Which Windows CD's are bootable?
Walter Clayton
NT/Win2K CD are shipped in a bootable regardless of source. Whether or not
it boots depends on the hardware.
Win9X CDs supplied by MS are not bootable. Some OEMs will supply a bootable
CD, but that is entirely at their discretion. And unfortunately the crux of
your problem is there is no telling what a given OEM may have on the CD they
produce. For the most part though, you should be able to take any 98/SE CD
and have the user run fat32ebd.exe located in the tools\mtsutils\fat32ebd
folder to create a bootable diskette. You can run this only _any_ Windows
based machine (95/98/SE/NT/Win2K) then take it over to the problem machine.
The only problem here is that the SCSI CD drivers are a bit behind the
times, so it may be iffy getting the standard 9x boot diskette to recognized
SCSI CDs.
--
Walter Clayton
Microsoft MVP (DTS)
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced
http://members.home.com/dts-l
Want to know where each version of a MS module came from?
Try http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp
"AvianAvenger" <Xbird...@XbigfootX.com> wrote in message
news:6nbiesc374ghdqsjm...@4ax.com...
> This is a question that's bugged me for a LONG time and I can't seem
> to find any definitive answers. Here's the complete question:
>
> Is there any definitive list of which Windows 95/98/NT OS Install
> CD-ROMs are bootable? Such a list should include all MS operating
> systems, all OSRs, OEM, commercial Full and commercial Upgrade
> versions. If I'm correct that should be... well, a lot of different
> CDs. :)
>
> Part of the reason I ask is that I'm writing some training materials
> and procedures for a tech support division at a government agency
> where turnover is fairly high, and the tyros could really stand some
> hand-holding. It would be good to be able to state specifically that
> should one not have a boot floppy that "this is bootable" and "this is
> not bootable".
>
> Now, every Windows CD I've ever come across could be booted from in
> order to conduct an install. But I've spoken with others whom claim
> they have official MS Windows XX CDs that can not be booted from.
> Personally I think it's user error - they probably don't realize they
> have to go into the BIOS to make a CD drive the boot device. But I
> could well be wrong.
>
> Any help in this matter is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
> ---
> Poster is a Washington State Resident. All SPAM received subjects the
> sender to the laws of the State of Washington regarding unsolicited email.
> ---
> For Great Deals on Your Computer Needs, go to:
> http://www.nextdaypc.com/default.asp?rsmainid=ND0000355
> ---
> Michael Parrott, Owner | Personal Home Page, Artwork | !!!
> Skunkworks Computers | & Other Useless Information | (. .)
> "Birdman" | ICQ# 6245093 |
(( v ))
> BXir...@Xbigfoot.com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~Bird_man |
o---/m-m---o
> (If'n you wanna send email, you know what to do with the "X"s...)
Walter Clayton
Non-OEM versions of 9x CDs are not bootable. In fact if you purchase a Full
retail version of 9x you get a boot diskette with it and the CD is still
unbootable.
NT/Win2K aside there are currently 4 different flavors of 9x available.
Full Retail, Upgrade, Update (SE only) and OEM. The OEM versions go through
a different burn process and may or may not be bootable depending on who
created the CD. The reason the Full Retail and Upgrade are not bootable is
to minimize confusion and maximize hardware compatibility on the part of the
target audience, which is the average home user. And, this is not intended
to be a disparaging but merely a statement of fact, the average home user
tends to be computer illiterate. Most BIOSs by default are set to boot
floppy then HD. Talking some one who has never seen a computer before, or
who has no idea what a BIOS is, through the process of going into their BIOS
to change the boot sequence is simply not worth the man power nor the
potentially disastrous results of changing the wrong BIOS option. Throw in
the fact also that historically not all home user targeted hardware comply
with El Torito, although that trend is changing.
Consider also that the setup engine on 9x doesn't have built-in drive
preparation (fdisk and format on the fly) functions, unlike NT/Win2K. Before
launching 9x setup, the drive must be prepared. You can graphically see this
by going down to Wal-Mart or your local software store and picking up a
non-OEM version of Windows. Before installing it on a system, grab an HD
tool that wipes out the partition table on the HD and blow the partition
table away. Boot from diskette and try to install 9x without running a
separate fdisk and format (and while you're at it, try to boot the CD).
Again, this is to simplify things for the target audience and minimize
possible bad decisions on the part of the user.
Yes, LS-120 can be problematic, but (again) it does depend on the hardware
vendor. The more modern BIOSs can be set to boot from the LS-120 device.
Earlier BIOSs that don't have this native support do cause their own set of
problems however, although this is obviously not new to you. :-)
I didn't mention anything about the SE Update version for the simple reason
that it must be installed from within a running 98, so making it bootable is
totally superfluous.
--
Walter Clayton
Microsoft MVP (DTS)
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced
http://members.home.com/dts-l
Want to know where each version of a MS module came from?
Try http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp
"AvianAvenger" <Xbird...@XbigfootX.com> wrote in message
news:1ctkesklcb697ag9e...@4ax.com...
> On or about Tue, 4 Apr 2000 08:51:44 -0400, the alleged "Walter
> Clayton" <w-cla...@SPmailandnewsAM.com> was allegedly seen to post
> exhibit "A":
>
> > In a nut shell: NT/Win2K CD are shipped in a bootable regardless of
source.
> > Whether or not it boots depends on the hardware. Win9X CDs supplied by
MS
> > are not bootable.
>
> I appreciate your response! However, some of that is contrary to my
> experience. And I also discovered I made a mistake in one statement in
> my original message.
>
> And there is another reason why this info can be important: we work
> with a lot of Dell machines with LS-120 drives as the A: drive. If
> you've ever tried to perform an install on such a system, you can
> readily appreciate the ability to boot from the CD. :)
>
> I just tested all the Microsoft OS CDs I own. These were all received
> directly from Microsoft via various programs (OEM System Builder,
> Direct Access, and Usability Programs). None were generated by any
> third party OEMs. All were tested for conformance to the El Torito
> bootable CD standard, both by hex viewing sector 17 and actually
> attempting to boot from the CD with a known compliant BIOS and CDROM
> drive.
>
> The results:
>
> Operating System Version OEM/COM MS P/N Bootable
> ---------------- ------- ------- --------- --------
> Windows 95 OSR 2.1 OEM 000-45234 No
> Windows 95 OSR 2.5 OEM X03-52599 No
> Windows 98 n/a OEM X03-36182 Yes
> Windows 98 SE Updates n/a COM X04-12707 No*
> Windows NT Server 4.0 COM X03-79488 Yes
> Windows NT W/S 4.0 COM 69401 Yes
> Windows 2000 Server n/a COM X05-30397 Yes
>
>
> Note: OEM/COM lists whether CD was intended for distribution with a
> new PC only (OEM) or was a commercial/consumer full version (COM).
>
> * = This is not the full version of Windows 98 SE. This CD is intended
> to be executed from within an existing Win98 installation and does not
> seem intended for "clean" installs (i.e., SETUP.EXE will not execute
> in DOS mode).
>
> My mistake was in stating that ALL Microsoft OS CDs I've ever used are
> bootable - obviously I was wrong about the Windows 95 CDs. Okay, so
> it's been a while since I had to do a Win95 install. :) But note that
> my Windows 98 CD is bootable, which contradicts your message. If there
> was a comprehensive list that would be great, but I begin to despair
> of that.
>
> But if anyone else out there is as interested in this data as I am,
> please conduct your own test and post the results - including
> Microsoft part numbers of the CD, if possible. Maybe I can compile the
> data and post it on a web site for reference. Just be sure that your
> system can support booting a CD in the first place, and that your BIOS
> is configured to use the CD as the first boot device, before writing a
> disk off as none-bootable. Any posted results will be appreciated, and
> if I get enough data to make a web page worthwhile I'll post the URL
> here for all to reference.
Len Segal
ALL MS Win98 CD OEM Full Versions are Bootable.
ALL MS Win NT & Win2K CD OEM & Retail Full Versions are Bootable. [Having never dealt with the Retail Upgrade copies of WinNT/2K, I can't answer that one.]
OEM Win9x CDs created by the larger OEMs (e.g. Dell, Gateway, IBM, HP, etc.) "Usually" are Bootable, but may be "Recovery Disks" which also load all the junk shelfware that was shipped by the OEM. Sometimes the user is supplied an "alleged Win9x OEM CD" (created by the OEM) which may not be bootable (intentionally missing some critical files to prevent booting).
--
Regards,
Len Segal, MCP
Segal Computer Consulting
Microsoft - MVP (DTS), ClubWin
--------------
My reply address is intentionally wrong to reduce SPAM Email.
NOTE: We do not respond to unsolicited Email support questions,
please post questions in newsgroup.
"AvianAvenger" <Xbird...@XbigfootX.com> wrote in message news:8canes4jv6tcu6jh5...@4ax.com...
> On or about Wed, 5 Apr 2000 11:17:33 -0400, the alleged "Walter
> Clayton" <w-cla...@SPmailandnewsAM.com> was allegedly seen to post
> exhibit "A":
>
> >As Alex stated, none of your observations contradicted what I stated.
>
> Well... you'll see my message to him. I think it does, at least with
> respect to a specific statement. But I'm honestly not trying to rake
> the muck; I'm just trying to get a clear picture of the bootable/
> non-bootable CD question, and I appreciate the dialog and assistance.
>
> >Non-OEM versions of 9x CDs are not bootable.
>
> That statement clarifies things considerably.
>
> Given this, if I'm correct - and the fact of this CD sitting in my
> collection makes me think I might be - Microsoft produces it's own OEM
> Win98 CDs (for sale to small system builders and parts dealers) in
> addition to more specific versions tailored to specific OEMs (such as
> Dell or Compaq).
>
> And given that, I believe an accurate (if ambiguous) assessment would
> be: Some Microsoft OEM Win98 CDs are bootable, but some may not be,
> and Win98 CDs produced for other OEMs may or may not be bootable
> depending on that OEM's requirements.
>
> So a good table for me to start with might be:
>
> Operating System: Bootable?
> ----------------- ---------
> Windows 2000 (any version): Yes
> Windows NT (any version): Yes
> Windows 98 (OEM): Maybe
> Windows 98 (Retail, any version): No
> Windows 95 (any version): No
>
> Hmmm... looking at that, and for my own intended purpose, it would
> probably just be easier (as Alex implied) to create our own custom
> boot CD for installs of anything other than Windows NT or 2000.
>
> Now if I can talk Purchasing into getting systems that meet something
> resembling a consistent configuration spec, it might even be possible
> to set up an unattended install floppy/CD set for our truly needy
> techs. :)
>
> >And, this is not intended to be a disparaging but merely a statement
> >of fact, the average home user tends to be computer illiterate.
>
> I hear you, brother! Might as well include the average corporate and
> government user as well. Just yesterday after I finished installing a
> ZIP drive in a user's computer, they asked me if they would now be
> able to open some .ZIP files they'd received "from the email".
>
> >Yes, LS-120 can be problematic, but (again) it does depend on the hardware
> >vendor. The more modern BIOSs can be set to boot from the LS-120 device.
>
> I've seen that option in the last few motherboards used in my own
> systems. The LS-120s in the systems where I work all use the Promise
> controllers, though. We slogged our way through it with some help from
> the Knowledge Base and ntfaq.com, but it was rough going at first. :)
>
> Thanks to you and Alex for your replies. I think I've got the kind of
> info I need now to plot these procedures out.
>
> Take care!
Walter Clayton
see/hear OEM I'm thinking system builders. I didn't realize that MS burned
OEM CDs as well as standard retail versions and that initially went right
over my head. Ah well, the day I quit learning is the day I start pushing
daisies. :-)
--
Walter Clayton
Microsoft MVP (DTS)
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced
http://members.home.com/dts-l
Want to know where each version of a MS module came from?
Try http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/default.asp
"AvianAvenger" <Xbird...@XbigfootX.com> wrote in message
news:8canes4jv6tcu6jh5...@4ax.com...
> On or about Wed, 5 Apr 2000 11:17:33 -0400, the alleged "Walter
> Clayton" <w-cla...@SPmailandnewsAM.com> was allegedly seen to post
> exhibit "A":
>
> >As Alex stated, none of your observations contradicted what I stated.
>
> Well... you'll see my message to him. I think it does, at least with
> respect to a specific statement. But I'm honestly not trying to rake
> the muck; I'm just trying to get a clear picture of the bootable/
> non-bootable CD question, and I appreciate the dialog and assistance.
>
> >Non-OEM versions of 9x CDs are not bootable.
>
> >And, this is not intended to be a disparaging but merely a statement
> >of fact, the average home user tends to be computer illiterate.
>
> I hear you, brother! Might as well include the average corporate and
> government user as well. Just yesterday after I finished installing a
> ZIP drive in a user's computer, they asked me if they would now be
> able to open some .ZIP files they'd received "from the email".
>
> >Yes, LS-120 can be problematic, but (again) it does depend on the
hardware
> >vendor. The more modern BIOSs can be set to boot from the LS-120 device.
>
> I've seen that option in the last few motherboards used in my own
> systems. The LS-120s in the systems where I work all use the Promise
> controllers, though. We slogged our way through it with some help from
> the Knowledge Base and ntfaq.com, but it was rough going at first. :)
>
> Thanks to you and Alex for your replies. I think I've got the kind of
> info I need now to plot these procedures out.
>
> Take care!
>