 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Server Forum / Windows NT / Setup / September 2005NT4.0 install problem Not enough "low memory", whatever that means.
Our company is writing some software which we have to test on several versions of Windows. I'm bulding a computer w/removable HDDs, one of which will have NT. After going through the System Config check, Setup stops and displays a message telling me it's finding 0kB of low memory, 512kB is required. ECS PM800-M2 mainboard P4 Celeron 2.66GHz 512MB RAM Don't know what low memory is. If it's CPU onboard cache, it's true that the Celly doesn't have 512k, but it has 256 (not zero). Thing is, did any CPU have 512k when NT4.0 was current? Help... > Our company is writing some software which we have to test on several > versions of Windows. I'm bulding a computer w/removable HDDs, one of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that the Celly doesn't have 512k, but it has 256 (not zero). Thing is, > did any CPU have 512k when NT4.0 was current? Help... Set up Windows NT by either booting off its installation cdrom or from the 3 setup floppy diskettes that come with Windows NT or created from the installation cdrom. It seems like Windows NT set up is being attempted from a DOS prompt form an OS already running in the computer. > Set up Windows NT by either booting off its installation > cdrom That's what I'm doing. This is a fresh install on a new (blank) HDD. Could this be a formatting/partitioning issue? Doesn't NT setup have that ability? or from the 3 setup floppy diskettes that come with > Windows NT or created from the installation cdrom. It seems > like Windows NT set up is being attempted from a DOS prompt > form an OS already running in the computer. >> Set up Windows NT by either booting off its installation >> cdrom > > That's what I'm doing. This is a fresh install on a new > (blank) HDD. Could this be a formatting/partitioning issue? > Doesn't NT setup have that ability? Sounds as if the drivers for the CDRom drive were clogging up memory. Try to do the old-fashioned 3-floppy-install! Helmut  SignatureAll typos © My Knotty Fingers Ltd. Capacity Dept. > Try to do the old-fashioned 3-floppy-install! Only have a CD. What exactly is "low memory" anyway? >> Try to do the old-fashioned 3-floppy-install! > > Only have a CD. What exactly is "low memory" anyway? IIRC, "low memory" refers to computer memory in the 0-640 KB range. Just how is the setup being run? The computer should be booted cleanly, from either the Windows NT cdrom or from the 3 Windows NT setup diskettes. They have the proper [low] memory management drivers to insure that there is adequate (512-640 KB of) memory to execute the setup. It's a new computer (P4, 512MB RAM) w/removable HDDs, one of which is for NT. I've got a clean HDD as primary master, CD as pri slave (This is the only way it will run. Configured as HDD as pri mast, CD as sec master, NT setup wouldn't run properly). I'm booting from the NT CD. > IIRC, "low memory" refers to computer memory in the 0-640 KB > range. Just how is the setup being run? The computer should be > booted cleanly, from either the Windows NT cdrom or from the 3 > Windows NT setup diskettes. They have the proper [low] memory > management drivers to insure that there is adequate (512-640 KB > of) memory to execute the setup. > It's a new computer (P4, 512MB RAM) w/removable HDDs, one of which is > for NT. I've got a clean HDD as primary master, CD as pri slave (This > is the only way it will run. Configured as HDD as pri mast, CD as sec > master, NT setup wouldn't run properly). I'm booting from the NT CD. You are failing to comprehend the meaning of "low memory". This is a definition of "low memory": "In DOS systems, the first 640K of memory. This portion of memory is reserved for applications, device drivers, and memory-resident programs (TSRs). Low memory is also called conventional memory." In physical values, the first 640 KB of memory comprises "low memory". Of this amount, NT setup, which is primarily a DOS operation, requires at least 512 KB of the 640 KB of conventional memory. The overhead on conventional memory to run computer ops, such as installing NT, should not be exceeding 128 KB at the most. Setup of NT is predicated on at least 512 KB (of the 640 KB) being available when the relevant system files for setup are loaded into high memory. One must really determine why this particular system's overhead is exceeding 128 KB of overhead. Are there special drivers in use that are occupying low memory? Anything running in the background related to the chipset or onboard devices? Very strange occurrence...never personally seen it happen with any NT, Windows 2000 or XP installation when initiated from their installation cdroms or setup diskettes. > You are failing to comprehend the meaning of "low memory". I know. I thought I made that clear in the subject. > In physical values, the first 640 KB of memory comprises > "low memory". OK, but which physical memory? Is 640 KB of RAM is being used as low memory? Because there's also a cache of physical mem in the CPU (in this case, since it's a P4 Celeron, 256 KB). Or os there some other bit of physical memory? Or is 512 MB too much for NT to see, so it doesn't see any of it? Of this amount, NT setup, which is primarily > a DOS operation, requires at least 512 KB of the 640 KB of > conventional memory. The overhead on conventional memory [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > any NT, Windows 2000 or XP installation when initiated from > their installation cdroms or setup diskettes. >> You are failing to comprehend the meaning of "low memory". > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of physical memory? Or is 512 MB too much for NT to see, so it doesn't > see any of it? Conventional memory is not cache (L2) memory in the CPU. Conventional memory is part of the installed RAM set. And without memory managers, DOS only works with the first 640 KB. (We all learned about this in the DOS days, before the advent of extended, expanded and high memory managers to utilize memory above 640 KB.) > Conventional memory is part of the installed RAM set. And > without memory managers, DOS only works with the first > 640 KB. OK, so why isn't NT seeing anything? >> Conventional memory is part of the installed RAM set. And >> without memory managers, DOS only works with the first >> 640 KB. > > OK, so why isn't NT seeing anything? It is in the message. All of the low memory, at least 512 KB, is being used by the system. NT setup is reporting that there isn't enough low [or conventional] memory that is free for the loading of setup.exe (or whatever is the executable to start NT installation). > It is in the message. All of the low memory, at least 512 KB, > is being used by the system. But why would that be? NT Setup is loading any drivers necessary to run the CD, so those shouldn't be the problem, right? Are you saying that the motherboard itself might be using up low memory? I mean, no motherboard drivers or anything like that have been installed. Thanks for sticking w/me on this. >> It is in the message. All of the low memory, at least 512 KB, >> is being used by the system. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks for sticking w/me on this. Sure about that? I am not familiar with this system. IOW, are you starting with a clean hard drive and with the system configured through bios setup to run at its default settings? Microsoft has already calculated that computer system overhead from booting off the NT cdrom or NT setup diskettes is less than 128 KB (640 KB minus 128 KB = 512 KB). Any reduction in the 640 KB low memory may be attributed to memory released for use by the video and other resources. Also in bios setup, is the computer configured for 640 KB base memory vs. a lower amount, such as 512 KB? (Just remembered about this possibility.) >>> It is in the message. All of the low memory, at least 512 KB, >>> is being used by the system. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > computer configured for 640 KB base memory vs. a lower amount, > such as 512 KB? (Just remembered about this possibility.) So much is taken for granted these days, aren't they? IMHO, Windows NT was one of the best operating systems that was designed and did not rely on automation (viz., plug-n-play) and "dumbing down" ("wizards and all that pre-programmed crap). The System Administrator and IT staff really had to know their stuff...and that was not quite 10 years ago. > So much is taken for granted these days, aren't they? IMHO, > Windows NT was one of the best operating systems that was > designed and did not rely on automation (viz., plug-n-play) > and "dumbing down" ("wizards and all that pre-programmed > crap). Here Here !!! There still is a group of holdouts like myself who are refusing to 'upgrade' (and I use the term loosely :-) I keep a website going at http://nt4ref.zcm.com.au with my thoughts on maintaining and supporting NT4 systems. I agree with your thoughts re plug and play. In my opinion, that was the fatal mistake made by Microsoft. The NT kernel is inherently stable and reliable, but was written originally (NT3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0) to work in a static environment. The decision made to then add PnP to the OS in W2k (and more so in XP) has been this platform's undoing. The NT kernel relies on a static hardware platform underneath it, and the shifting sands' of PnP certainly do not qualify as this. I'm sure Dave Cutler and the rest of the original NT design team would be absolutely HORRIFIED with what Microsoft have done to what was the originally elegant and stable code base they wrote for NT. Calvin. I set the mobos fail-safe defaults, but now Setup does its routine of inspecting system config, reboots then starts all over. It won't go to the next step of installation. >> So much is taken for granted these days, aren't they? IMHO, >> Windows NT was one of the best operating systems that was [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Calvin. hmm, weird. if you boot from MS-DOS system floppy (go to www.bootdisk.com for image if you have not any) and enter "MEM" command, what is the total amount of memory listed? > Our company is writing some software which we have to test > on several versions of Windows. I'm bulding a computer [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > (not zero). Thing is, did any CPU have 512k when NT4.0 was > current? Help... I set the mobos fail-safe defaults, but now Setup does its routine of inspecting system config, reboots then starts all over. It won't go to the next step of installation. > hmm, weird. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>(not zero). Thing is, did any CPU have 512k when NT4.0 was >>current? Help... |
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.