J
jbrandonbb
I am pretty sure your entire post could have been summarized in about
one or two sentences.
I am pretty sure your entire post could have been summarized in about
one or two sentences.
J
jbrandonbb
I assume you have vast scientific research on the claims about who
uses Google Groups? That you can prove that the millions who use it
have "little or no technical skill"?
Good for you! Mine doesn't.
D
DevilsPGD
In message
<9fca41e5-ad75-4149-a249-8d9118edd766@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
In w_tom's case, the "From" line is sufficient to understand the content
of the post.
<9fca41e5-ad75-4149-a249-8d9118edd766@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
[email protected] said:
In w_tom's case, the "From" line is sufficient to understand the content
of the post.
W
w_tom
Then take those 'one or two' sentences, do the simple labor, and
answer those questions. After so much labor, what have you
accomplished? To solve your problem, grasp the concepts in those 'one
or two' sentences so that a next post will obtain useful replies.
A latest post said both power supplies work in another system.
First, how do you know? A defective power supply can still boot a
computer. Second, a perfectly good supply in one system can operate
defectively in another. Reasons why are found in that previous post.
So I need not explain why conclusion from your latest post (supplies
work in another computer) reports nothing useful.
Swapping power supplies still does not say why a computer fails.
Nothing accomplished. An informative procedure takes but two
minutes. Your choice. You have been at this for two days now - and
are no closer to a solution. A two minute procedure "summarized into
one of two sentences" means accomplishment; means replies will be
helpful; means no wild speculation. Your choice. Keep flaying at the
problem using wild speculation, or discover why the computer fails.
J
John Doe
I view every post's header information. I keep a record of spammer
posts including header information. Does the Google Groups news
server even have an option for Google users to see header
information when reading a new post? Google Groups is in fact where
at least 90% of the spam flowing in to USENET comes from these days.
Same for trolls, but that's less scientific and more of a judgment
call.
B
Bob M
John said:
Very true. And the rest come from AOL and WebTV
Bob
J
jbrandonbb
Okay, the latest BIOS did the trick, thank you. Now I have a new
issue. When I install Vista, I get the error 0x80070017, windows
cannot install required files. I have a SATA drive (a Seagate
Barracuda 7200), PK5 motherboard, 2GB of RAM, etc. I have actually
tried two different hard disks, tried replacing SATA cables, moving
them to a different spot, etc.. The BIOS sees the drive just fine, my
Vista disk is clean. It is almost like the computer is having trouble
copying files. It gives me the error at the same time each time --
when extracting files. I tried formatting through Vista (I don't have
a floppy drive), etc. Any ideas?
P
Paul
Well, you have 2GB or RAM, so it isn't the "4GB" problem.
In my search engine, I find plenty of hits for "0x80070017", so
you can try some of their suggestions.
If it was my computer, I'd also want to run separate tests. I like
memtest86+ from a floppy or CD. A couple passes is enough (no more
than an hour or two). It should be error free. Booting an alternate
OS and running Prime95 is also a possible test. I might try Ubuntu
for that, as they do releases quite frequently, and maybe they have
support for your board. You don't need to install any software for
that, and just boot Ubuntu right from the CD. Prime95 is available
for Windows or Linux, on the mersenne.org web site. You'd download
the Linux version, and run it from a terminal window.
A problem copying files, could be bad media, bad drive, flaky
I/O with motherboard, or bad RAM corrupting the decompression.
(Assuming Vista checks the checksum of the stuff it has
expanded etc.)
Paul
D
DevilsPGD
In message said:
I haven't read the entire thread, but that isn't entirely certain. If
you have two 1GB video cards (and there do appear to be a couple of
these on the market), for example, you'll have less then 2GB of
available addressable space left for real RAM.
Okay, unlikely, but it's worth mentioning the possibility.
J
jbrandonbb
Ubuntu installed fine, no problems. I am starting to suspect
motherboard. It just seems like it is giving me grief. I have tried
installing with a different DVD drive, different HDD, etc. Next I will
try with two fewer RAM chips and see if that helps. It's confusing
when Linux installs fine but Windows won't, as though Windows is
trying to do something and is bumping into the same problem. Of
course, I have no overwritten the Linux install in trying to install
Windows again so I will have to re-install again to test out the
testing software you mentioned...
That error does come up in the search, but no one seems to have a
startling remedy...
- JB
J
jbrandonbb
What is the 4GB problem?
P
Paul
If you can install Linux, then give Prime95 (mersenne.org) a try. The
purpose of running the torture test, is to detect processor or RAM problems.
If you use separate directories to hold the executable, you can even
run multiple copies (being careful to set the max RAM on each one
to a reasonable value).
Vista has a problem installing on a 4GB system. One solution
is removing some RAM, doing the install, and then putting the
RAM back.
While running Linux, can you read the entire contents of the Vista
media, without a problem ?
Paul
J
jbrandonbb
One other thing on this nightmare install -- when I try to load XP
(with the idea that I could upgrade to Vista later) it says "error
loading operating system" after the first reboot which tells me the
optical media is fine: why would two different discs produce similar
errors? I have also used two diff DVD drives, two diff HDDs. The only
commonality is this BLANK BLANK motherboard.
P
Paul
I suppose anything is possible. But the thing is, by using multiple
OSes, you should be able to see whether the hardware is at fault
or not.
It sounds like the driver you've provided, is not loading in Windows for
some reason. Drivers load according to enumeration. Perhaps you
could verify the enumeration while in Linux ? (Linux has lspci,
lsusb and dmesg, to report things about hardware.)
For example, the IDE interfaces on my current motherboard
are 0x8086 0x24DB. The first number, is the number for Intel.
The second number, I can verify by looking in the Intel
datasheet for the ICH5/ICH5R Southbridge. You should be
able to do something similar for your ICH9R Southbridge.
OK, a thought just came to mind. There are two SATA controllers,
one controls four ports, the other two. Are your RAID disks
connected to the bootable SATA controller ? Look for the
following lines in your user manual -
SATA1/2/5/6 Red Master Boot Disk
SATA3/4 Black Slave Data Disk
Some of the device enumerations can be seen here on PDF page 9.
You may be able to see some of those numbers by using "lspci"
in Linux.
http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/specupdt/31697304.pdf
Maybe it would be enough to just change SATA ports on the
motherboard ?
Paul
D
DevilsPGD
In message
<f078ea39-750a-4625-af1a-8472e0f03238@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Short version, 32-bit CPUs can only address up to 4GB of memory.
(There are a few exceptions that only apply to specific hardware)
The "4GB problem" is that some hardware requires address space of it's
own. For example, to write data into video memory, your CPU will write
that data to a location between (as an example) 3.5GB and 4.0GB. The
data never makes it to your real RAM, it gets intercepted by the video
card (or other hardware)
As a result, although your system has 4GB of address space available,
not all of it can be used for RAM.
<f078ea39-750a-4625-af1a-8472e0f03238@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
[email protected] said:
Short version, 32-bit CPUs can only address up to 4GB of memory.
(There are a few exceptions that only apply to specific hardware)
The "4GB problem" is that some hardware requires address space of it's
own. For example, to write data into video memory, your CPU will write
that data to a location between (as an example) 3.5GB and 4.0GB. The
data never makes it to your real RAM, it gets intercepted by the video
card (or other hardware)
As a result, although your system has 4GB of address space available,
not all of it can be used for RAM.
E
Ed Medlin
[email protected] said:
Are you using the F6 option to load your disk controller drivers?.......XP
will only load them from floppy, so you may need to install one if you don't
have one installed. Vista can install them from a thumb drive or optical
disk.
Ed
Y
yogi
This might seem unlikely , but have you given that Vista disk a clean.
You say you get the same error in the same place or time in different
optical drives, other disks work ok.
I have had that happen when re-installing software after a format and
re-install, I take the CD out of the drive and give it a good cleaning
and off it goes with out a problem, it is worth a try!
Cheers
Keith
J
jbrandonbb
I did try that last night. It is not acting like it is a SATA
controller problem. I just tried copying the Vista disc with another
PC and it had an error during copy, so now I suspect the disc itself
is scratched. I have cleaned it many times though and it does not look
bad, but maybe there is one slight scratch that is making this
happen.
J
jbrandonbb
The thing is, XP would normally halt during install saying it cannot
find the hard disks. But it does copy all of the data over. I may be
dealing with two dissimilar issues: a Vista scratched disc and an XP
problem. It just seems odd that the only OS I can load is Linux. Vista
halts during install, XP -- when I reboot it acts like it can't find
the files it just copied over. Honestly, this is the strangest build I
have done, and I have done 20 or so. It makes me want to buy an HP!
J
John Doe
yogi said:
"the latest BIOS did the trick"
