I am trying to install fresh win xp on a 160 gb western digital hard drive using a single max partition. Used the WD software to format and partition. When I try to install Win XP, just hangs at windows setup. Also installed new motherboard. Help please!
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations SkipVought on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Installing win xp on a large hard drive (>137 gb)
- Thread starter lmiccolis
- Start date
Read and use this:
Note in doing so:
But very specially note this:
Note in doing so:
But very specially note this:
- Thread starter
- #3
THANK YOU for the quick reply. I read those articles and problem is still I cannot get into the Windows XP setup screen. I believe that it is not finding mass storage drivers for some reason. I chose F6 and it said could not find any. So just hangs after loading files. What the heck do I do to get past that!
Check your jumpers.
It is likely an ATA133 drive an should be set to Drive Select, and be at the end point of the cable with a black end. (Blue end to motherboard, gray end to second drive). The cable should be an 88-pin type, not the original IDE cable.
The BIOS may need for one reboot cycle to be set to re-enable default settings, or ECD setting reset.
The BIOS needs to see the drive.
There is no reason to use F6 with an IDE drive.
It is likely an ATA133 drive an should be set to Drive Select, and be at the end point of the cable with a black end. (Blue end to motherboard, gray end to second drive). The cable should be an 88-pin type, not the original IDE cable.
The BIOS may need for one reboot cycle to be set to re-enable default settings, or ECD setting reset.
The BIOS needs to see the drive.
There is no reason to use F6 with an IDE drive.
- Thread starter
- #6
THANKS AGAIN! But I replaced a 30 gb Western digital with this one. There are no jumpers and other drive worked fine. I originally tried to reinstall win xp on the old 30 gb hard drive because of the motherboard replacement with the same results I'm getting now. Should I use Fdisk and format before using XP. Something is not getting loaded as the install disk proceeds because it hangs. I checked the old 30gb drive with the same win xp install disk, and it goes right through the setup with no problem. I wonder if there is some driver needed because of the new motherboard.
- Thread starter
- #7
RebeccaLynn
Programmer
lmiccolis
Just a thought, but windows seems to run faster if you put it in a partition of it's own. I made a 3gb partition for win xp and get much better performance now.
Becca
Somtimes, the easy answer is the hardest to find.
Still under construction ...
Just a thought, but windows seems to run faster if you put it in a partition of it's own. I made a 3gb partition for win xp and get much better performance now.
Becca
Somtimes, the easy answer is the hardest to find.
Still under construction ...
micker377,
In particular read the third link I provided originally. XP did not provide 48-bit LBA support formally until Service Pack 1, and did not get it right until the hotfix I mention in my original post, link #3.
RebeccaLynn,
I cannot anymore conceive of less than 10 gig for the XP System partition. There are too many programs that will insist on installing on C:\Program Files for at least one reason.
After that I am split as to advice for large drives. I was a slow convert to NTFS everywhere, but can stil be persuaded in a non-network, single-user stand-alone situation that one creates a FAT32 32 gig partition for the system to simplify recovery if there is problems, and NTFS the rest.
If it is a single drive setting, there are no speed differences possible from tricks about using your pagefile in a different volume. This only makes a difference (and it does make a difference) for two or more hard disks.
lmiccolis,
If you are unable to see any of the setup screen booting from the CD:
. Go into your BIOS setup immediately upon startup, and change the Boot Order of devices so that your CD Rom drive is first.
. If that does not work, and your CD is a clean copy both physicly and otherwise, download and create the setup floppy diskette method:
. If you choose to set the primary system partition to FAT32 instead of NTFS, at least to begin with, then in the alternative:
. Boot with a Win98SE boot floppy, use fdisk and format and then run Windows:
In particular read the third link I provided originally. XP did not provide 48-bit LBA support formally until Service Pack 1, and did not get it right until the hotfix I mention in my original post, link #3.
RebeccaLynn,
I cannot anymore conceive of less than 10 gig for the XP System partition. There are too many programs that will insist on installing on C:\Program Files for at least one reason.
After that I am split as to advice for large drives. I was a slow convert to NTFS everywhere, but can stil be persuaded in a non-network, single-user stand-alone situation that one creates a FAT32 32 gig partition for the system to simplify recovery if there is problems, and NTFS the rest.
If it is a single drive setting, there are no speed differences possible from tricks about using your pagefile in a different volume. This only makes a difference (and it does make a difference) for two or more hard disks.
lmiccolis,
If you are unable to see any of the setup screen booting from the CD:
. Go into your BIOS setup immediately upon startup, and change the Boot Order of devices so that your CD Rom drive is first.
. If that does not work, and your CD is a clean copy both physicly and otherwise, download and create the setup floppy diskette method:
. If you choose to set the primary system partition to FAT32 instead of NTFS, at least to begin with, then in the alternative:
. Boot with a Win98SE boot floppy, use fdisk and format and then run Windows:
lmiccolis
Can you remove the WD created partition & start again (using XP setup's partitioning tools to create partition).
Is your XP install SP1 - if not you can create one - eg
Can you remove the WD created partition & start again (using XP setup's partitioning tools to create partition).
Is your XP install SP1 - if not you can create one - eg
cons:
One big partition takes forever to defrag .
Files for the os get splattered around the disk far away
from eachother.Seek time os increases.
I don't know why so many want one big bucket (one large drive) , and poor every thing in it.
If your system wont boot you are risking loosing 160gb.
If you have a C: with just os , just reinstall on a new C:
and all others are intact (my documents ,archive files etc)
I'm with becca on this , maybe some bigger, 10gb i usually
make for the os . Good performance is acheived by having 20-30% unused space on it .
Split your disk in atleast three partitions:
os-system , temp-files , data/programs.
e.g 10gb , 10gb , rest of the space . C: D: E:
1) Os to C:
2) My documents(moved) , pagefile(moved) , temporary(moved) internet files to D:
Also use this drive for temporary cd making.
3) Install programs etc to E:
(using the option 2) is significant for maintaining
close to no fragmentation on C: keeping it nice and fast )
One big partition takes forever to defrag .
Files for the os get splattered around the disk far away
from eachother.Seek time os increases.
I don't know why so many want one big bucket (one large drive) , and poor every thing in it.
If your system wont boot you are risking loosing 160gb.
If you have a C: with just os , just reinstall on a new C:
and all others are intact (my documents ,archive files etc)
I'm with becca on this , maybe some bigger, 10gb i usually
make for the os . Good performance is acheived by having 20-30% unused space on it .
Split your disk in atleast three partitions:
os-system , temp-files , data/programs.
e.g 10gb , 10gb , rest of the space . C: D: E:
1) Os to C:
2) My documents(moved) , pagefile(moved) , temporary(moved) internet files to D:
Also use this drive for temporary cd making.
3) Install programs etc to E:
(using the option 2) is significant for maintaining
close to no fragmentation on C: keeping it nice and fast )
Syar,
I am sure there is good advice in what you said.
But I cannot understand your abbreviations.
"I don't know why so many want one big bucket (one large drive) , and poor every thing in it."
I do not remember anyone suggesting a single partition, if I understand your post, which I do not.
"If your system wont boot you are risking loosing 160gb.
If you have a C: with just os , just reinstall on a new C:
and all others are intact (my documents ,archive files etc)"
If I understand your point, having different partitions means that in the case of reinstalling XP as an in0line repair you will not lose your data or programs. However, this is true of a single partition as well.
Again, I cannot understand your abbreviations.
"Split your disk in atleast three partitions:
os-system , temp-files , data/programs.
e.g 10gb , 10gb , rest of the space . C: D: E:
1) Os to C:
2) My documents(moved) , pagefile(moved) , temporary(moved) internet files to D:
Also use this drive for temporary cd making.
3) Install programs etc to E:"
Why three, why not 10. You made the case for not one partition, but there is no reason provided for three as a magic number.
There are no defragmentation advantages of moving the pagefile to a second (third, fourth or fifth) partition ona single drive. Many application programs will insist on isntalling on C.
I wish I could understand your point better.
"(using the option 2) is significant for maintaining
close to no fragmentation on C: keeping it nice and fast ) "
To the extend I understand this, there is no technical merit in the argument that putting the pagefile on a different partition of a single drive avoids defragmentation issues and keeps the first partiition "nice and fast."
I am sure there is good advice in what you said.
But I cannot understand your abbreviations.
"I don't know why so many want one big bucket (one large drive) , and poor every thing in it."
I do not remember anyone suggesting a single partition, if I understand your post, which I do not.
"If your system wont boot you are risking loosing 160gb.
If you have a C: with just os , just reinstall on a new C:
and all others are intact (my documents ,archive files etc)"
If I understand your point, having different partitions means that in the case of reinstalling XP as an in0line repair you will not lose your data or programs. However, this is true of a single partition as well.
Again, I cannot understand your abbreviations.
"Split your disk in atleast three partitions:
os-system , temp-files , data/programs.
e.g 10gb , 10gb , rest of the space . C: D: E:
1) Os to C:
2) My documents(moved) , pagefile(moved) , temporary(moved) internet files to D:
Also use this drive for temporary cd making.
3) Install programs etc to E:"
Why three, why not 10. You made the case for not one partition, but there is no reason provided for three as a magic number.
There are no defragmentation advantages of moving the pagefile to a second (third, fourth or fifth) partition ona single drive. Many application programs will insist on isntalling on C.
I wish I could understand your point better.
"(using the option 2) is significant for maintaining
close to no fragmentation on C: keeping it nice and fast ) "
To the extend I understand this, there is no technical merit in the argument that putting the pagefile on a different partition of a single drive avoids defragmentation issues and keeps the first partiition "nice and fast."
- Thread starter
- #13
Thanks to all, especially Bcastner! I am able to access the install cd but do not get to the installation option screen. It just hangs. I am going to try using fdisk and format with floppy disks. I'll let you know what happens! Again, thanks for all your responses!
This seems like a good thread to ask a question I have been pondering. My XP machine currently has a 60gig drive, one partition NTFS.
I have purchased and am adding another 120 gig drive on it, so I can utilized the additional space,(my wife is a serious gamer and the 60 gig is running low. down to around 20 gig left. And that is only because I get her to uninstall games before she loads others.)
I realize there is no sense in moving my pagefile to a location that is simply another partition on a single hard drive, so I will be moving that to the new drive for performance increase.
My real question is, how many, and how large would you recommend making my partitions on the 120 gig drive. I was thinking of two 60 gig partitions.
The machine itself is only one notch or two below bleeding edge, so defrag times aren't of concern.
It never takes more than 10 minutes or so to defrag even when only 30% free.
Opinions?
Thanks in advance.
Do well unto others, else you will/should, not respect what you see in the mirror at the end of the day!
I have purchased and am adding another 120 gig drive on it, so I can utilized the additional space,(my wife is a serious gamer and the 60 gig is running low. down to around 20 gig left. And that is only because I get her to uninstall games before she loads others.)
I realize there is no sense in moving my pagefile to a location that is simply another partition on a single hard drive, so I will be moving that to the new drive for performance increase.
My real question is, how many, and how large would you recommend making my partitions on the 120 gig drive. I was thinking of two 60 gig partitions.
The machine itself is only one notch or two below bleeding edge, so defrag times aren't of concern.
It never takes more than 10 minutes or so to defrag even when only 30% free.
Opinions?
Thanks in advance.
Do well unto others, else you will/should, not respect what you see in the mirror at the end of the day!
Two issues:
The pagefile will benefit from moving to the new drive. There is nothing horribly complicated about it, but see Daniel Petri's notes, an extension of some very orignal work by Him Eshelmen:
The deciding factor for your slave drive in terms of partitioning should be how your backup system works (or does not work).
The hardest thing about doing backups is if they are inconvenient to do.
The next consideration is the mediuum you are going to use as the backup target.
Check your backup plans and software. Often it is easier for full disk images to use partitions. This ia also true for incremental backups plans where a full backup is done occasionally, and incremental backups done regularly. If you have access to high capacity tape drives, than no partition schema has any advantage over any other. For backups to smaller capacity tapes, CD-R/RW, or DVD, it makes sense to partition the drive so that your backup is as painless as possible given your media constraints.
The pagefile will benefit from moving to the new drive. There is nothing horribly complicated about it, but see Daniel Petri's notes, an extension of some very orignal work by Him Eshelmen:
The deciding factor for your slave drive in terms of partitioning should be how your backup system works (or does not work).
The hardest thing about doing backups is if they are inconvenient to do.
The next consideration is the mediuum you are going to use as the backup target.
Check your backup plans and software. Often it is easier for full disk images to use partitions. This ia also true for incremental backups plans where a full backup is done occasionally, and incremental backups done regularly. If you have access to high capacity tape drives, than no partition schema has any advantage over any other. For backups to smaller capacity tapes, CD-R/RW, or DVD, it makes sense to partition the drive so that your backup is as painless as possible given your media constraints.
Helloooo Bill!
I will try to explain how i find that windows installations
i have worked with gain performance based on different partitions.
First:
The OS performes faster for the user if kept tidy.
(not written to and deleted from all the time ,fragmentation and large search area)
As drivers/programs is allocated tight together in the
drives sectors seek/read will be faster as the drive
don't search/load files scattered over a large area .
All disks har fastest seek/read time in the beginning of the drive.
Another thing is drive changes to the OS partition ,
install programs /removal / saving downloaded files in Documents and settings/local/settings/temp and simular things dirsturbs good defrags that place files on a disk like :
1'st part of disk OS startup files .
( bootvis and xp prefetch is evidence of this )
2'nd part frequently used programs/files
3'rd part ocationally used programs /files
Then we have the pagefile .
The OS will naturally perform best if another HDD
could read/write the pagefile.
The pagefile would then be written and read from
indipendent of the OS reading/writing .
But if one HDD is used the page file access will perform
better if its on the beginning of the drive (first 10gb).
So i usually make a 10GB partition from first sector of
the disk for temp&pagefile usage .
Then the next sectors goto the OS .(usually 10GB)
The 20GB first on the harddisk should give the fastest performance ,and we now has a fixed size pagefile on the first 10GB (set to min=max )so it's continious.
Next is to speed up web browsing by moving temporary
internet folder away from OS to the partition on the
beginning (this will aslo keep the OS partition from
getting fragmented by all the temp files)
I usually create one temp_%user% folder for each user on the 1'st drive.
And i usually move the "My Documents" folder for the users
also to this .
Then all office programs as they are there to stay and permanent gets installed to the partition2(OS partition) under C:\Program Files together with the windows default stuff.
Perfectdisk or diskkeeper will now maintain a very good
performance on partition1(temp&pagefile) and Partition2(OS)
The 3'rd Partition continues after the 20GB mark
as far as the size allows it .
This i use for all other programs / archive files .
Sometimes i also make room for archive partition on the end
because here the drive is slowest and archives is not so much used.
Defragmenting pass can now be done only for the OS partition wich is 10GB ,so one doesn't have to wait all night for it to finish .
The same goes with Programs partition , one can browse and use the internet e.g as this pass is running cause the drive usage is at 1'st and 2'nd for this web browsing.
Then we come to problem that seem to occur now and then
Windows can not boot .
I make all three or four partition primarys .
Even if the C: partition gets completly wasted
the users still have their "Documents" "Programs" "Archive data" intact on other partitions .
Of course if the whole disk is physically wasted thats gone to .
An msbackup with ASR of the OS partition with only 10GB is done by 5minutes , and can recreate the system completly
,not touching the other two or three partitions if windows don't boot anymore and just the C: is affected ,
witch is the case most of the time.
Does this make any sense or not.
I welcome any feedback.
syar
I will try to explain how i find that windows installations
i have worked with gain performance based on different partitions.
First:
The OS performes faster for the user if kept tidy.
(not written to and deleted from all the time ,fragmentation and large search area)
As drivers/programs is allocated tight together in the
drives sectors seek/read will be faster as the drive
don't search/load files scattered over a large area .
All disks har fastest seek/read time in the beginning of the drive.
Another thing is drive changes to the OS partition ,
install programs /removal / saving downloaded files in Documents and settings/local/settings/temp and simular things dirsturbs good defrags that place files on a disk like :
1'st part of disk OS startup files .
( bootvis and xp prefetch is evidence of this )
2'nd part frequently used programs/files
3'rd part ocationally used programs /files
Then we have the pagefile .
The OS will naturally perform best if another HDD
could read/write the pagefile.
The pagefile would then be written and read from
indipendent of the OS reading/writing .
But if one HDD is used the page file access will perform
better if its on the beginning of the drive (first 10gb).
So i usually make a 10GB partition from first sector of
the disk for temp&pagefile usage .
Then the next sectors goto the OS .(usually 10GB)
The 20GB first on the harddisk should give the fastest performance ,and we now has a fixed size pagefile on the first 10GB (set to min=max )so it's continious.
Next is to speed up web browsing by moving temporary
internet folder away from OS to the partition on the
beginning (this will aslo keep the OS partition from
getting fragmented by all the temp files)
I usually create one temp_%user% folder for each user on the 1'st drive.
And i usually move the "My Documents" folder for the users
also to this .
Then all office programs as they are there to stay and permanent gets installed to the partition2(OS partition) under C:\Program Files together with the windows default stuff.
Perfectdisk or diskkeeper will now maintain a very good
performance on partition1(temp&pagefile) and Partition2(OS)
The 3'rd Partition continues after the 20GB mark
as far as the size allows it .
This i use for all other programs / archive files .
Sometimes i also make room for archive partition on the end
because here the drive is slowest and archives is not so much used.
Defragmenting pass can now be done only for the OS partition wich is 10GB ,so one doesn't have to wait all night for it to finish .
The same goes with Programs partition , one can browse and use the internet e.g as this pass is running cause the drive usage is at 1'st and 2'nd for this web browsing.
Then we come to problem that seem to occur now and then
Windows can not boot .
I make all three or four partition primarys .
Even if the C: partition gets completly wasted
the users still have their "Documents" "Programs" "Archive data" intact on other partitions .
Of course if the whole disk is physically wasted thats gone to .
An msbackup with ASR of the OS partition with only 10GB is done by 5minutes , and can recreate the system completly
,not touching the other two or three partitions if windows don't boot anymore and just the C: is affected ,
witch is the case most of the time.
Does this make any sense or not.
I welcome any feedback.
syar
It makes sense Syar.
I just do not know how to measure in practical terms the relative advantages of physical disk positioning of the pagefile.
What I have always found curious was the seeming flip-flop Microsoft did in terms of pagefile optomization. In the beginning (win9x) there was no attention paid at all to defragmentation issues, and Norton Speed Disk sold hundreds of thousands of copies. With NT there was some attention paid, and with Win2k even more, but the notion of making it contiguous on the disk did not appear until XP. The notion that the pagefile should be a contiguous file is a big change in XP, although it is not always achieved. The feature set of XP does allow one to set the pagefile to zero, and then set Min and Max values to force a contiguous pagefile write. At that point it should, if the values chosen are appropriate, not become defragmented as there should be no reason to expand the size.
XP does try to move startup items, including the pagefile, as contiguous blocks on the fastest sectors of the disk. A clean install of XP (rather than an upgrade) works better for this reason among others.
My only quibble with your partition scheme is that XP, at least as far as pagefile use goes, is simply better with two or more hard disk drives so that the pagefile does not sit on the same physical drive as the System files. On a single drive it would be hard to convince me that any real advantages are gained with pagefile optomization other than a proper sizing of the file to begin with.
I just do not know how to measure in practical terms the relative advantages of physical disk positioning of the pagefile.
What I have always found curious was the seeming flip-flop Microsoft did in terms of pagefile optomization. In the beginning (win9x) there was no attention paid at all to defragmentation issues, and Norton Speed Disk sold hundreds of thousands of copies. With NT there was some attention paid, and with Win2k even more, but the notion of making it contiguous on the disk did not appear until XP. The notion that the pagefile should be a contiguous file is a big change in XP, although it is not always achieved. The feature set of XP does allow one to set the pagefile to zero, and then set Min and Max values to force a contiguous pagefile write. At that point it should, if the values chosen are appropriate, not become defragmented as there should be no reason to expand the size.
XP does try to move startup items, including the pagefile, as contiguous blocks on the fastest sectors of the disk. A clean install of XP (rather than an upgrade) works better for this reason among others.
My only quibble with your partition scheme is that XP, at least as far as pagefile use goes, is simply better with two or more hard disk drives so that the pagefile does not sit on the same physical drive as the System files. On a single drive it would be hard to convince me that any real advantages are gained with pagefile optomization other than a proper sizing of the file to begin with.
- Thread starter
- #18
Update for the original problem...I went to the microsoft website again and found the message where installation hangs.
Windows XP Does Not Respond at "Setup Is Starting Windows XP" Message
It is pointing to drive controllers. Do I need to load hard drive controllers or motherboard controllers? And from where?
Windows XP Does Not Respond at "Setup Is Starting Windows XP" Message
It is pointing to drive controllers. Do I need to load hard drive controllers or motherboard controllers? And from where?
Immicolis,
Ignore the first part of the article, as it is discussing device drivers you may have loaded. The remainder is important.
Disconnect all USB, firewire, or other devices from the machine during setup.
If possible, use non-USB keyboard and mouse during setup.
Ignore the first part of the article, as it is discussing device drivers you may have loaded. The remainder is important.
Disconnect all USB, firewire, or other devices from the machine during setup.
If possible, use non-USB keyboard and mouse during setup.
One thing that I remember from an older system, my MB had normal ATA33/66 plugs as well as 2 ATA100/raid plugs for a total of 8 IDE devices. So I was installing XP while plugged into the ATA100 so when setup was as asking for a driver disk, I had to quickly throw one in. After a few attempots, it got to be very confusing and windows was getting very stubborn and freezing and such (it was over a year ago, so I dont remember exact details) so in a nutshell, I moved the hard drive to the regular IDE. installed, patched, etc.. Then moved it to the ATA100, changed the boot order in the BIOS and was good to go.
SO - if lmiccolis's system has the 160G hanging off of a special controller, perhaps it should go to the standard one for the install.
SO - if lmiccolis's system has the 160G hanging off of a special controller, perhaps it should go to the standard one for the install.
- Status
