Tech: once again....

Subject: Tech: once again....
From: Gurney
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 01:47 AM

I'm having trouble again. I don't know what I do to deserve it.

I decided to give up on 98SE and get XP, for my other computer, not this one.
XP would NOT go in to the P4/2.6, so I formatted, and now I can't get 98SE to go back in either. Nor 98. Nor ME. They get halfway in and then start crashing.
I have formatted, including 3 deep formats, (Zero fill, as Seagate call it.) Tried reinstalling between, no good, and have to format again to get out of it because Windows won't load, even from A:boot.
The best I've had is "Preparing to run Windows for the first time." Crash. "General Protection Fault in module USER.EXE at 0007:1790. Jammed.
I've tried installing all three OSs direct from the CD drive, and got these error messages: (With XP)Corrupt file(s) msnp32.dll vnetsup.vxd dfs.vxd vredir.vxd   
(with 98SE) VGA.SYS corrupted.
(with 98) Windows Protection Error.
I've flashed the BIOS by removing the battery, and then resetting the defaults. The BIOS is the current build #. I've removed the cards and the SCSI port card-which would need an updated driver anyway- and formatted.
The motherboard is an ASRock P4S61, nothing unusual. No cards in it now. HD is a Seagate 40gig, their own formatter says it is fine. 512 of ram(that's new), Creative DVD reader, CD burner, Zip-drive, and nothing else now. It was working well until I tried to install XP. I did try to install with the SCSI port in, and XP said I would need another driver for that and the modem, but it didn't seem fussed about it then.

I have downloaded the BIOS (for that computer)on this machine, but I don't know how to get it onto that one, and have received stern warnings anyway.
XP did go into THIS machine flawlessly, and then out again because I want it in the other one. However, now I'll settle for whatever I can get, as long as they're both working.

I'm out of ideas, and open to suggestions. Pretty please.   Chris.

Subject: RE: Tech: once again....
From: DMcG
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 03:27 AM

I would try taking EVERYTHING you can out - disconnect the DVD and so forth and then reinstalling. You can get this sort of problem when a connection is not 100% so that a device appears intermittently. The software checks whether the device is there and then the rest of the code assumes it is. A loose connection can make these assumptions invalid and lead to crashes.

A more depressing possibility: you say the RAM is new. It is possible you have damaged the socket or motherboard when you fitted it.

Subject: RE: Tech: once again....
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 03:59 AM

The first thing I see is that you're having troubles with .vxd files.

These are "virtual device files" or "helper files" that feed info to other programs and/or device drivers. It's almost impossible to tell what program/device a particular .vxd is supposed to be associated with, except by consulting the source of the .vxd or finding the program that tells you that you need a specific one.

This file type is notorious for being easily corrupted or infected by virus/malware that may have been on any of your machines. That shouldn't be a problem if all your installations are from clean CDs, but many Win95/Win98 installations were from floppies which could have been infected or damaged.

I would assume that you're doing the WinXP stuff all from a CD, since that's the only way I've heard that it comes. If you're using any floppies or other writable media with the other versions, there could be the possibility of file corruption (or infection) on any such "originals" unless you've been very careful. You're the best judge of whether this could be a problem.

WinXP will default at least to FAT32 format on your hard drive, and may try to impose NTFS. A "reformat" will often try to use the same as what's on the drive. Early versions of Win95/Win98 had problems with FAT32, although it should be acceptable for Win98SE(?). There were some rather bizarre effects of the maximum size drives that some Win versions could format - with the result that some older versions could format a volume larger than they could read, and some later versions could NOT format to the max size they could use.

If you're using the Seagate HD software, it should be able to handle anything needed, but you may have to tell it, fairly carefully, exactly which format you want for the "next installation" you plan to use.

I'm not getting any inspired flashes other than that .vxd files are "corruptible" and the several formats that you can put on a hard drive could be a problem if you're swapping back and forth between OS versions.

I don't see anything obvious, but with your first-hand view of your setups, you might find something in the fairly detailed How to prepare to upgrade Windows 98 or Windows Millennium Edition to Windows XP (KB article 316639).

A sometimes helpful (warranty subject to limitations) method is to put error messages you see into Microsoft's Advanced Search engine. There have been quite a number of Knowledge Base articles on WinXP installation clinkers, and you might get lucky(?).

Sorry I can't put a finger on anything more helpful.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: once again....
From: Gurney
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 05:40 PM

Thanks, guys.
DMcG, I will disconnect the Zip and DVD before trying again. I shouldn't think the ram itself is faulty, because I get identical problems when I put the original 256 back in, and the 512 works well in THIS machine. I will try it in another socket. Damage to the motherboard is possible, but I think that I originally tried to install with the 256 strip operating. Can't remember for sure though, I've been through so many permutations in trying to isolate the problem.
JohniK, I've done deep formats(as well as Windows formats),reset the BIOS defaults, and then tried to install direct from legitimate CDs. It gets to the same places and then gives the same problems, although different messages on different OSs. It gets to the same places in 98SE whether I start from floppy or direct from CD.
98 and 98SE get to the point of running windows for the first time, and XP(Pro, by the way) gets to the point of installing the main Windows files.
If there is a virus lurking in there, it is in deep cover. I thought that it was a virus originally, which is why I've done so many formats, but I can't think where it could be. How much software is there in a deep-formatted computer with a reset BIOS? Is there software in the Zip drive? The virus-killer said no HD virus when I started to install originally. I haven't checked the XP CD for virus, come to think of it.
If it is a hardware fault, it seems odd to me why I should get identical problems starting from different places, at different CPU temperatures.
Aren't computers fun!!!!    Chris.

Subject: RE: Tech: once again....
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 10:37 PM

At the Microsoft Advanced Search my selection of WinXP for product and search for "Installation Stops" brings up several things that might be applicable, but none that are sure-fire hits.

Setup stops responding or displays an unrecoverable error message gives some generic sorts of "what to do" suggestions. The focus of this article is on the stoppage that "… typically occurs during the last 30 minutes of installation, when devices are detected and drivers are installed." This sounds somewhat like what you're experiencing, and the suggestion is that your BIOS and/or some installed components may not meet WinXP requirements. The article says you can check the "Hardware Compatibility List" but all the links given are "dead" and so far as I can determine no such list is currently available.

With a machine that was originally built for Win98, it's possible that even with current BIOS reloads the BIOS itself doesn't meet WinXP requirements. You may also have older ISA adapters that don't conform.(?) Step 5 of the above article does give some suggestions you can look at; but you'll have to figure out which may apply to your case.

If your WinXP CD includes SP-1, and if you're using a USB mouse or keyboard there's a known bug that may "terminate" an installation. The bug was fixed if your disk includes SP-2, and shouldn't be there if it doesn't include SP-1. There's a hotfix if you have an SP-1 version, at Windows XP SP1 Installation Stops Responding with About 34 Minutes Remaining. Getting, and streaming the hotfix into Setup, is complex. It might be simpler, if possible, just to get rid of the USB devices until after you get intalled and can update - if it applies.

I'm still puzzled too.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: once again....
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 10:47 PM

This is interesting reading. WAY beyond me, of course, but it's interesting to see the reasoning and casting about. Good luck, guys.

Subject: RE: Tech: once again....
From: Bert
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:27 AM

...I don't know what I do to deserve it...

Of course you deserve it! You installed XP when you could have got Linux for free. *GRIN*

Subject: RE: Tech: once again....
From: Gurney
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 01:56 AM

Bert, I have a Linux emergency disk that runs from the CD without installing, but it couldn't seem to set the HD going, despite my following it's detailed instructions over and over and..... After I downloaded its virus-killer updates too. I played around with that thing for 3hrs before giving up.
And which Linux do you recommend? I currently have cover-disk DVDs with three different ones on. Damn Small Linux, Denbian, and Red hat(not Fedora.) But I am a child of the windows generation, my first machine an Amiga, so DOS frightens me.
Sorry, my sense of humour is not firing on all cylinders, currently.

Ebbie, it's way deyond me, too. I can't work out if it's a soft or hardware problem. Perhaps it is puddingware?

John, I'm just about to cuddle-up to your links. Thank you.

Subject: RE: Tech: once again....
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 03:19 AM

A totally random shot:

Difficulty occasionally occurs with newly formatted hard drives where drivers necessary for a "boot from CD" have not been installed by the BIOS and system startup portion of the boot. Usually if the WinXP CD starts the boot, it will provide the necessary drivers to continue; but some older machines have a problem with getting the CD reader fully up. You can download a "boot disk" set using the link from How to obtain Windows XP Setup boot disks. The download is one executable file that unpacks to 6 floppy disks. The floppy disks can be used to boot the machine and transfer to the WinXP setup CD. (It says so in the article at the link.) There are separate download links for WinXP Pro and WinXP Home, and for each of the basic, SP-1, and SP-2 variants, so you'll need to know which flavor of WinXP you've got.

I don't really think this is going to help in the current situation; but it may be nice to know it's around later - or for someone else's problems.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: once again....
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 06:06 AM

Note: Probably no new stuff here, but I'm retracing what I think you've already done, just to get my own thinking wrapped around the right stuff.

The ASRock P4S61 motherboard I find at ASRock Product Info does carry a "made for WinXP" label, and should have no big problems with WinXP or Win98.

The product manual I found at Socket 478, SiS 661FX, P4S61 shows nothing too unusual.

The manual does note that jumper points are provided for clearing CMOS, which usually means that removing the battery isn't by itself a really reliable way of clearing settings. If you unplug power, and put a jumper between the two solder points indicated, the CMOS should clear (without removing the battery? – see bottom of page 13).

Nothing startling at the ASRock BIOS downloads that I can see. The BIOS notes on BIOS Update presumedly were followed.

(I'll note that the comment in how to update your BIOS – " if the problem still persists, update the original BIOS file" – is a bit vague, and doesn't mention that you might wish to have the BIOS download for your previous BIOS version handy and loaded to a floppy before you start installing an update.)

Just above the BIOS download offerings, on the same page, there's a list of Drivers available specific to the motherboard. The only real "OS dependency" is for AMR devices, which would be of interest only if you're using a voice-over-IP (VOIP) or other voice modulation telephony device. Each of the listed OS versions does require a specific and different AMR driver. There are some differences in USB drivers, but I don't see them as likely to interfere with the basic OS installation(s).

I'll assume you've been to Seagate Downloads.

You may have tried the "Sea Tools Diagnostic" download or used the online version. I've found either to be reliable, although there are a few problems that the diagnostics admit can't be reliably tagged. I believe they quote "98% reliable" for their testing.

I'll guess that you're using the "DiskWizard Installation Tool" for your reformats. (An excellent tool for anyone using Seagate drives.)

You've almost certainly seen the Seagate Low Level Format FAQ, since you've referred to using the "Zero Fill" mode for your reformats.

The only thing of note there is that a "Zero Fill (Quick)" will erase everything on the drive, but doesn't write to all available sectors, so it may not find and mark defective sectors. Since it obliterates the boot sector and low clusters, it may erase a "sector-exclude" record there, resulting later in the drive trying to write to scabby spots on the disks. The OS itself should find any defects when it tries to write to one – and should automatically mark the sector and go elsewhere, so this shouldn't be a problem.

"Zero Fill Drive (Full) will write over the entire data area of the drive. This is useful if a drive has bad sectors that cannot be fixed by the operating system. This will also erase all the data on the drive, but it will take several hours." (italics added)

The symptoms described don't sound like bad writes to disk but it's a thought to be kept for recall if nothing else comes up.

Hopefully, we're not too far apart on what's been done?

John

Subject: RE: Tech: once again....
From: Gurney
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 04:17 AM

Sorry about not closing this thread neatly. I tossed a wobbly with the whole computer tribe, and only used my working one sparingly, just for business. And I'm working hard, and coming home knackered.

The 2.6 is up and mostly running, just the virus-killer is not fully operational, as far as I can tell. I just cleared 358 eMails, nearly all spam.

Despite my persistent efforts to blame the BIOS, the problem seems to have been the RAM stick after all. Putting back the old (and inadequate) 256meg cured everything, and after yet another quick format (after all my tries to install SOMETHING, there wasn't enough room left to install XP. On a 40gig HD!) almost everything went in swimmingly, as they say.
DMcG had the right of it, way up there. I don't think I spoiled anything, I do know how not to ruin RAM, but I was of the opinion that RAM worked-or-it-didn't, and this is definitely not so. I talked finally to a computer assembler who had had similar problems, and he told me that he had had a stick that would work fine until it was getting near its full capacity, and then it tried to write to some sector/section/part that was faulty, and gave strange symptoms. This seems to be the same story as mine; when the RAM is asked to do some serious work, it falls over, and then Windows gives lying messages about corrupt files and protection errors.

Another route that he suggested was to move the HD to the other comuter (as C:) and then install XP there, and then move it back with an OS on it, so that I had something to work with. Fortunately I didn't do that. If I had, I would have been no wiser and more frustrated.
Thank you for your thoughts and efforts on my behalf, particularly JohniK, who obviously hates to be beaten. I hope that this post goes some way to help you to sort future problems.

This is posted from that problem computer.    Chris.

Subject: RE: Tech: once again....
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 04:24 AM

One thing I found the hard way about RAM is that RAM may appear to be the right spec but have a longer latency, say 2.5 or 3 microseconds (not sure if that is the right unit). If the motherboard demands a latency of 2 then you are effectively overclocking the RAM, so when you use it to capacity, it cooks. Whether in a less extreme case than mine it would malfunction and then appear normal when it had cooled a bit I don't know.

Subject: RE: Tech: once again....
From: Bert
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 12:46 PM

Hi Gurney,

I'm using Fedora Core. Version 2 I think. It's about time I upgraded.

I cheated though when installing it. I bought a copy of "A Practical Guide to Redhat Linux" which had the CDs and installation instructions in it.

Also you should NEVER try to do ANYTHING with a computer unless your sense of humour is in full working order.

Subject: RE: Tech: once again....
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 04:35 PM

Gurney -

A long time ago, you could get "RAM Test" programs that did a good job of wringing out your memory. The programs would often show "defects" of various kinds that seemed not to have much effect on normal operation; but that would occasionally toss a clinker.

The one I had, unfortunately, required running in DOS and required all of the usable DOS memory (remember the old days when it was a major undertaking to get a Meg of RAM running?). With the switch to Win98, the new COMMAND that replaced/emulated DOS required loading one more driver into DOS RAM to load the program in DOS, and that didn't leave room for the program. I'm sure similar programs are around, compatible with new machines and RAM sizes; but I haven't seen one (that I could afford).

One more sign of progress(?).

With your alternate stuff cleaned out, your 40 GB drive should be large enough to run WinXP with some room left over for other stuff; but it's not a "generous" amount. For a recent upgrade of "her" computer (Win2K, 20 GB to 160 GB) I fumbled into a "method" that I found rather convenient.

I had used a couple of "External USB Hard Drives" and they were helpful, but not impressive. I found that you can now get an "External USB HD CASE" fairly cheaply, into which you can install any "desktop" HD of the right case size. The combined cost of the case and a std HD is about the same as for one of the "external HD" units that has the HD installed and "unremovable."

When you get a new HD, it should come with installation software, usually on CD, that will let you plug in the new drive - in the Ext USB HD Case - and mirror the existing HD to the new one. When you take the new one out of the case and put it in the machine in place of the old HD, the OS likely won't notice the change - except that it now has a "fat bunch of room." If you like, put the old dinky HD in the case, and use it for backups.

An advantage of a USB connected HD for backups is that it only has to be plugged in when you're making backups, so it's not exposed to any "crud and corruption" that you might pick up during normal machine use - if you choose to use it that way, and if you make sure the machine is "clean" before you plug in to update your backups. If you're carefull, a 160 GB drive-in-a-case si probably big enough to back up all the data on several machines in seperate "master folders." I get everything useful, and a lot that isn't, from 3 machines on my backup 160 GB, currently with about 40% still left over.

And the case is swappable for use with another new HD you might later want to install.

I've found HD backup a whole lot more reliable than any other medium. CDs seem fairly safe, but it can take a lot of them. DVDs are extremely unreliable for data, at current state of the art. I've tried a few, and never gotten full recovery from one that looked good when burned.

With any external HD, you do have to treat it like a bottle of Nitro for any handling. It will "explode" on you if mistreated, as by moving it at any time while the disk is still spinning.

John

Subject: RE: Tech: once again....
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 04:49 PM

x

Subject: RE: Tech: once again....
From: GUEST,Max
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 04:51 PM

There is a problem here. Anyone can post a message using any name.

Subject: RE: Tech: once again....
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 25 Apr 06 - 04:53 PM

Ignore above, I'm more tired than I realise