Pentium 4 - NT Installation problems

G

Guest

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

I cannot install NT 4.0 on a 3 Ghz Pentium 4.

The machine is a 3Ghz Pentium 4 on an Intel BF865GBF motherboard with 1Ghz
ram, in 2 simms, dual channel.

I've read a few other msgs here with a similar problem, only because it
usually reboots, they're not seeing the STOP error.

0x0000003E -> it doesn't like my processor.

I've tried disabling hyperthreading, and it still doesn't work.

I update the BIOS, still doesn't work.

Anyone got any ideas?
 
G

Guest

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

How big is the hard drive and are you supplying the correct NT drivers for
it? This is pushing it for NT4.

--
Scott Harding
MCSE, MCSA, A+, Network+
Microsoft MVP - Windows NT Server
"PD" <PD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BB63BEED-CEB3-4F29-A6F4-88527CDB7272@microsoft.com...
>
> I cannot install NT 4.0 on a 3 Ghz Pentium 4.
>
> The machine is a 3Ghz Pentium 4 on an Intel BF865GBF motherboard with 1Ghz
> ram, in 2 simms, dual channel.
>
> I've read a few other msgs here with a similar problem, only because it
> usually reboots, they're not seeing the STOP error.
>
> 0x0000003E -> it doesn't like my processor.
>
> I've tried disabling hyperthreading, and it still doesn't work.
>
> I update the BIOS, still doesn't work.
>
> Anyone got any ideas?
>
>
>
>
 
G

Guest

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

"Scott Harding" wrote:

> How big is the hard drive and are you supplying the correct NT drivers for
> it? This is pushing it for NT4.
>

Well, the drive taht was supplied was an 80Gb IDE drive. I've already
installed a 20Gb drive that has successfully been used on other NT
installations, without any change to the error type.

Peter
 
G

Guest

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

What SP? Prior to SP5, the primary partition had to be 8GB or less than
1024 cylinders.

--
Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your service!
"Google is your Friend!"
www.google.com

***********************************************

"PD" <PD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BB63BEED-CEB3-4F29-A6F4-88527CDB7272@microsoft.com...
>
> I cannot install NT 4.0 on a 3 Ghz Pentium 4.
>
> The machine is a 3Ghz Pentium 4 on an Intel BF865GBF motherboard with 1Ghz
> ram, in 2 simms, dual channel.
>
> I've read a few other msgs here with a similar problem, only because it
> usually reboots, they're not seeing the STOP error.
>
> 0x0000003E -> it doesn't like my processor.
>
> I've tried disabling hyperthreading, and it still doesn't work.
>
> I update the BIOS, still doesn't work.
>
> Anyone got any ideas?
>
>
>
>
 
G

Guest

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

The 1024 cylinder limit for the Windows NT system partition is regardless of
service pack level.

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Admiral Q" wrote:
| What SP? Prior to SP5, the primary partition had to be 8GB or less than
| 1024 cylinders.
|
| --
| Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your service!
| "Google is your Friend!"
| www.google.com
|
| ***********************************************
 
G

Guest

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

You will probably need the updated Atapi.sys file to recognize the driver
properly. Does it find the driver during install? Does this error occur
during the first reboot of the install? Having a 20gb work doesn't mean much
when your comparing it to a 80gb but from the error I sort of don't suspect
the drive.

--
Scott Harding
MCSE, MCSA, A+, Network+
Microsoft MVP - Windows NT Server
"Dave Patrick" <mail@Nospam.DSPatrick.com> wrote in message
news:eJYQOtGDFHA.628@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> The 1024 cylinder limit for the Windows NT system partition is regardless
> of
> service pack level.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
> Microsoft Certified Professional
> Microsoft MVP [Windows]
> http://www.microsoft.com/protect
>
> "Admiral Q" wrote:
> | What SP? Prior to SP5, the primary partition had to be 8GB or less than
> | 1024 cylinders.
> |
> | --
> | Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your service!
> | "Google is your Friend!"
> | www.google.com
> |
> | ***********************************************
>
>
 
G

Guest

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

Not going to argue with you Dave, but I in fact have an NT 4.0 Server here
with SP6, and the primary partition is 20GB. It has been that way since day
one, when I set it up back 1999/2000 sometime?

--
Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your service!
"Google is your Friend!"
www.google.com

***********************************************

"Dave Patrick" <mail@Nospam.DSPatrick.com> wrote in message
news:eJYQOtGDFHA.628@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> The 1024 cylinder limit for the Windows NT system partition is regardless
of
> service pack level.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
> Microsoft Certified Professional
> Microsoft MVP [Windows]
> http://www.microsoft.com/protect
>
> "Admiral Q" wrote:
> | What SP? Prior to SP5, the primary partition had to be 8GB or less than
> | 1024 cylinders.
> |
> | --
> | Star Fleet Admiral Q @ your service!
> | "Google is your Friend!"
> | www.google.com
> |
> | ***********************************************
>
>
 
G

Guest

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

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

John

Dave Patrick wrote:

> Two completely separate issues. The first article deals with Windows NT's
> standard IDE driver being able to recognize drives larger then ~ 8gB While
> the second article deals with bios int13 calls. Windows 2000/XP/2003 are
> also at risk on a machine that might have BIOS INT-13 extensions turned off
> (third article for reference).
>
> Installing Windows NT on a Large IDE Hard Disk
> ;197667]http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];197667
>
>
>
> Windows NT 4.0 Supports Maximum of 7.8-GB System Partition
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q224526
>
>
>
> Setup Does Not Check for INT-13 Extensions Before Creating System Partition
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q240672
>
>
 

Calvin

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2004
372
0
18,780
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup (More info?)

Hi Dave,

I think I'd give up on trying to instruct this person - it is obvious from the
arrogant tone being taken that he THINKS he knows it all - attempting to educate
such people is an exercise in futility :-(

We know we are right - he'll find out the day his grand scheme comes unraveled !

Calvin.
 
G

Guest

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

Hi Calvin
I think you and John are probably correct. One solution to the 7.8 gB system
partition issue might be to install a Windows 2000 boot sector. But then
this would also depend on the mobo bios supporting INT-13 extensions.

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Calvin" wrote:
| Hi Dave,
|
| I think I'd give up on trying to instruct this person - it is obvious from
the
| arrogant tone being taken that he THINKS he knows it all - attempting to
educate
| such people is an exercise in futility :-(
|
| We know we are right - he'll find out the day his grand scheme comes
unraveled !
|
| Calvin.
 
G

Guest

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

Calvin wrote:
>
> I think I'd give up on trying to instruct this person - it is obvious from the
> arrogant tone being taken that he THINKS he knows it all - attempting to educate
> such people is an exercise in futility :-(

I hope I don't heat up this discussion again, but the initial topic of this
thread is rather interesting:

---> STOP 0x0000003E <---

If you google around you'll find that there are really some people who cannot
install NT4 on some P4-systems, on the other hand there are lot who can. Two
things are discussed, AFAIR: Hyperthreading and the Prescott core. It is clear
that NT4 cannot handle hyperthreading but is not clear why it cannot handle the
Prescott core (if this is really the issue). It seems that it does not accept
the
CPU ID!? There was a similar(?) problem with NT 3.1 and 3.5 and >=
PII-Processors and only the setup.inf and initial.inf had to be modified.
Or maybe it is the HAL....?

Anyway, this topic seems really interesting to a lot of people, especially those
who (still) love NT4, ;-).
- and there are only few discussions about.

....

Concerning the "7.8 GB" - discussion:

Yes, no question "Windows NT 4.0 supports maximum of 7.8-GB system partition".
Nevertheless, there seems to be some truth in the statement of your opponent.

This very same article states:
"If the Boot.ini file uses the multi()
syntax for locating the boot partition, NTLDR uses the INT13
interface to load the HAL, the kernel, and boot-start device
drivers. In this case, these files must reside within the 7.8 GB
addressable range of the INT13 interface. If the Boot.ini file
uses scsi() syntax to find the boot partition, then a file named
Ntbootdd.sys should exist on the system partition. This file is
simply a renamed copy of the disk controller driver. In this
case, NTLDR uses the Ntbootdd.sys driver to access the disk
when loading the HAL, kernel, and boot-start device drivers.
The addressable area of the disk is determined by this driver."

In other words: in the scsi()-case only the boot.ini and Ntbootdd.sys needs to
be reachable by the INT13 if Ntbootdd.sys (here: atapi.sys) does not use INT13
itself. If you were going to install NT4 on a HDD (let's say 2 partitions 2 GB
(boot) and > 8 GB (system) using the updated atapi.sys NT4 would AFAIK install
using the scsi() syntax itself.
I believe to have heard that this would really overcome the "7.8 GB" !? And if
not - why not?

Stephan
 
G

Guest

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

Karl-Stephan Werkmeister wrote:
>
> [...] If you were going to install NT4 on a HDD (let's say 2 partitions 2 GB
> (boot) and > 8 GB (system) using the updated atapi.sys NT4 would AFAIK install
> using the scsi() syntax itself.
[...]

Arghh, I always get mixed up between "boot" and "system".

MS (again cited from KB224526):
"The system partition is defined as the partition containing the files needed
for the initial system startup."
"A boot partition is defined as the partition containing the system files."

(Could anybody explain me why the partion the system files resides is called
"boot partition" an the partion the computer boots from is called "system
partition" ? - ;-) )

So of course, I meant it the other way round...

Stephan
 
G

Guest

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

Now I'm absolutely confused. Karl-Stephan Werkmeister just threw a real
monkey wrench in there "...cited from KB224526."

If you ask me the only way to install NT4 is on a FAT16 2gig partition.
And if you have problems with NT4 look to W95 for clues. Lost as all
hell... no,,, confused entirely...

John

Dave Patrick wrote:

> Hi Calvin
> I think you and John are probably correct. One solution to the 7.8 gB system
> partition issue might be to install a Windows 2000 boot sector. But then
> this would also depend on the mobo bios supporting INT-13 extensions.
>
 

Calvin

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2004
372
0
18,780
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup (More info?)

Hi Stephan,

Karl-Stephan Werkmeister wrote:

> (Could anybody explain me why the partion the system files resides is called
> "boot partition" an the partion the computer boots from is called "system
> partition" ? - ;-) )

I believe the nomenclature is a throw back to the days on NT running on RISC
platforms. The RISC systems (from what I remember) don't need ntdetect.com (and
IIRC ntldr. either) so there is is no 'System Partition' on this platform, only
a 'Boot Partition' which the system DOES BOOT from.

The 'System' partition and the associated files are a x86 'add-on' to allow for
the fact that this type of hardware doesn't store startup information in the
machine NVRAM.

I'm pretty sure all this history is covered somewhere in one of the 'Resource
Kits' from Microsoft.

Calvin.
 

Calvin

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2004
372
0
18,780
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup (More info?)

Hi John,

REAL confusing ain't it :)

see my post earlier about how the nomenclature of 'System' and 'Boot' partitions
came into existence. KB100525 - Definition of System and Boot Partition is
Microsoft's attempt at clarifying this issue - frankly I think the effort is
poor and the clarity about that of mud !

I always just point people to my 'Big Disk' page at
http://nt4ref.zcm.com.au/bigdisk.htm and suggest they read it - I think I have
most of the points regarding this issue covered, but of course I always welcome
feedback from anyone who has ideas to improve the content :)

I know the approach on my page works correctly, is guaranteed to keep working,
and provides best flexibility on a machine for development and recovery.

Calvin.
 
G

Guest

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

The whole thing is going whoosh in my head! Time for puff! Ahh... that
is much better now...

I think that NT4 is a FAT16 Operating System and I think that it should
stay and reside and be installed on a FAT16 file system. I don't
believe that an NT4 installation should be converted to NTFS.

From its FAT16 base NT4 can handle the whole show, including large
disks and NTFS file systems... Now time for another puff...

John

Calvin wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> REAL confusing ain't it :)
>
> see my post earlier about how the nomenclature of 'System' and 'Boot'
> partitions came into existence. KB100525 - Definition of System and Boot
> Partition is Microsoft's attempt at clarifying this issue - frankly I
> think the effort is poor and the clarity about that of mud !
>
> I always just point people to my 'Big Disk' page at
> http://nt4ref.zcm.com.au/bigdisk.htm and suggest they read it - I think
> I have most of the points regarding this issue covered, but of course I
> always welcome feedback from anyone who has ideas to improve the content
> :)
>
> I know the approach on my page works correctly, is guaranteed to keep
> working, and provides best flexibility on a machine for development and
> recovery.
>
> Calvin.
 

Calvin

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2004
372
0
18,780
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup (More info?)

Hi Dave,

I've seen people in the newsgroups here actually suggesting that you can use a
'borrowed' copy of NTDetect.com and NTLdr. from Win2k.

From my understanding of the problem, it is the limitations of the code in the
NT4 NTLdr. that actually causes the 7.8GB barrier problems for NT4 boot, and the
Win2k NTLdr. has been rewritten to bypass this barrier, using INT-13 Extensions
as you mentioned.

The boot sector, as far as I know, is basically the same on NT4 or Win2k - one
would really expect it would be, the boot process is still calling the same
files and doing basically exactly the same tasks.

Calvin.
 
G

Guest

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

Yes, I really meant all-inclusive when I said "boot sector"

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Calvin" wrote:
| Hi Dave,
|
| I've seen people in the newsgroups here actually suggesting that you can
use a
| 'borrowed' copy of NTDetect.com and NTLdr. from Win2k.
|
| From my understanding of the problem, it is the limitations of the code in
the
| NT4 NTLdr. that actually causes the 7.8GB barrier problems for NT4 boot,
and the
| Win2k NTLdr. has been rewritten to bypass this barrier, using INT-13
Extensions
| as you mentioned.
|
| The boot sector, as far as I know, is basically the same on NT4 or Win2k -
one
| would really expect it would be, the boot process is still calling the
same
| files and doing basically exactly the same tasks.
|
| Calvin.
 

Calvin

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2004
372
0
18,780
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup (More info?)

Hi John,

the only reason I suggest that the Boot partition be NTFS is to get the
advantage of being able to secure the OS files, whereas of course, FAT16 offers
no security.

It really probably is paranoia on my part however, and the downside of a NTFS
boot partition is it is harder to manually replace/modify an OS file from a
MSDOS boot/recovery situation.

My way around this problem is I have a minimalist 'parallel' NT4 installation on
a Syquest removable media HDD cartridge, which I can boot to if required, and
then access any/all the partitions on my system, but obviously, such 'tricks'
may not be available to a lot of people.

As the old saying goes, 'more than one way to skin a cat :)'

Calvin.
 
G

Guest

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

Yeah, but for the NTFS security part anyone can boot to NTFS DOS anyway
so no real big issue there. Whether or not on NTFS the SAM still
controls logons to the installation and that can be cracked with offline
password tools. The only issue that I see with having NT4 installation
on FAT16 is disk space, one has to keep an eye on the drive and keep
junk off of it. Interesting discussion though on the very basics of NT4
and large disk installations.

John

Calvin wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> the only reason I suggest that the Boot partition be NTFS is to get the
> advantage of being able to secure the OS files, whereas of course, FAT16
> offers no security.
>
> It really probably is paranoia on my part however, and the downside of a
> NTFS boot partition is it is harder to manually replace/modify an OS
> file from a MSDOS boot/recovery situation.
>
> My way around this problem is I have a minimalist 'parallel' NT4
> installation on a Syquest removable media HDD cartridge, which I can
> boot to if required, and then access any/all the partitions on my
> system, but obviously, such 'tricks' may not be available to a lot of
> people.
>
> As the old saying goes, 'more than one way to skin a cat :)'
>
> Calvin.
 

Calvin

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2004
372
0
18,780
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup (More info?)

Hi Stephan,

I meant to reply to this post of yours the other day, and got caught up in other
things and forgot :-(


> ---> STOP 0x0000003E <---
>
> If you google around you'll find that there are really some people who cannot
> install NT4 on some P4-systems, on the other hand there are lot who can. Two
> things are discussed, AFAIR: Hyperthreading and the Prescott core. It is clear
> that NT4 cannot handle hyperthreading but is not clear why it cannot handle the
> Prescott core (if this is really the issue). It seems that it does not accept
> the
> CPU ID!? There was a similar(?) problem with NT 3.1 and 3.5 and >=
> PII-Processors and only the setup.inf and initial.inf had to be modified.
> Or maybe it is the HAL....?
>
> Anyway, this topic seems really interesting to a lot of people, especially those
> who (still) love NT4, ;-).
> - and there are only few discussions about.
There has been ongoing discussion for quite a while on this topic - though I
don't think it has really EVER drawn to any usable and verifiable conclusions.

My understanding is that the P4 processor is fine PROVIDED Hyperthreading is
disabled. The Prescott core is a complete unknown at this stage, I haven't heard
any comments for or against it. The other factor is Motherboard Chipsets. I have
heard conflicting reports with Intel Chipsets from 865 and later, some stating
NT4 will run on motherboards based on this technology, while other say it will
not - all very confusing. Unfortunately I don't have the funds to go buy a
whole heap of this latest hardware to conduct real-life experiments to prove or
disprove all these theories :-(

> Concerning the "7.8 GB" - discussion:
>
> Yes, no question "Windows NT 4.0 supports maximum of 7.8-GB system partition".
> Nevertheless, there seems to be some truth in the statement of your opponent.
>
> This very same article states:
> "If the Boot.ini file uses the multi()
> syntax for locating the boot partition, NTLDR uses the INT13
> interface to load the HAL, the kernel, and boot-start device
> drivers. In this case, these files must reside within the 7.8 GB
> addressable range of the INT13 interface. If the Boot.ini file
> uses scsi() syntax to find the boot partition, then a file named
> Ntbootdd.sys should exist on the system partition. This file is
> simply a renamed copy of the disk controller driver. In this
> case, NTLDR uses the Ntbootdd.sys driver to access the disk
> when loading the HAL, kernel, and boot-start device drivers.
> The addressable area of the disk is determined by this driver."
>
> In other words: in the scsi()-case only the boot.ini and Ntbootdd.sys needs to
> be reachable by the INT13 if Ntbootdd.sys (here: atapi.sys) does not use INT13
> itself. If you were going to install NT4 on a HDD (let's say 2 partitions 2 GB
> (boot) and > 8 GB (system) using the updated atapi.sys NT4 would AFAIK install
> using the scsi() syntax itself.
> I believe to have heard that this would really overcome the "7.8 GB" !? And if
> not - why not?
>
> Stephan
>

An interesting suggestion - I can't say I've ever heard of anyone trying using
the SCSI() syntax with IDE hardware and using atapi.sys as ntbootdd.sys - it
would be interesting to try it and see if it will work - I have my doubts though.

What this passage was trying to say (I think) is that the 7.8GB barrier is only
an issue on IDE hardware - SCSI hardware is unaffected because the boot
partition is accessed using the SCSI card driver (ntbootdd.sys) which doesn't
run into the CHS addressing issues that the IDE boot sequence does.

Calvin.