New motherboard

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I need to install a new motherboard on a machine with XP sp2 and all
current updates. The existing mb is Gigabyte and I would prefer to
replace with Asus and a much faster chip.

What steps should I take in XP to avoid having to reinstall,
reactivate, etc.? It seems to me that there are drivers related
specifically to the mb and that they should be removed or there will be
a conflict.

Thanks for any suggestions.


--
drblbaker

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

The motherboard plays a large role in the activation scheme so you may very
well have to reactivate. Don't worry about that. It is easily done over
the internet, especially if you have made no other changes to your system in
the last 120 days. If you need to activate by phone, the activation process
will tell you what to do.

You should back up your system fully.

You may have to do a repair installation (install in place). See and print
out ahead of time:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;315341

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"drblbaker" <drblbaker.1kk4dn@pcbanter.net> wrote in message
news:drblbaker.1kk4dn@pcbanter.net...
>
> I need to install a new motherboard on a machine with XP sp2 and all
> current updates. The existing mb is Gigabyte and I would prefer to
> replace with Asus and a much faster chip.
>
> What steps should I take in XP to avoid having to reinstall,
> reactivate, etc.? It seems to me that there are drivers related
> specifically to the mb and that they should be removed or there will be
> a conflict.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions.
>
>
> --
> drblbaker

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

drblbaker wrote:
> I need to install a new motherboard on a machine with XP sp2 and all
> current updates. The existing mb is Gigabyte and I would prefer to
> replace with Asus and a much faster chip.
>
> What steps should I take in XP to avoid having to reinstall,
> reactivate, etc.? It seems to me that there are drivers related
> specifically to the mb and that they should be removed or there will be
> a conflict.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions.
>
>


Normally, and assuming a retail license (many OEM installations
and licenses are not transferable to a new motherboard - check yours
before starting), unless the new motherboard is virtually identical
(same chipset, same IDE controllers, same BIOS version, etc.) to the
one on which the WinXP installation was originally performed, you'll
need to perform a repair (a.k.a. in-place upgrade) installation, at
the very least:

How to Perform an In-Place Upgrade of Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/directory/article.asp?ID=KB;EN-US;Q315341

The "why" is quite simple, really, and has nothing to do with
licensing issues, per se; it's a purely technical matter, at this
point. You've pulled the proverbial hardware rug out from under the
OS. (If you don't like -- or get -- the rug analogy, think of it as
picking up a Cape Cod style home and then setting it down onto a Ranch
style foundation. It just isn't going to fit.) WinXP, like Win2K
before it, is not nearly as "promiscuous" as Win9x when it comes to
accepting any old hardware configuration you throw at it. On
installation it "tailors" itself to the specific hardware found. This
is one of the reasons that the entire WinNT/2K/XP OS family is so much
more stable than the Win9x group.

As always when undertaking such a significant change, back up any
important data before starting.

This will also probably require re-activation, unless you have a
Volume Licensed version of WinXP Pro installed. If it's been more
than 120 days since you last activated that specific Product Key,
you'll most likely be able to activate via the Internet without
problem. If it's been less, you might have to make a 5 minute phone
call.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Could it be that the answer you are looking for is to go to the Device
Manager and delete/uninstall all the entries that are under System Devices
(basically, anything that has to do with the mb and that is not an add-on
card or device)? This has worked for me and others I know, and though it is
a bit tedious it is better than a reinstall of any kind
--
Cheers,
Alphonse.

"drblbaker" <drblbaker.1kk4dn@pcbanter.net> wrote in message
news:drblbaker.1kk4dn@pcbanter.net...
>
> I need to install a new motherboard on a machine with XP sp2 and all
> current updates. The existing mb is Gigabyte and I would prefer to
> replace with Asus and a much faster chip.
>
> What steps should I take in XP to avoid having to reinstall,
> reactivate, etc.? It seems to me that there are drivers related
> specifically to the mb and that they should be removed or there will be
> a conflict.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions.
>
>
> --
> drblbaker

 

[johnf]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

No

--

johnf

> Could it be that the answer you are looking for is to go to the Device
> Manager and delete/uninstall all the entries that are under System
> Devices (basically, anything that has to do with the mb and that is not
> an add-on card or device)? This has worked for me and others I know,
> and though it is a bit tedious it is better than a reinstall of any kind
> --
> Cheers,
> Alphonse.
>
> "drblbaker" <drblbaker.1kk4dn@pcbanter.net> wrote in message
> news:drblbaker.1kk4dn@pcbanter.net...
>>
>> I need to install a new motherboard on a machine with XP sp2 and all
>> current updates. The existing mb is Gigabyte and I would prefer to
>> replace with Asus and a much faster chip.
>>
>> What steps should I take in XP to avoid having to reinstall,
>> reactivate, etc.? It seems to me that there are drivers related
>> specifically to the mb and that they should be removed or there will be
>> a conflict.
>>
>> Thanks for any suggestions.
>>
>>
>> --
>> drblbaker

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

explain? a plain No doesn't cut it, specially since johnf does not seem to
be drblbaker.

"johnf" <john_f@bigpond.net.a> wrote in message
news:uC5u$qPFFHA.2600@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> No
>
> --
>
> johnf
>
>> Could it be that the answer you are looking for is to go to the Device
>> Manager and delete/uninstall all the entries that are under System
>> Devices (basically, anything that has to do with the mb and that is not
>> an add-on card or device)? This has worked for me and others I know,
>> and though it is a bit tedious it is better than a reinstall of any kind
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Alphonse.
>>
>> "drblbaker" <drblbaker.1kk4dn@pcbanter.net> wrote in message
>> news:drblbaker.1kk4dn@pcbanter.net...
>>>
>>> I need to install a new motherboard on a machine with XP sp2 and all
>>> current updates. The existing mb is Gigabyte and I would prefer to
>>> replace with Asus and a much faster chip.
>>>
>>> What steps should I take in XP to avoid having to reinstall,
>>> reactivate, etc.? It seems to me that there are drivers related
>>> specifically to the mb and that they should be removed or there will be
>>> a conflict.
>>>
>>> Thanks for any suggestions.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> drblbaker
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Alphonse wrote:
> explain? a plain No doesn't cut it, specially since johnf does not seem to
> be drblbaker.
>


"No" is pretty much all that's necessary, really. The technique
described had a fairly good success rate when dealing with older, more
primitive, and less "particular" operating systems, such as Win9x. With
Win2K and WinXP, however, the use that technique has very little chance
of resulting in a stable OS. WinXP, like Win2K before it, is not nearly
as "promiscuous" as Win9x when it comes to accepting any old hardware
configuration you throw at it. On installation it "tailors" itself to
the specific hardware found. This is one of the reasons that the entire
WinNT/2K/XP OS family is so much more stable than the Win9x group.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Thank you for the explanation... I'll buy it, being "the use [of] that
technique has very little chance of resulting in a stable OS" what caught my
eye, so I guess I have been lucky so far. I will count my blessings, as they
say, this time and not do it again.
--
Cheers,
Alphonse

"Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
news:u1UeMtpFFHA.2296@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Alphonse wrote:
>> explain? a plain No doesn't cut it, specially since johnf does not seem
>> to be drblbaker.
>
> "No" is pretty much all that's necessary, really. The technique described
> had a fairly good success rate when dealing with older, more primitive,
> and less "particular" operating systems, such as Win9x. With Win2K and
> WinXP, however, the use that technique has very little chance of resulting
> in a stable OS. WinXP, like Win2K before it, is not nearly as
> "promiscuous" as Win9x when it comes to accepting any old hardware
> configuration you throw at it. On installation it "tailors" itself to the
> specific hardware found. This is one of the reasons that the entire
> WinNT/2K/XP OS family is so much more stable than the Win9x group.
> --
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
> both at once. - RAH