Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

Faster Startup For Windows 2000?

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#51
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 841 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Thanks again James.
Yes, Ranish is a DOS program.
If you run it in Windows 2000 it just prompts you to copy it to a floppy and boot from that.
I just booted into "command prompt only" DOS mode (which I can do as I have Windows 98 installed of course) and used it from there.

With regard to "installing the latest OS last" of course that wasn't the case with my system, which was Windows 98 only for years and then had Windows 2000 added.
"the xt guy" seemed to be saying that Windows 98 has to be first as that has to go on the C: drive and won't work on the D: drive. This implies that it isn't possible to add Windows 98 to a Windows 2000 system, as two operating systems can't share the same partition and therefore 98 can't go on the C: drive as 2000 is already there!
I'm getting really confused........
:wacko:
Now I just wish I knew why the first stage of Windows 2000 startup is taking even longer than it did before.
:no:

Edited by Dave-H, 02 October 2008 - 05:31 AM.

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#52
James_A

James_A

     

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Joined 23-December 07
For "install the latest OS last" I think all three of us are saying the same thing, just using different words:
1. Windows 98 first
2. Windows 2000 second

#53
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 841 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

For "install the latest OS last" I think all three of us are saying the same thing, just using different words:
1. Windows 98 first
2. Windows 2000 second

Yes indeed, sorry of course you were quite right!
The order that my operating systems were installed in is the "correct" one.
:blushing:
I just wonder if it is actually possible for a dual boot system to work correctly if Windows 98 is on drive D: and Windows 2000 on drive C:.
There is a MS KB acticle which actually goes into this -
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283433
:)

Edited by Dave-H, 03 October 2008 - 01:37 PM.

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#54
DosFreak

DosFreak

    Newbie

  • Member
  • 18 posts
  • Joined 16-June 07

For "install the latest OS last" I think all three of us are saying the same thing, just using different words:
1. Windows 98 first
2. Windows 2000 second

Yes indeed, sorry of course you were quite right!
The order that my operating systems were installed in is the "correct" one.
:blushing:
I just wonder if it is actually possible for a dual boot system to work correctly if Windows 98 is on drive D: and Windows 2000 on drive C:.
There is a MS KB acticle which actually goes into this -
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283433
:)



You can you just need to make sure that C: is FAT16/FAT32.

Used to do it all the time with 9X/NT4/2000 back in 1999/2000.

#55
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 841 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

You can you just need to make sure that C: is FAT16/FAT32.

Used to do it all the time with 9X/NT4/2000 back in 1999/2000.

Yes, I realise of course that I can't use NTFS if I want Windows 98 to read the drives.
Really good to know that you have had systems with Windows 2000 on the C: drive and Windows 98 on the D: drive though.
Thanks very much!
:thumbup

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#56
CaptainStacks

CaptainStacks

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 97 posts
  • Joined 31-July 07
Can I too get the Windows 2003 startup files for even faster starts?

I've read through the topic and I haven't found an available download.
"When we don't know who to hate, we hate ourselves." Chuck Palahniuk

#57
the xt guy

the xt guy

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Joined 19-July 06
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

For about three years (2002-2005) I had my primary computer dual booting Win2K and Win98. I used fdisk to divide the (blank) HD into two equal partitions. I installed Win 98 on one partition. Then I installed Win2K on the second partition. WhenWin2K was installed, it saw the installation of 98 and made a dual-boot loader where I could choose which OS to runa at bootup.

The Win2K partition was formatted as NTFS and the 98 partition was FAT32. When Win2K was booted, it saw itself as Drive C and the Win98 as Drive D. When Win98 was booted, it saw itself as Drive C and did not see the 2K installation at all.

The drive letters assigned between the two systems were not consistent. On 2K, my D drive was the 98 installation and the E drive was a CD-ROM.

On 98 my 2K was ignored since it was NTFS, so my CD-ROM became Drive D. My other hard and optical drives past letter D were also not consistent between 98 and 2K.

When you install Win 98, it's going to ask you where you want it to install it. Your only option will be whatever Win98 sees as 'Drive C'. If you already have Win2K installed (as NTFS) on a hard drive (taking up all the space on that drive) Win 98 will see that drive as unformatted. It doesn't matter if Win2K calls that drive 'C' while you are running win2K. To Win98 it is an unformatted drive. If you insist on using that drive, Win 98 will have to use fdisk and then completely format the drive to FAT32. Everything will be wiped off the disk, including your Win2K bootloader. Obviously you don't want that!

You will have to use a third party tool to shrink the 2K partition and free up some space on the drive.

Win98 can't see or understand 2K's bootloader. If you are installing it on the same drive as 2K (with a free partition to install to) it can install itself in that partition but will wipe 2K's bootloader off the drive and install its own. Then you will not be able to get into 2K. To correct that, you must start the 2K installation from the CD and choose the 'repair' option. That will reinstall the 2K boot loader. Assuming the two OS'es are on the same physical drive, Win2K should see that and create a dual boot system.

I don't know for certain if 2K will be able to do that if you have 98 and 2K installed on two physically seperate drives. It probably will, but I can't say for certain since I've never tried it.

Everything I've ever read and experienced says that Win98 must see itself as being installed on and then running on Drive C. While a different OS is running it may assign the Win98 drive as a different letter, but when you boot 98, it will be C again.

Drive letters will be reassigned between operating systems if necessary.

If you install 2K on a FAT32 partition then 98 should be able to see it. However, Microsoft's tools will not allow you to make a FAT32 partition larger than 32 gb (you will have to use third party tools for that.) Also Win 98, without special third party patches, cannot use IDE hard drives bigger than 137gb.

Edited by the xt guy, 09 October 2008 - 01:51 PM.


#58
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 841 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Can I too get the Windows 2003 startup files for even faster starts?

I've read through the topic and I haven't found an available download.

There you are -

NTLDR
NTDETECT.COM

Right click and "Save Target As" please!
Let us know what difference these files make.
They are from Windows Server 2003.
:)

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#59
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 841 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

For about three years (2002-2005) I had my primary computer dual booting Win2K and Win98. I used fdisk to divide the (blank) HD into two equal partitions. I installed Win 98 on one partition. Then I installed Win2K on the second partition. WhenWin2K was installed, it saw the installation of 98 and made a dual-boot loader where I could choose which OS to runa at bootup.
<snip>
If you install 2K on a FAT32 partition then 98 should be able to see it. However, Microsoft's tools will not allow you to make a FAT32 partition larger than 32 gb (you will have to use third party tools for that.) Also Win 98, without special third party patches, cannot use IDE hard drives bigger than 137gb.

Thanks very much for all that!
:thumbup
I have never used NTFS partitions, but the general principles of what you did are similar to what I want to do.

I am now pretty convinced that the reason why the later Windows start-up files will not work for me is fundamentally because my Windows 2000 installation is not on the C: drive.
I certainly don't want the drive letter allocations to be different on my two operating systems.

From what several people have said, Windows 98 will not work unless it is on the C: drive, so it looks as if there's nothing I can do to resolve this. I will just have to put up with the "as designed" Windows 2000 boot speed.
:(
I would be very interested to hear from anyone who has got this to work on a dual boot system, and what the configuration of that system actually is.

Glad that at least I've flagged this option to people generally, as several people have reported that their boot times have significantly improved by using later files, whatever the theory may say!

I did get my initial startup back to as it was before BTW, by repairing the MBR using the Repair Console.
It didn't make any difference on the first reboot, but after that it was back to as it was before.
Thanks all.
Cheers, Dave.
:)

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#60
Ascii2

Ascii2

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 427 posts
  • Joined 31-December 06
I have tested using boot files from Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 1 (the Windows XP version that most closely resembles Windows 2000 Professional with Service Pack 4) on Windows 2000 Professional with Service Pack 4 on computers of many hardware configurations (different hard disks, motherboards, BIOS, hard disk interfaces, etc.). All computers used C: as the system partition and were configured in boot.ini using the Multi method.

The result was that most (roughly 75%) computers running Windows 2000 Professional with Service Pack 4 were able to boot using Windows XP boot files; others were not.

In conclusion, the Windows XP boot files are not able to boot Windows 2000 on any hardware/BIOS configuration by simply replacing the boot files manually (therefore the files themselves are not fully compatible). It may be possible (untested) to use Windows setup or recovery console to write boot files, or make necessary adjustment to other related files so Windows 2000 operation system may be boot with Windows XP boot files.

@Dave-H:
It may be possible to still get Windows XP boot files to work on your computer if Windows XP setup is run and completed through Textmode. After that the Windows installation need not continue. Windows 2000 may be boot, boot.ini may be edited to remove the information for Windows XP and set another Windows version for default, and Windows XP System directory may be deleted. You should then have Windows 2000 Professional booting with Windows XP boot files.

#61
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 841 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Thanks for that Ascii2.
It is odd that some computers work with this and others don't.
I wonder what the common factor is in those that don't work.

I can lay my hands on a Windows XP (SP2) installation disk, so I might give your suggestion a try.
What do you mean by "completed through Textmode"?
:)

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#62
Ascii2

Ascii2

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 427 posts
  • Joined 31-December 06

I wonder what the common factor is in those that don't work.

Those that do not need neen not have anything in common; however, those that do work may requie something or a condition true from a set of things to be common. I believe that at least a single Windows registry hive information may be adjusted to allow the compatibility for the booltoader, but what exactly I am unsure (I would guess something from the SYSTEM or SYSTEM.alt hive).

What do you mean by "completed through Textmode"?

The fist phase of Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 (maybe NT4 also) setup is known as Textmode. During Textmode, options to partition may be available, setup files are copied to system directory, and the End User Licence agreement may be accepted. The text mode is mostly blue in color and is composed entirely of ASCII or extended ASCII characters.

You should complete Windows XP Textmode part of Windows setup. Once completed the Windows XP boot files should be used; the rest of setup (Windows GUI-like setup) need not be run.

Edited by Ascii2, 15 November 2008 - 04:16 PM.


#63
Ascii2

Ascii2

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 427 posts
  • Joined 31-December 06
This post is an error. Please refer to the preceding post.

Edited by Ascii2, 15 November 2008 - 04:14 PM.


#64
Ascii2

Ascii2

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 427 posts
  • Joined 31-December 06
It appears that NTLDR may have bugs that prevent it from correctly loading Windows. Also, it seams that different versions of other files used to boot the computer have different versions (bugs).

An example of a KB article with a patch for NTLDR:

http://support.micro...om/?kbid=328269

EDIT: Removed first line of this post (was previously posted truncated)

Edited by Ascii2, 10 February 2009 - 11:35 PM.


#65
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 841 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

The reason why some of my tests mentioned earlier in this thread did

It appears that NTLDR may have bugs that prevent it from correctly loading Windows. Also, it seams that different versions of other files used to boot the computer have different versions (bugs).

An example of a KB article with a patch for NTLDR:

http://support.micro...om/?kbid=328269

Wow, I didn't think this thread would come back to life!
Thanks for the additional information Ascii2.

I tried downloading that MS patch, but the NTLDR file in it produced exactly the same result on my system, it wouldn't boot, with an error message about the registry "SYSTEM" file being missing or corrupted.
Reading the KB article, it does sound like exactly the same symptoms though.

I will try to borrow a Windows XP disk and try your suggested method of doing just the first part of the setup.
BTW when you were describing that, were you were talking about running setup from within Windows 2000, or booting from the Windows XP CD?
It won't run from a command prompt.
I also assume that you would select to do a separate install, not an upgrade, or it will overwrite the Windows 2000 files!

I'm not quite ready to give up on this yet..........
:)

Edited by Dave-H, 06 February 2009 - 09:15 AM.

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#66
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 841 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag
Another update.
Tried out Ascii2's suggestion of going through the first stage of a Windows XP install.
Unfortunately, no go.
:no:
Everything went as it should, and I aborted the install at the first reboot stage.
I now had Windows XP in the OS startup list from boot.ini, and XP setup was ready to do the GUI stages.
Unfortunately, when I tried to run Windows 2000, immediately back came the "Windows could not start because the following file is missing or corrupt \WIN-NT\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM" message.
So, no difference I'm afraid.

This is now even more puzzling, as it seems from this that if I really wanted to install Windows XP and have a triple boot system, I would no longer be able to run Windows 2000, which surely I should be able to do.

Does this mean that in this scenario I would have to put the Windows 2000 startup files back and boot XP with them?!
Surely not!

I'm now thinking of asking MS about this, as although they don't give any free support for Windows 2000 now, they should still support XP, and I can submit the question as a Windows XP support query, because dual booting 2000 and XP should surely be possible. If installing XP makes 2000 inacessible that needs to be sorted out.

So, back where I started I'm afraid...............
:(

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#67
cluberti

cluberti

    Gustatus similis pullus

  • Supervisor
  • 11,252 posts
  • Joined 09-September 01
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Another update.
Tried out Ascii2's suggestion of going through the first stage of a Windows XP install.
Unfortunately, no go.
:no:
Everything went as it should, and I aborted the install at the first reboot stage.
I now had Windows XP in the OS startup list from boot.ini, and XP setup was ready to do the GUI stages.
Unfortunately, when I tried to run Windows 2000, immediately back came the "Windows could not start because the following file is missing or corrupt \WIN-NT\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM" message.
So, no difference I'm afraid.

This is now even more puzzling, as it seems from this that if I really wanted to install Windows XP and have a triple boot system, I would no longer be able to run Windows 2000, which surely I should be able to do.

Does this mean that in this scenario I would have to put the Windows 2000 startup files back and boot XP with them?!
Surely not!

I'm now thinking of asking MS about this, as although they don't give any free support for Windows 2000 now, they should still support XP, and I can submit the question as a Windows XP support query, because dual booting 2000 and XP should surely be possible. If installing XP makes 2000 inacessible that needs to be sorted out.

So, back where I started I'm afraid...............
:(

You might want to do it soon - free support cases for XP will end on April 14th of this year.
MCTS Windows Internals, MCITP Server 2008 EA, MCTS MDT/BDD, MCSE/MCSA Server 2003, Server 2012, Windows 8
--------------------
Please read the rules before posting!
Please consider donating to MSFN to keep it up and running!

#68
uid0

uid0

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 357 posts
  • Joined 12-June 06
I doubt they'll be interested in helping with a frankenbuild though :)

#69
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 841 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

You might want to do it soon - free support cases for XP will end on April 14th of this year.

Ah, thanks for the warning!
:)

I doubt they'll be interested in helping with a frankenbuild though :)

Well, it might be a bit of a "frankenbuild" but multibooting Windows XP with other MS OSs should certainly be supported, so I'm not asking for anything particularly non-standard!
:)

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#70
cluberti

cluberti

    Gustatus similis pullus

  • Supervisor
  • 11,252 posts
  • Joined 09-September 01
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
Assuming W2K was installed before XP, they should work (I just did this in a VM). If it's complaining about the registry when booting W2K (and it is), a repair install of 2K should potentially fix it, although not sure what it'll do to your boot.ini.
MCTS Windows Internals, MCITP Server 2008 EA, MCTS MDT/BDD, MCSE/MCSA Server 2003, Server 2012, Windows 8
--------------------
Please read the rules before posting!
Please consider donating to MSFN to keep it up and running!

#71
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 841 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Assuming W2K was installed before XP, they should work (I just did this in a VM). If it's complaining about the registry when booting W2K (and it is), a repair install of 2K should potentially fix it, although not sure what it'll do to your boot.ini.

I know exactly what it will do, as I tried it so see if it would get Windows 2000 working again.
It puts the Windows 2000 startup files back again!
This fixed the problem, but of course Windows 2000 was back exactly as it was before, with a slow startup.
What it would have done to Windows XP I don't know, as I didn't let the XP install complete.
Quite possibly it would have made Windows XP start up just as slowly!
So it looks horribly as if Windows XP will boot with the Windows 2000 files, but Windows 2000 won't boot with the XP files, at least not on my system.
Of course if you trawl back in this thread, you'll see that using the XP files HAS worked for quite a few people.
I just wish that I could figure out why it works on some machines but not others.
I'm not 100% sure that anyone else with a dual boot machine has got it to work.
I would be very interested to know if that was the case.
:)

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#72
Colonel O'Neill

Colonel O'Neill

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 256 posts
  • Joined 22-July 08
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Unfortunately, when I tried to run Windows 2000, immediately back came the "Windows could not start because the following file is missing or corrupt \WIN-NT\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM" message.


I think you can use recovery console and do this:
EDIT: Or another OS. That works too.

Rename the \WIN-NT\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM file to SYSTEM.BAD
Copy the \WIN-NT\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM.ALT file to SYSTEM

This restores an older copy of the System hive and might fix it. That error occurs occasionally to my Windows 2000 and I would just have to change it to the ALT version and everything would be fine.

Edited by Colonel O'Neill, 09 February 2009 - 06:45 PM.

T400: 7x86
X100e: 7x86, 2008R2 (in progress), 2000 (in progress).

#73
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 841 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Unfortunately, when I tried to run Windows 2000, immediately back came the "Windows could not start because the following file is missing or corrupt \WIN-NT\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM" message.


I think you can use recovery console and do this:
EDIT: Or another OS. That works too.

Rename the \WIN-NT\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM file to SYSTEM.BAD
Copy the \WIN-NT\SYSTEM32\CONFIG\SYSTEM.ALT file to SYSTEM

This restores an older copy of the System hive and might fix it. That error occurs occasionally to my Windows 2000 and I would just have to change it to the ALT version and everything would be fine.

Thanks for that, I could actually do that in Windows 98 as I am dual boot.
:yes:
Unfortunately the problem isn't that the registry is corrupted in any way (or any files missing!)
:no:
What's happening (I think) is that on my machine for some reason if I have the NTLDR file from any other NT OS version except the original 2000 one in my C:\ folder, the system will not start because it's doing something that it shouldn't with the registry files. There isn't actually anything wrong with them, in fact if I put the original NTLDR file back without doing anything else everything comes good again.
It is a mystery, because as I've discovered through this thread, it works on some machines and not others.
:)

Edited by Dave-H, 10 February 2009 - 08:28 AM.

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. ATI Radeon X850 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#74
Ascii2

Ascii2

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 427 posts
  • Joined 31-December 06
@Dave-H

If Master File Table or registry hive fragmentation is not great on your system (documented problems for the boot loader), the problem your are having would seem to be a bug in the Windows XP boot loader or other files involved in the boot process.

Try calling Microsoft Corporation at its hotfixes phone number.

State that you followed the directions from KB315233 or KB283433 and could not get your computer to dual boot. Also state that you attempted to overwrite boot files from hotfixes (such as fromKB892627) and that it did not fix the problem. Then ask if a hotfix exists to fix the problem. If one does not, you will probably be offered a case to fix the problem (what you want).

EDIT: If you call Microsoft Support, talk only to male agents (call back if you receive a female agent).

Edited by Ascii2, 11 February 2009 - 04:52 PM.


#75
Ascii2

Ascii2

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 427 posts
  • Joined 31-December 06

I will try to borrow a Windows XP disk and try your suggested method of doing just the first part of the setup.
BTW when you were describing that, were you were talking about running setup from within Windows 2000, or booting from the Windows XP CD?

Booting from the Windows XP CD.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users