XPsp3 refuses to install on a newer computer ?

[R.Wieser]

Hello all,

A week or so ago I tried to install Xpsp3 on a "newer" computer (still a
decade old, but not as old as XP itself). It some point in the pre-setup
phase (before trying to acces the HD) it stopped with a "to protect your
machine ..." blue screen. The same happend when I retried on a second
computer.

Question:

What can cause the installation of the OS to throw that message ? And what
can I do to circumvent it ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[VanguardLH]

Post by R.Wieser
A week or so ago I tried to install Xpsp3 on a "newer" computer (still
a decade old, but not as old as XP itself). It some point in the
pre-setup phase (before trying to acces the HD) it stopped with a "to
protect your machine ..." blue screen. The same happend when I
retried on a second computer.
What can cause the installation of the OS to throw that message ? And
what can I do to circumvent it ?

Bluescreens have a stop code. What did you get?

https://www.ionos.com/digitalguide/server/know-how/windows-blue-screen/

That gives some info strings for BSODs. The following gives info on the
stop codes:

https://www.lifewire.com/blue-screen-error-codes-4065576

Just a wild guess: video drivers. The ones embedded in the install
image for WinXP could be too old.

You don't mention if the hardware is 32-bit, and you're trying to
install a 64-bit version of Windows XP (which is a frankenjob of
crippling Windows Server and laying the WinXP desktop atop of it). The
drivers have to match whatever is the bitwidth of the OS.

With nlite, you can embedd drivers for the newer hardware into the WinXP
image. Obviously you need to get drivers from the hardware maker
(chipset for mobo, video card, etc) that state they support WinXP (32-
or 64-bit).

https://www.nliteos.com/

One of the options is to "Integrate Drivers" into the OS image (that you
later run to do the install). I've never used nLite, so no experience
with it. Maybe someone else has used it, and can guide you in how to
get the correct drivers slid into the old OS image.

No idea if you are using separate licenses for WinXP, or are reusing
(pirating) the same license across multiple hosts. Perhaps whatever you
have for the WinXP image is corrupted, and why it fails on every host
where you try to run it. Got backup images of the install CD?

Oh, in the newer hardware, is it configured to use BIOS or UEFI? WinXP
cannot use UEFI. You need your host's firmware configured to use BIOS.
Windows XP also does not support GPT partitions on drives. You need to
partition using the old MBR scheme.

[R.Wieser]

Post by VanguardLH
Bluescreens have a stop code. What did you get?

I was sure I had written it down, but can't find it back anymore. :-( All I
rembemer is that it was in the upper range of the 0x70 range.

Post by VanguardLH
https://www.lifewire.com/blue-screen-error-codes-4065576

Thanks, thats quite usefull.

Post by VanguardLH
Just a wild guess: video drivers. The ones embedded in the install
image for WinXP could be too old.

Thats the problem : I 've got enough guesses to go around, but can't
pinpoint it.

Post by VanguardLH
You don't mention if the hardware is 32-bit,

As it started the installer software from the CD I must assume it is.

Post by VanguardLH
With nlite, you can embedd drivers for the newer hardware into the
WinXP image. Obviously you need to get drivers from the hardware
maker (chipset for mobo, video card, etc) that state they support
WinXP (32- or 64-bit).
https://www.nliteos.com/

Thats ... not something I really want wrangle with. Besides the problem
that with it I would lock the new installation CD to specific hardware.

Post by VanguardLH
... and why it fails on every host where you try to run it.

Not "every host", just on two identical pieces of hardware. I tried two,
just to be sure that it wasn't a fluke.

Post by VanguardLH
Got backup images of the install CD?

Yep. I suppose I could run a file-compare between the ISO and the actual
CD.

Post by VanguardLH
Oh, in the newer hardware, is it configured to use BIOS or UEFI?

Good question. The bootscreen mentions "UEFI BIOS", whatever that actually
means. :-\

Post by VanguardLH
WinXP cannot use UEFI.

I also thought of that, but as said, enough guesses but not (being able to)
pinpoint it on anything.

Post by VanguardLH
You need your host's firmware configured to use BIOS.

I did my best to find the relevant section, but am not even sure I
configured it correctly (old machines, no users manual handy).

Post by VanguardLH
Windows XP also does not support GPT partitions on drives.
You need to partition using the old MBR scheme.

That is something the installer would be asking me about later on. It
didn't get that far.

But, I even tried to run the install without an HD present. I got the same
message at about the same point.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[VanguardLH]

Post by R.Wieser

Post by VanguardLH
Bluescreens have a stop code. What did you get?

I was sure I had written it down, but can't find it back anymore. :-(
All I rembemer is that it was in the upper range of the 0x70 range.

0x7B is inaccessible boot device which could be due to you using UEFI on
the mobo and GPT to partition the boot drive (or any or them). WinXP
doesn't support UEFI or GPT. You have to go into the firmware for the
mobo to be sure it is configured to use BIOS firmware and MBR
partitioning.

For partitioning, you could run the WinXP installer, and have it delete
any and all partitions on the boot drive to make sure it creates an MBR
partition. Or use 3rd-party bootable partition managers to create the
MBR partition(s) before you attempt to install WinXP.

Post by R.Wieser

Post by VanguardLH
With nlite, you can embedd drivers for the newer hardware into the
WinXP image. Obviously you need to get drivers from the hardware
maker (chipset for mobo, video card, etc) that state they support
WinXP (32- or 64-bit).
https://www.nliteos.com/

Thats ... not something I really want wrangle with. Besides the problem
that with it I would lock the new installation CD to specific hardware.

You copy your install CD, use nLite to customize THAT image, and burn
THAT image to a CD to boot from that. You would have a customized CD
for THAT computer. You are not modifying the original CD.

Post by R.Wieser

Post by VanguardLH
... and why it fails on every host where you try to run it.

Not "every host", just on two identical pieces of hardware. I tried
two, just to be sure that it wasn't a fluke.

You didn't mention success on some other host, just the 2 you tried
failed similarly.

Post by R.Wieser

Post by VanguardLH
Oh, in the newer hardware, is it configured to use BIOS or UEFI?

Good question. The bootscreen mentions "UEFI BIOS", whatever that
actually means. :-\

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table

Your newer hardware may support those. WinXP does not.

Post by R.Wieser

Post by VanguardLH
WinXP cannot use UEFI.

I also thought of that, but as said, enough guesses but not (being
able to) pinpoint it on anything.

That wasn't a guess. WinXP does *not* support UEFI firmware mode nor
GPT partitioning. Newer hardware may come pre-configured with UEFI and
the drives pre-formatted using GPT. They figure a newer OS would get
used.

Post by R.Wieser

Post by VanguardLH
You need your host's firmware configured to use BIOS.

I did my best to find the relevant section, but am not even sure I
configured it correctly (old machines, no users manual handy).

In the mobos that I've used, the option to select UEFI or MBR firmware
mode was rather obvious. You never mentioned what mobo you have, but
likely the mobo maker's site has a manual for it. Even if you bought a
pre-built computer (you don't get a manual on the mobo itself), they
might provide some help on the BIOS settings; however, lots of
pre-builts are designed for boobs, so nothing beyond hooking up cables
to the ports on the case is provided. They rely on you using F1 to get
very short blurbs describing the options in the BIOS. UEFI is still a
BIOS but differently structured, so there's old BIOS mode and newer UEFI
mode.

You didn't mention the mobo brand and model, or pre-built computer brand
and model, for anyone else to check if there are manuals on it.

Post by R.Wieser

Post by VanguardLH
Windows XP also does not support GPT partitions on drives.
You need to partition using the old MBR scheme.

That is something the installer would be asking me about later on. It
didn't get that far.

Not if you elected to reuse existing partitions. You would expect the
installer to puke on you selecting a GPT-formatted partition, but maybe
not. You should be able to use the installer's partitioning support to
delete all partitions, and have it create a new MBR partition. Else, I
would use a bootable 3rd-party partition manager.

Post by R.Wieser
But, I even tried to run the install without an HD present. I got the same
message at about the same point.

Why I suspect the problem is with ancient drivers embedded in the old
original WinXP image on the install CD although if the mobo is
configured to boot in UEFI firmware mode then the WinXP installer won't
know how to use that.

[VanguardLH]

I see in your reply to Mayayana that you returned the 2 other computers,
so the issue is moot about getting WinXP on them. Since these were
pre-built computers intead of your build, what OS came on them? Seems
you had a chance to move to a later version of Windows, and the
computers would've already been setup to ensure they were immediately
usable.

You would have to get the chipset and other drivers from the computer
maker (instead of from the mobo maker) to make sure they are valid for
the particular hardware config for those computers. The drivers
embedded in the ancient image for WinXP may not work with the newer
hardware, plus it looks like they were pre-configured to use UEFI
instead of BIOS firmware mode.

No way to continue the diagnosis since you no longer have the computers.
You asked about the problem on Jan 13, and then reported 10 hours later
that you had returned the computers.

While the pre-builts probably came with a later version of Windows
already pre-installed, did you ask at the store or with their tech dept
if they knew how to get an old OS, like WinXP, installed on them? Tis
possible someone there knew a trick to get WinXP on the new computers.

[R.Wieser]

Post by VanguardLH
I see in your reply to Mayayana that you returned the 2 other computers,
so the issue is moot about getting WinXP on them.

Not quite. If I get the information with which I can get those two to
accept XP I might well re-buy them. Its just that it made no sense to me to
throw money away on hardware that didn't see to be fit for the purpose .

Post by VanguardLH
Since these were pre-built computers intead of your build, what OS
came on them?

Nothing. I asked for some hardware to install XP on, so they wiped what was
on it.

Post by VanguardLH
Seems you had a chance to move to a later version of Windows,

:-) One of many. And I consiously and purposely did not take any of them.

Post by VanguardLH
No way to continue the diagnosis since you no longer have the computers.

As mentioned, there might be. If I ask nicely there is a good possibility
that I will be allowed access one of them.

Post by VanguardLH
You asked about the problem on Jan 13, and then reported 10 hours later
that you had returned the computers.

Again, my focus wasn't on those specific computers, but instead on why the
XP installation software would fail and how to fix *that*.

Its possible I made the wrong choice in that though.

Post by VanguardLH
did you ask at the store or with their tech dept if they knew how to get
an old OS, like WinXP, installed on them?

Yes, I did. Alas, although he was sure XP would run on it it turns out he
hadn't actually tried it himself. When it than didn't work for me and I
returned the machines he had no idea what the cause could be.

Thanks for the info.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[august abolins]

Post by R.Wieser

Post by VanguardLH
No way to continue the diagnosis since you no longer have the computers.

As mentioned, there might be. If I ask nicely there is a good possibility
that I will be allowed access one of them.

[...]

Post by R.Wieser

Post by VanguardLH
did you ask at the store or with their tech dept if they knew how to get
an old OS, like WinXP, installed on them?

Yes, I did. Alas, although he was sure XP would run on it it turns out he
hadn't actually tried it himself. When it than didn't work for me and I
returned the machines he had no idea what the cause could be.

Sounds like the logical thing to do is bring your XP disk with
you to the shop, and try in on the machine there. If there is
an issue, the techies ought to know the causes or limitations
on that hardware.

Good luck.
--
../|ug

[R.Wieser]

Post by august abolins
Sounds like the logical thing to do is bring your XP disk
with you to the shop, and try in on the machine there.

I did.

Post by august abolins
If there is an issue, the techies ought to know the causes or
limitations on that hardware.

He didn't.

Mind you, this is about an OS now two decades old on a computer that is, to
current standards, ancient too.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[VanguardLH]

Post by R.Wieser
Again, my focus wasn't on those specific computers, but instead on why the
XP installation software would fail and how to fix *that*.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/16/10780876/microsoft-windows-support-policy-new-processors-skylake

That's one choke point for Windows XP which Mayayana mentioned. Since
you didn't identify what CPU was in those computers you returned, no
idea if the CPU was the problem. Obviously no one can address hardware
you might get later.

If you're going to buy pre-builts, first check if manuals are available
that tell you which CPU you are getting, and if the mobo can be
configured to run in UEFI or MBR mode (WinXP can only use the latter).
The tech at your shop can't tell you if they hardware they sell will
support WinXP, so you have to research yourself beforehand.

[VanguardLH]

Post by VanguardLH

Post by R.Wieser
Again, my focus wasn't on those specific computers, but instead on why the
XP installation software would fail and how to fix *that*.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/16/10780876/microsoft-windows-support-policy-new-processors-skylake
That's one choke point for Windows XP which Mayayana mentioned. Since
you didn't identify what CPU was in those computers you returned, no
idea if the CPU was the problem. Obviously no one can address hardware
you might get later.
If you're going to buy pre-builts, first check if manuals are available
that tell you which CPU you are getting, and if the mobo can be
configured to run in UEFI or MBR mode (WinXP can only use the latter).
The tech at your shop can't tell you if they hardware they sell will
support WinXP, so you have to research yourself beforehand.

And as JJ mentioned, you can't be using SATA drives with Windows XP.
There is no native SATA support in WinXP. It will be tough to find new
hardware that has IDE headers on the mobo instead of SATA headers.

https://us.informatiweb.net/tutorials/it/windows/windows-xp-install-windows-xp-on-a-sata-hard-disk.html

I've done the floppy method of interrupting the WinXP installer to get a
RAID driver installed that was needed for SATA support. If you go that
route, be sure to add an internal 3.5" floppy drive to the build (that
connects to a floppy header on the mobo, not via USB which might not be
usable until after the OS loads). Or use the nLite method of adding the
RAID/SATA driver to the WinXP image, and install using that customized
image.

There is no univeral image of any edition and version of Windows that
will install flawlessly on every aged or new computer. No idea why you
don't want a customized install image that works on a particular host.
Just keep the custom imaged boot CD with the computer with which it
works.

[R.Wieser]

Post by VanguardLH
You asked about the problem on Jan 13, and then reported 10 hours later
that you had returned the computers.

FYI : I started this thread on a monday, and had returned the computers the
saturday before.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[R.Wieser]

Post by VanguardLH
0x7B is inaccessible boot device which could be due to you using UEFI on
the mobo and GPT to partition the boot drive (or any or them).

That is the number I seem to remember, but am not at all sure about it.

Post by VanguardLH
For partitioning, you could run the WinXP installer, and have it
delete any and all partitions on the boot drive to make sure it
creates an MBR partition.

Thats a for me known, easy part. :-)

Post by VanguardLH
You copy your install CD, use nLite to customize THAT image, and
burn THAT image to a CD to boot from that. You would have a
customized CD for THAT computer. You are not modifying the original
CD.

:-) I did not assume I would be attempting to change whats on a read-only
CD. Its the "for THAT computer" that bothers me. :-\

Post by VanguardLH
You didn't mention success on some other host, just the 2 you
tried failed similarly.

My apologies. I have used that same CD a number of times on other computers
over the years and have never had a problem with it.

Post by VanguardLH

Post by R.Wieser

Post by VanguardLH
Oh, in the newer hardware, is it configured to use BIOS or UEFI?

Good question. The bootscreen mentions "UEFI BIOS", whatever that
actually means. :-\

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table
Your newer hardware may support those. WinXP does not.

I was more referring to both "UEFI" as well as "BIOS" being present in what
got displayed, so I have no idea what mode it represents - if its about a
selected mode at all.

Post by VanguardLH

Post by R.Wieser

Post by VanguardLH
You need your host's firmware configured to use BIOS.

I did my best to find the relevant section, but am not even sure
I configured it correctly (old machines, no users manual handy).

In the mobos that I've used, the option to select UEFI or MBR firmware
mode was rather obvious.

As mentioned, nothing obvious looked to be present. It *might* be there,
but for a first timer in that regard I might simply not recognising it.

Post by VanguardLH
You never mentioned what mobo you have, but likely the mobo maker's
site has a manual for it.

As I had many guesses but nothing in regard to a lead I had no reason to
blindly go thru some documentation - it being for the motherboard or aything
else.

I did try to find information on status code the "blue screen" mentioned,
but had no luck - due to not knowing what exactly to google for. :-|

And as the two 'puters where bought on the assurance of the salesperson they
would be able to run XP I just returned them.

Post by VanguardLH
You didn't mention the mobo brand and model, or pre-built computer
brand and model, for anyone else to check if there are manuals on it.

That is because I was/am not out to get that hardware to run, but to figure
out what could be stopping the XP installation software from completing its
task. You know, to be used on any bit of "new" hardware.

regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Mayayana]

"R.Wieser" <***@not.available> wrote

| A week or so ago I tried to install Xpsp3 on a "newer" computer (still a
| decade old, but not as old as XP itself). It some point in the pre-setup
| phase (before trying to acces the HD) it stopped with a "to protect your
| machine ..." blue screen. The same happend when I retried on a second
| computer.
|
| Question:
|
| What can cause the installation of the OS to throw that message ? And
what
| can I do to circumvent it ?
|

Hardware? I built my current XP box in 2015, but even then I
think the newer CPUs were starting to come out, which XP
apparently can't handle. I lose track of all this. It moves so fast.
The only thing I can think of, if all the hardware *should* support
it, would be to try loading a disk image. If you have one without
drivers installed it's easier, but either way is OK. You just have
to deal with a vast flurry of "Found New Hardware" messages
while you try to tell it to shut up and give it the drivers.

[R.Wieser]

Post by Mayayana
Hardware? I built my current XP box in 2015, but even then I
think the newer CPUs were starting to come out, which XP
apparently can't handle.

Thats the problem : I've got enough possible causes, but can't pinpoint it
on anything.

Post by Mayayana
The only thing I can think of, if all the hardware *should*
support it, would be to try loading a disk image.

I thought about the same, but just for "making sure" purposes. I would not
want to depend on such a bootstrap-installed machine though. So, I've
returned the two machines to the store.

If you are now wondering why I than am still asking my question ? So that I
do not run head-on into the exact same problem with another machine.

To be honest, even though I was aware that hardware-to-OS compatibility
problems have existed since forever (my w98se CD would not want to install
in "newer" hardware because the hardware adress of the CD drive changed) I
did not think it would be such a problem.

Thanks for the reply.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Mayayana]

"R.Wieser" <***@not.available> wrote

|
| To be honest, even though I was aware that hardware-to-OS compatibility
| problems have existed since forever (my w98se CD would not want to install
| in "newer" hardware because the hardware adress of the CD drive changed) I
| did not think it would be such a problem.

I've lost track, myself. I know the *lake CPUs and other recent
styles won't support XP. I'm not sure about what V mentioned
about disk partitioning. I use BootIt and I think it lets me choose,
but I just haven't kept up. When I built this box I got a spare
motherboard, just in case I needed it later. But when I went to get
a spare CPU, the price had gone way up. Then they were off
the market. So if the computers I have die then... I guess I might
have to hold my nose and switch to Linux.

[R.Wieser]

Post by Mayayana
I've lost track, myself.

I've not kept track, as I had no use for that information. Just now when
trying to find "new" old hardware I have reason to deal with it.

Post by Mayayana
I know the *lake CPUs and other recent styles won't support XP.

Specifically XP, or the (32-bit) versions of Vista and 7 too ?

Post by Mayayana
I'm not sure about what V mentioned about disk partitioning.

AFAIK just that XP does not support those disk formats. You would need to
throw them out and create a new partition XP does understand. And not
everybody knows its way around FDISK.

Post by Mayayana
When I built this box I got a spare motherboard, just in case
I needed it later.

In my case I bought two the 'puters, and recently had to decomission one of
them due to it sometimes crashing or just freezing because of memory faults,
even with proven good memory. So, I removed the harddrive, put it into the
second 'puter and was up-and-running again.

But now I'm (ofcourse) looking for two "new" old puters - and am head-on
running in the blasted "too new" problem. :-(

Post by Mayayana
So if the computers I have die then... I guess I might
have to hold my nose and switch to Linux.

In my case I stil have a Win7 CD as backup, and might even see if it works
for me. If not, I will probably switch to Linux too. Won't be fun though,
as I than have to discard over 25 years of DOS and Windows knowledge and
tools ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Mayayana]

"R.Wieser" <***@not.available> wrote
|
| > I know the *lake CPUs and other recent styles won't support XP.
|
| Specifically XP, or the (32-bit) versions of Vista and 7 too ?
|

I really haven't kept up, since I haven't wanted to build a system
since XP. My impression is that 7 will work with a little encouragement,
but I don't know details.

[Paul]

Post by Mayayana
|
| > I know the *lake CPUs and other recent styles won't support XP.
|
| Specifically XP, or the (32-bit) versions of Vista and 7 too ?
|
I really haven't kept up, since I haven't wanted to build a system
since XP. My impression is that 7 will work with a little encouragement,
but I don't know details.

Without researching the topic (or even wanting to :-) ),
WinXP support was discontinued in a certain year, and
this was back in the day where the hardware people honored that.

Support for Win8 was being dropped, before the end of Win8.
As an example of the bullshit today.

If you know WinXP stopped in 2014, then you look for a 2014 machine.
As a first guess at an epoch.

Skylake launched in 2015, so is slightly newer than that epoch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylake_%28microarchitecture%29

"The final design was largely an evolution of Haswell"

So we could look at Haswell next. It's 2013.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_%28microarchitecture%29

Then if we find a lateral article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA_1150

"Full support of Windows on LGA 1150 platform starts on Windows 7 -
official Windows XP support is limited to selected CPUs, chipsets
and only for embedded and industrial systems."

B85 motherboard and a Haswell ?

https://www.phoronix.com/review/msi_b85m_haswell

Core i5 4670 Haswell

CPU-world has stopped updating its CPU lists a year or two ago.
But should work just fine for a depth search of potential candidates.

https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i5/Intel-Core%20i5-4670.html

In the table fairly close to the bottom of that page, you can see
the Haswell are four cores with no Hyperthreading. There isn't
really much of a spread on processors there. Haswell has the FIVR regulator
right on the CPU die, and that may have taken Intels focus off making
compelling processors. It's a switching regulator for VCore
that runs at 200MHz and uses planar magnetics or something.
That's why Haswell is a wee bit different than other Intel processors.
The fastest switcher we designed at work, was 10MHz, by comparison.
That's 20 times faster.

Refurbs tend to get Win10 put on them, due to what
refurbisher kits are available from Microsoft.

https://www.amazon.ca/Dell-i5-4570-Windows-Certified-Refurbished/dp/B07G8QQQ1R

Optiplex 3020

That does not mean that 3020 is a "good idea", but it's a place to
start. You could check the Dell site and see what drivers
are available, for example. A home-brew system with say a
B85 chipset, might have a few more features than an Optiplex
would have. The Optiplex might not have USB3, whereas if
you were lucky, maybe an MSI B85 would have a NEC USB3 chip
on it (and the NEC is one of the few chips to have a WinXP driver,
I have one in my dead WinXP machine).

Paul

[Paul]

Post by R.Wieser
Hello all,
A week or so ago I tried to install Xpsp3 on a "newer" computer (still a
decade old, but not as old as XP itself). It some point in the pre-setup
phase (before trying to acces the HD) it stopped with a "to protect your
machine ..." blue screen. The same happend when I retried on a second
computer.
What can cause the installation of the OS to throw that message ? And what
can I do to circumvent it ?
Regards,
Rudy Wieser

We know exactly what it is.

Your PC is set to AHCI mode, and WinXP has no AHCI driver.

RAID mode \_____ Intel RAID-ready driver does both of these.
AHCI mode / If you look hard enough, you will find a TXTSETUP.oem kit for a floppy.
Once your hardware becomes "too modern", the TXTSETUP.oem kit does not exist.
You can use a Promise Ultra133 instead as a workaround. Or similar bodges.

Native mode PCI bus BAR and interface
Compatible mode The non-PCI option. Option works with ribbon cable, and Win95/Win98

Maybe an ICH6R has all those modes. Intel gradually withdrew some of the options
from the bottom of the list. And also stopped making TXTSETUP.oem kits for new chips (ICH10R).

Early in the install, there is a prompt at the bottom of
the screen, to press some F-key and offer a txtsetup.oem
style driver to the OS. This can do things like install
a PERC RAID controller driver for your PERC, an Adaptec driver
for some SCSI thing, and some of those are actually in WinXP
as in-box drivers. But there are always hardwares, like an
Areca, that you have to install separately.

If the machine is set to AHCI for the Southbridge interfaces,
and you just went ahead and installed anyway (without using F-key),
you will get an "Inaccessible Boot Volume" stop code. And that is
a STOP code in the seventies hex.

The reason the installer itself works, is it uses another
method of accessing the disk. However, when the gubbins installed
upon C: are called upon to support themselves, that's when
the STOP code hits the fan.

One of the few OSes not installed on the Test Machine, was
WinXP, and it's because I would be forever flipping storage
modes (AHCI for newer OS, Native for WinXP), if I were to multi-boot
and chain load WinXP. it would be a constant disruption.
So I did not do it.

The machine I did install WinXP on, stayed in Native mode its
entire life, and Win7, Win8.1, Win10 lived on there also in
Native mode. No harm done really. It's not like you'd notice.

But the thing is, if you did not think about this in advance,
and you installed all that spiffy modern stuff in AHCI mode,
it would be a hell of a mess to clean up, if flipping the whole
works back to Native mode. Each modern OS has a different
recipe for doing that. I think with Win10, coming up from
Safe Mode will detect a change of hardware interface setting.
(There is a BCDedit command, to add Safe Mode to the menu.)

WinXP is a lot harder to flip. Not that people today would
have a reason to do that. What happens with WinXP is, if you
try to install a driver, and the interface is in the wrong
mode, the driver won't install. You can't "stage" a driver in
WinXP like you might on other OSes. Win10 has things like
MSIDE and MSAHCI and IASTORV as inbox drivers, and you can
switch from one to another. And you don't have to use the
IASTORV (Intel RAID for Vista) driver, as there are RST drivers
which are newer. Thus, RAID mode actually has *two* driver
paths that can be used.

Paul

[R.Wieser]

Post by Paul
Your PC is set to AHCI mode, and WinXP has no AHCI driver.
RAID mode \_____ Intel RAID-ready driver does both of these.
AHCI mode / If you look hard enough, you will find a
TXTSETUP.oem kit for a floppy.
Once your hardware becomes "too modern", the
TXTSETUP.oem kit does not exist.
You can use a Promise Ultra133 instead as a
workaround. Or similar bodges.
Native mode PCI bus BAR and interface
Compatible mode The non-PCI option. Option works with ribbon cable, and Win95/Win98

Thanks. Thats certainly something to check (if-and-when I ask nicely the
store who tried to sell that hardware to me will probably allow me to fumble
around a bit with it).

Post by Paul
Early in the install, there is a prompt at the bottom of
the screen, to press some F-key and offer a txtsetup.oem
style driver to the OS.

The question if I want to install a RAID driver ? In that case, yes.

Post by Paul
This can do things like install a PERC RAID controller driver for your
PERC

I've goit no idea what, in this regard, "PERC" stands for I'm afraid.

Post by Paul
If the machine is set to AHCI for the Southbridge interfaces,
and you just went ahead and installed anyway (without using F-key),
you will get an "Inaccessible Boot Volume" stop code. And that is
a STOP code in the seventies hex.

As the 'puters I have used did not have a RAID I always let that question
time out. Never knew that its related to (what I recognise as related to
USB) AHCI mode.

Post by Paul
The reason the installer itself works, is it uses another
method of accessing the disk. However, when the gubbins installed
upon C: are called upon to support themselves, that's when
the STOP code hits the fan.

I got a feeling something like that could be the cause. But as mentioned, I
had a number of guesses, but simply not enough knowledge in that regard to
follow a particular lead.

Post by Paul
But the thing is, if you did not think about this in advance,
and you installed all that spiffy modern stuff in AHCI mode,
it would be a hell of a mess to clean up, if flipping the whole
works back to Native mode.

Luckily in my case its a full, fresh install. No multibooting involved.
For that I have a number of other computers standing around, and a KVM to
switch between them. :-)

Thanks for the explanation and info.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[JJ]

Post by R.Wieser
Hello all,
A week or so ago I tried to install Xpsp3 on a "newer" computer (still a
decade old, but not as old as XP itself). It some point in the pre-setup
phase (before trying to acces the HD) it stopped with a "to protect your
machine ..." blue screen. The same happend when I retried on a second
computer.
What can cause the installation of the OS to throw that message ? And what
can I do to circumvent it ?
Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Windows XP will choke on SATA controllers.
If you want to install Windows XP on SATA machines, either...

Enable IDE compatibility mode (or similar term) in the BIOS/firmware. If it
exists. But it will decrease performance for all SATA drives.

Slipstream the SATA driver into the Windows XP ISO.

[august abolins]

Hello jj4public!

Post by JJ
Windows XP will choke on SATA controllers.
If you want to install Windows XP on SATA machines, either...

I'm running XP on a T60 Thinkpad, SATA I. No problem.
I recently replaced the internal 250GB SATA HDD with a 1TB SSD
SATA. No problem.

Post by JJ
Enable IDE compatibility mode (or similar term) in the BIOS/firmware. If it
exists. But it will decrease performance for all SATA drives.

I don't think there is any performance issue at all. Infact,
some operational aspects are a bit faster with the SSD.


--
../|ug

[R.Wieser]

Post by JJ
Windows XP will choke on SATA controllers.

It does ? Than that would surely explain it. The drive connection was
indeed SATA.

Post by JJ
Enable IDE compatibility mode (or similar term) in the BIOS/firmware.
If it exists.

Good question. But, its something to check.

Post by JJ
But it will decrease performance for all SATA drives.

:-) I'm running XP. I do not expect it to be as fast as current-day
machines.

Than again, I have no idea if current machines are any faster than those of
20 years ago. I always feels like that the gains in processor speed is
killed by the OS/software becoming slower and slower ... :-\

Post by JJ
Slipstream the SATA driver into the Windows XP ISO.

Do you have any idea where I could find such a (generic?) SATA driver ?
Does MS (still) have them for download ?

And is that the kind of driver I can use when the installer asks for a RAID
driver ? Would make testing easier.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

[Mayayana]

"R.Wieser" <***@not.available> wrote

|
| > Enable IDE compatibility mode (or similar term) in the BIOS/firmware.
| > If it exists.
|

I think mine is set to IDE. I'm not sure. I'm pretty
certain I never installed drivers. My options are IDE,
RAID and AHCI.

I don't know about the speed issue. It's much faster
than it was with IDE drives at things like moving
files. Opening programs is mostly instant, anyway,
so... you can't get faster than instant.

[Paul]

Post by Mayayana
|
| > Enable IDE compatibility mode (or similar term) in the BIOS/firmware.
| > If it exists.
|
I think mine is set to IDE. I'm not sure. I'm pretty
certain I never installed drivers. My options are IDE,
RAID and AHCI.
I don't know about the speed issue. It's much faster
than it was with IDE drives at things like moving
files. Opening programs is mostly instant, anyway,
so... you can't get faster than instant.

AHCI uses tagged queuing. The number of outstanding commands
(commands where the drive can re-order the order of completion)
is fairly small. It's only some small number like seven or eight
commands.

When the storage system is not loaded down by multiple threads
of disk I/O, AHCI is actually *slower* by a tiny amount. That's
because the queue depth is either zero or one, and you're taking
a slightly longer path through the storage stack, for the same
amount of output.

AHCI would be a win for a server OS, where multiple programs
were beating the piss out of the drive. Then, it's faster
(because the queued up commands, there is a queue, and the
drive gets to select the shortest HDD seek path to complete
all the commands).

AHCI applies to SATA drives.

SAS drives, the tagged queuing on those, supports up to 65536
commands or so. Which is a ridiculously deep queue. Drives with
a fast seek, that queue might actually help. But the thing is,
an SSD with "zero" seek time, kinda defeats the purpose of
seek optimization. (There is nothing to optimize as
all the seeks take the same time.)

A home user on a WinXP machine is not a "server load". And
that's why the discussion at the time was, that ACHI was
a tiny bit slower. That's because you're doing the SCSI
equivalent of disconnect/reselect and that represents
extra time wasted in the storage stack.

Paul

[Newyana2]

Post by Paul
an SSD with "zero" seek time, kinda defeats the purpose of

seek optimization.

I had assumed that was the whole story. I didn't know
about write queues. And of course, I don't imagine Notepad
is fighting with itself to write to disk. There's just me here,
puttering along. But loading into memory, copying large amounts
across partitions... there's a noticeable speed improvement
with SSDs.

[august abolins]

Hello Newyana2!

[...] There's just me here,
puttering along. But loading into memory, copying large amounts
across partitions... there's a noticeable speed improvement
with SSDs.

You're operating on XP + and SSD?


--
../|ug

[NewYana2]

"august abolins" <***@nospam.net> wrote

| You're operating on XP + and SSD?
|

Yes. Two machines. Have been for years. All SATA
connections. I suppose it wouldn't work
with older machines that don't have SATA hookups.

NOTE: It took me awhile to answer because I'm getting error
441 all of today with Eternal September. I wonder if anyone
else is having trouble.

[Paul]

Post by NewYana2
| You're operating on XP + and SSD?
|
Yes. Two machines. Have been for years. All SATA
connections. I suppose it wouldn't work
with older machines that don't have SATA hookups.
NOTE: It took me awhile to answer because I'm getting error
441 all of today with Eternal September. I wonder if anyone
else is having trouble.

Ray has fixed E-S. It should work now, but some posts in-flight
will be lost (they won't show up on E-S, but may be seen and
read, on another server). That's because they're not sitting in spool,
but are postings offered by other servers. Ray is usually pretty
good about restoring internal integrity on his server. Comms
between servers, apparently when a message is rejected, the
server won't pull it again. And it is not a good idea to screw
with the comms side, because you can cause other servers to get
duplicate messages and so on. You do not want to do anything
that will cause "Cabal blow-back".

Paul

[Newyana2]

"Paul" <***@needed.invalid> wrote

| Ray has fixed E-S. It should work now, but some posts in-flight
| will be lost (they won't show up on E-S, but may be seen and
| read, on another server). That's because they're not sitting in spool,
| but are postings offered by other servers. Ray is usually pretty
| good about restoring internal integrity on his server. Comms
| between servers, apparently when a message is rejected, the
| server won't pull it again. And it is not a good idea to screw
| with the comms side, because you can cause other servers to get
| duplicate messages and so on. You do not want to do anything
| that will cause "Cabal blow-back".
|

Thanks for that info. I had changed my name recently
and wondered if maybe his system thought I was soe
kind of forger. Hopefully this will get through.

[Newyana2]

"august abolins" <***@nospam.net> wrote

| You're operating on XP + and SSD?
|

Yes. Two machines. Have been for years. All SATA
connections. I suppose it wouldn't work
with older machines that don't have SATA hookups.

[august abolins]

Hello Newyana2!

Post by NewYana2
| You're operating on XP + and SSD?
|
Yes. Two machines. Have been for years. All SATA
connections. I suppose it wouldn't work
with older machines that don't have SATA hookups.

I've heard of Thinkpad users implanting SSD drives on they're
PATA only systems. My T40p is one such. Also XP. The
original 80GB drive is woefully inadequate. I wouldn't mind
extending it's use with an SSD. It's got a fresh OEM batt and
a revamped display.

--
../|ug

[Paul]

Post by Paul

Post by Paul
an SSD with "zero" seek time, kinda defeats the purpose of

seek optimization.
I had assumed that was the whole story. I didn't know
about write queues. And of course, I don't imagine Notepad
is fighting with itself to write to disk. There's just me here,
puttering along. But loading into memory, copying large amounts
across partitions... there's a noticeable speed improvement
with SSDs.

Zero seek time, improves operations involving lots of files.

The classic example would be trying to find something
with Agent Ransack. That's a brute force search, searching
all of C: perhaps.

Only the more modern OSes are managing to (finally) beat
the old 4000 operations per second limit of NTFS. And the crusty
system read cache hasn't always helped, like it does now.
But with Microsoft, you never know how fast it will run the
next day. I predict one of these days, a new version of
Windows 11 will come in, and it will be 5x slower than normal.
I don't know if common sense will stop Microsoft, in this endeavor
(seen on Insider version).

*******

The SSD drives have higher sustained write speed than hard drives.
Of course a basic write can operate faster, as long as the wind
blows in the right direction.

The fastest flash write operation to date, is around 10GB/sec on PCIe Rev5.

The PCIe Rev5 drives will not sustain this for very long,
because they run out of "pseudo-SLC cache" and they
also tend to overheat and throttle. They can drop from 10GB/sec to less
than 1GB/sec.

The exception is when older hardware has limited SATA performance.
For example, my Asrock 4Core motherboard only has SATA I and can only
do around 150MB/sec theoretical, and less in practice. I can probably
write the hard drive on this machine, faster than old_machine + SSD,
and that's because of the SATA interface on the old machine.

Not many WinXP setups will have full SATA III hardware. And even
some of the SATA III chips (a particular Marvell model), don't run
full speed. One of the SATA III could only do 300, instead of 450 or
a bit better. These "bottlenecks" are all over the place.

Paul