NT4.0 Setup can't get past System Config Inspection

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup (More info?)

(Refer to my other thread to find out the other trouble I've
been having w/this install.)

Using a Win98 boot disc, I formatted as per the instructions
here http://nt4ref.zcm.com.au/bigdisk.htm (At least I
believe I did it right). Now what's happening is that I
see the message "Setup is inspecting your computer's
hardware configuration", displays the first blue screen
w/the gray bar along the bottom displaying the various files
it's installing. Then the system reboots and starts all
over again. It won't proceed to the next step.

I've loaded the mobo fail-safe defaults. This is a new
computer, ECS mobo, VIA PM800 chipset. I'm at my wits end.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup (More info?)

Dave M wrote:
> (Refer to my other thread to find out the other trouble I've been having
> w/this install.)
>
> Using a Win98 boot disc, I formatted as per the instructions here
> http://nt4ref.zcm.com.au/bigdisk.htm (At least I believe I did it
> right). Now what's happening is that I see the message "Setup is
> inspecting your computer's hardware configuration", displays the first
> blue screen w/the gray bar along the bottom displaying the various files
> it's installing. Then the system reboots and starts all over again. It
> won't proceed to the next step.
>
> I've loaded the mobo fail-safe defaults. This is a new computer, ECS
> mobo, VIA PM800 chipset. I'm at my wits end.


Calvin, in his website, specifies a FAT16 partition. Formatting
with a Win98 boot disk does not result in a FAT16 partition. And
this will lead to the results shown. Win98 usually formats to
FAT32 in large (i.e., > 2.046 GB) hard drives.

There are prescribed methods for installing Windows NT, ranging
from the hardware specifications to the installation setup. In
re-reading the entire threads, there are some potential trouble
spots. First, just what is the memory usage. Is there at least
640 MB of low memory, to start with? Run Jiri Tuma's Mem Check
test by booting the system from a bootable MS-DOS floppy.

Next, are there any special drivers needed because the install
is going on to removable hard drives? That is, what is the system
bios actually seeing, i.e., the hard drive carrier or the hard
drive itself? Is any special hard drive mounting software taking
up overhead from low memory?

This particular setup is somewhat unusual in that it would take
some real hands-on, real-time examination to resolve. Just for
fun, before we shift attention to the motherboard and the VIA
chipset, ever tried a "normal" Windows NT installation, by the
book, to a permanently mounted hard drive?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup (More info?)

> Calvin, in his website, specifies a FAT16 partition. Formatting
> with a Win98 boot disk does not result in a FAT16 partition. And
> this will lead to the results shown. Win98 usually formats to
> FAT32 in large (i.e., > 2.046 GB) hard drives.

I've formatted w/FAT16. (See my reply to Calvin.) The
partition is 2047MB.

> Next, are there any special drivers needed because the install
> is going on to removable hard drives?

No, it's just a drawer.

> ever tried a "normal" Windows NT installation, by the
> book, to a permanently mounted hard drive?

Yes. I hooked up a smaller (6.8GB) drive directly--same result.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup (More info?)

Dave M wrote:
>> Calvin, in his website, specifies a FAT16 partition. Formatting
>> with a Win98 boot disk does not result in a FAT16 partition. And
>> this will lead to the results shown. Win98 usually formats to
>> FAT32 in large (i.e., > 2.046 GB) hard drives.
>
>
> I've formatted w/FAT16. (See my reply to Calvin.) The partition is
> 2047MB.
>
>> Next, are there any special drivers needed because the install
>> is going on to removable hard drives?
>
>
> No, it's just a drawer.
>
>> ever tried a "normal" Windows NT installation, by the
>> book, to a permanently mounted hard drive?
>
>
> Yes. I hooked up a smaller (6.8GB) drive directly--same result.
>

And this particular hard drive was being partitioned to a
system partition of less than 4 GB if NTFS or 2.047 GB if
FAT16? Same for the removable HDD? Also, is a hard drive
bios overlay being used?

And into the next set of questions:

Cabling - 40-conductor master/slave vs. 40/80-conductor
cable select (CSEL) for master/slave? Jumper positions on
the HDD's?

 

[Calvin]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup (More info?)

Ghostrider wrote:
> Calvin, in his website, specifies a FAT16 partition. Formatting
> with a Win98 boot disk does not result in a FAT16 partition. And
> this will lead to the results shown. Win98 usually formats to
> FAT32 in large (i.e., > 2.046 GB) hard drives.

Thanks Ghostrider - you beat me - most likely the disk is now formatted FAT32 -
this will NOT work.

Calvin.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup (More info?)

> Thanks Ghostrider - you beat me - most likely the disk is now formatted
> FAT32 - this will NOT work.

No, it's FAT16. The Win98 boot disk asks whether you want
to enable large disk support (or words to that effect).
Apparently when you chose not to, it automatically formats
to FAT16. I'm sure it's FAT16 because when I boot from the
Startup disk, I can view whatever partitions I've created.
It shows FAT16.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup (More info?)

I decided to try copying the setup files from the CD to the
HDD (like the old W98 days). Setup created 3 floppys.
After getting to the stage where the 2nd floppy is required,
I get a blue screen w/the following message:

Stop 0X0000003E (0X00000080, 0X00000000, 0X00000000, 0X00000000)

p5 - 0000 irql:1e SYSVER 0XF0000565

I found this in a forum. The poster had been getting the
same error. I'd try it, but I don't see that setting
(CPUID) in my BIOS anywhere.

"I have the Phoenix-Award BIOS and under the Advanced BIOS
settings I discovered changing the max CPUID from disable to
enable allowed me to install NT 4.0 Workstation on this
machine."




Mistoffolees wrote:
>
> Dave M wrote:
>
>>> Calvin, in his website, specifies a FAT16 partition. Formatting
>>> with a Win98 boot disk does not result in a FAT16 partition. And
>>> this will lead to the results shown. Win98 usually formats to
>>> FAT32 in large (i.e., > 2.046 GB) hard drives.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've formatted w/FAT16. (See my reply to Calvin.) The partition is
>> 2047MB.
>>
>>> Next, are there any special drivers needed because the install
>>> is going on to removable hard drives?
>>
>>
>>
>> No, it's just a drawer.
>>
>>> ever tried a "normal" Windows NT installation, by the
>>> book, to a permanently mounted hard drive?
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes. I hooked up a smaller (6.8GB) drive directly--same result.
>>
>
> And this particular hard drive was being partitioned to a
> system partition of less than 4 GB if NTFS or 2.047 GB if
> FAT16? Same for the removable HDD? Also, is a hard drive
> bios overlay being used?
>
> And into the next set of questions:
>
> Cabling - 40-conductor master/slave vs. 40/80-conductor
> cable select (CSEL) for master/slave? Jumper positions on
> the HDD's?
>