Windows won't start

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 06:13:01 -0700, Chris A. wrote:

> When I run chkdsk, I get a message saying I should use Scandisk and that no
> drives have been checked. I have downloaded other versions of chkdsk but get
> the same result.
>
> Nevertheless, I ran Scandisk on ALL my drives. No errors.
>
> Is there another way to run chkdsk? Would it make any difference?

Scandisk is just Win9x' tool for checking the disk.

I know that you have recently installed new hardware to replace broken but
am beginning to wonder if you still have a hardware problem that needs to
be resolved. Running setup and getting a successful start in XP shouldn't
be this difficult.

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows Shell/User
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

Hi Sharon

Just thought I would let you know that you were absolutley right about the
hardware problem. I seem to have got everything sorted today.

But I have to own up and not sound like a bad workman blaming his tools! For
the benefit of any others who might learn from my situation, I will briefly
explain.

When I replaced my motherboard, I mistakenly connected Drive 1 and Drive 2
in the wrong order to the ribbon cable. Had I noticed at the time, I would
probably have thought nothing about it as I was using a master/slave
configuration rather than cable select. My false impression was compounded by
the fact that Windows 98 would install and run happily despite my error.
Windows XP, obviously, is not so tolerant!

Five minutes swopping the order in which the drives were connected to the
cable, and 25 minutes installing XP and everthings seems to be fine.

I am, nevertheless, grateful for for your support - and I now know a great
deal more about XP than before. Thanks again.

Chris.

"Sharon F" wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 06:13:01 -0700, Chris A. wrote:
>
> > When I run chkdsk, I get a message saying I should use Scandisk and that no
> > drives have been checked. I have downloaded other versions of chkdsk but get
> > the same result.
> >
> > Nevertheless, I ran Scandisk on ALL my drives. No errors.
> >
> > Is there another way to run chkdsk? Would it make any difference?
>
> Scandisk is just Win9x' tool for checking the disk.
>
> I know that you have recently installed new hardware to replace broken but
> am beginning to wonder if you still have a hardware problem that needs to
> be resolved. Running setup and getting a successful start in XP shouldn't
> be this difficult.
>
> --
> Sharon F
> MS-MVP ~ Windows Shell/User
>
 
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 10:52:03 -0700, Chris A. wrote:

> Hi Sharon
>
> Just thought I would let you know that you were absolutley right about the
> hardware problem. I seem to have got everything sorted today.
>
> But I have to own up and not sound like a bad workman blaming his tools! For
> the benefit of any others who might learn from my situation, I will briefly
> explain.
>
> When I replaced my motherboard, I mistakenly connected Drive 1 and Drive 2
> in the wrong order to the ribbon cable. Had I noticed at the time, I would
> probably have thought nothing about it as I was using a master/slave
> configuration rather than cable select. My false impression was compounded by
> the fact that Windows 98 would install and run happily despite my error.
> Windows XP, obviously, is not so tolerant!
>
> Five minutes swopping the order in which the drives were connected to the
> cable, and 25 minutes installing XP and everthings seems to be fine.
>
> I am, nevertheless, grateful for for your support - and I now know a great
> deal more about XP than before. Thanks again.

Hi, Chris. Thanks for posting back with the results of your
troubleshooting. It must have been a relief to find out the solution was a
simple adjustment. You're right, XP is not as tolerant as Win9x about
hardware. This has its pluses in added stability but can be challenging in
getting everything setup.

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows Shell/User