HELP - Installing Vista 5308

[Ford-p]

Hey I'm new to this forum and hoping you can help.

I managed to get my hands on Vista Beta Build 5308.

First off I had problems burning it - I used Nero 7 and choose ISO format but it said as it is over 2 gig to use UDF instead. So I burnt it as that but when it finished all it had done is put the **.ISO on the DVD. Is this right?

I didn't think so, so I extracted the image and burnt as normal files, which worked as the setup screen came up.

I then went to install it on a spare machine (Very old - 500MHz Celeron, 256 MB RAM). I found a old HD and stuck it in put in the DVD and rebooted. It did the usual press any key to boot DVD and then I got a black screen with a gray loading bar at the bottom. when the bar completed it when black for a second and then I got a blue screen with white writing telling to the Windows had been stopped due to a error and a load of code. I retried a couple of times but saw it was working so I formatted and installed XP Pro. I then put in DVD and and started the setup but when it asked for were to install it said there was enough room on HD (its only a spare 8 gig). I put in a secondary hard drive (10 gig) in and tried again. This time it worked. I left it going and went off for a while. When I came back it must have restarted and I had a screen asking if I wanted to boot Pre-Longhorn or setup. I choose setup and it now came up with errors about "winload.exe" missing. If I choose Pre-Longhorn it just starts XP.

What do I do now?

Is it the DVD, the PC or have I done something wrong?

I desperately want to get Vista going and any advice anyone could give would be great.

Thanks,

Ford-p

P.S. I can get more accurate errors if needed.

[gunsmokingman]

Try and get a real copy of Vista that may help you install it.

Your Very old - 500MHz Celeron, 256 MB RAM

will not run it , I believe the minimum cpu speed is around 750

[fizban2]

"winload.exe" is an error you will get when the Winpe is trying to kick off the ISO did not get burned to the media correctly or the ISO has been messed with.

[Ford-p]

I think to ISO i have got is okay and when it starts it doesn't say anything about the CPU speed.

The disk could be bad, but what do I choose in Nero to burn correctly?

Thanks

[gunsmokingman]

All I do is mount the ISO image using Alcohol 120 then I start the install.

I do not burn the image at all because it a waste of time being that this is

a beta, I then start the install from XP.

[fizban2]

it won't say anything about a minimun speed required, it just won't run, MS doesn't check to see what speed your computer is. i would go with it was a bad burn to the DVD, i would say run it on your main machine in a VM (virtual Machine) even if you could get it running on that old machine it would be terrible.

[gunsmokingman]

it won't say anything about a minimun speed required, it just won't run, MS doesn't check to see what speed your computer is. i would go with it was a bad burn to the DVD, i would say run it on your main machine in a VM (virtual Machine) even if you could get it running on that old machine it would be terrible.

That not a true, since I am in the beta the min is closer too 1000 mhz and if you where in the beta you would of know that. There have been report of people installing on a 750 mhz machine and running

very bad. Plus what about the graphics, in a VM machine you can only use what 8 mb that in it self will

really hamper the UI.

Plus you need a minimum of 256 unshared ram, that means if you have a on board graphic card that uses your ram for video you will below the minimum amount of ram.

[fizban2]

I think to ISO i have got is okay and when it starts it doesn't say anything about the CPU speed.

you are right GSM, not in the beta but do have access to the builds through our MSDN account at work, what i was stating in my post is that it won't ever prompt him that his PC is below the recommended setting. It would just not load. Again you are also right on the graphics, running in the VM never allow you to use the full AERO feature set, but i again recommended it to ford-p over having try and dual boot his main machine. Most people aren't willing to do that yet. the WINPE does take 256 meg minimum to load itself, and he does have the 256 min, doesn't state weither his video is onboard or not so we don't know for sure, with this old of a machine you probably would expect it to be onboard though.

also a note i did get vista to boot to the setup screen in the windows PE, 750 mhz with 256 with 8 meg onboard, getting memory reference errors, so it was defiantly out of space at that point. woud try a video card but it is a laptop so no good

[gunsmokingman]

I would like it if Vista did not need so much to run. It would be nice if it could run with a 8 mb card and a cpu of 750 and only needed 128 mb of ram, then it would be a easier sell to the public.

also a note i did get vista to boot to the setup screen in the windows PE, 750 mhz with 256 with 8 meg onboard, getting memory reference errors, so it was defiantly out of space at that point. woud try a video card but it is a laptop so no good

This what I am talking about this would be a good machine use for things like surfing the net, and some basic computing stuff.

I agree with you about his computer without knowing if he has a onboard Video Card. That in itself could be causing the problems.

I know of people who have found Vista threw other means and they have had a succefull install, but then there machine exceeded the minimum requirements.

So we can both agree on this

1:\ Bad copy of Vista

2:\ His machine does not meet the minimum requirerments

Have a good one and if you find out any thing more like the remove tip pleas post it here.

[fizban2]

yup agreed

the more tips the better , i want to know this version of windows inside and out before it even goes rtm!!

[Biohead]

That not a true, since I am in the beta the min is closer too 1000 mhz and if you where in the beta you would of know that. There have been report of people installing on a 750 mhz machine and running

very bad.

I used to run some of the older builds (up to 5231) on a 700MHz P3 and 320mb RAM and it ran pretty well TBH. There was none of the fancy stuff present - but it ran.

[gunsmokingman]

Can you and define what is running good, my test machine is a AMD 1700 with 512 ram and a

ATI 9200 128 MB and builds of Vista ran far slower then the same machine with W2k SP4 or XP sp2, I tested

this at pcpitstop, and the Vista scores where on average 120 below what the same mache was running

W2K and 250 below with XP SP2. The worst build I tested so far was 5270 that was the slowest and most unstable, could not test this as it keep crashing. Build 5308 scores almost the same as W2K but is still alot slower then XP SP2.

Edited March 5, 2006 by gunsmokingman