 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Server Forum / Windows NT / Setup / February 2005Pentium 4 - NT Installation problems
I cannot install NT 4.0 on a 3 Ghz Pentium 4. The machine is a 3Ghz Pentium 4 on an Intel BF865GBF motherboard with 1Ghz ram, in 2 simms, dual channel. I've read a few other msgs here with a similar problem, only because it usually reboots, they're not seeing the STOP error. 0x0000003E -> it doesn't like my processor. I've tried disabling hyperthreading, and it still doesn't work. I update the BIOS, still doesn't work. Anyone got any ideas? How big is the hard drive and are you supplying the correct NT drivers for it? This is pushing it for NT4.  SignatureScott Harding MCSE, MCSA, A+, Network+ Microsoft MVP - Windows NT Server > > I cannot install NT 4.0 on a 3 Ghz Pentium 4. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Anyone got any ideas? > How big is the hard drive and are you supplying the correct NT drivers for > it? This is pushing it for NT4. Well, the drive taht was supplied was an 80Gb IDE drive. I've already installed a 20Gb drive that has successfully been used on other NT installations, without any change to the error type. Peter What SP? Prior to SP5, the primary partition had to be 8GB or less than 1024 cylinders. SignatureStar Fleet Admiral Q @ your service! "Google is your Friend!" www.google.com *********************************************** > I cannot install NT 4.0 on a 3 Ghz Pentium 4. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Anyone got any ideas? The 1024 cylinder limit for the Windows NT system partition is regardless of service pack level. SignatureRegards, Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup. Microsoft Certified Professional Microsoft MVP [Windows] http://www.microsoft.com/protect | What SP? Prior to SP5, the primary partition had to be 8GB or less than | 1024 cylinders. You will probably need the updated Atapi.sys file to recognize the driver properly. Does it find the driver during install? Does this error occur during the first reboot of the install? Having a 20gb work doesn't mean much when your comparing it to a 80gb but from the error I sort of don't suspect the drive. SignatureScott Harding MCSE, MCSA, A+, Network+ Microsoft MVP - Windows NT Server > The 1024 cylinder limit for the Windows NT system partition is regardless > of > service pack level. > > | What SP? Prior to SP5, the primary partition had to be 8GB or less than > | 1024 cylinders. Not going to argue with you Dave, but I in fact have an NT 4.0 Server here with SP6, and the primary partition is 20GB. It has been that way since day one, when I set it up back 1999/2000 sometime? SignatureStar Fleet Admiral Q @ your service! "Google is your Friend!" www.google.com *********************************************** > The 1024 cylinder limit for the Windows NT system partition is regardless of > service pack level. > > | What SP? Prior to SP5, the primary partition had to be 8GB or less than > | 1024 cylinders. I never said it was not possible. If you defragment or apply/reapply your current service pack then it is a crap shoot as to where these files will end up. The service pack level has nothing to do with it. Windows NT 4.0 Supports Maximum of 7.8-GB System Partition http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q224526 SignatureRegards, Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup. Microsoft Certified Professional Microsoft MVP [Windows] http://www.microsoft.com/protect | Not going to argue with you Dave, but I in fact have an NT 4.0 Server here | with SP6, and the primary partition is 20GB. It has been that way since day | one, when I set it up back 1999/2000 sometime? Dave, The 1024 cylinder limit for creating large partitions was eliminated with SP4 (my bad, I thought it was SP5), http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;197667 Synopsis: NT max limit of 8GB or larger partition was removed, and as long as all the NT boot files are located within the 1st 1024 cylinders of the "primary" boot/system partition, whether it be 10GB, 20GB, etc, it will work. In part 1024 cylinder limit is still in place, as the boot files must be there, but for general operation the 1024 cylinder limit is a "MUTE" point. But defragging and reinstalling service packs had nothing to do with it - nor was it a "crap shoot" as you put it. Careful planning and using the proper installation/deployment tools allow for "properly" placing the boot files well below the 1024 limit. Your arrogance and short sightedness has clearly fogged your mindset in this matter, as clearly a primary boot/system drive "GREATER THAN 8GB" is possible given a few guidelines are followed and SP4 or higher is slipstreamed into the installation media (the NT boot floppies, and CD) and includes the correct "atapi.sys" file as mentioned by "Scott". SignatureStar Fleet Admiral Q @ your service! "Google is your Friend!" www.google.com *********************************************** > I never said it was not possible. If you defragment or apply/reapply your > current service pack then it is a crap shoot as to where these files will [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > day > | one, when I set it up back 1999/2000 sometime? Two completely separate issues. The first article deals with Windows NT's standard IDE driver being able to recognize drives larger then ~ 8gB While the second article deals with bios int13 calls. Windows 2000/XP/2003 are also at risk on a machine that might have BIOS INT-13 extensions turned off (third article for reference). Installing Windows NT on a Large IDE Hard Disk http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];197667 Windows NT 4.0 Supports Maximum of 7.8-GB System Partition http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q224526 Setup Does Not Check for INT-13 Extensions Before Creating System Partition http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q240672 SignatureRegards, Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup. Microsoft Certified Professional Microsoft MVP [Windows] http://www.microsoft.com/protect | Dave, | The 1024 cylinder limit for creating large partitions was eliminated [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] | slipstreamed into the installation media (the NT boot floppies, and CD) and | includes the correct "atapi.sys" file as mentioned by "Scott". Hi Dave, I think I'd give up on trying to instruct this person - it is obvious from the arrogant tone being taken that he THINKS he knows it all - attempting to educate such people is an exercise in futility :-( We know we are right - he'll find out the day his grand scheme comes unraveled ! Calvin. > I think I'd give up on trying to instruct this person - it is obvious from the > arrogant tone being taken that he THINKS he knows it all - attempting to educate > such people is an exercise in futility :-( I hope I don't heat up this discussion again, but the initial topic of this thread is rather interesting: ---> STOP 0x0000003E <--- If you google around you'll find that there are really some people who cannot install NT4 on some P4-systems, on the other hand there are lot who can. Two things are discussed, AFAIR: Hyperthreading and the Prescott core. It is clear that NT4 cannot handle hyperthreading but is not clear why it cannot handle the Prescott core (if this is really the issue). It seems that it does not accept the CPU ID!? There was a similar(?) problem with NT 3.1 and 3.5 and >= PII-Processors and only the setup.inf and initial.inf had to be modified. Or maybe it is the HAL....? Anyway, this topic seems really interesting to a lot of people, especially those who (still) love NT4, ;-). - and there are only few discussions about. ... Concerning the "7.8 GB" - discussion: Yes, no question "Windows NT 4.0 supports maximum of 7.8-GB system partition". Nevertheless, there seems to be some truth in the statement of your opponent. This very same article states: "If the Boot.ini file uses the multi() syntax for locating the boot partition, NTLDR uses the INT13 interface to load the HAL, the kernel, and boot-start device drivers. In this case, these files must reside within the 7.8 GB addressable range of the INT13 interface. If the Boot.ini file uses scsi() syntax to find the boot partition, then a file named Ntbootdd.sys should exist on the system partition. This file is simply a renamed copy of the disk controller driver. In this case, NTLDR uses the Ntbootdd.sys driver to access the disk when loading the HAL, kernel, and boot-start device drivers. The addressable area of the disk is determined by this driver." In other words: in the scsi()-case only the boot.ini and Ntbootdd.sys needs to be reachable by the INT13 if Ntbootdd.sys (here: atapi.sys) does not use INT13 itself. If you were going to install NT4 on a HDD (let's say 2 partitions 2 GB (boot) and > 8 GB (system) using the updated atapi.sys NT4 would AFAIK install using the scsi() syntax itself. I believe to have heard that this would really overcome the "7.8 GB" !? And if not - why not? Stephan > [...] If you were going to install NT4 on a HDD (let's say 2 partitions 2 GB > (boot) and > 8 GB (system) using the updated atapi.sys NT4 would AFAIK install > using the scsi() syntax itself. [...] Arghh, I always get mixed up between "boot" and "system". MS (again cited from KB224526): "The system partition is defined as the partition containing the files needed for the initial system startup." "A boot partition is defined as the partition containing the system files." (Could anybody explain me why the partion the system files resides is called "boot partition" an the partion the computer boots from is called "system partition" ? - ;-) ) So of course, I meant it the other way round... Stephan Hi Stephan, > (Could anybody explain me why the partion the system files resides is called > "boot partition" an the partion the computer boots from is called "system > partition" ? - ;-) ) I believe the nomenclature is a throw back to the days on NT running on RISC platforms. The RISC systems (from what I remember) don't need ntdetect.com (and IIRC ntldr. either) so there is is no 'System Partition' on this platform, only a 'Boot Partition' which the system DOES BOOT from. The 'System' partition and the associated files are a x86 'add-on' to allow for the fact that this type of hardware doesn't store startup information in the machine NVRAM. I'm pretty sure all this history is covered somewhere in one of the 'Resource Kits' from Microsoft. Calvin. Hi Stephan, I meant to reply to this post of yours the other day, and got caught up in other things and forgot :-( > ---> STOP 0x0000003E <--- > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > who (still) love NT4, ;-). > - and there are only few discussions about. There has been ongoing discussion for quite a while on this topic - though I don't think it has really EVER drawn to any usable and verifiable conclusions. My understanding is that the P4 processor is fine PROVIDED Hyperthreading is disabled. The Prescott core is a complete unknown at this stage, I haven't heard any comments for or against it. The other factor is Motherboard Chipsets. I have heard conflicting reports with Intel Chipsets from 865 and later, some stating NT4 will run on motherboards based on this technology, while other say it will not - all very confusing. Unfortunately I don't have the funds to go buy a whole heap of this latest hardware to conduct real-life experiments to prove or disprove all these theories :-( > Concerning the "7.8 GB" - discussion: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Stephan An interesting suggestion - I can't say I've ever heard of anyone trying using the SCSI() syntax with IDE hardware and using atapi.sys as ntbootdd.sys - it would be interesting to try it and see if it will work - I have my doubts though. What this passage was trying to say (I think) is that the 7.8GB barrier is only an issue on IDE hardware - SCSI hardware is unaffected because the boot partition is accessed using the SCSI card driver (ntbootdd.sys) which doesn't run into the CHS addressing issues that the IDE boot sequence does. Calvin. Hi Calvin I think you and John are probably correct. One solution to the 7.8 gB system partition issue might be to install a Windows 2000 boot sector. But then this would also depend on the mobo bios supporting INT-13 extensions. SignatureRegards, Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup. Microsoft Certified Professional Microsoft MVP [Windows] http://www.microsoft.com/protect | Hi Dave, | [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | | Calvin. Now I'm absolutely confused. Karl-Stephan Werkmeister just threw a real monkey wrench in there "...cited from KB224526." If you ask me the only way to install NT4 is on a FAT16 2gig partition. And if you have problems with NT4 look to W95 for clues. Lost as all hell... no,,, confused entirely... John > Hi Calvin > I think you and John are probably correct. One solution to the 7.8 gB system > partition issue might be to install a Windows 2000 boot sector. But then > this would also depend on the mobo bios supporting INT-13 extensions. Hi John, REAL confusing ain't it :-) see my post earlier about how the nomenclature of 'System' and 'Boot' partitions came into existence. KB100525 - Definition of System and Boot Partition is Microsoft's attempt at clarifying this issue - frankly I think the effort is poor and the clarity about that of mud ! I always just point people to my 'Big Disk' page at http://nt4ref.zcm.com.au/bigdisk.htm and suggest they read it - I think I have most of the points regarding this issue covered, but of course I always welcome feedback from anyone who has ideas to improve the content :-) I know the approach on my page works correctly, is guaranteed to keep working, and provides best flexibility on a machine for development and recovery. Calvin. The whole thing is going whoosh in my head! Time for puff! Ahh... that is much better now... I think that NT4 is a FAT16 Operating System and I think that it should stay and reside and be installed on a FAT16 file system. I don't believe that an NT4 installation should be converted to NTFS. From its FAT16 base NT4 can handle the whole show, including large disks and NTFS file systems... Now time for another puff... John > Hi John, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Calvin. Hi John, the only reason I suggest that the Boot partition be NTFS is to get the advantage of being able to secure the OS files, whereas of course, FAT16 offers no security. It really probably is paranoia on my part however, and the downside of a NTFS boot partition is it is harder to manually replace/modify an OS file from a MSDOS boot/recovery situation. My way around this problem is I have a minimalist 'parallel' NT4 installation on a Syquest removable media HDD cartridge, which I can boot to if required, and then access any/all the partitions on my system, but obviously, such 'tricks' may not be available to a lot of people. As the old saying goes, 'more than one way to skin a cat :-)' Calvin. Yeah, but for the NTFS security part anyone can boot to NTFS DOS anyway so no real big issue there. Whether or not on NTFS the SAM still controls logons to the installation and that can be cracked with offline password tools. The only issue that I see with having NT4 installation on FAT16 is disk space, one has to keep an eye on the drive and keep junk off of it. Interesting discussion though on the very basics of NT4 and large disk installations. John > Hi John, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Calvin. Hi Dave, I've seen people in the newsgroups here actually suggesting that you can use a 'borrowed' copy of NTDetect.com and NTLdr. from Win2k. From my understanding of the problem, it is the limitations of the code in the NT4 NTLdr. that actually causes the 7.8GB barrier problems for NT4 boot, and the Win2k NTLdr. has been rewritten to bypass this barrier, using INT-13 Extensions as you mentioned. The boot sector, as far as I know, is basically the same on NT4 or Win2k - one would really expect it would be, the boot process is still calling the same files and doing basically exactly the same tasks. Calvin. Yes, I really meant all-inclusive when I said "boot sector" SignatureRegards, Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup. Microsoft Certified Professional Microsoft MVP [Windows] http://www.microsoft.com/protect | Hi Dave, | [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] | | Calvin. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. John > Two completely separate issues. The first article deals with Windows NT's > standard IDE driver being able to recognize drives larger then ~ 8gB While [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Setup Does Not Check for INT-13 Extensions Before Creating System Partition > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q240672 What part of article 197667 did you read? Only the first two lines or what? The article clearly states: "The system partition (boot partition) is still limited to 7.8GB whether an updated version of the Atapi.sys file is installed or not." Now, you have been advised by one of the most respected and knowledgeable NT4 MVPs that your System Partition has to respect the size limitations but you refuse to accept what all of us know to be a fact in regards to installing NT4 on large disks. John > Dave, > The 1024 cylinder limit for creating large partitions was eliminated [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > slipstreamed into the installation media (the NT boot floppies, and CD) and > includes the correct "atapi.sys" file as mentioned by "Scott". Whatever the KB says just don't do it!!! I've seen it a million times. SignatureScott Harding MCSE, MCSA, A+, Network+ Microsoft MVP - Windows NT Server > What part of article 197667 did you read? Only the first two lines or > what? The article clearly states: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> and >> includes the correct "atapi.sys" file as mentioned by "Scott". |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.