Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 64415	2005-12-14 12:16:00	Xp-install without bootable drive	Anders_H (9424)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
412596	2005-12-14 12:16:00	Hi, I have a Toshiba Portege 3440 with Win 98SE, and I'm thinking about upgrading to XP. It has a PIII 500 Mhz and 192 Mb Ram. First, is it at all wise to run XP on such a machine? The problem is that it doesn't come with a CD nor LAN, and only 6 Gb HDD, so the installation is bound to be a bit special. It has USB (not bootable) and WLAN, so I can get the install files to the HDD. My idea was to create a new partition (call it "d:") with something like partitionmagic, install XP to the new partition, then erase the first ("c:"/Win 98) partition so that the new partition will become the boot partition (c:). I want to find a quite foolproof method, because if i can't boot into any operating system, i wont be able to retry (i e use USB or WLAN to download install files again, with nothing to boot from...) So, do you think this can be done? Is there a better way? For example is it possible to install XP over 98 from a USB (I think not...)	Anders_H (9424)
412597	2005-12-14 17:29:00	This part is OK . . "I have a Toshiba Portege 3440 with Win 98SE, and I'm thinking about upgrading to XP . It has a PIII 500 Mhz and 192 Mb Ram . First, is it at all wise to run XP on such a machine?" not the best . . but I have XP-Pro on smaller machines . This part is somewhat acceptable: "only 6 Gb HDD, so the installation is bound to be a bit special . " as again, I have put XP-Pro on a 3 . 3gig . . . not fun and I needed a seperate drive for the data and folders that were not related to XP and updates and fixes . . they take a lot of room too . . . not to mention the SP-2 . . which is MANDATORY for running along the ethernet highway . Here again, and this is not the way I would do it: "My idea was to create a new partition (call it "d:") with something like partitionmagic, install XP to the new partition, then erase the first ("c:"/Win 98) partition so that the new partition will become the boot partition (c . I want to find a quite foolproof method, because if i can't boot into any operating system, i wont be able to retry (i e use USB or WLAN to download install files again, with nothing to boot from . . . ) So, do you think this can be done? Is there a better way? For example is it possible to install XP over 98 from a USB (I think not . . . ) You will get asked at the installation if you want to make a clean install or just an update (read: overwrite) . I always opt for the clean install . You may do as you see fit . . . . but that other stuff . . the USB and WLAN part is kinda foreign to me . . . wait and see if there's any other responses to your question b4 you go muck things up . OK?	SurferJoe46 (51)
412598	2005-12-14 21:01:00	Thanks for your answer, especially about your experience from running XP on slow systems. An interesting question regarding Win98SE or XP that I forgot, is of course which one would be the faster to run on this machine. My intuition tells me that Win98 would run faster, but according to Microsoft, XP will both start up faster and load apps faster. Now it would be interseting to hear another opinion than theirs on this issue ;) Regarding the clean install thing: My main interest is in hearing if your opinions about my intended create-partition-install-to-new-partition-delete-Win98-merge-partitions-boot-way of doing it? More details about the plan: In Win98: Create new partition D: --> Mount an image of install-CD (over network to save disk space if needed) with Daemon Tools --> Run the CD (image) --> Install Win XP to D: --> hopefully Start XP from the boot-menu that I think XP installation creates (?) --> Merge partitions (C:+D: --> C:) --> run the machine without fuss, now in XP :) By the way: I can experiment a little, since I will remove the HDD and put it in a 2,5" USB 2.0 case and make an image of it (on another computer) before proceding. So, are there other opinions on this plan? can it be done? other proposals?	Anders_H (9424)
412599	2005-12-14 23:45:00	according to Microsoft, XP will both start up faster and load apps faster...........doubtful.........look at it this way......you own a car, (current pc) you are running win98 you then load xp onto it........you have just bolted a truck body to you car.........will it be faster ?	drcspy (146)
412600	2005-12-14 23:57:00	according to Microsoft, XP will both start up faster and load apps faster...........doubtful.........look at it this way......you own a car, (current pc) you are running win98 you then load xp onto it........you have just bolted a truck body to you car.........will it be faster ? Well I don't really get that - I'm not going to run both OSes (bolt the truck to the car :) ) but just upgrade. You could as well prove the opposite point with a loose car-metaphor: Take my old Volvo (Hardware) and me as driver (software) to the local racing track. Then take the same rusty old piece of junk and put a trained race driver in it. He/She would outdo me easily :). Jokes appart, I don't think metaphors do the trick here. That XP have larger file-size doesn't necesarilly lead to increased boot/load-time, does it? Does anyone have experience/knowledge of performance in this case?	Anders_H (9424)
412601	2005-12-15 00:14:00	I'm NOT suggesting that you run both operating systems, tho its pretty easy to setup xp and 98 to dual boot, ah look mate I'm a tech so I do have quite a LOT of experience wiht this....if you want to look up the minimum specs required for any particular operating system you will find that xp 'demands' higher specs than 98. Why ? Because the sysetm has to work a LOT harder to load up all the necessary stuff that xp consists of.....you try installing xp onto a system say for example thats runnin a 500Mhz cpu and 128mb ram, and currently has 98 installed on it. It will install BUT it'll be slow like a tortise on valium particularly because of the lack of ram, xp prefers a MINIMUM of 256 tho i have seen it runnin on 64mb, OUCH. However my analogy is accurate. Your machine PIII 500 Mhz and 192 Mb Ram will run FINE with 98 but if you put xp on that machine i'll GUARANTEE you it'll run like a DOG, one with 2 and a half legs at that !	drcspy (146)
412602	2005-12-15 01:40:00	according to Microsoft, XP will both start up faster and load apps faster . . . . . . . . . . . doubtful . . . . . . . . . look at it this way . . . . . . you own a car, (current pc) you are running win98 you then load xp onto it . . . . . . . . you have just bolted a truck body to you car . . . . . . . . . will it be faster ? Totally agree here . . it is a sure fact that 98 has a lot less overhead than XP . . no matter how skeletonized XP on a small machine might be . I am still deferring to those who know about the USB install . . I never have used any USB devices other than an IOMEGA Zipper . . and it still runs here next to the monitor for those fast saves I want to cull later . I imagine if you bought all the floppies on that island you live on (NZ), there might be enough of them to install XP from them . . . IF you could find a chained install of XP for 2 zillion floppies, of course! But . . I digressed there . . sorry . . I am back now . . and still awaiting another's input on the USB install of XP . . . ahem!	SurferJoe46 (51)
412603	2005-12-15 01:55:00	I seriously suggest you leave well alone. :D Why fix it? It's not broken. That laptop really hasn't got enough grunt to run XP. It's not like putting a truck body on a car; it's like putting a big airconditioner on a car with a 50HP engine. An airconditioner makes the car more comfortable to sit in, but if the compresser pulls 25 HP, your speed will suffer. ;)	Graham L (2)
412604	2005-12-15 01:55:00	anyway I'd be inclined to copy the cd onto a folder in the harddrive then pretty much follow what they tell you on this page but substituting the instructions for going 'into' your xp cd for going into the correct folder on the hdd : www.compphix.com oh and btw.........6gb aint much for an xp install it'll chew up 1.5gb just on the install.	drcspy (146)
412605	2005-12-15 02:01:00	Either way it's a lot more strain on the system and theres no way its going to run faster under any circumstances after the install	drcspy (146)
1