Install process hangs

After the bar graph gets to 100% while "Windows loading files" message
is displayed the install process hangs. When installing W2K or WXP I
have to intervene the process by pressing F5 key and specify HAL for
"Standard PC" or "Standard PC with C-Step I486" in order for the install
process to get beyond "Setup is starting Windows" message.

The cause of Vista install problem as above may be the same in nature as
that involved in W2K or WXP installation but I do not know how to
specify HAL while installing Windows Vista. I have previously installed
W2K, WXP and Windows Vista with no such problem. I have no idea what
changed what. Please help.

I found the cause of the problem. It is because I used other machine to
create partitions and that machine comes with a different IDE controller.

churin wrote:
> After the bar graph gets to 100% while "Windows loading files" message
> is displayed the install process hangs. When installing W2K or WXP I
> have to intervene the process by pressing F5 key and specify HAL for
> "Standard PC" or "Standard PC with C-Step I486" in order for the install
> process to get beyond "Setup is starting Windows" message.
>
> The cause of Vista install problem as above may be the same in nature as
> that involved in W2K or WXP installation but I do not know how to
> specify HAL while installing Windows Vista. I have previously installed
> W2K, WXP and Windows Vista with no such problem. I have no idea what
> changed what. Please help.

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 10:35:37 -0500, churin <churin@new.postalias>
wrote:

>I found the cause of the problem. It is because I used other machine to
>create partitions and that machine comes with a different IDE controller.
Please tell us more...
Was there something special about that controller (?RAID stripe...
special Security,??)
I have been moving "standard" (E)IDE drives around for years without
having partition problems.

Steve Urbach wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 10:35:37 -0500, churin <churin@new.postalias>
> wrote:
>
>> I found the cause of the problem. It is because I used other machine to
>> create partitions and that machine comes with a different IDE controller.
> Please tell us more...
> Was there something special about that controller (?RAID stripe...
> special Security,??)
> I have been moving "standard" (E)IDE drives around for years without
> having partition problems.
>
They are nothing special and are just plain IDE controllers. As long as
you are moving HDDs around within a same machine then there is no
problem. Please note I indicated "other" machine which was used to
partition the drive. "Different IDE controller" means, for example, VIA
IDE controller, NVidea IDE controller, etc. which are parts of a
motherboad chip set. I just carelessly moved around a HDD between two
machines whose combination was not suited for doing this.

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:19:51 -0500, churin <churin@new.postalias>
wrote:

>Steve Urbach wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 10:35:37 -0500, churin <churin@new.postalias>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I found the cause of the problem. It is because I used other machine to
>>> create partitions and that machine comes with a different IDE controller.
>> Please tell us more...
>> Was there something special about that controller (?RAID stripe...
>> special Security,??)
>> I have been moving "standard" (E)IDE drives around for years without
>> having partition problems.
>>
>They are nothing special and are just plain IDE controllers. As long as
>you are moving HDDs around within a same machine then there is no
>problem. Please note I indicated "other" machine which was used to
>partition the drive. "Different IDE controller" means, for example, VIA
>IDE controller, NVidea IDE controller, etc. which are parts of a
>motherboad chip set. I just carelessly moved around a HDD between two
>machines whose combination was not suited for doing this.
Between controllers is what I meant.
Same drive has seen 3 or four DIFFERENT brands (and chipset's) of
controllers, including a IDE drive USB case (and O/S w9x -> Vista with
no problem.

I have even changed Motherboards on a Netware 4.2 server (IDE drives)
with no 'disk' issues (can we say network controller? :-/ )

Each *controller* will need specific drivers for best performance, but
it should run at the low level needed for partitioning.

I have not seen a controller issue since we switched from the old 2
cable ?Western Digital? system used in PC-XT and PC-AT (286).
Steve

Steve Urbach wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:19:51 -0500, churin <churin@new.postalias>
> wrote:
>
>> Steve Urbach wrote:
>>> On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 10:35:37 -0500, churin <churin@new.postalias>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I found the cause of the problem. It is because I used other machine to
>>>> create partitions and that machine comes with a different IDE controller.
>>> Please tell us more...
>>> Was there something special about that controller (?RAID stripe...
>>> special Security,??)
>>> I have been moving "standard" (E)IDE drives around for years without
>>> having partition problems.
>>>
>> They are nothing special and are just plain IDE controllers. As long as
>> you are moving HDDs around within a same machine then there is no
>> problem. Please note I indicated "other" machine which was used to
>> partition the drive. "Different IDE controller" means, for example, VIA
>> IDE controller, NVidea IDE controller, etc. which are parts of a
>> motherboad chip set. I just carelessly moved around a HDD between two
>> machines whose combination was not suited for doing this.
> Between controllers is what I meant.
> Same drive has seen 3 or four DIFFERENT brands (and chipset's) of
> controllers, including a IDE drive USB case (and O/S w9x -> Vista with
> no problem.
>
> I have even changed Motherboards on a Netware 4.2 server (IDE drives)
> with no 'disk' issues (can we say network controller? :-/ )
>
> Each *controller* will need specific drivers for best performance, but
> it should run at the low level needed for partitioning.
>
> I have not seen a controller issue since we switched from the old 2
> cable ?Western Digital? system used in PC-XT and PC-AT (286).
> Steve

Maybe I jumped into a false conclusion. What I did was partitioning a
HDD on a machine with NVidia chip set and moved the HDD to a machine
using VIA chip set where I needed to install W2K, WXP and WVT. I could
not install any of them but could after repartitioning it on the latter
machine.

You appear to indicate that HDD which is partioned by using a machine is
compatible with any other machine.

Then, could you think of any reason why the problem I experienced?

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:44:45 -0500, churin <churin@new.postalias>
wrote:


>Maybe I jumped into a false conclusion. What I did was partitioning a
>HDD on a machine with NVidia chip set and moved the HDD to a machine
>using VIA chip set where I needed to install W2K, WXP and WVT. I could
>not install any of them but could after repartitioning it on the latter
>machine.
>
>You appear to indicate that HDD which is partioned by using a machine is
>compatible with any other machine.
>
>Then, could you think of any reason why the problem I experienced?
Booting and drive (and file system) comparability are 2 different
things.

Others recommend installing O/S lowest to Highest order.
I had Vista (RC2) / XP boot problems using 2 drives. Vista (f
removed ntldr on c: (XP pro). I fixed that. I could always see my XP
files from Vista.
Something may have stomped on your Partition table. Norton utilities
usually keeps a backup that could have been restored (if nothing else
got stomped).


Other than that, I have no ideas.

Steve Urbach wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 19:44:45 -0500, churin <churin@new.postalias>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Maybe I jumped into a false conclusion. What I did was partitioning a
>> HDD on a machine with NVidia chip set and moved the HDD to a machine
>> using VIA chip set where I needed to install W2K, WXP and WVT. I could
>> not install any of them but could after repartitioning it on the latter
>> machine.
>>
>> You appear to indicate that HDD which is partioned by using a machine is
>> compatible with any other machine.
>>
>> Then, could you think of any reason why the problem I experienced?
> Booting and drive (and file system) comparability are 2 different
> things.
>
> Others recommend installing O/S lowest to Highest order.
> I had Vista (RC2) / XP boot problems using 2 drives. Vista (f
> removed ntldr on c: (XP pro). I fixed that. I could always see my XP
> files from Vista.
> Something may have stomped on your Partition table. Norton utilities
> usually keeps a backup that could have been restored (if nothing else
> got stomped).
>
>
> Other than that, I have no ideas.

I moved the HDD on which OS installation stalled to another VIA chipset
machine but which uses different make of mobo and found there was no
such problem.

The above experiment indicates that my conlusion previously posted is
applicable to that particular case. Or, it can be said there is
potentilal problem if a HDD is partitioned by using other machine. I
still do not know why such problem happens.