Installing old Windows XP on a Dell Inspiron Mini?
in [Laptops]
|
From: Ben Myers on 19 Sep 2009 21:30 Happy Oyster wrote: > On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:22:42 -0500, "BillW50" <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: > >> In news:b8jab554p21d8ou81sb63mmahr1npc2v93(a)4ax.com, >> Happy Oyster typed on Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:49:38 +0200: >>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:27:44 -0400, Ben Myers <ben_myers(a)charter.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Not sure why one would need to fight a Windows install problem if it >>>> had to do with existing partitions. >>> One of the problems is that XP rapes the first partition. >> It only changes the first active partition. That could be one of four >> partitions and it doesn't have to be the first one (with Vista and >> Windows 7, it is zillions of partitions). And any Linux partition using >> ext2/3, Windows won't touch it. Aribert doesn't even know this. >> Otherwise he wouldn't be experiencing any of this. > > I don't give a damn about which type of partitions IN SPECIAL XP can handle. I > chose a very strange one because I did not want to have to try again. > > Also, I do not discuss with XP. I roast it. > > >>> I had to >>> use a Linux DVD to boot and to change the first partition to be of >>> some off Unix type. THIS XP did not touch and in the first run of the >>> installation copied its stuff to the second partition where it has to >>> be. Making the first partition invisible does not work as then XP >>> thinks it is in the first and messes up its boot record THE WRONG WAY. >>> >>> First step: >>> >>> To handle the HDD (has serial ATA) partition the HDD and format the >>> partitions with Linux. THAT WORKS. >>> >>> >>> Second step: >>> >>> Change the type of those partitions XP has to keep its fingers off to >>> some wierd Unix type. >>> >>> >>> Third step: >>> >>> As XP is damned stupid, IF you also want a Linux on the machine, >>> install that as the first OS. THEN install Win XP. This way you can >>> start (with the help of a boot CD/DVD (like Super-GRUB) into a >>> working system to check the other partitions, etc. >>> >>> >>> Fourth step: >>> >>> XP will mess up the MBR, so with the Linux DVD to boot, use GRUB and >>> get the MBR stuff back to order. >>> >>> BUT to get that right, the partition types of "wierd Unix" must be >>> set back to the right values BEFORE you can work on GRUB. >>> >>> If you messed up something, then a complete Linux installation will >>> be the last step. >>> >>> >>> Problems of the XP installer are that it messes up with partitions, >>> reboot, etc. >>> >>> To get around this, use a Super-GRUB CD and for doing the second part >>> of the XP install (which is from HDD): use the CD to boot from the >>> Win XP partition. >>> >>> This works with serial ATA. >>> >>> >>> There are TWO CDs which accompany the netbooks. One is the "recovery >>> CD" with the pure OS (in a miserable state), the other is for the >>> additions, drivers, etc. That one must be installed after XP is >>> installed. >>> >>> I called a LG tech suppport because I feared that the OS CD already >>> contains some special stuff for the machine. But I was told that I >>> could use a totally neutral XP installation CD because all the >>> specific stuff is on the second CD. >>> >>> Without the second CD, I'm afraid, one doesn't get very far: It >>> contains the drivers for the chipsets and without these the machine >>> is cut off even from the basic hardware... >> And if you boot up Ubuntu Live and not even touching the hard drive at >> all, Ubuntu modifies your Windows partition (happened to me three times >> and to somebody else). And when you install Linux after Windows it >> screws up your Windows installation. >> >> But what Aribert won't tell you is that UNIX/Linux isn't very useful at >> all. Nor is the security very good at all. Rootkits came out first from >> the Unix/Linux world and not from the Windows world (by about 15 years). >> Some distros doesn't even have a firewall. And Linux doesn't have a >> 100th of the applications that Windows has. No, Aribert won't tell you >> any of this stuff. Why? Because he is afraid too. <grin> Or, to paraphrase the great Bard, as Aribert implies: "I come to bury Windows, not to praise it. The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with Windows. The noble Justice Department (circa 1994) hath told you Windows was ambitious. If it were so, it was a grievous fault. And grievously hath Windows answer'd it." .... Ben Myers
From: BillW50 on 19 Sep 2009 21:48 In news:h9407o$f4t$2(a)news.eternal-september.org, Ben Myers typed on Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:24:08 -0400: > BillW50 wrote: >> In news:h93me1$an5$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, >> Barry Watzman typed on Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:36:47 -0400: >>> ... but it requires a >>> floppy disk drive, and absent BIOS emulation support (which most >>> modern motherboards and laptops do have, but which older ones don't) >>> the floppy disk has to be "real" and not USB (again, most modern >>> systems, however, do support USB emulation, and, also in many cases, >>> SATA emulation)... >> >> Just to be clear... virtually all modern day BIOS *will* totally >> accept USB floppy drives as *real* floppy drives. Same is true of >> USB hard drives and optical drives as well. That doesn't mean the OS >> will though. As that is totally different. >> > Well, if the motherboard BIOS masks from the OS the fact that a drive > is USB, the OS won't know, won't care, and will go blithely ahead and > use it like any other drive. Of course, there is no standard for a > motherboard BIOS, and Micro$oft may have something written into its > OEM contracts to actually prohibit a BIOS smarter than it is... Ben > Myers More like Microsoft when it boots up and resets the USB ports then checks to see what is connected to them. Now the BIOS has no say so anymore. And good thing too. As most BIOS use USB v1.ax speeds for compatibility reasons. So you would be stuck in low speed all of the time. <vbg> -- Bill Windows 2000 SP4 (5.00.2195) Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
From: Happy Oyster on 19 Sep 2009 22:27 On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:21:09 -0400, Ben Myers <ben_myers(a)charter.net> wrote: >There is a really simple solution to a Windows-Linux dual boot problem. > Two hard drives... Ben Myers IF you are able to install a second drive. But in a netbook you do not have this choice. Also, the installation is not as simple as you think, because IF there is a choice for a second HDD, on that HDD willl be more OSes installed. With 2 HDDs it is 3+3= 6 OSes or 3+4 = 7 OSes. If it is only 1 HDD, it is a meager 3 OSes. ;O) And not to forget: the other OSes are in virtual machines... The number dpends on the size of the HDD(s). -- The big "gmt"-scam http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_gmt1.htm
From: Happy Oyster on 19 Sep 2009 22:29 On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:25:07 -0400, Ben Myers <ben_myers(a)charter.net> wrote: >If XP is that bad for you, why do you even use it at all? ... Ben Myers For 2 simple reasons: 1. Needed for some special communications protocol. 2. Needed for some special sanning purposes, for which Linux does not have the right programs. -- The big "gmt"-scam http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_gmt1.htm
From: Happy Oyster on 19 Sep 2009 22:44
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:22:42 -0500, "BillW50" <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >And if you boot up Ubuntu Live and not even touching the hard drive at >all, Ubuntu modifies your Windows partition (happened to me three times >and to somebody else). And when you install Linux after Windows it >screws up your Windows installation. Ubuntu is one of the most insane things I ever saw. It is disgusting. Ubuntu is just as usefull as "filled" baby diapers in a ventilator fan. It is an insult to any human brain. >But what Aribert won't tell you is that UNIX/Linux isn't very useful at >all. Nor is the security very good at all. Rootkits came out first from >the Unix/Linux world and not from the Windows world (by about 15 years). >Some distros doesn't even have a firewall. And Linux doesn't have a >100th of the applications that Windows has. No, Aribert won't tell you >any of this stuff. Why? Because he is afraid too. <grin> The only problem with the Linux programmers is that they are schizophrenic: they claim to be better than Microsoft, but they copy Microsoft's mess. The problem with nearly ALL programmers: they have no clues about a work should be done effectively. One of the best examples: WordStar. This program (latest sold version dates from 1992) still is better than all of those sold later. For 17 years the programmers on earth were (and are) too damned stupid to keep up with that fine piece of artwork. WordStar, by the way, runs on DOS. This is the reason why I still use DOS. -- The big "gmt"-scam http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_gmt1.htm |