Trouble with installing Windows 2000 SP4

[clueless_furball]

I recently tried to install Windows 2000. I ran the instalation from Windows 98 SE. I asked it to do a clean install of Windows 2000 (Since I wasnt sure if Windows 2000 had drivers for my ethernet adapter so I thought I might need that later). I also left the file system as FAT32. I ran the instalation from the hard drive since 98 kept on locking up on the CD-ROM.

Anyways, the instalation whent fine. It recognized things like my sound card. But it didnt recognize my video. Well that was okay. Id get that later. But almost every icon I clicked on it would crash the system. (including the one for my video card drivers).

It would either lock up cold requiring a hard reset. I couldnt get anything to run. So the question is, should I really be running Windows 2k on the same parition as Windows 98? Should I run the thing with NTFS instead of FAT32? I didnt really think the filesystem had any bearing on this since I ran Windows XP Home fine with FAT32 and it didnt really act any different than one with NTFS. Though Windows 2k might be different as it is a older version of Windows.

[submix8c]

NO!!!! Don't install Win2000 on the same partition! It uses the same folder names (except the WINDOWS is installed to WINNT) as Win9x! Even so, any Win9x drivers you try to use will not work on Win2k (they are different, so get them before install, e.g. VIA/SIS Platform and/or Video)! And be aware some applications will also not run.

Read the "PRO1.TXT" file in the SETUPTXT folder for how-to's and valid installation paths. "Upgrading vs. Installing a New Copy"... Also in the SUPPORT folder is a "HCL.TXT" (Hardware Compatibility List) and an "APCOMPAT.EXE" program to test your applications for compatibility.

I honestly can't see how you could have done a "clean install" on a pre-existing Windows anyhow... You had to have had errors or warnings! Only "Upgrade" should have worked/been-done... (Unless you dual-boot, installing "clean" on a second partition.)

Basically, the rules are the same as for WinXP...

Edited May 25, 2009 by submix8c

[clueless_furball]

I kind of figured as much. Though I tried selecting the upgrade option first. But it kept going around in circles. It would try installing the hardware over and over and then freeze at a blank desktop or it would say it was installing network drivers and then reboot itself when it was trying to install something called "transaction controller". It also said one time it tried that a system file was missing("the ordinal 20 not found DRMClien.dll").

I booted in with a bootdisk looking for that dll, and the dll was there, which was kind of strange since one pass when setup was reseted it said that one wasnt there. It kept on doing it and then I tried just installing a clean install. (it comes up with a prompt every time I boot my PC asking me to pick either windows 2000 or "Microsoft Windows"(which is the Windows 98 SE installation).

Okay, so I guess I should do what you suggested and remove Windows 98 SE and format the HD as NTFS and install Windows 2k once again. Thanks for your help (I normally dont try to dual boot Windows, since I ussually just stick to one of them)

[Tripo]

if you don´t have good video drivers that works.

try this.

http://www.geocities.com/bearwindows/vbemp.htm#2

it is an universal Video Driver.

I have use it on some computers that does not have Wide screen support but with this driver it works.

so First find your NT drivers.

then install a clean install of Window2000 and format the drive with NTFS.

Then it should work fine.

[clueless_furball]

I downloaded a copy of the Windows 2k version of my video card drivers. Though pretty much everything locked up. Those should work when I let Windows 2k be by itself on the hard drive.

I tried those universal video card drivers on Windows 98 once with the same video card. Surprisingly they work fairly well. Scrolling through webpages a bit choppy, though you could watch videos just fine (Though Id never try anything too high resolution with that, because Id imagine my video card would get choppy with the slow DAC)

[Colonel O'Neill]

I think making another partition for 2000 alongside 98 would be the best idea. For one, it would eliminate the conflict between 98 and 2000 on the current install. Also, it would have the benefit of allowing you to use both systems while you transfer your settings and programs (if you choose to keep both that also works).

[clueless_furball]

That's actually what I tried to do yesterday. Though I think my hardware is bad. The setup didnt even get to the file copying stage. It finished the first portion of the setup, the system rebooted and I got a error "ntldr is missing. Hit a key to reboot". Booted into the computer with a boot disk and tried to switch to my C: drive and it said it couldnt get on. It never said anything about formating the drive, so I dont think it's in NTFS now (it didnt really do what it was doing long enough to be formating a hard drive)

So I think the hard drive got corrupted. Windows 98 wasnt operating so I tried to re-install that(since I needed it to get to my 2k setup files), but I couldnt get into setup because every drive I switched to, including the CD-rom drive, the directory listing would show up as giberish ascii characters (The ones that show up when you open of a .exe file in the MS-DOS editor). So I'm thinking there is something seriosly wrong with this computer's CPU/motherboard. So I might as well get a new batch of parts and try again.

[pointertovoid]

W2k installs on Fat32 as well as on Ntfs, nothing to worry there.

Putting a W2k after a W98 on the same computer lets W2k overwrite the boot sector. W2k then proposes to load W98, but only if W2k works long enough for it - which wasn't your case.

Testing for defect hardware is a good idea based on the behaviour you describe. One way is to let the computer run a Linux from a live Cd

http://www.ubuntu.com

in which case whether Ubuntu runs doesn't depend at all on your Windows installation. It doesn't depend on the HDD, neither - but on the Cd driver, yes.

You also have Ram testers on bootable diskettes or Cd

http://www.memtest.org

http://oca.microsoft.com/en/windiag.asp

as well as HDD tests from bootable diskettes and Cd, but they depend on the disk manufacturer.

http://www.seagate.com/support/seatools rather universal

and the "Ultimate Boot Disk"

[clueless_furball]

It's really weird. But I booted into my computer with a Windows 98 SE install CD. And then I filled in the path to point to the windows 98 executables (folder windows, system32, and command) put my boot disk in the FDD and then typed sys A: C: and then reboot the PC, booted from the hard drive and then Windows 98 came back alive and it works perfectly fine. I also removed 3 of the memory modules reducing the memory to 128 mb(Though umm, when I have 2k I'm going to plop them back in), and now it's running pretty smooth (Though I also stuck a different HD in there found in a old HP PC).

I think my Windows 2k CD/cd-rom is bad. So I think I'll try to find one somewhere... before I try again... Though thanks for your help, you helped me troubleshoot the problem... Not much experience with 2k, sorry.

[pointertovoid]

W2k can run on 128MB, you lose about 10% speed as compared to 256MB, provided nothing else runs... Avast for instance takes 78MB right now on my W2k and Firefox 79MB right now. So 128MB limit you to feasibility tests. But 512MB would be comfortable, yes.

Just test your Ram with Memtest86! Free, easy, and then you'll know. WinMe accepts 512MB without any tweaking (see other discussions on this forum).

To know if you Cd is sound, use CdSpeed

http://www.cdspeed2000.com

it will tell you if you Cd can be read without errors. If your Cd is a burnt one, with properly burnt but badly chosen files, CdSpeed can't tell it.

W2k is definitely worth it. The best Win I've had up to now (among 95a-95b-98-98se-Me-Nt4-Xp). If you try and enjoy it, remember to store locally every update before July 2010 when Microsoft will stop support. Updates for W95 just disappeared from MS site; Nt4 had a better fate, but I won't take any chances for my nice W2k.

[erpdude8]

W2k can run on 128MB, you lose about 10% speed as compared to 256MB, provided nothing else runs... Avast for instance takes 78MB right now on my W2k and Firefox 79MB right now. So 128MB limit you to feasibility tests. But 512MB would be comfortable, yes.

I've actually ran Win2k SP4 on my aunt's Dell Optiplex workstation PC with 128Mb RAM with a 500Mhz Intel Celeron CPU; it ran Ok but it had a paltry Seagate 6.4Gb hard drive. replaced that with a Seagate 20gig HD and upgraded the RAM to 256Mb and the CPU to 566Mhz; got the other Intel CPU chip from a friend's old PC. Now my aunt's W2k SP4 computer runs better.

I think my Windows 2k CD/cd-rom is bad. So I think I'll try to find one somewhere... before I try again... Though thanks for your help, you helped me troubleshoot the problem... Not much experience with 2k, sorry.

I still have a Win2000 Professional CD that already contains SP4, clueless_furball. you could find one either on eBay or Amazon.com

Edited September 12, 2009 by erpdude8