GA-7zx install problems - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on GA-7zx install problems - Microsoft Windows ; "herman" wrote in message news:dipn10$e8n$1@sadr.dfn.de... > "Lil' Dave" wrote in > news:eQVMdUL0FHA.3256@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl: > > > See enclosed replies - > > > > "herman" wrote in message > > news:dimm25$jkc$1@sadr.dfn.de... > >> I am talking to the gigabyte tech people. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: GA-7zx install problems

  1. Re: GA-7zx install problems

    "herman" wrote in message
    news:dipn10$e8n$1@sadr.dfn.de...
    > "Lil' Dave" wrote in
    > news:eQVMdUL0FHA.3256@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl:
    >
    > > See enclosed replies -
    > >
    > > "herman" wrote in message
    > > news:dimm25$jkc$1@sadr.dfn.de...
    > >> I am talking to the gigabyte tech people. They tell me that the setup
    > >> files I have may be from a OEM win98se release that tries to install
    > >> it's own drivers which are incompatible with the drivers on the
    > >> system.
    > >>

    > >
    > > They're talking a manufactured PC with its OEM CD. A buy with
    > > hardware OEM CD works just the same as retail for a new install.

    >
    > I told them that, but they will not accept it. They keep claiming I've
    > got a bad copy of the install when I know I don't.
    >
    > >
    > >> New question, is there an install switch/switches that prevents setup
    > >> from installing such drivers AND, how do I know what drivers the box
    > >> is currently using, since I got the box second hand? Will hwinfo give
    > >> this information? Should I try to install latest gigabyte drivers?
    > >>

    > >
    > > You might have chipset specfic drivers that windows does not have a
    > > specific set of drivers for. In this case, a generic set of drivers
    > > is installed for the motherboard. Any other suspect hardware should
    > > be either disabled in the bios, and slot hardware removed until the
    > > install is completed.

    >
    > No I found the problem, see below.
    > >
    > >> They are also telling me I cannot have the hdrives on the secondary
    > >> ide channel, which they are working ok on now. I must move them to
    > >> channel one primary. Never heard of this before?
    > >>

    > >
    > > The boot drive that windows resides on should be disk 0, or master on
    > > the primary ide channel. Its okay, even advisable to have the second
    > > hard drive on the secondary channel if the PC has problems with
    > > reads/writes with two hard drives on the primary ide channel.

    >
    > System/windows should work fine as long as c: drive (to which win
    > installs) is drv0, regardless of ide channel at MB. System was working
    > fine with other programs, etc with both drive on ide channel two,
    > although channel one might be faster.
    >
    > >
    > > Further, I would remove the both cd devices from the system to
    > > eliminate any possibility of these causing I/O communication problems
    > > on the either ide channel. Be sure to reset any jumper pins on the
    > > hard drives if needed for proper master/slave designation, especially
    > > if a WD hard drive.

    >
    > No this is going down the wrong road see below
    >
    > >
    > > Replacing the ide ribbon cables is standard procedure on older PCs
    > > with me. Stick with 80 wire versions. Stick with master/slave
    > > designations only.
    > >
    > > If you do have a marginal I/O problem, copying the files from the CD
    > > to a hard drive, then using those for an installation only multiplies
    > > the possibility of more problems. RAM also plays into copying as
    > > well.

    >
    > not an i/o problem
    >
    > >
    > > Booting from a floppy is standard procedure with installing Win9X/ME.
    > > Normally, the startup diskette is used. See bootdisk.com for yours,
    > > be sure to follow directions at the site on making the floppy. This
    > > contains a generic dos driver for locating most cdroms, but not all.
    > >
    > > As @Shep indicated, sure sounds like a RAM problem, or a bios timing
    > > problem in relation to the RAM.

    >
    > now your getting hot, see below
    >
    >
    > >
    > > My question is why is emm386 running high memory, instead of just
    > > upper memory for drivers? At least that's what the error message
    > > implies. Try the /noems switch
    > > If you're not running any drivers high umb, there's no need for emm386
    > > at all.

    >
    > had to remove emm386 was causing conflicts, even though I believe
    > windows advises using it (if memory serves) if you get an out of error
    > message.
    >
    > ***
    > Ok, here is the solution. I did the following: took out ram stick,
    > cleaned with eraser and alcohol, put back in. System would not boot with
    > ram in another slot, had to use same slot. If stick was put in second
    > slot, blank screen-nothing.
    >
    > took out emm386 which I was using to increase convention memory by
    > loading high cd drivers- you cannot do this it will give u an error-
    > conflicts with windows memory calls.
    >
    > however the thing that really solved the problem is I had to set bios
    > ram to 100MHZ not 133MHZ. Win98 will not install, NOR will it run with
    > the memory set to 133, even though the memory has a sticker on it that
    > says 133MHZ and the memory checked ok with testing and was stable with
    > other apps. It was not the memory but the bios memory speed setting that
    > win98 choked on. I got every kind of error in the book, too many to
    > write down here. SOon as i set it to 100 MHZ install went smoothly.
    > AND if i set it back, after successful install, windows will not boot,
    > give gpf errors.
    >
    > I don't know maybe win98 cannot run on a fast system. There have been
    > several posters who claim this and MS "help" sheet on this advises
    > slowing down the system to accomdate windows.
    >
    > Anyways now have a pretty fast win98 os on this box, except for the
    > sound and modem. Do not know which drivers to install, I think the sound
    > is onboard on this GA-7zx Rev. 1.01, and I don't really know what is in
    > the 4-in-1 package; besides they have another sound driver package for
    > the same board called something like creative sound win2003. Any help
    > along those lines is appreciated.
    >
    > >
    > > If the motherboard is of Via chipset origin, by all means load the 4
    > > in 1 drivers. This is AFTER windows is installed.
    > >

    >
    > That is what I was wondering. What drivers exactly do them mean by 4 in
    > one, does that include sound, modem, what? I have the os installed now
    > but it's telling me I need to install drivers for sound and modem. Modem
    > won't even report mfg., it is some generic (prob. piece of crap). Cannot
    > even find anything on card.
    >
    > >
    > >>
    > >> herman wrote in news:dimch1$as7$1@sadr.dfn.de:
    > >>
    > >> >
    > >> > Been searching on this problem, nothing really on target found.
    > >> > Lots of suggestions out there but no one seems to know the
    > >> > definitive answer to why it is so hard to get win98se to install on
    > >> > this box. I have x-posted because I have yet to find a definitive
    > >> > answer to this problem.
    > >> >
    > >> > Gigabyte ZA-7zx Rev. 1.01. AMD Duron 800 MHZ two hds: 14GB and
    > >> > 7GB-same channel
    > >> >
    > >> > 256 MB Ram
    > >> >
    > >> > Bios American Megatrends 1/2001
    > >> >
    > >> > I got this box 2nd hand. I have the MB manual (i think-almost
    > >> > impossible to tell with from the gigabyte website).
    > >> >
    > >> > Trying to install Win98SE from Slave drive cab files, taken from
    > >> > another working system. Using same system win98 boot disk I sysed
    > >> > a: c: to put the boot files onto the C: install drive (primary
    > >> > boot). Can I install by booting from w98 boot diskette? Or must I
    > >> > boot from c: drive?
    > >> >
    > >> > I also have two cd-roms that work with dos drivers, but no other
    > >> > drivers installed for them, a modem card (cannot find the name).
    > >> > Matrox video installed. I think onboard sound.
    > >> >
    > >> > I keep getting to the install screen and the files are supposedly
    > >> > loaded to the C: drive (when exercising setup from the D drive).
    > >> >
    > >> > Then I get all kinds of errors after that including: SUWIN GPF at
    > >> > setupx.dll, "serious error, cannot write to c:", "emm386 found
    > >> > error, halted system".
    > >> >
    > >> > I really do NOT want to start taking the machine apart to install
    > >> > win98se-would rather avoid taking out cards to make the install and
    > >> > will just use some other OS. Is there another version of windows
    > >> > that is not so problematical with this machine?
    > >> >
    > >> > I have done nothing with the bios and do not even know if the
    > >> > settings are factory default.
    > >> >
    > >> > Anyone?
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    > >

    >


    Would have suspected column/address refresh rate if the RAM is recognized
    but the installation can't work with it. Winding back 33 Mhz is a very
    radical backstep. The RAM, or the two clocks syncing on the motherboard are
    suspect at 133 Mhz in my mind per your results.

    The 4 in 1 driver has no contingency for modems or sound installation. Its
    strictly the main motherboard components.

    Download, expand, (there is no install) and run Everest to find specifics on
    your modem and sound chipsets. Else, open the case and pull those cards and
    inspect main chip for specifics printed on them. In some cases, a make and
    model of the card may be embossed on the card. If either is onboard the
    motherboard, you have to be famliar with it. The motherboard manual may
    indicate general location. Whether modem or sound is onboard the
    motherboard is easy to determine, the jacks or ports for either will come
    from the motherboard, not a card slot on the back of the PC.



  2. Re: GA-7zx install problems

    "Gary S. Terhune" wrote in
    news:OFu14$S0FHA.4032@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl:

    > Actually, it *was* the RAM. Either your RAM is only meant to run on
    > 100Mhz or slower, or, if it is nominally 133 RAM, the RAM and/or
    > motherboard have problems that cause them to falter when run at 133
    > and backing it off to 100 saves the day. I had a similar problem with
    > RAM that was supposedly 133Mhz (Kensington) and a motherboard that
    > should handle that (ABIT AT-7) and they all agreed that 2GB should be
    > no problem. But it was. I can either clock the system back to 100Mhz
    > FSB or I can reduce the amount to 1.5GB, and if not, it got flaky, and
    > this was WinXP, which is quite able to handle faster and more RAM.


    You may or may not be right. I found posts claiming that the MB cannot
    do 133 and I found posts claiming that windows is written such that is
    cannot handle fast MB speeds. There are many posts on this for people
    who could not install win98 on various MBs with processors at 1 GHZ or
    better. This is why MS has a page on the suwin error directing people to
    reduce the speed of their BIOS settings when installing win98-see their
    KB article on this under "suwin cause (GPF) in setupx.dll".
    >
    > Note that the effect is worse during installation, and many times all
    > you have to do is clock things back, or use less RAM, to allow Windows
    > to install, after which you can sometimes ramp things back up to full
    > speed and capacity with few if any problems. That wasn't the case in
    > mine -- the errors were fewer once Windows was installed, but they
    > didn't disappear.
    >
    > Clocking back the FSB may simply be reducing the stress on a marginal
    > setup. But it isn't the speed, per se, and it has nothing to do with
    > Windows' capabilities. It's all in the hardware. You either had it
    > configured wrong in the first place according to the hardware you have
    > installed, or it's just gets flaky when you push it to max specs.


    I don't think so. Everything else runs perfectly at MHZ133, only windoz
    f*cks up. When in doubt blame MS products, that is usually wherein the
    fault lies. Also ran memory checkers, no errors. If ram is bad or config
    is bad it will show running other things as well, not just with MS crap.

    >



  3. Re: GA-7zx install problems

    "Lil' Dave" wrote in
    news:OMDqxRX0FHA.3180@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl:

    > "herman" wrote in message
    > news:dipn10$e8n$1@sadr.dfn.de...
    >> "Lil' Dave" wrote in
    >> news:eQVMdUL0FHA.3256@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl:
    >>
    >> > See enclosed replies -
    >> >
    >> > "herman" wrote in message
    >> > news:dimm25$jkc$1@sadr.dfn.de...
    >> >> I am talking to the gigabyte tech people. They tell me that the
    >> >> setup files I have may be from a OEM win98se release that tries to
    >> >> install it's own drivers which are incompatible with the drivers
    >> >> on the system.
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> > They're talking a manufactured PC with its OEM CD. A buy with
    >> > hardware OEM CD works just the same as retail for a new install.

    >>
    >> I told them that, but they will not accept it. They keep claiming
    >> I've got a bad copy of the install when I know I don't.
    >>
    >> >
    >> >> New question, is there an install switch/switches that prevents
    >> >> setup from installing such drivers AND, how do I know what drivers
    >> >> the box is currently using, since I got the box second hand? Will
    >> >> hwinfo give this information? Should I try to install latest
    >> >> gigabyte drivers?
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> > You might have chipset specfic drivers that windows does not have a
    >> > specific set of drivers for. In this case, a generic set of
    >> > drivers is installed for the motherboard. Any other suspect
    >> > hardware should be either disabled in the bios, and slot hardware
    >> > removed until the install is completed.

    >>
    >> No I found the problem, see below.
    >> >
    >> >> They are also telling me I cannot have the hdrives on the
    >> >> secondary ide channel, which they are working ok on now. I must
    >> >> move them to channel one primary. Never heard of this before?
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> > The boot drive that windows resides on should be disk 0, or master
    >> > on the primary ide channel. Its okay, even advisable to have the
    >> > second hard drive on the secondary channel if the PC has problems
    >> > with reads/writes with two hard drives on the primary ide channel.

    >>
    >> System/windows should work fine as long as c: drive (to which win
    >> installs) is drv0, regardless of ide channel at MB. System was
    >> working fine with other programs, etc with both drive on ide channel
    >> two, although channel one might be faster.
    >>
    >> >
    >> > Further, I would remove the both cd devices from the system to
    >> > eliminate any possibility of these causing I/O communication
    >> > problems on the either ide channel. Be sure to reset any jumper
    >> > pins on the hard drives if needed for proper master/slave
    >> > designation, especially if a WD hard drive.

    >>
    >> No this is going down the wrong road see below
    >>
    >> >
    >> > Replacing the ide ribbon cables is standard procedure on older PCs
    >> > with me. Stick with 80 wire versions. Stick with master/slave
    >> > designations only.
    >> >
    >> > If you do have a marginal I/O problem, copying the files from the
    >> > CD to a hard drive, then using those for an installation only
    >> > multiplies the possibility of more problems. RAM also plays into
    >> > copying as well.

    >>
    >> not an i/o problem
    >>
    >> >
    >> > Booting from a floppy is standard procedure with installing
    >> > Win9X/ME. Normally, the startup diskette is used. See bootdisk.com
    >> > for yours, be sure to follow directions at the site on making the
    >> > floppy. This contains a generic dos driver for locating most
    >> > cdroms, but not all.
    >> >
    >> > As @Shep indicated, sure sounds like a RAM problem, or a bios
    >> > timing problem in relation to the RAM.

    >>
    >> now your getting hot, see below
    >>
    >>
    >> >
    >> > My question is why is emm386 running high memory, instead of just
    >> > upper memory for drivers? At least that's what the error message
    >> > implies. Try the /noems switch
    >> > If you're not running any drivers high umb, there's no need for
    >> > emm386 at all.

    >>
    >> had to remove emm386 was causing conflicts, even though I believe
    >> windows advises using it (if memory serves) if you get an out of
    >> error message.
    >>
    >> ***
    >> Ok, here is the solution. I did the following: took out ram stick,
    >> cleaned with eraser and alcohol, put back in. System would not boot
    >> with ram in another slot, had to use same slot. If stick was put in
    >> second slot, blank screen-nothing.
    >>
    >> took out emm386 which I was using to increase convention memory by
    >> loading high cd drivers- you cannot do this it will give u an error-
    >> conflicts with windows memory calls.
    >>
    >> however the thing that really solved the problem is I had to set bios
    >> ram to 100MHZ not 133MHZ. Win98 will not install, NOR will it run
    >> with the memory set to 133, even though the memory has a sticker on
    >> it that says 133MHZ and the memory checked ok with testing and was
    >> stable with other apps. It was not the memory but the bios memory
    >> speed setting that win98 choked on. I got every kind of error in the
    >> book, too many to write down here. SOon as i set it to 100 MHZ
    >> install went smoothly. AND if i set it back, after successful
    >> install, windows will not boot, give gpf errors.
    >>
    >> I don't know maybe win98 cannot run on a fast system. There have been
    >> several posters who claim this and MS "help" sheet on this advises
    >> slowing down the system to accomdate windows.
    >>
    >> Anyways now have a pretty fast win98 os on this box, except for the
    >> sound and modem. Do not know which drivers to install, I think the
    >> sound is onboard on this GA-7zx Rev. 1.01, and I don't really know
    >> what is in the 4-in-1 package; besides they have another sound driver
    >> package for the same board called something like creative sound
    >> win2003. Any help along those lines is appreciated.
    >>
    >> >
    >> > If the motherboard is of Via chipset origin, by all means load the
    >> > 4 in 1 drivers. This is AFTER windows is installed.
    >> >

    >>
    >> That is what I was wondering. What drivers exactly do them mean by 4
    >> in one, does that include sound, modem, what? I have the os installed
    >> now but it's telling me I need to install drivers for sound and
    >> modem. Modem won't even report mfg., it is some generic (prob. piece
    >> of crap). Cannot even find anything on card.
    >>
    >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> herman wrote in news:dimch1$as7$1@sadr.dfn.de:
    >> >>
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Been searching on this problem, nothing really on target found.
    >> >> > Lots of suggestions out there but no one seems to know the
    >> >> > definitive answer to why it is so hard to get win98se to install
    >> >> > on this box. I have x-posted because I have yet to find a
    >> >> > definitive answer to this problem.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Gigabyte ZA-7zx Rev. 1.01. AMD Duron 800 MHZ two hds: 14GB and
    >> >> > 7GB-same channel
    >> >> >
    >> >> > 256 MB Ram
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Bios American Megatrends 1/2001
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I got this box 2nd hand. I have the MB manual (i think-almost
    >> >> > impossible to tell with from the gigabyte website).
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Trying to install Win98SE from Slave drive cab files, taken from
    >> >> > another working system. Using same system win98 boot disk I
    >> >> > sysed a: c: to put the boot files onto the C: install drive
    >> >> > (primary boot). Can I install by booting from w98 boot diskette?
    >> >> > Or must I boot from c: drive?
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I also have two cd-roms that work with dos drivers, but no other
    >> >> > drivers installed for them, a modem card (cannot find the name).
    >> >> > Matrox video installed. I think onboard sound.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I keep getting to the install screen and the files are
    >> >> > supposedly loaded to the C: drive (when exercising setup from
    >> >> > the D drive).
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Then I get all kinds of errors after that including: SUWIN GPF
    >> >> > at setupx.dll, "serious error, cannot write to c:", "emm386
    >> >> > found error, halted system".
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I really do NOT want to start taking the machine apart to
    >> >> > install win98se-would rather avoid taking out cards to make the
    >> >> > install and will just use some other OS. Is there another
    >> >> > version of windows that is not so problematical with this
    >> >> > machine?
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I have done nothing with the bios and do not even know if the
    >> >> > settings are factory default.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Anyone?
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >

    >>

    >
    > Would have suspected column/address refresh rate if the RAM is
    > recognized but the installation can't work with it. Winding back 33
    > Mhz is a very radical backstep. The RAM, or the two clocks syncing on
    > the motherboard are suspect at 133 Mhz in my mind per your results.


    I really do not believe it is a ram fault. Might be a MB design fault,
    but I really think it is just a **** OS. Windows, even on successful
    installs is so unstable that I it is always suspect, imnsho. If the ram
    was bad or any other hardware I would see it with other programs apps.;
    not so in this case and the ram tested ok.


    Here is one posters take on a similar problem, but with faster systems:

    Stephen T Cripps Jan 27 2001, 4:03 am show options
    Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.giga-byte
    From: "Stephen T Cripps" - Find messages by
    this author Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:05:35 -0000
    Local: Sat, Jan 27 2001 3:05 am
    Subject: Re: Win98 install on GA-7ZX problem
    Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original |
    Report Abuse

    There is another problem with Windows on newer, faster systems:
    basically the computer is too fast for Windows. When using a fast bus
    and a fast harddrive with a large cache (typically 2Mb), when Windows
    closes it sends its final data, including finalising the registry, to
    the HDD. The cache rapidly fills and gradually (in comparison) starts
    writing to disk. Windows, happy that the data has all been sent to disk,
    sends an ATX power-off request to the motherboard, which gladly complies
    and pulls the plug. The net result is that anything still left in the
    HDD cache is dumped. The typical symptom is as described: an apparently
    normal shut-down, followed by a registry scan/repair on start-up.


    Microsoft has a knowledge base article (Q273017) in which they describe
    the problem as affecting 900MHz+. I have had 800s fail and I think the
    key is more bus speed (always 133) and disk transfer speed and cache
    size (ATA100 and 2Mb+). I can see the problem getting worse with the
    advent of DDR and 200/266 bus speeds. Microsoft have issued a hot-fix,
    whilst denying all responsibility. The fix replaces the ifsmgr.vxd (IDE
    file system manager virtual device driver) with a new one, to recognize
    a new registry setting. The setting provides a short delay on shut-down,
    to give the HDD time to finish. I feel this is a poor fix as there is
    still no actual confirmation that the HDD is done, just an arbitrary
    delay 'that should be long enough'.


    If you need the hot-fix file, I need your platform type (only released
    for Win Me or Win 98SE) and email address. I hope this helps.


    --


    Stephen T Cripps
    Proprietor
    MFS


    MFSoluti...@cwcom.net
    www.m-f-solutions.mcmail.com



    >
    > The 4 in 1 driver has no contingency for modems or sound installation.
    > Its strictly the main motherboard components.
    >

    ran various diag. programs including hwinfo and i think (i will check)
    everest. This modem gives up nothing. generic modem, no mfg. pci modem
    with nothing written on board. I am pretty certain it is onboard, but
    the gigabyte site is not too good at telling you which drivers to use.
    Also many posts from others who have had trouble getting sound under
    win98 for this board.

    > Download, expand, (there is no install) and run Everest to find
    > specifics on your modem and sound chipsets. Else, open the case and
    > pull those cards and inspect main chip for specifics printed on them.
    > In some cases, a make and model of the card may be embossed on the
    > card. If either is onboard the motherboard, you have to be famliar
    > with it. The motherboard manual may indicate general location.
    > Whether modem or sound is onboard the motherboard is easy to
    > determine, the jacks or ports for either will come from the
    > motherboard, not a card slot on the back of the PC.
    >
    >
    >



  4. Re: GA-7zx install problems

    "Gary S. Terhune" wrote in
    news:OFu14$S0FHA.4032@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl:

    > Actually, it *was* the RAM. Either your RAM is only meant to run on
    > 100Mhz or slower, or, if it is nominally 133 RAM, the RAM and/or
    > motherboard have problems that cause them to falter when run at 133
    > and backing it off to 100 saves the day. I had a similar problem with
    > RAM that was supposedly 133Mhz (Kensington) and a motherboard that
    > should handle that (ABIT AT-7) and they all agreed that 2GB should be
    > no problem. But it was. I can either clock the system back to 100Mhz
    > FSB or I can reduce the amount to 1.5GB, and if not, it got flaky, and
    > this was WinXP, which is quite able to handle faster and more RAM.


    BTW, what exactly do you mean by "reduce the amount to 1.5GB", do you
    mean GHZ??

    >
    > Note that the effect is worse during installation, and many times all
    > you have to do is clock things back, or use less RAM, to allow Windows
    > to install, after which you can sometimes ramp things back up to full
    > speed and capacity with few if any problems. That wasn't the case in
    > mine -- the errors were fewer once Windows was installed, but they
    > didn't disappear.


    Nope, won't even boot at 133. Everything else works except Msuck 98.
    Memory tests ok. Memory is rated at 133.
    Not ram, Msuck. Only reason I installed it is due to
    Bill boys monopoly on third party software producers. Will install BSD
    on second partition.

    >
    > Clocking back the FSB may simply be reducing the stress on a marginal
    > setup. But it isn't the speed, per se, and it has nothing to do with
    > Windows' capabilities. It's all in the hardware. You either had it
    > configured wrong in the first place according to the hardware you have
    > installed, or it's just gets flaky when you push it to max specs.
    >


    Your wrong I think. Has everything to do with windoze. Once I get
    everything I need for bsd or linux installed it is delete partition for
    winsuck time. Cant be resetting my bios just for microsuck.

  5. Re: GA-7zx install problems

    Wow! That's two people in one pass that I'm plonking. First time in several
    months. Congratulations!

    I've changed my opinion. In both yours and everyman's cases, the obvious
    problem above all others is BCAK.

    ROFL!! Good luck with your BSD, etc.

    --
    Gary S. Terhune
    MS MVP Shell/User

    "herman" wrote in message
    news:dirojk$rkd$2@sadr.dfn.de...
    > "Gary S. Terhune" wrote in
    > news:OFu14$S0FHA.4032@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl:
    >
    > > Actually, it *was* the RAM. Either your RAM is only meant to run on
    > > 100Mhz or slower, or, if it is nominally 133 RAM, the RAM and/or
    > > motherboard have problems that cause them to falter when run at 133
    > > and backing it off to 100 saves the day. I had a similar problem with
    > > RAM that was supposedly 133Mhz (Kensington) and a motherboard that
    > > should handle that (ABIT AT-7) and they all agreed that 2GB should be
    > > no problem. But it was. I can either clock the system back to 100Mhz
    > > FSB or I can reduce the amount to 1.5GB, and if not, it got flaky, and
    > > this was WinXP, which is quite able to handle faster and more RAM.

    >
    > BTW, what exactly do you mean by "reduce the amount to 1.5GB", do you
    > mean GHZ??
    >
    > >
    > > Note that the effect is worse during installation, and many times all
    > > you have to do is clock things back, or use less RAM, to allow Windows
    > > to install, after which you can sometimes ramp things back up to full
    > > speed and capacity with few if any problems. That wasn't the case in
    > > mine -- the errors were fewer once Windows was installed, but they
    > > didn't disappear.

    >
    > Nope, won't even boot at 133. Everything else works except Msuck 98.
    > Memory tests ok. Memory is rated at 133.
    > Not ram, Msuck. Only reason I installed it is due to
    > Bill boys monopoly on third party software producers. Will install BSD
    > on second partition.
    >
    > >
    > > Clocking back the FSB may simply be reducing the stress on a marginal
    > > setup. But it isn't the speed, per se, and it has nothing to do with
    > > Windows' capabilities. It's all in the hardware. You either had it
    > > configured wrong in the first place according to the hardware you have
    > > installed, or it's just gets flaky when you push it to max specs.
    > >

    >
    > Your wrong I think. Has everything to do with windoze. Once I get
    > everything I need for bsd or linux installed it is delete partition for
    > winsuck time. Cant be resetting my bios just for microsuck.




  6. Re: GA-7zx install problems

    on Sat 15 Oct 2005 05:54:21p, "Gary S. Terhune"
    wrote in
    news:OSueQye0FHA.460@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl:

    > When someone complains that a specific version of Windows
    > eventually runs into this or that problem with hardware that is
    > released after the OS, particularly when that someone gloms onto
    > such a minute detail (and one that was fixed, whatever the
    > author thinks of the solution) and cites it as an example of
    > Windows being a POS, I have to immediately dismiss them as being
    > utterly illogical.
    >
    > Doesn't change my position. The problem here isn't Windows. It
    > *may* be hardware (cf. my own example, which involved XP, an OS
    > that runs just fine on lots faster hardware than I have.) But in
    > this particular case, it's user error, nothing more, nothing
    > less.
    >
    > Simply put, there's millions upon millions of fast machines
    > running Win9x systems with no problem whatsoever. The number of
    > people running 1 to 2 GHz machines at 133/266 or faster that
    > have this problem is miniscule in comparison.
    >
    > No, what we have here are simply a bunch of idiots. Idiots with
    > incredibly poor manners and absolutely ridiculous attitudes
    > towards the rest of the world at large. Bunch of whiners,
    > really.
    >

    Your laughable, really. Do you have any conception of reality and
    the tons and tons of complaints about ms products. People are
    idiots ur right, they are idiots for continuing to buy MS
    software. Each version promises to be better and is more intrusive
    and violates users privacy and control over their machines and yet
    each new version is filled with security holes just like all the
    other previous versions. You really need to get a reality check.
    MS products stink by and large. They are bloatware, they do not
    work, they frequently crash for not really good reason and they
    are frequently hacked. The ONLY reason they have the market share
    they do is that MS is a facist like company that uses it's
    monetary and other clout to force people to conform to their bad
    practices, without even giving developers information they need to
    do so. It is unfortunate that the other idiots in this country
    elected officials that let MS off the hook as they should have
    been split up and MAYBE then we'd start seeing some competent
    products from them. I am so glad that I have garnered the
    expertise that I am ready to abandon all ms os's including their
    new totatalitarian strategy to keep people from upgrading their
    computers and requiring them to phone big brother to get
    authorization codes to use their own equipment as they have done
    with XP. The fact is that MS denies responsiblity for problems
    like win98 not working on various computers due to their inability
    to write good code. It is amazing that a company with such
    resources and supposed talent can turn out such **** products.

  7. One4 the netcops was: GA-7zx install problems

    poor winuser replies:

    on Sat 15 Oct 2005 05:54:21p, "Gary S. Terhune"
    wrote in
    news:OSueQye0FHA.460@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl:

    > When someone complains that a specific version of Windows
    > eventually runs into this or that problem with hardware that is
    > released after the OS, particularly when that someone gloms onto
    > such a minute detail (and one that was fixed, whatever the
    > author thinks of the solution) and cites it as an example of
    > Windows being a POS, I have to immediately dismiss them as being
    > utterly illogical.
    >
    > Doesn't change my position. The problem here isn't Windows. It
    > *may* be hardware (cf. my own example, which involved XP, an OS
    > that runs just fine on lots faster hardware than I have.) But in
    > this particular case, it's user error, nothing more, nothing
    > less.
    >
    > Simply put, there's millions upon millions of fast machines
    > running Win9x systems with no problem whatsoever. The number of
    > people running 1 to 2 GHz machines at 133/266 or faster that
    > have this problem is miniscule in comparison.
    >
    > No, what we have here are simply a bunch of idiots. Idiots with
    > incredibly poor manners and absolutely ridiculous attitudes
    > towards the rest of the world at large. Bunch of whiners,
    > really.
    >

    Your laughable, really. Do you have any conception of reality and
    the tons and tons of complaints about ms products. People are
    idiots ur right, they are idiots for continuing to buy MS
    software. Each version promises to be better and is more intrusive
    and violates users privacy and control over their machines and yet
    each new version is filled with security holes just like all the
    other previous versions. You really need to get a reality check.
    MS products stink by and large. They are bloatware, they do not
    work, they frequently crash for not really good reason and they
    are frequently hacked. The ONLY reason they have the market share
    they do is that MS is a facist like company that uses it's
    monetary and other clout to force people to conform to their bad
    practices, without even giving developers information they need to
    do so. It is unfortunate that the other idiots in this country
    elected officials that let MS off the hook as they should have
    been split up and MAYBE then we'd start seeing some competent
    products from them. I am so glad that I have garnered the
    expertise that I am ready to abandon all ms os's including their
    new totatalitarian strategy to keep people from upgrading their
    computers and requiring them to phone big brother to get
    authorization codes to use their own equipment as they have done
    with XP. The fact is that MS denies responsiblity for problems
    like win98 not working on various computers due to their inability
    to write good code. It is amazing that a company with such
    resources and supposed talent can turn out such **** products.


  8. Re: GA-7zx install problems

    On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 20:03:02 +0000 (UTC), herman
    put finger to keyboard and composed:

    >"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in
    >news:OFu14$S0FHA.4032@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl:
    >
    >> Actually, it *was* the RAM. Either your RAM is only meant to run on
    >> 100Mhz or slower, or, if it is nominally 133 RAM, the RAM and/or
    >> motherboard have problems that cause them to falter when run at 133
    >> and backing it off to 100 saves the day. I had a similar problem with
    >> RAM that was supposedly 133Mhz (Kensington) and a motherboard that
    >> should handle that (ABIT AT-7) and they all agreed that 2GB should be
    >> no problem. But it was. I can either clock the system back to 100Mhz
    >> FSB or I can reduce the amount to 1.5GB, and if not, it got flaky, and
    >> this was WinXP, which is quite able to handle faster and more RAM.

    >
    >You may or may not be right. I found posts claiming that the MB cannot
    >do 133 and I found posts claiming that windows is written such that is
    >cannot handle fast MB speeds. There are many posts on this for people
    >who could not install win98 on various MBs with processors at 1 GHZ or
    >better. This is why MS has a page on the suwin error directing people to
    >reduce the speed of their BIOS settings when installing win98-see their
    >KB article on this under "suwin cause (GPF) in setupx.dll".


    Do you mean this article?

    http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;224836

    ================================================== ================
    CAUSE

    This behavior can occur when any of the following conditions exist:

    There are incorrect basic input/output system (BIOS) settings
    for a built-in peripheral device on your motherboard (for example,
    cache settings, CPU timing, hard disks, and so on).

    Your computer has bad or mismatched random access memory (RAM)
    or cache (for example, if you are using EDO and non-EDO RAM, or you
    are using different RAM speeds).

    The motherboard in your computer is not working properly.

    RESOLUTION

    To work around this behavior, try to slow down your computer by
    changing the BIOS settings.

    ================================================== ================

    FWIW, I have no issues with Win98SE running on an AMD 2500 XP CPU,
    266MHz DDR SDRAM, SiS chipset, and ECS motherboard.

    >> Note that the effect is worse during installation, and many times all
    >> you have to do is clock things back, or use less RAM, to allow Windows
    >> to install, after which you can sometimes ramp things back up to full
    >> speed and capacity with few if any problems. That wasn't the case in
    >> mine -- the errors were fewer once Windows was installed, but they
    >> didn't disappear.
    >>
    >> Clocking back the FSB may simply be reducing the stress on a marginal
    >> setup. But it isn't the speed, per se, and it has nothing to do with
    >> Windows' capabilities. It's all in the hardware. You either had it
    >> configured wrong in the first place according to the hardware you have
    >> installed, or it's just gets flaky when you push it to max specs.

    >
    >I don't think so. Everything else runs perfectly at MHZ133, only windoz
    >f*cks up. When in doubt blame MS products, that is usually wherein the
    >fault lies.


    I've seen problems when attempting to run Win95 with an AMD CPU faster
    than 350MHz, so I guess MS deserves some blame sometimes.

    See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q192841/

    >Also ran memory checkers, no errors. If ram is bad or config
    >is bad it will show running other things as well, not just with MS crap.


    I'm having difficulty blaming Windows for what looks like a hardware
    issue. Note that you OS and application software may sometimes provide
    a better test of your memory than some memory testers. This is because
    memory diagnostics usually read and write every memory location in
    relatively quick succession, giving no time for refresh problems to
    manifest themselves. Your OS, OTOH, may write a block of memory and
    not return to it for some time. By the time it does, the data in flaky
    memory cells may have decayed, resulting in GPFs, etc. I've actually
    witnessed these kinds of problems in minicomputers. In fact on one
    occasion I had a memory board that caused a single memory parity error
    once or twice a day in a production machine, but never under regular
    diagnostics on the test bench. I had to write my own software to
    exercise the one faulty address in a continuous loop, and even then it
    took nearly a whole day to trap the offending bit.

    -- Franc Zabkar

    Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2