Re: Is it possible to install Windows XP Pro. SP3, with its bootableslipstreamed CD, into an externa

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paul
  • Start date Start date
P

Paul

Ant said:
Hello!

Is it possible? I know it is slow due to USB2 speed, but it is only for
quick testings and don't want to mess with my internal hardwares (HDD
has an old Windows XP Pro. SP3 installation that has hard lock ups with
videos -- need to figure out if it is my softwares or hardwares) in my
current computer. Also, it doesn't help that I have disabilities (can't
even use a screwdriver).

Thank you in advance. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, but it requires remastering.

Look for "BootBusExtender" as a search keyword, for the
changes needed to make it possible to boot WinXP from a
USB hard drive.

Example here.

http://www.techspot.com/community/t...windows-on-an-external-usb-hard-drive.116114/

You'll probably be a lot older, and have gray hairs, before
you get that working :-) But, it's possible.

Paul
 
Yes, but it requires remastering.

Look for "BootBusExtender" as a search keyword, for the
changes needed to make it possible to boot WinXP from a
USB hard drive.

Example here.

http://www.techspot.com/community/t...windows-on-an-external-usb-hard-drive.116114/


You'll probably be a lot older, and have gray hairs, before
you get that working :-) But, it's possible.

Paul
Click to expand...

Heheh - spot-on there, Paul! I tried it once and gave up as
it was getting to be far too much like hard work.. Definitely
not for the faint-hearted!
 
Ant said:
Ha. I already have those! :-P

"Disconnect any other hard disk drives (internally) from it" ... Is this
really required? Again, I am disabled to open case and go inside my
computer. :-(
Click to expand...

This is purely up to you. I've had enough "accidents", like
needing do a "fixmbr", to consider it easier to just disconnect
any disks I don't want damaged, than to clean up a mess later.

You can probably work your way out of any problem later,
using brain rather than brawn. It's a lot easier for
me to pull the cables, because the side is always off
the computer. I'm just waiting now, for the connectors
to wear out.

Note that, not even the BIOS settings for disks work. There
is a "disable" per drive in a lot of BIOS setup screens, but
stupid Linux will re-enable the drives, and then they can get
written to by GRUB during an install. So the computer is
pretty defenseless in that regard. Only the "write protect"
jumper on the old SCSI drives, works worth a damn. That would
stop anything from writing, but still allow you to read drives.
It's the kind of thing, you could connect up a switch and place it
on the front panel.

Paul
 
Paul said:
This is purely up to you. I've had enough "accidents", like
needing do a "fixmbr", to consider it easier to just disconnect
any disks I don't want damaged, than to clean up a mess later.

You can probably work your way out of any problem later,
using brain rather than brawn. It's a lot easier for
me to pull the cables, because the side is always off
the computer. I'm just waiting now, for the connectors
to wear out.

Note that, not even the BIOS settings for disks work. There
is a "disable" per drive in a lot of BIOS setup screens, but
stupid Linux will re-enable the drives, and then they can get
written to by GRUB during an install. So the computer is
pretty defenseless in that regard. Only the "write protect"
jumper on the old SCSI drives, works worth a damn. That would
stop anything from writing, but still allow you to read drives.
It's the kind of thing, you could connect up a switch and place it
on the front panel.

Paul
Click to expand...

To give an example of the strange things that can happen,
consider my Win2K install attempt yesterday.

The disk had a single primary partition, with C: containing Win2K.

I wanted to install a second copy of the OS, clean, with no CODECs
in it. So I could reproduce a problem with "dvdplay.exe".

When I went to install, instead of making a new complete partition,
marking it active, the installer decided instead, to keep the existing
C: as the "boot" solution. So the first partition remained the one
with the active boot flag. The OS installed into a second partition,
with the letter "E:". So my new install wasn't on C:. The first partition
handles the boot duties. The second partition doesn't have a
complete set of files either. The pagefile and hiberfil are on
the first partition. Quite possibly the boot.ini is as well.

This made things annoying when installing drivers, because I'd have to
remember that my new partition was E: and not C:.

The installer also made the second partition, a "logical" partition
in an extended. So the partition table had a FAT32 primary partition
for the original C:, plus an extended in which a single logical partition
E: was located. I could undo that with Partition Magic, without
breaking anything. But I stopped there, and didn't attempt to make
the second partition the booting partition. Wasn't worth the trouble,
and I was afraid of messing up a partition drive letter dependency
along the way.

So all sorts of things can happen when you do an install, and
what happened there, wasn't what I wanted at all. But since that
wasn't a long term setup, it won't be around to annoy me for much
longer. And it didn't break the original C:, which still works.

Paul
 
In glee typed:
LOL!
Click to expand...

Naw. piece of cake. Casper does all of the hard work for you. Glen just
likes to rant and show how ignorant he can be. Some people are like that
for some reason. :-(

Boot and Run Your Computer from a USB Drive -- creates a fully
bootable copy of a Windows system drive that can boot and run
directly from an external USB drive. (Note: Requires computer
with BIOS support for booting from USB hard disk type devices.)

http://www.fssdev.com/products/casper/benefits.aspx
 
BillW50 said:
In glee typed:

Naw. piece of cake. Casper does all of the hard work for you. Glen
just likes to rant and show how ignorant he can be. Some people are
like that for some reason. :-(
snip
Click to expand...

Paul made the statement, you ignorant troll. All I posted was an LOL to
Paul's comment. Still haven't improved your reading comprehension, I
see.
 
In glee typed:
Paul made the statement, you ignorant troll. All I posted was an LOL
to Paul's comment. Still haven't improved your reading
comprehension, I see.
Click to expand...

I know Paul said it you arrogant ass! And you didn't offer to help, but
just laugh like a ranting fool who has nothing to do but to harass
people and to say people said things they didn't like an evil little
worthless troll that you are. I never kill filed anybody in my life. But
you are bucking the limit and I might make an exception.
 
BillW50 said:
In glee typed:

I know Paul said it you arrogant ass! And you didn't offer to help,
but just laugh like a ranting fool who has nothing to do but to harass
people and to say people said things they didn't like an evil little
worthless troll that you are. I never kill filed anybody in my life.
But you are bucking the limit and I might make an exception.
Click to expand...

Promises, promises... killfile me so you will stop your trolling,
please! I laughed at Paul's joke... can't you even see the smiley he
included indicating his joke? Geez, you're sad.
Funny, an arrogant ass like yourself calling someone that. You trolled
me for a week or more over the Office update site and updates, which you
were dead wrong about, and you still went on and on even when confronted
with the facts. So please, killfile me.... I'd consider it an honor
coming from you.
 
In glee typed:
Promises, promises... killfile me so you will stop your trolling,
please! I laughed at Paul's joke... can't you even see the smiley he
included indicating his joke? Geez, you're sad.
Funny, an arrogant ass like yourself calling someone that. You
trolled me for a week or more over the Office update site and
updates, which you were dead wrong about, and you still went on and
on even when confronted with the facts. So please, killfile me....
I'd consider it an honor coming from you.
Click to expand...

You always get things wrong. I was not wrong about supplying a list of
updates for Office 2000. And when I try to help somebody, you try your
best to cause problems by harassing, belittling, lying, and using every
dishonest means at your disposal. But that is what a low life like you
do anyway. So no news there.
 
BillW50 said:
In glee typed:

You always get things wrong. I was not wrong about supplying a list of
updates for Office 2000. And when I try to help somebody, you try your
best to cause problems by harassing, belittling, lying, and using
every dishonest means at your disposal. But that is what a low life
like you do anyway. So no news there.
Click to expand...

Your troll-fest wasn't about your list of updates.... it never was,
though that's all you seem to be able to recall... it was about the
Office Update site and the location of Office update downloads *prior
to* Office 2000. You still have that reading comprehension problem.
I suggest you seek some professional help if you cannot take corrections
without resorting to name calling and slander, which has been you modus
operandi every time someone questions your statements or corrects you.
 
In glee typed:
Your troll-fest wasn't about your list of updates.... it never was,
though that's all you seem to be able to recall... it was about the
Office Update site and the location of Office update downloads *prior
to* Office 2000. You still have that reading comprehension problem.
I suggest you seek some professional help if you cannot take
corrections without resorting to name calling and slander, which has
been you modus operandi every time someone questions your statements
or corrects you.
Click to expand...

Naw. you are just being a dumb ass. That only came up much later. First
was your attack of how useless it was supplying the list of needed
updates. But that is just you trying to be as unhelpful as you can be.
 
Personally, I don't care whether he killfiles me or not. I killfile
him, so I don't have to see any of his claptrap unless someone else
quotes him.

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
 
BillW50 said:
In glee typed:

Naw. you are just being a dumb ass. That only came up much later.
First was your attack of how useless it was supplying the list of
needed updates. But that is just you trying to be as unhelpful as you
can be.
Click to expand...

Oh geez, you just go on and on. I didn't say it was a useless list, I
stated that it didn't answer the poster's original question, to which
you replied your list was the only easy way to find all the OFF2K
updates, which is incorrect.... and it went on from there, with your
insistence that Windows Update supplied Office Updates for OFF95 and
OFF97... an assertion which is also incorrect, Windows Update never
offered updates to Office products.... yet you argued it ad nauseum.
You keep calling names that just point right back at you.
 
In glee typed:
Oh geez, you just go on and on. I didn't say it was a useless list, I
stated that it didn't answer the poster's original question, to which
you replied your list was the only easy way to find all the OFF2K
updates, which is incorrect.... and it went on from there, with your
insistence that Windows Update supplied Office Updates for OFF95 and
OFF97... an assertion which is also incorrect, Windows Update never
offered updates to Office products.... yet you argued it ad nauseum.
You keep calling names that just point right back at you.
Click to expand...

Just because you didn't understand the OP, doesn't mean I was wrong. If
I was the OP and asked the same thing, that would have been the answer
that I was looking for. Noticed that the OP has left and has apparently
got what they were looking for and doesn't want to bother correcting the
likes of you. And I fully understand that.
 
In Ken Blake, MVP typed:
Personally, I don't care whether he killfiles me or not. I killfile
him, so I don't have to see any of his claptrap unless someone else
quotes him.
Click to expand...

I would love to killfile some people. But I see killfiling as a sign of
ignorance. As it means you are set in your ways and already know
everything. Thus there is no need to listen to anybody who might
actually know better. And I personally refuse to lower my standards that
low. But I suppose Ken has no problems doing so.
 
BillW50 said:
In glee typed:

Just because you didn't understand the OP, doesn't mean I was wrong.
If I was the OP and asked the same thing, that would have been the
answer that I was looking for. Noticed that the OP has left and has
apparently got what they were looking for and doesn't want to bother
correcting the likes of you. And I fully understand that.
Click to expand...


So, you have a short memory AND reading comprehension issues.
I understood the OP and answered his question, which was: why was he
being offered OFF2007 updates when he had OFF2000... and the answer was
that he had installed the 2007 Compatibility Pack, after which one is
offered updates to OFF 2007 as well as the installed version of Office
itself. That was his question and that was the answer.

The OP replied tp my post the next day, stated that this was correct and
what he had done. The OP *never* asked if the 2007 updates updated
OFF2000.... he asked why they were being offerred and if he should
install them.

Your list of OFF2000 updates had nothing to do with his question. The
OP never bothered replying to your post, possibly because it was
irrelevant.

....and on and on you go, arguing your own error.
 
In glee typed:
So, you have a short memory AND reading comprehension issues.
I understood the OP and answered his question, which was: why was he
being offered OFF2007 updates when he had OFF2000... and the answer
was that he had installed the 2007 Compatibility Pack, after which
one is offered updates to OFF 2007 as well as the installed version
of Office itself. That was his question and that was the answer.

The OP replied tp my post the next day, stated that this was correct
and what he had done. The OP *never* asked if the 2007 updates
updated OFF2000.... he asked why they were being offerred and if he
should install them.

Your list of OFF2000 updates had nothing to do with his question. The
OP never bothered replying to your post, possibly because it was
irrelevant.

...and on and on you go, arguing your own error.
Click to expand...

Are you really that dense, Glen? Why would somebody go to Office
Updates? Let me help you Glen. They would if they wanted to make sure
that their Office was fully up-to-date. And the OP had Office 2000. And
sure Office Updates found that Office 2007 needed updating and ask why
would it say that when they had Office 2000?

Sure there was plenty of answers why updates would say such a thing.
Like having the compatibility pack that was covered by all. But nobody
but me answered what the OP was originally looking for. That was to
update their Office 2000 in the first place. And we know the OP was
looking for Office 2000 because they just did a fresh install of Office
2000. And we know Office Updates don't give a rat's ass about
automatically updating Office 2000 anymore. And it wouldn't tell you a
damn thing about any updates for Office 2000.

But you rather play dumb and harass the people who are doing the
helping. And to beat them to death so they stop doing the real helping
and so everybody can be as dumb as you are. I personally call that just
ignorance and I want no part of that.
 
BillW50 said:
In glee typed:

Are you really that dense, Glen? Why would somebody go to Office
Updates? Let me help you Glen. They would if they wanted to make sure
that their Office was fully up-to-date. And the OP had Office 2000.
And
sure Office Updates found that Office 2007 needed updating and ask why
would it say that when they had Office 2000?

Sure there was plenty of answers why updates would say such a thing.
Like having the compatibility pack that was covered by all. But nobody
but me answered what the OP was originally looking for. That was to
update their Office 2000 in the first place. And we know the OP was
looking for Office 2000 because they just did a fresh install of
Office
2000. And we know Office Updates don't give a rat's ass about
automatically updating Office 2000 anymore. And it wouldn't tell you a
damn thing about any updates for Office 2000.

But you rather play dumb and harass the people who are doing the
helping. And to beat them to death so they stop doing the real helping
and so everybody can be as dumb as you are. I personally call that
just
ignorance and I want no part of that.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have more than enough ignorance on your own. Playing dumb?
No, I answered the poster's question. The original poster in that
thread NEVER asked for Office 2000 updates, he asked why he was offered
OFF2007 updates. He never said he did a fresh install of Office 2000
and was looking for updates to Office 2000.

He stated, and I quote:
"I'm running the automatic updates right now and it's offering me about
a dozen Office 2007 patches / fixes. Thing is, I've got Office 2000 SR1
premium installed on this thing ....{names of the OFF2007 patches}....
Do I want to download these patches - even though I don't have Office
2007?"

Nothing about a fresh install of Office 2000, no questions about getting
Office 2000 updates. ALL he asked was why was he offered OFF2007
updates and did he need to install those.

Get over yourself, geez! And stop wasting everyone's time.
 
BillW50 said:
In glee typed:

Are you really that dense, Glen? Why would somebody go to Office
Updates? Let me help you Glen. They would if they wanted to make sure
that their Office was fully up-to-date. And the OP had Office 2000.
And
sure Office Updates found that Office 2007 needed updating and ask why
would it say that when they had Office 2000?

Sure there was plenty of answers why updates would say such a thing.
Like having the compatibility pack that was covered by all. But nobody
but me answered what the OP was originally looking for. That was to
update their Office 2000 in the first place. And we know the OP was
looking for Office 2000 because they just did a fresh install of
Office
2000. And we know Office Updates don't give a rat's ass about
automatically updating Office 2000 anymore. And it wouldn't tell you a
damn thing about any updates for Office 2000.

But you rather play dumb and harass the people who are doing the
helping. And to beat them to death so they stop doing the real helping
and so everybody can be as dumb as you are. I personally call that
just
ignorance and I want no part of that.
Click to expand...

I suggest you read the original post from that thread again, since you
misunderstood it from day one:
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...df?q=group:microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
 
Back
Top