Is it possible to install XP if the XP-CD is pre-copied to a blank harddrive?

[XP Guy]

I would think that a person that goes by "XP Guy" would be able
to figure this out on his own. At the very least he would know
how to use a search engine.

You obviously can't read.

I said that from what I've found on the net, there are lots of people
asking this question, and no real definative answers.

Was there a reason why you also did not answer this question?

Is there a reason why your contribution to this thread was nothing more
than to take a lame shot at me?

 

[XP Guy]

"Even I" can't answer the question?

What - you can't read?

Yes. Even YOU can't answer the question.

Well, you sure as **** can't;

Brilliant Sherlock. Maybe that's why I'm asking you dimwit.

but more importantly, you can't even ask politely.

I did ask, and not impolitely. If my follow-ups were too harsh, they at
least were not incorrect.

Whatever I may have been telling everyone else, the one thing
I *was* trying to tell you has clearly gone right over your
immature head.

And just what was that *one* thing you were trying to tell me?

Did it have anything to do with answering my original question?

 

[Shenan Stanley]

If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will
boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the
drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process
after the machine starts and boots itself into DOS?

There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you
can do that.

I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a
protected mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess).

Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install
can be started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate
command-line switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe.

So, it it possible?

Yes.

Google could have told you that. ;-)

If that's true, I haven't found it yet.

If you have, is there some reason you're not posting it?

You didn't/haven't asked how.

You asked is there a way/if it was possible.

You seem (according to your own responses) just want to be given the answers
to the questions you ask.

I was/am obliging.

 

[XP Guy]

Yes.

Google could have told you that. ;-)

And actually, no. Google didn't tell me that.

I didn't actually come across anything or anyone who gave a catagorical
"yes" to that question, and certainly no one who claimed they've done it
(let alone explaining how).

You didn't/haven't asked how.

You asked is there a way/if it was possible.

And until you actually say how, then what basis do I have to believe the
accuracy of your answer?

How do I know that by answering "yes", that you have actually understood
the question? Others have put forward an affirmative answer, yet their
corresponding explanation as to the "how" indicates they did not
actually address or understand the question.

You seem (according to your own responses) just want to be given
the answers to the questions you ask.

I think any reasonable or rational person would have realized that my
question was framed in such a way as to invite an explanation of how to
do it (if indeed it can be done) and not simply to seek a "yes" answer
without the corresponding details. Clearly, in the context of the
question, an answer stating simply "no" is possible, while an answer
stating only "yes" is incomplete (if not useless) without the
corresponding details of how.

So, now I ask you how it can be done.

 

[Olórin]

What - you can't read?

Yes. Even YOU can't answer the question.


Brilliant Sherlock. Maybe that's why I'm asking you dimwit.

My point here was your demeaning use of the word "even". Well, "even you"
don't know the answer either, so don't slag off others who (you think)
don't.

And just what was that *one* thing you were trying to tell me?

Did it have anything to do with answering my original question?

Okay, I'll spell it out. You didn't get the answer you wanted. Instead of
either correcting without abuse, or moving on and waiting for other answers,
you chose to lay in to people. So when you then asked, "Now can we get back
to answering this question?" I replied with, "Not with that attitude...
you're the supplicant here." What I was trying to say here, and it clearly
was too subtle for you somehow, is that your rudeness may well put people
off *wanting* to answer you - it certainly did me. My post obviously didn't
help you technically; nor was that its aim, which I'd thought was equally
obvious. If you'd learned a lesson and (heaven forfend) apologised for your
lambasting, it's just possible that someone might have had a change of heart
and chipped in with a nugget of information you found useful. You're the one
coming here asking volunteers for help; you'd do well to remember that.

Yes, answers may have been off-base; and as I said, I "understand your
frustration to a degree". But in case you didn't realise, part of the
question-and-answer process in these groups can go along the lines of:

Q: I'm trying to do X. Is this possible, and how?

A: Well, it might be, but why are you trying? I suspect you may be trying to
achieve This Goal, in which case you would be better off doing Y then Z.

Possible response 1: Oh yeah, I see, thanks for that, that's what I needed,
got it working now.

Possible response 2: OK, but actually I really do need to do X, because of
this-and-this [which I didn't bother saying in my OP]. Any more ideas,
anyone?

Possible response 3: Why can't you people just answer the god damn question?

A recent example was when someone asked how to turn off auto-compaction in
OE. The answer the OP adopted was, "You shouldn't do that because your store
will sooner or later get corrupted if you do." Sometimes the answer is
"mu" - neither "yes" nor "no" but "unask the question" or "there is no
answer because the question as stated depends on incorrect assumptions."

People here are volunteers, willing and trying to help, and deserve the
benefit of your doubt, not to mention common courtesy. [My exception here to
"benefit of the doubt" is Andrew E., who regularly provides partially or
completely wrong information that is a danger to others. He's something of a
hit-and-run driver: only ever makes one post in a thread then moves on,
never defending himself or apologising.] If you want to toddle off and get
paid-for support with justifiable recourse for wrong or off-base answers,
feel free.

If you'd wanted to have a serious exchange about this, with no abuse
involved, I'd continue with this sub-thread. But as you can't seem to manage
to do that, this is end of thread for me. Have the last word if you must,
I'm sure it'll be scintillating; but I won't be reading it.

 

[Guy that is XP]

People here are volunteers, willing and trying to help, and deserve
the benefit of your doubt, not to mention common courtesy.

I took great pains to detail exactly what the question was.

It is an insult to that effort to disregard those details when the
response is completely off-base, or even worse, when the response is
along the lines of "you shouldn't be asking that question because there
can be no good reason to do what you want to do".

I make no appology for the responses I gave to those that answered the
question along those lines. Perhaps it will make them stop and think
about how they answer future questions posed by others.

If you'd wanted to have a serious exchange about this, with no
abuse involved, I'd continue with this sub-thread.

I'm still here, and I'm still waiting to see an answer posted.

But as you can't seem to manage to do that, this is end of thread
for me.

This newsgroup is not alt.conversation.etiquette or
alt.please.dont.offend.me.

If you want to discuss the finer points of conversational or
interpersonal etiquette, then I suggest you might find more satisfaction
elsewhere.

You've spend a considerable amount of bandwidth on those topics, and not
on the XP-centric issue at hand.

Have the last word if you must, I'm sure it'll be
scintillating;

I'll do my best.

but I won't be reading it.

Sure you will. You just did.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will
boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the
drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process
after the machine starts and boots itself into DOS?

There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you
can do that.

I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a
protected mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess).

Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install
can be started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate
command-line switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe.

So, it it possible?

Yes.

Google could have told you that. ;-)

If that's true, I haven't found it yet.

If you have, is there some reason you're not posting it?

You didn't/haven't asked how.

You asked is there a way/if it was possible.

You seem (according to your own responses) just want to be given
the answers to the questions you ask.

I was/am obliging.

And actually, no. Google didn't tell me that.

I didn't actually come across anything or anyone who gave a
catagorical "yes" to that question, and certainly no one who
claimed they've done it (let alone explaining how).

And until you actually say how, then what basis do I have to
believe the accuracy of your answer?

How do I know that by answering "yes", that you have actually
understood the question? Others have put forward an affirmative
answer, yet their corresponding explanation as to the "how"
indicates they did not actually address or understand the question.

I think any reasonable or rational person would have realized that
my question was framed in such a way as to invite an explanation of
how to do it (if indeed it can be done) and not simply to seek a
"yes" answer without the corresponding details. Clearly, in the
context of the question, an answer stating simply "no" is possible,
while an answer stating only "yes" is incomplete (if not useless)
without the corresponding details of how.

So, now I ask you how it can be done.

Yes/No *is* all you asked for. Quibble the point all you want - but yes/no
is a useful answer if someone is trying to learn something on their own and
just wants to know if they are wasting their time before they jump in to do
so. You seemed to imply that was your intent with your phrasing and very
specific questions without asking "how".

You had no basis to believe the accuracy of my answer - nor did I see the
need to provide one when I answered your direct questions. You cannot even
be sure I understood the question - actually - even after you see the "how".
You can never be sure I understood the question in the manner you want me
to. ;-)

You did find the answer, winnt.exe, as you mentioned it originally. To me -
this again implied intent to try the answer you had found, given you
mentioned trying another method right before that.

I install many of my setups (Windows XP anyway) from DOS (essentially the
level of DOS - or beyond - that came with Windows 98 SE - known from now on
in this response as "Windows 98 DOS") using a method similar to this:

http://unattended.sourceforge.net/

Where you can use either *nix or Windows 98 DOS to install Windows XP onto a
machine. No CD has to be involved - just network in that case.

The main difference is that you have copied all installation files to same
drive and thus you cannot *format* the drive again (not getting into
partitions here - I'm sure you can sort that out.) Be sure to load SMARTDRV
too - otherwise things will take *forever*.

You can get the right DOS from www.bootdisk.com. Should have SMARTDRV, etc.

In case you think the answer is unclear and/or you still cannot find your
answer using Google...

Here's a Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=install+"Windows+XP"+from+DOS+copied+onto+the+same+drive

Here's the first 'hit':
http://www.overclock.net/faqs/101421-how-install-windows-xp-hard-drive.html

Although the Microsoft instructions assume you have a CD drive still:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307848
They give you some of the same basics.


The following is my opinion - based on this conversation (entire - not just
my part) and is added because I felt like adding it - not because anyone
requested it. Any reasonable or rational person wouldn't be an @$$ to
people just trying to help them, especially when said person *asked* for
their help. They might clarify things, they might say that was not what
they wanted in some polite manner - as they are reasonable and rational -
but they wouldn't insult or attack them and still expect an answer from
them.

See the entire conversation - it's archived indefinitely here:
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...e_frm/thread/edc5ecd7bf5d67ac/a409b97eb470a76

*shrug*

You have your answer and your how - now you should try it to verify for
yourself it is what you wanted. If it is not - please come back and
follow-up.

 

[Tim Meddick]

XP Bloke,
As far as I am aware, yes, it is possible. If you have
copied the i386 folder to the [fat] hard-drive, type:

c:\i386\WINNT.EXE

....and XP should install. It will start the installation with a process
that will not happen with a direct install from the cd-rom. It will begin
by copying the XP cd boot files to a temporary folder. The machine will
then reboot with these files as if it were the cd. These are the same
'files' that you would have on the floppy-set of startup disks that begin
installation with computers that do not have 'boot from cd-rom' capability.
It will then continue the installation process by copying the XP
installation files to a temporary folder on your computer as it would
normally.
Why you would want to do this, I don't know, as if you have a bootable
fat332 DOS partition, all you have to do is the same [above] command but
choosing the cd-rom as the target. You don't need to copy the i386 folder
to the hard-drive. But, you asked the question, and I have answered it for
you, being as clear as I can be. Is your problem that you can't access the
cd-rom from DOS? If so I will explain how, just give us the word.

 

[Olórin]

:


Sure you will. You just did.

Rats, foiled by an ego that needed to change address to make itself heard.

*plonk* for the second time, this time saying so.

 

[Tom [Pepper] Willett]

condescending hooplehead.

: Top Poaster and Full Quoter "David B." wrote:
:
: > I would think that a person that goes by "XP Guy" would be able
: > to figure this out on his own. At the very least he would know
: > how to use a search engine.
:
: You obviously can't read.
:
: I said that from what I've found on the net, there are lots of people
: asking this question, and no real definative answers.
:
: Was there a reason why you also did not answer this question?
:
: Is there a reason why your contribution to this thread was nothing more
: than to take a lame shot at me?

 

[Klaus Jorgensen]

Tim Meddick wrote on 24-04-2009 :

Is your problem that you can't access the cd-rom
from DOS? If so I will explain how, just give us the word.

He did that yesterday. The "DOS-equipped" drive is meant to be moved to
a system with no means of accessing external devices.

I don't know if this means no network port either. If there is a PXE
capable network port (and a 2003 server), I'd install from a RIS
server.

 

[Tim Meddick]

Klaus,
I only know the limitations of my own knowledge, what you say is
beyond me, unfortunately. The guy asked a question and wanted an answer to
it, not other suggestions (he said). I haven't read 'every one' of the
posts in this thread as most seem to be just bickering at one another, so
didn't pick up on that fact. So anyway, I gave him the answer to the
question he wanted answering. Sorry if it was too late, but then I'm sure
lots of people are queuing up to tell you that I am quite slow.

 

[Twayne]

Yeah, right, as you continue to spread this tripe to multiple groups.

 

[Twayne]

You didn't/haven't asked how.

You asked is there a way/if it was possible.

You seem (according to your own responses) just want to be given the
answers to the questions you ask.

I was/am obliging.

And doing so in many newsgroups for no good reason.
Why do you feel the need to comment on picqiune points?
What are you obliging? You say "am" but ... fail to mention what it is.
Why do you find it necessary to use so many newsgroups?
Do you know the answer or not?
If so, what is it?
Are you for real?
If so, how come?

These questions all need to be answered before a good response can be
coming your way.

 

[Twayne]

Twayne

Andrew is the resident idiot who always posts wrong info and a lot
times dangerous ones at that

Yeah, I've too much time on my hands the last few days so checked out
the lunacy factor just for entertainment value. Fortunately that's
about to come to an end. The extra time, I mean<g>.

Cheers,

Twayne

 

[Shenan Stanley]

If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will
boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the
drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process
after the machine starts and boots itself into DOS?

There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you
can do that.

I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a
protected mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess).

Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install
can be started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate
command-line switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe.

So, it it possible?

Yes.

Google could have told you that. ;-)

If that's true, I haven't found it yet.

If you have, is there some reason you're not posting it?

You didn't/haven't asked how.

You asked is there a way/if it was possible.

You seem (according to your own responses) just want to be given
the answers to the questions you ask.

I was/am obliging.

And doing so in many newsgroups for no good reason.
Why do you feel the need to comment on picqiune points?
What are you obliging? You say "am" but ... fail to mention what it
is. Why do you find it necessary to use so many newsgroups?
Do you know the answer or not?
If so, what is it?
Are you for real?
If so, how come?

These questions all need to be answered before a good response can
be coming your way.

- Why do you feel the need to comment on picqiune points?
Given that 'picqiune" is not a word I know of - I might ask for
clarification (I won't.) It could have been a typo/spelling mistake. I
will infer it means 'little' in some way - if so - all points are valid
discussion topics once they are presented.

- What are you obliging? You say "am" but ... fail to mention what it is.
The OP asked a question - I did not infer more than what was actually
asked. I answered the direct questions. When the OP followed up, I
answered the follow up.

- Why do you find it necessary to use so many newsgroups?
I replied to the newsgroups the OP cross-posted to. Nothing more, nothing
less. As did you.

- Do you know the answer or not?
Assuming you mean to the expanded "how" question of the OPs - yes - and I
gave said answer some time ago.

- If so, what is it?
Assuming this is in reference to the last question asked, I am not going
to repeat it verbatim again in this reponse - but I will link to the entire
conversation so that you might peruse over it at your leisure.
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...e_frm/thread/edc5ecd7bf5d67ac/a409b97eb470a76

- Are you for real?
Yes.

- If so, how come?
Assuming reference to the last question, answer would be sentience.

I did not ask a question - so an answer will not be coming my way.

Yes - you meant to inject sarcasm, I'll let you judge your success.

 

[Klaus Jorgensen]

XP Guy laid this down on his screen :

If I have a blank hard drive that I've partitioned as FAT32 and will
boot into DOS, and if I copy the entire contents of an XP cd to the
drive, is there a way I can launch the XP installation process after the
machine starts and boots itself into DOS?

There doesn't seem to be much on the net that explicitly says you can do
that.

I've tried, and setup.exe requires that it be launched from a protected
mode (32-bit) environment (ie like win-98 I guess).

Some other comments I've come across is that possibly the install can be
started from DOS by running winnt.exe with the appropriate command-line
switches. Yet other comments refer to bart-pe.

So, it it possible?

I was curios so I just tried it in a virtual pc using MS Virtual PC
2007. Booted an old Win98SE CD, created a DOS-partition and launched
it. XCOPY'ed an XP CD to C:\XPCD and ran the WINNT.EXE setup program
with no switches.
When XP setup finishes, the Win98 DOS files are still on the C-drive
and there is an option in boot.ini allowing me to boot Win98 DOS, so I
just deleted the old files and removed the corresponding line from
boot.ini.

 

[XP Guy]

I was curios so I just tried it in a virtual pc using MS Virtual PC
2007. Booted an old Win98SE CD, created a DOS-partition and launched
it. XCOPY'ed an XP CD to C:\XPCD and ran the WINNT.EXE setup program
with no switches.

Why did you do all that?

That really doesn't duplicate the setup in my original question.

 

[XP Guy]

I have performed the following steps today on a real PC (and not in a
virtual environment) so this concludes this thread as far as I can tell.

Given:

A) a hard drive (or more specifically, a volume on a hard drive) that
has been formatted as FAT32 and for which MS-DOS system files have been
placed on it such that the drive will boot MS-DOS from that volume, and

B) given that the contents of an XP-sp3 CD (specifically system builder
version, and perhaps any or all versions) has been copied to it's own
directory on said volume (while maintaining any long file names and
directory names that may exist on the CD), and

C) given that himem.sys and smartdrv.exe have been started as part of
the autoexec and/or config.sys DOS environment, then

D) it is possible to start and successfully complete the XP-sp3
installation process simply by running the file "winnt.exe" from the
/i386 directory of the CD image as copied to the hard drive. The XP cd
need not be present in the CD drive during the installation. No other
command line arguments are necessary.

As I prefer to install XP directly to a FAT32 volume (not NTFS) there is
no other preparation needed. Those that seek the imaginary benefits of
NTFS would first need to prepare the hard drive such that the desired
NTFS volume exists and is positioned appropriated to be your C drive and
the startable FAT32 installation volume later presumably becomes the D
drive as the XP installation proceeds. After the installation is
complete, the secondary FAT32 volume can be deleted and it's space can
become incorporated into the primary NTFS partition, or the FAT32 volume
can remain and act as a "recovery disk" should re-installation be
required later.

Now, regarding the file winnt.exe in the /i386 directory, I don't know
what other purpose that file has, but if it's only purpose is to be an
alternate launch point for the installation of XP, then perhaps someone
else can explain why it wasn't simply named setup.exe as per usual
conventions. I don't believe there is any other file named setup.exe in
the i386 directory.

Anyone that wants to run XP on a device that does not have any external
boot capability (but who can remove the device's internal hard drive and
slave it to another machine to perform steps A and B above) may want to
follow these steps in order to effect the installation of XP onto the
target device.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

I have performed the following steps today on a real PC (and not in
a virtual environment) so this concludes this thread as far as I
can tell.

Given:

A) a hard drive (or more specifically, a volume on a hard drive)
that has been formatted as FAT32 and for which MS-DOS system files
have been placed on it such that the drive will boot MS-DOS from
that volume, and

B) given that the contents of an XP-sp3 CD (specifically system
builder version, and perhaps any or all versions) has been copied
to it's own directory on said volume (while maintaining any long
file names and directory names that may exist on the CD), and

C) given that himem.sys and smartdrv.exe have been started as part
of the autoexec and/or config.sys DOS environment, then

D) it is possible to start and successfully complete the XP-sp3
installation process simply by running the file "winnt.exe" from the
/i386 directory of the CD image as copied to the hard drive. The
XP cd need not be present in the CD drive during the installation.
No other command line arguments are necessary.

As I prefer to install XP directly to a FAT32 volume (not NTFS)
there is no other preparation needed. Those that seek the
imaginary benefits of NTFS would first need to prepare the hard
drive such that the desired NTFS volume exists and is positioned
appropriated to be your C drive and the startable FAT32
installation volume later presumably becomes the D drive as the XP
installation proceeds. After the installation is complete, the
secondary FAT32 volume can be deleted and it's space can become
incorporated into the primary NTFS partition, or the FAT32 volume
can remain and act as a "recovery disk" should re-installation be
required later.

Now, regarding the file winnt.exe in the /i386 directory, I don't
know what other purpose that file has, but if it's only purpose is
to be an alternate launch point for the installation of XP, then
perhaps someone else can explain why it wasn't simply named
setup.exe as per usual conventions. I don't believe there is any
other file named setup.exe in the i386 directory.

Anyone that wants to run XP on a device that does not have any
external boot capability (but who can remove the device's internal
hard drive and slave it to another machine to perform steps A and B
above) may want to follow these steps in order to effect the
installation of XP onto the target device.

Those steps look familar... ;-)
http://groups.google.com/group/micr..._frm/thread/edc5ecd7bf5d67ac/17d06fe9553e5671

"setup.exe" was the consumer product line convention (Windows 95, 98, 98SE,
etc.) and winnt.exe was/is the original NT product line (Windows NT, Windows
2000) and now consumer and business product line merged convention. Why
doesn't really matter - they could have called it anything they wanted -
their product.

Almost 8 years now (XP) - good track record..

Glad you got it sorted and thanks for posting back so others might find it
along with the other hits in the future!