Is it possible to install XP if the XP-CD is pre-copied to a blank hard drive?
XP Guy
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.
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outdated,use NTFS.
Big_Al
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
> > 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?
Olórin
Not with that attitude. Understand your frustration to a degree, but you're
the supplicant here.
XP Guy
> > 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.
Shenan Stanley
Yes.
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
David B.
this out on his own. At the very least he would know how to use a search
engine.
--
Crosspost, 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...@Guy.com...
Big_Al
Olórin
"Even I" can't answer the question? Well, you sure as **** can't; but more
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.
Twayne
> 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?
Twayne
> 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?
LOL! I couldn't have said it better! Dontcha know them egos just gotta
make thmselves known whether it's relevant or not? :^)
Twayne
Twayne
Yeah, but you have to admit, there are an awful lot of non-answers 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
Twayne
Olorin's a good guy. And there was some uncalled for language used.
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
Twayne
Yes, and maybe. An actual straight install of XP I think would work;
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
Tim Meddick
--
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
"Big_Al" <Bi...@md.com> wrote in message
news:eK%23BwhAx...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
David B.
--
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" <timme...@gawab.com> wrote in message
news:uC7nMcDx...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Tim Meddick
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.
--
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
"David B." <ma...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:OwOt2fD...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Peter Foldes
Andrew is the resident idiot who always posts wrong info and a lot times dangerous
ones at that
--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
"Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:eabQM1Cx...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
XP Guy
> > 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.
>
> Google could have told you that. ;-)
If that's true, I haven't found it yet.
If you have, is there some reason you're not posting it?
XP Guy
> 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
> "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.
> but more importantly, you can't even ask politely.
I did ask, and not impolitely. If my follow-ups were too harsh, they at
least were not incorrect.
> 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.
And just what was that *one* thing you were trying to tell me?
Did it have anything to do with answering my original question?
Shenan Stanley
> 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).
>
> 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.
XP Guy
> > 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.
Olórin
> Full-Quoter "Olórin" wrote:
>
>> "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.
My point here was your demeaning use of the word "even". Well, "even you"
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
>> 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?
Okay, I'll spell it out. You didn't get the answer you wanted. Instead of
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.
Guy that is XP
> People here are volunteers, willing and trying to help, and deserve
> the benefit of your doubt, not to mention common courtesy.
I took great pains to detail exactly what the question was.
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
> 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.
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
> scintillating;
I'll do my best.
> but I won't be reading it.
Sure you will. You just did.
Shenan Stanley
> 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?
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> 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.
XP Guy wrote:
> 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).
>
> 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.
Yes/No *is* all you asked for. Quibble the point all you want - but yes/no
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.
Tim Meddick
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.
--
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
"XP Guy" <X...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:49F13BF2...@Guy.com...
Olórin
> "Olórin" wrote:
<snip>
>> but I won't be reading it.
>
> Sure you will. You just did.
Rats, foiled by an ego that needed to change address to make itself heard.
*plonk* for the second time, this time saying so.
Tom [Pepper] Willett
"XP Guy" <X...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:49F1130C...@Guy.com...
Klaus Jorgensen
> 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
Tim Meddick
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.
--
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
"Klaus Jorgensen" <k...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:%23RWrGOP...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Twayne
>
>> 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 the exception of your opinion on netiquette having nothing to do
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.
Twayne
And doing so in many newsgroups for no good reason.
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.
Twayne
> Twayne
>
> Andrew is the resident idiot who always posts wrong info and a lot
> times dangerous ones at that
>
>
Yeah, I've too much time on my hands the last few days so checked out
the lunacy factor just for entertainment value. Fortunately that's
about to come to an end. The extra time, I mean<g>.
Cheers,
Twayne
Shenan Stanley
> 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?
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> 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.
Twayne wrote:
> And doing so in many newsgroups for no good reason.
> 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.
- Why do you feel the need to comment on picqiune points?
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.
Twayne
Klaus Jorgensen
> 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
Tim Meddick
--
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
"Klaus Jorgensen" <k...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:Ol0OdaSx...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
XP Guy
> 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
?
XP Guy
> 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
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
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)
--
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
"XP Guy" <X...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:49F25204...@Guy.com...
Shenan Stanley
Those steps look familar... ;-)
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!
John John - MVP
> 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
Tim Meddick
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?
--
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
"John John - MVP" <aude...@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:%23yTahCU...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Tim Meddick
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?
--
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
"XP Guy" <X...@Guy.com> wrote in message news:49F24B0B...@Guy.com...
Ken Blake, MVP
<timme...@gawab.com> wrote:
> 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?
As far as I know, what you say isn't true, but I don't pretend to be
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
John John - MVP
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
Klaus Jorgensen
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
xp setup files on to hd on a different system)?
--
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
"Klaus Jorgensen" <k...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:OFNdEYXx...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Klaus Jorgensen
> 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
Tim Meddick
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.
--
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
"Klaus Jorgensen" <k...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:e7EhRpXx...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
XP Guy
> May I ask what kind of equipment you are targeting with a setup
> like this - some sort of embedded device or what?
HP 2133 Mini-Note PC
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.
XP Guy
> > 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"
> also means no USB ports, and what kind of system does not have
> USB ports?
While the target device does have USB ports, it's not worth my time to
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.
Klaus Jorgensen
> While the target device does have USB ports, it's not worth my time to
> 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).
A couple of weeks ago I managed to do an XP installation from a USB
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
Twayne
> 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)
Good grief, is it really so important to you that you get credit for
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
Twayne
> 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
Wy do all of you continue to x-post? Silly waste of ether.
Twayne
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
> virtual environment) so this concludes this thread as far as I can
> tell.
IMO VMs are a good indicator of whether something won't work. Sort of
like a pregnancy test in reverse - if it say no, it might still be yes.
Once automated it's pretty simple to run.
>
...
>
> 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.
I thought there would be in "install.bat" file; no? It probably only
did the same thing anyway.
>
> 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
I am really curious why you think NTFS benefits are "imaginary"? Is
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?
> 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.
>
...
>
> 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.
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.? 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
--
John John - MVP
If you think that the NTFS benefits are imaginary then you belong to the
same club as XP Guy (aka 98 Guy).
John
XP Guy
> 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.
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 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.
> > 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.
>
> 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.?
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?
cact25
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.
>
cact25
NTFS.
Shenan Stanley
> 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.
Dollar short, Day late...
cact25
anything good, keep your mouth shut.
cact25
"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
>
>
>
Shenan Stanley
> Way to go Klaus. Somebody finally came up with an answer besides
> myself.
Answer was given over 36 hours ago - with link to a 2+ year old web page
that laid out the steps - which was found by a google search (also given) in
the same response. ;-)
cact25
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.
"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.
>
Ken Blake, MVP
<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 is
F:. I have no C: partition.
John John - MVP
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
XP Guy
> XP Guy's question was answered
And not definately by anything posted by anyone else.
I posted the question on Wed. 11 pm.
It was on Friday (9 am) that Shenan Stanley posted a response that
included this link:
-----------------
http://www.overclock.net/faqs/101421-how-install-windows-xp-hard-drive.html
----------------
The relevant piece of information being on line 11:
------------------
11. Then in the c:\> prompt, type c:\I386\winnt.exe
-----------------
As far as I can tell, nobody in this thread had explicitely posted that
very simply instruction that setup can be launched from DOS by running
winnt.exe.
In my first post that started this thread, I even mentioned that
installation from winnt.exe was likely possible:
----------------
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.
---------------
> but his attitude was to come back and insult everyone who replied
> to him,
Everyone? Hyperbolic statements like that usually don't help to build
or maintain credibility.
> if he expected to get more help with that kind of attitude he
> misjudged.
Only in your stuck-up mind.
Now, here's the best part.
Warning: load of horse shit about to be deposited:
> 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.
If indeed any of these so-called experts did read my first post, they
could have easily confirmed what I had written by saying "yes, running
winnt.exe from the i386 folder will start the XP install process".
Your explanation as to why such an answer was never posted can't be
proved. But I'm sure you feel sufficiently self important and
authoritative by giving it.
XP Guy
> After weeding thru all of the crap and whining instead of
> answereing the question, I will answer it.
Ok, great. I'm waiting. What is your answer?
> I don't remember the exact procedure, but I know that it was
> in the \i386 folder if I remember correctly.
sigh...
Yet another fool.
XP Guy
> the drive as NTFS.
More foolishness from the fool.
Go back and re-read the original, first post in this thread.
Marianne
news:Oaf4oPcx...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
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!
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
Marianne
> 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>>
Chris Quirke doesn't say that the benefits of NTFS are imaginary, to the
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
Stefan Kanthak
> I thought that NT systems could only be installed to FAT volumes.
No, thats simply wrong.
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
> to NTFS later in the setup process. Is tis not true?
This was how NT3.x/NT4 did the job, their SETUP was not able to format
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 ]
Twayne
entertaining enough to do so.
Marianne wrote:
> "Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
...
>> ,,,
>>
>> 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!
Since you're so anxious to see another registry cleaner thread, let me
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.
>
> 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.
Well, again, you have to learn to read. I never said that. You're
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.
>
> 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!
Takes one to know one, doesn't it?
> 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!
Me? Now, who put out the troll bait here? Hmmm?
lol, yer funny!
>
> M
Twayne
>> 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.
>
>
>>
>> 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".
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
> ...
XP Guy
Everything work out ok Marianne?
William R. Walsh
> 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?
Yes. Use winnt.exe to kickstart setup.
Note that setup suggests that you load SMARTDRV.EXE, and believe me, you'll
be wise to listen.
I did it this way on a Compaq Presario laptop with a burned out CD-ROM
drive...formatted the drive, made it bootable, took it out of the machine
and copied the "i386" folder from the XP CD to a convenient place on the
hard drive. Setup took the better part of Absolutely Forever to complete
because I did not stop and load SMARTDRV.EXE as recommended.
William
cact25
and it will begin the install and ask for the CD. If you copy the entire CD,
following the above might still work.
Jim
"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
cact25
partition, unless you have a floppy drive. If the DOS partition is bootable
you can use the winnt.exe route.