has never liked about NTFS is that it is a proprietary file system that is not well documented like FAT32 and he thinks that it lacks support tools. He says: "NTFS is a better file system, but the available maintenance tools and options suck." Clearly he doesn't share your views that FAT32 is better and he certainly doesn't think that NTFS benefits are imaginary! M
Show quote
Hide quote
> XP Guy wrote:
>> Twayne wrote: >> >>> I thought there would be in "install.bat" file; no? It probably >>> only did the same thing anyway. >> >> If I recall correctly, there are relatively few unpacked executable >> files in the i386 directory, and no .bat files. > > Right. I was thinking about a CD I guess. > >> >> As for the comment (by someone else) that MS called the file >> "winnt.exe" to differentiate it from other previous versions of >> windows, that doesn't explain why the "real" setup file (in the root >> directory of the CD) was named "setup.exe". > > Dunno; nor does it really matter when it comes to MS and how they name > things. I have one there too that I think it was malawerbytes of > something lke that kep wanting to call a rogue program. It found one > in another folder too that turned out to be for my CADD program. > Since nothing else identified them as "bad" I expanded the files from > the CD and compared their hashes; exactly the same for windows, and > the CADD I already knew about. Usually they're smaller files anyway > and all they do is start the main file. >> >>> I am really curious why you think NTFS benefits are "imaginary"? >> >> If we're going to have a conversation about the pro's and con's of >> NTFS vs FAT32, then I stongly suggest you read the following first: >> >> http://cquirke.blogspot.com/2006/01/bad-file-system-or-incompetent-os.html >> >> http://cquirke.blogspot.com/2008/03/ntfs-vs-fatxx-data-recovery.html >> >> http://cquirke.blogspot.com/2008/03/why-bad-sector-often-kills-you.html >> >> http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm >> >> I really haven't come across any other detailed or critical analysis >> of NTFS anywhere else on the net. What I usually find is very >> superficial comments that NTFS is obviously better than FAT32, >> without any real understanding of what NTFS is "under the hood". >> >> Once you've had a look at the above material, come back and let me >> know. > > I did take a look at the links because I come from FAT days and even > CP/M days before that. I'll be honest, although I give you credit for > providing the links, those pages are pretty lean on detail where facts > are concerned. As far as I'm concerned NTFS is much better, just as > stable, DIFFERENT, which I think is that author's problem, and has > very useful features FAT doesn't have. Wikipedia probably has some of > the best writeups in layman's terms for NTFS and FAT volumes if you'd > like to read some on them. There are links all over the 'net of > course. > > I'm not going to try to change your mind; if FAT is what you want, > there is actually nothing "wrong" with it. It'll work fine; if you > want any of the NTFS features you'll need 3rd party stuff that's all. > There are even apps to let it read NTFS if they're necessary. Each > to his own, I say. I just don't find the arguement very pursuasive, > but still, you did answer what I asked, so - thanks for that. > > -- > Cheers, > > Twayne > > ... >> >> If the target device has no CD drive, and it doesn't allow for >> booting >> from a USB port, then besides putting files directly on the device's >> hard drive I don't know how else you'd be able to install the OS of >> choice on it. And since I'm putting the drive into the netbook >> anyways, why not pre-load it with what I need? >> >>> I saw your machine descrip elsewhere and it's hard to imagine >>> a machine from a year ago wouldn't have some sort of external >>> boot capability. >> >> Well, depending on the model, it does come with either a 160 gb hard >> drive (with Vista already installed on it) or a 4 gb solid-state >> flash >> drive (with Linux already installed on it) so it's not like it's not >> usable "out of the box". And like I said, since I'm getting the >> version with the 4 gb SSD that I'm going to replace with a real hard >> drive, then why not pre-load the hard drive with the software first? >> >>> Thanks; I'm quite curious about the non-boot and NTFS questions. >>> Regards, >>> Twayne > > In a single HD PC, the First Partition will always be C. If you have
preloaded the HD with the Setup CD contents, you do not need any DOS partition if you can boot from anything, floppy, CD, USB stick, etc. Show quoteHide quote "XP Guy" wrote: > I have performed the following steps today on a real PC (and not in a > virtual environment) so this concludes this thread as far as I can tell. > > Given: > > A) a hard drive (or more specifically, a volume on a hard drive) that > has been formatted as FAT32 and for which MS-DOS system files have been > placed on it such that the drive will boot MS-DOS from that volume, and > > B) given that the contents of an XP-sp3 CD (specifically system builder > version, and perhaps any or all versions) has been copied to it's own > directory on said volume (while maintaining any long file names and > directory names that may exist on the CD), and > > C) given that himem.sys and smartdrv.exe have been started as part of > the autoexec and/or config.sys DOS environment, then > > D) it is possible to start and successfully complete the XP-sp3 > installation process simply by running the file "winnt.exe" from the > /i386 directory of the CD image as copied to the hard drive. The XP cd > need not be present in the CD drive during the installation. No other > command line arguments are necessary. > > As I prefer to install XP directly to a FAT32 volume (not NTFS) there is > no other preparation needed. Those that seek the imaginary benefits of > NTFS would first need to prepare the hard drive such that the desired > NTFS volume exists and is positioned appropriated to be your C drive and > the startable FAT32 installation volume later presumably becomes the D > drive as the XP installation proceeds. After the installation is > complete, the secondary FAT32 volume can be deleted and it's space can > become incorporated into the primary NTFS partition, or the FAT32 volume > can remain and act as a "recovery disk" should re-installation be > required later. > > Now, regarding the file winnt.exe in the /i386 directory, I don't know > what other purpose that file has, but if it's only purpose is to be an > alternate launch point for the installation of XP, then perhaps someone > else can explain why it wasn't simply named setup.exe as per usual > conventions. I don't believe there is any other file named setup.exe in > the i386 directory. > > Anyone that wants to run XP on a device that does not have any external > boot capability (but who can remove the device's internal hard drive and > slave it to another machine to perform steps A and B above) may want to > follow these steps in order to effect the installation of XP onto the > target device. > On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:50:01 -0700, cact25
<cac***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > In a single HD PC, the First Partition will always be C. Usually, but not "always." On mine, for example, my first partition isF:. I have no C: partition. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup All you need to copy is the i386 folder. Navigate to it and run winnt.exe
and it will begin the install and ask for the CD. If you copy the entire CD, following the above might still work. Jim Show quoteHide quote "XP Guy" wrote: > If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will > boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the > drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process after the > machine starts and boots itself into DOS? > > There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you can do > that. > > I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a protected > mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess). > > Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install can be > started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate command-line > switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. > > So, it it possible? > I stand corrected. I assumed you had a CD drive. I would create a tiny DOS
partition, unless you have a floppy drive. If the DOS partition is bootable you can use the winnt.exe route. Jim Show quoteHide quote "XP Guy" wrote: > If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will > boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the > drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process after the > machine starts and boots itself into DOS? > > There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you can do > that. > > I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a protected > mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess). > > Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install can be > started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate command-line > switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe. > > So, it it possible? >  
Other interesting topics
How to change a .flv video file to view in WMP;
Removing hover label balloons over taskbar icons Making a file folder accessible only by password key combination to hibernate my documents Conversion between various video & audio formats Moving IE 7 Toolbar Commands / Address Bar Re: xp theme Accessing local disk fr start menu Re: Opening 'grouped' taskbar entry? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
