[vipejc]

Tripredacus, on 25 March 2011 - 07:48 AM, said:

Why exactly are you opposed to a repair install? I had done a repair install on my old XP system and it saved all settings and everything was exactly the same. I even had used the wrong media type to do the reinstall so I only had to activate Windows and it was just like before.

Because an in-place upgrade requires reinstalling all Service Packs and Windows' updates.

[jaclaz]

vipejc, on 24 March 2011 - 10:48 AM, said:

Jaclaz, my motherboard failed and I don't have a backup system. I want to set my XP installation to use Windows' Standard Dual Channel PCI IDE Controller and change the HAL, without reinstalling or performing an in-place repair. Is this possible using BartPE or any other tools?

About the IDE, yes, it is possible, and you have been told how to do it.
About the HAL it is also possible, but depending on the actual "before" HAL and "after" HAL it may be tricky.
I would rather use the BOOT.INI capabilities of "forcing" a HAL - at least for testing.
As cdob pointed out other drivers (essentially the chipset ones) may get in the way.

My personal advice is:

• I think everything is possible
  
• what you want to do though possible is VERY complex (and prone to problems)
  
• if you are doing it in order to "save" your previous install it would be much easier to buy (used) a motherboard identical to the one you have
  
• if you are doing this for fun/research it is allright, if not ANY other solution, the above or the "in place upgrade one" will be faster ad safer
  
• In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

jaclaz

[erpdude8]

vipejc, on 25 March 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

Because an in-place upgrade requires reinstalling all Service Packs and Windows' updates.

uh, not if you can "slipstream" them.
I've also done "repair" installations of XP with integrated/slipstreamed SPs/updates on a few XP computers and I had no huge problems with them.
sure some personal settings may get resetted but it's no big deal.

[submix8c]

erpdude8, on 30 March 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

vipejc, on 25 March 2011 - 10:43 AM, said:

Because an in-place upgrade requires reinstalling all Service Packs and Windows' updates.

uh, not if you can "slipstream" them.
I've also done "repair" installations of XP with integrated/slipstreamed SPs/updates on a few XP computers and I had no huge problems with them.
sure some personal settings may get resetted but it's no big deal.

vipejc wants to not slipstream so as to "keep updates separate from the install". I would, however (with that in mind), go along with slipstreaming the SP3 (if pre-SP3).

[vipejc]

submix8c' timestamp='1301540044' post='961192']

Quote

vipejc wants to not slipstream so as to "keep updates separate from the install". I would, however (with that in mind), go along with slipstreaming the SP3 (if pre-SP3).

No, I want to integrate all XP and other updates that go with XP using nLite and make a master XP install DVD, but that doesn't seem possible, as I've read an integrated update breaks something or the update can't be integrated. I already have an XP CD with SP3 slipstreamed. At this point, I'm just playing the waiting game, and in late 2014 when XP updates are done and the mod makers smooth it all over, that's when I'll do that.

[submix8c]

vipejc, on 31 March 2011 - 11:33 AM, said:

submix8c, on 30 March 2011 - 08:54 PM, said:

vipejc wants to not slipstream so as to "keep updates separate from the install". I would, however (with that in mind), go along with slipstreaming the SP3 (if pre-SP3).

No, I want to integrate all XP and other updates that go with XP using nLite and make a master XP install DVD, but that doesn't seem possible, as I've read an integrated update breaks something or the update can't be integrated. I already have an XP CD with SP3 slipstreamed. At this point, I'm just playing the waiting game, and in late 2014 when XP updates are done and the mod makers smooth it all over, that's when I'll do that.

Uh, uh! nothing "breaks". You just have to do subsequent integrations "fresh" as if done for the first time, not "integrate on top of a previous integration". Fresh only! No Probs! Where did you read "it breaks stuff"? Never seen it...

Have you read nLite instructions? It specifically states "start from untrammeled source" and it's been stated everywhere repeatedly. (sheesh!)

Integrate yes! Re-integrate NO!

(make up my mind... I thought you stated you didn't want to integrate because of all the future updates. is the fear of not being able to integrate future updates the problem? start afresh each time and voila!)

This post has been edited by submix8c: 05 April 2011 - 08:33 PM