Troiuble migrating hard drive w/XP to a new machine
in [Windows XP New Users]
|
From: Bruce Chambers on 7 Feb 2010 22:36 Ted Curtin wrote: > I tried to install my current HD with XP into a new-to-me system (Intel MB > and 2.4G processor), but windows won't start. System seems to POST; I can > get into bios where everything seems OK, and can run a disk/memory diagnosis > program from floppy, but windows never gets to the splash screen - it gives > me the screen that says "Windows didn't start properly, which mode would you > like to start in'. > > When I've done this before, Windows has recognized the new hardware (MB and > processor) and gotten itself going. That's very unusual; the two motherboards must have been close to identical. > I also tried a HD from another system to > check, with the same results. Will I have to do a clean install of > Windows... or is this a hardware problem? > No hardware or Windows problem. This is actually normal behavior. Normally, and assuming a retail license (many factory-installed OEM installations are BIOS-locked to a specific motherboard chipset and therefore are *not* transferable to a new motherboard - check yours before starting), unless the new motherboard is virtually identical (same chipset, same IDE controllers, same BIOS version, etc.) to the one on which the WinXP installation was originally performed, you'll need to perform a repair (a.k.a. in-place upgrade) installation, at the very least: How to Perform an In-Place Upgrade of Windows XP http://support.microsoft.com/directory/article.asp?ID=KB;EN-US;Q315341 Changing a Motherboard or Moving a Hard Drive with WinXP Installed http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/moving_xp.html The "why" is quite simple, really, and has nothing to do with licensing issues, per se; it's a purely technical matter, at this point. You've pulled the proverbial hardware rug out from under the OS. (If you don't like -- or get -- the rug analogy, think of it as picking up a Cape Cod style home and then setting it down onto a Ranch style foundation. It just isn't going to fit.) WinXP, like Win2K before it, is not nearly as "promiscuous" as Win9x when it comes to accepting any old hardware configuration you throw at it. On installation it "tailors" itself to the specific hardware found. This is one of the reasons that the entire WinNT/2K/XP OS family is so much more stable than the Win9x group. As always when undertaking such a significant change, back up any important data before starting. This will also probably require re-activation, unless you have a Volume Licensed version of WinXP Pro installed. If it's been more than 120 days since you last activated that specific Product Key, you'll most likely be able to activate via the Internet without problem. If it's been less, you might have to make a 5 minute phone call. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. ~ Denis Diderot
From: J. P. Gilliver (John) on 8 Feb 2010 02:39 In message <ufvSu$GqKHA.556(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, Bruce Chambers <bchambers(a)cable0ne.n3t> writes: [] >style foundation. It just isn't going to fit.) WinXP, like Win2K >before it, is not nearly as "promiscuous" as Win9x when it comes to >accepting any old hardware configuration you throw at it. On >installation it "tailors" itself to the specific hardware found. This >is one of the reasons that the entire WinNT/2K/XP OS family is so much >more stable than the Win9x group. [] Why exactly does that make it more stable? (I'm not saying it doesn't, I just don't see why.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar(a)T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. ** Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go. - Oscar Wilde
From: Chuck on 22 Feb 2010 03:30 Don't know about more stable, but it does allow windows to more fully utilize the hardware's capabilities. Even in the later 9x series, the Hal file could be different from one machine to another, and, unless it was the basic version, might not work on another hardware configuration. Stability might be improved when the win hardware drivers more closely match such things as processors and MBD chipsets. Emulation modes are seldom as good as native modes. Also, even with Win 7, it can be adviseable to load OEM MBD drivers, rather than the drivers delivered with Win 7. "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG(a)soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:qgorOSbG$7bLFwYq(a)soft255.demon.co.uk... > In message <ufvSu$GqKHA.556(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, Bruce Chambers > <bchambers(a)cable0ne.n3t> writes: > [] >>style foundation. It just isn't going to fit.) WinXP, like Win2K before >>it, is not nearly as "promiscuous" as Win9x when it comes to accepting any >>old hardware configuration you throw at it. On installation it "tailors" >>itself to the specific hardware found. This is one of the reasons that >>the entire WinNT/2K/XP OS family is so much more stable than the Win9x >>group. > [] > Why exactly does that make it more stable? (I'm not saying it doesn't, I > just don't see why.) > -- > J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar(a)T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf > ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously > outdated thoughts on PCs. ** > > Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go. - Oscar > Wilde
From: glee on 22 Feb 2010 09:27 "Chuck" <cdkuder(a)msn.com> wrote in message news:ObUsWl5sKHA.4704(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Don't know about more stable, but it does allow windows to more fully > utilize the hardware's capabilities. > Even in the later 9x series, the Hal file could be different from one > machine to another, and, unless it was the basic version, might not > work on another hardware configuration. > Stability might be improved when the win hardware drivers more closely > match such things as processors and MBD chipsets. > Emulation modes are seldom as good as native modes. Also, even with > Win 7, it can be adviseable to load OEM MBD drivers, rather than the > drivers delivered with Win 7. > > > "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG(a)soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:qgorOSbG$7bLFwYq(a)soft255.demon.co.uk... >> In message <ufvSu$GqKHA.556(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, Bruce Chambers >> <bchambers(a)cable0ne.n3t> writes: >> [] >>>style foundation. It just isn't going to fit.) WinXP, like Win2K >>>before it, is not nearly as "promiscuous" as Win9x when it comes to >>>accepting any old hardware configuration you throw at it. On >>>installation it "tailors" itself to the specific hardware found. >>>This is one of the reasons that the entire WinNT/2K/XP OS family is >>>so much more stable than the Win9x group. >> [] >> Why exactly does that make it more stable? (I'm not saying it >> doesn't, I just don't see why.) Chuck wrote: > Even in the later 9x series, the Hal file could be different from one > machine to another.... Pardon me? Win9x did not have a HAL file. The Hardware Abstraction Layer is part of the NT family, but not the 9x family of operating systems. -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 A+ http://dts-l.net/
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 Prev: Power Surge USP Ports In Front Of Dimension 5150 Next: PC not starting... |