Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

new mobo and parts with existing OS

Last response: in Systems
Share
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b \ Driver
February 7, 2005 10:03:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Hi am I fitting new mobo, gfx card processor and ram. I am keeping my HDD
with OS and drivers etc on it.
What is the best procedure for this?
i.e. do I remove gfx card from windows and remove card drivers and mobo
chipset drivers before upgrade or just fit new parts and switch on and allow
XP to detect hardware changes?

More about : mobo parts existing

February 7, 2005 10:03:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"joanne grint" <joanne.grint@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:UXONd.591$Db1.277@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Hi am I fitting new mobo, gfx card processor and ram. I am keeping my HDD
> with OS and drivers etc on it.
> What is the best procedure for this?
> i.e. do I remove gfx card from windows and remove card drivers and mobo
> chipset drivers before upgrade or just fit new parts and switch on and
> allow
> XP to detect hardware changes?
>
>

first off...
back up all essential data

next, go into the control panel
and delete as much hardware as you can...
especially any system devices specific to your present chipset

after you put your drive in the new machine...
if windows boots up...it should detect and install your new hardware...
however...there is always a chance that windows will not boot at all.

if that's the case, you will need to boot with your XP cd and perform
a repair installation

your system should stay intact...
but you will need to apply your updates afterwards

note: there is no guarantee that either of the above methods will
work...that's why it's important to backup your data first
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b \ Driver
February 7, 2005 10:03:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

If you replace a motherboard in a system that had XP installed on the
harddrive, then you MUST reformat the harddrive and do a fresh install of
the OS. Otherwise you will experience ongoing nasty Registry errors and
data corruption.

--
DaveW



"joanne grint" <joanne.grint@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:UXONd.591$Db1.277@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> Hi am I fitting new mobo, gfx card processor and ram. I am keeping my HDD
> with OS and drivers etc on it.
> What is the best procedure for this?
> i.e. do I remove gfx card from windows and remove card drivers and mobo
> chipset drivers before upgrade or just fit new parts and switch on and
> allow
> XP to detect hardware changes?
>
>
Related resources
February 7, 2005 10:32:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:E9KdnR2_aaD7XZrfRVn-vQ@athenet.net...
>
> "joanne grint" <joanne.grint@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:UXONd.591$Db1.277@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
>> Hi am I fitting new mobo, gfx card processor and ram. I am
>> keeping my HDD
>> with OS and drivers etc on it.
>> What is the best procedure for this?
>> i.e. do I remove gfx card from windows and remove card drivers
>> and mobo
>> chipset drivers before upgrade or just fit new parts and switch
>> on and allow
>> XP to detect hardware changes?
>>
>>
>
> first off...
> back up all essential data
>
> next, go into the control panel
> and delete as much hardware as you can...
> especially any system devices specific to your present chipset
>

Can I just add; make sure you choose to show the hidden devices
too, there may be something in there to clear out.

> after you put your drive in the new machine...
> if windows boots up...it should detect and install your new
> hardware...
> however...there is always a chance that windows will not boot at
> all.
>
> if that's the case, you will need to boot with your XP cd and
> perform
> a repair installation
>
> your system should stay intact...
> but you will need to apply your updates afterwards
>
> note: there is no guarantee that either of the above methods
> will
> work...that's why it's important to backup your data first
>

--
Ian
February 7, 2005 10:59:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

I tried all that has been suggested and had a number of post installation
errors.

Finally ended up doing a reformat and reinstall of XP.............

I am glad I did because it cleared out all the rubbish.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b \ Driver
February 7, 2005 11:11:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:E9KdnR2_aaD7XZrfRVn-vQ@athenet.net...
>
> "joanne grint" <joanne.grint@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:UXONd.591$Db1.277@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
> > Hi am I fitting new mobo, gfx card processor and ram. I am keeping my
HDD
> > with OS and drivers etc on it.
> > What is the best procedure for this?
> > i.e. do I remove gfx card from windows and remove card drivers and mobo
> > chipset drivers before upgrade or just fit new parts and switch on and
> > allow
> > XP to detect hardware changes?
> >
> >
>
> first off...
> back up all essential data
>
> next, go into the control panel
> and delete as much hardware as you can...
> especially any system devices specific to your present chipset
>


What hardware devices should i remove? I am not too sure and don't want to
screw up my system. Is it just items that refer to my via chipset?
Do usb controllers need to go etc.
Could you please be more specific, I can provide more data if needed.
My GFX card is going from 4200 to 6600 and these use the same drivers can I
just replace this?
What would happen if I left install as it is and fiited new mobo?
Thanks

> after you put your drive in the new machine...
> if windows boots up...it should detect and install your new hardware...
> however...there is always a chance that windows will not boot at all.
>
> if that's the case, you will need to boot with your XP cd and perform
> a repair installation
>
> your system should stay intact...
> but you will need to apply your updates afterwards
>
> note: there is no guarantee that either of the above methods will
> work...that's why it's important to backup your data first
>
>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b \ Driver
February 8, 2005 12:31:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 16:18:21 -0800, "DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote:

>If you replace a motherboard in a system that had XP installed on the
>harddrive, then you MUST reformat the harddrive and do a fresh install of
>the OS. Otherwise you will experience ongoing nasty Registry errors and
>data corruption.

What does moving to a different set of hardware have to do with
registry errors and data corruption? Are you saying that every time
someone installs a new piece of hardware, they HAVE to install a fresh
copy of windows??? That's rediculous.

Sure, if you want to speed up and clean up your windows box, it's a
good idea to do a fresh install. But changing hardware doesn't make
it a necessity.

MT
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b \ Driver
February 8, 2005 5:34:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:11:40 GMT, "joanne grint" <joanne.grint@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>What would happen if I left install as it is and fiited new mobo?

Well, having done that myself what happend was the OS detected all the new
devices correctly, and it worked, but the device list was a mess as the old ones
weren't deleted so it seemed I had 2 of everything.

Delete everything. Disk controllers, USB ports, sound system, video, network (if
it's on the mb).

Don't worry about deleting too much, Win should find it all again.

--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http://www.cginternet.net
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b \ Driver
February 8, 2005 8:33:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Could you not simply remove the old unneeded devices afterwards?
If not exactly what do I need to remove?
Do I remove disk drives(HDD)
Do I remove optical drives
" "IDE ATA/ATAPI controllers
" " Ports (com& LPT)
Processor
All system devices
All USB hubs and controllers etc.

The more detail the better,sorry to be a pain

Andy

"Christopher Pollard" <rubbish@cginternet.net> wrote in message
news:h7ng0152t4at4se8vo41v95tjblg2vllvr@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:11:40 GMT, "joanne grint"
<joanne.grint@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
> >What would happen if I left install as it is and fiited new mobo?
>
> Well, having done that myself what happend was the OS detected all the new
> devices correctly, and it worked, but the device list was a mess as the
old ones
> weren't deleted so it seemed I had 2 of everything.
>
> Delete everything. Disk controllers, USB ports, sound system, video,
network (if
> it's on the mb).
>
> Don't worry about deleting too much, Win should find it all again.
>
> --
> Chris Pollard
>
>
> CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
> http://www.cginternet.net
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b \ Driver
February 8, 2005 9:17:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote in message
news:gpmdnR_wJZPamJXfRVn-3g@comcast.com...
> If you replace a motherboard in a system that had XP installed on the
> harddrive, then you MUST reformat the harddrive and do a fresh install of
> the OS. Otherwise you will experience ongoing nasty Registry errors and
> data corruption.
>

I installed a new motherboard/CPU in my system back in August using a repair
install and the system has been fine since.

--
Derek
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b \ Driver
February 9, 2005 4:30:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

hi,

I've come late to this thread so sorry if I missed it, but is there a
specific reason you need to keep your OS? If your major concern is
moving all your programs and data, I would recommend running a migration
package like Alohabob on your current setup:
http://www.alohabob.com
Archive the backup it creates and then after installing your new mobo
and OS, Alohabob can bring back all your stuff.

--Al
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b \ Driver
February 9, 2005 4:06:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:24:51 -0600, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

>Michael Thomas wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:27:30 GMT, "joanne grint"
>> <joanne.grint@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi, Sorry but I don't understand what difference would this card make to the
>>>installed devices and drivers I have. Why does it allow you not to remove
>>>things?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 etc. unfortunately doesn't use a generic disk
>> driver when it loads,
>
>Actually, it does. And then switches to the installed driver when drivers
>are loaded.
>
>> to completion.
>

What I meant to say was it doesn't use the generic driver to
completion, not that it didn't use one at all. It obviously does or
it wouldn't get to the point of booting the OS at all. I should have
been more clear.

>There wouldn't be much use for optimized and hardware specific drivers if
>it used the generic ones 'to completion'.
>
>> If it did, you wouldn't have to
>> sweat any of this and it would work just like Windows 95/98/Me - as in
>> finding the hard disk, booting off it, and plug-n-playing all the new
>> devices.
>
>As far as starting with the generic driver, and then loading in the
>hardware specific one when drivers are loaded, it *does* work 'just like'
>Windows 9x.
>

Up to the point when it tries to load a specific driver and then
chokes if it can't find it.

>Windows 2000/XP, however, supports an infinitely more complex hardware
>configuration than Win9x does. SMP, multiple PCI busses, device
>serialization, just to name a few. And it's not feasible to dynamically
>reconfigure the core components, as those are, on every boot. Especially
>since that is a rare case.
>
>

Too bad it's not smart enough to bypass the "specific driver" when it
can't match one to the hardware. It would save people a lot of grief
when they change to new hardware.

>> NT/2000/XP/2003 uses specific disk controller drivers it has
>> installed in \%windir%\system32\drivers. What adding the Promise disk
>> controller does is give you a portable controller you can move from
>> one system to the other, or from one motherboard to another to be more
>> specific. This works because adding the controller into the existing
>> system installs the driver on that system. Your system doesn't know
>> beans about your new motherboards disk controller, and it will "blue
>> screen" when it gets to the point of using the controller driver,
>> doesn't have one, and can't see the hard disk anymore.
>>
>> I know, you ask: Why does it boot from the drive just fine, then all
>> of a sudden decide to use a specific device driver in the middle of
>> booting? You'll have to ask the guys in Redmond about that one.
>
>Simple. It starts with the generic driver, since at initial boot it doesn't
>know what the specific configuration is, and then loads in the hardware
>specific drivers along with all the other hardware drivers. If the drivers
>do not match the hardware then it will hang when they are loaded because,
>all of a sudden, there is no working IDE controller anymore: wrong driver.
>
>

What I meant was - why Redmond left out the ability to continue to
boot off the generic driver when it didn't find the specific driver
was a mystery to me. It would save people a lot of trouble in the
event of a motherboard replacement, or a corrupt driver for that
matter.

>> Another option I have heard works is to add the specific driver to
>> \%windir%\system32\drivers your new motherboard will be using. Thing
>> is, you better get it right because once you tear out the old
>> motherboard, you won't want to put everything back in if it doesn't
>> work.
>
>The thing to do is a repair reinstall so the hardware gets redetected and
>configured properly.
>

That's your take on how to do it. A repair install may fix the
problem, but it also requires you to install a service pack and fixes
afterwards.

Personally I've been very successful with using a PCI disk controller
(the above mentioned Promise Ultra100/133tx2) to move the system to a
new motherboard, and I didn't have to do anything except install any
new device drivers that windows didn't already have.

The OP already has sunk 450 quid into this. Another 20 for a
controller card isn't going to break the bank.

MT

<snip>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b \ Driver
February 9, 2005 8:14:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Michael Thomas wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:24:51 -0600, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:27:30 GMT, "joanne grint"
>>><joanne.grint@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi, Sorry but I don't understand what difference would this card make to the
>>>>installed devices and drivers I have. Why does it allow you not to remove
>>>>things?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 etc. unfortunately doesn't use a generic disk
>>>driver when it loads,
>>
>>Actually, it does. And then switches to the installed driver when drivers
>>are loaded.
>>
>>
>>>to completion.
>>
>
> What I meant to say was it doesn't use the generic driver to
> completion, not that it didn't use one at all. It obviously does or
> it wouldn't get to the point of booting the OS at all. I should have
> been more clear.

I was just clarifying.


>>There wouldn't be much use for optimized and hardware specific drivers if
>>it used the generic ones 'to completion'.
>>
>>
>>> If it did, you wouldn't have to
>>>sweat any of this and it would work just like Windows 95/98/Me - as in
>>>finding the hard disk, booting off it, and plug-n-playing all the new
>>>devices.
>>
>>As far as starting with the generic driver, and then loading in the
>>hardware specific one when drivers are loaded, it *does* work 'just like'
>>Windows 9x.
>>
>
>
> Up to the point when it tries to load a specific driver and then
> chokes if it can't find it.
>
>
>>Windows 2000/XP, however, supports an infinitely more complex hardware
>>configuration than Win9x does. SMP, multiple PCI busses, device
>>serialization, just to name a few. And it's not feasible to dynamically
>>reconfigure the core components, as those are, on every boot. Especially
>>since that is a rare case.
>>
>>
>
>
> Too bad it's not smart enough to bypass the "specific driver" when it
> can't match one to the hardware.

It isn't a matter of *just* 'the specific driver'. There's an entire system
configuration involved.


> It would save people a lot of grief
> when they change to new hardware.

Which is a rare case and there is a perfectly good mechanism for handling
it: a repair install.

Not to mention that simply 'bypassing' the specific IDE controller wouldn't
take care of it as the entire hardware configuration is (potentially)
different.

Why would anyone go to extraordinary lengths providing a solution that
doesn't solve the problem when one that does already exists?


>>> NT/2000/XP/2003 uses specific disk controller drivers it has
>>>installed in \%windir%\system32\drivers. What adding the Promise disk
>>>controller does is give you a portable controller you can move from
>>>one system to the other, or from one motherboard to another to be more
>>>specific. This works because adding the controller into the existing
>>>system installs the driver on that system. Your system doesn't know
>>>beans about your new motherboards disk controller, and it will "blue
>>>screen" when it gets to the point of using the controller driver,
>>>doesn't have one, and can't see the hard disk anymore.
>>>
>>>I know, you ask: Why does it boot from the drive just fine, then all
>>>of a sudden decide to use a specific device driver in the middle of
>>>booting? You'll have to ask the guys in Redmond about that one.
>>
>>Simple. It starts with the generic driver, since at initial boot it doesn't
>>know what the specific configuration is, and then loads in the hardware
>>specific drivers along with all the other hardware drivers. If the drivers
>>do not match the hardware then it will hang when they are loaded because,
>>all of a sudden, there is no working IDE controller anymore: wrong driver.
>>
>>
>
>
> What I meant was - why Redmond left out the ability to continue to
> boot off the generic driver when it didn't find the specific driver
> was a mystery to me.

Because, for one, it doesn't solve anything.

> It would save people a lot of trouble in the
> event of a motherboard replacement,

No, because a repair install is still needed.

> or a corrupt driver for that
> matter.

Mechanisms to 'fix' a corrupt driver already exist.


>>>Another option I have heard works is to add the specific driver to
>>>\%windir%\system32\drivers your new motherboard will be using. Thing
>>>is, you better get it right because once you tear out the old
>>>motherboard, you won't want to put everything back in if it doesn't
>>>work.
>>
>>The thing to do is a repair reinstall so the hardware gets redetected and
>>configured properly.
>>
>
>
> That's your take on how to do it.

Not just 'my take'. It's based on how HAL works.

> A repair install may fix the
> problem, but it also requires you to install a service pack and fixes
> afterwards.

Yep.

> Personally I've been very successful with using a PCI disk controller
> (the above mentioned Promise Ultra100/133tx2) to move the system to a
> new motherboard, and I didn't have to do anything except install any
> new device drivers that windows didn't already have.

Then you were either lucky or things may not be working as well as they
might otherwise because there's a heck of a lot more to a motherboard, and
supporting drivers, than just the IDE controller.


> The OP already has sunk 450 quid into this. Another 20 for a
> controller card isn't going to break the bank.

He'd still need to do a repair install.

>
> MT
>
> <snip>
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b \ Driver
February 9, 2005 8:44:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:14:09 -0600, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

>Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:24:51 -0600, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Michael Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:27:30 GMT, "joanne grint"
>>>><joanne.grint@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi, Sorry but I don't understand what difference would this card make to the
>>>>>installed devices and drivers I have. Why does it allow you not to remove
>>>>>things?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 etc. unfortunately doesn't use a generic disk
>>>>driver when it loads,
>>>
>>>Actually, it does. And then switches to the installed driver when drivers
>>>are loaded.
>>>
>>>
>>>>to completion.
>>>
>>
>> What I meant to say was it doesn't use the generic driver to
>> completion, not that it didn't use one at all. It obviously does or
>> it wouldn't get to the point of booting the OS at all. I should have
>> been more clear.
>
>I was just clarifying.
>
>
>>>There wouldn't be much use for optimized and hardware specific drivers if
>>>it used the generic ones 'to completion'.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If it did, you wouldn't have to
>>>>sweat any of this and it would work just like Windows 95/98/Me - as in
>>>>finding the hard disk, booting off it, and plug-n-playing all the new
>>>>devices.
>>>
>>>As far as starting with the generic driver, and then loading in the
>>>hardware specific one when drivers are loaded, it *does* work 'just like'
>>>Windows 9x.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Up to the point when it tries to load a specific driver and then
>> chokes if it can't find it.
>>
>>
>>>Windows 2000/XP, however, supports an infinitely more complex hardware
>>>configuration than Win9x does. SMP, multiple PCI busses, device
>>>serialization, just to name a few. And it's not feasible to dynamically
>>>reconfigure the core components, as those are, on every boot. Especially
>>>since that is a rare case.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Too bad it's not smart enough to bypass the "specific driver" when it
>> can't match one to the hardware.
>
>It isn't a matter of *just* 'the specific driver'. There's an entire system
>configuration involved.
>

Are you saying that a generic driver wouldn't be able to boot the
system all the way into windows?

>
>> It would save people a lot of grief
>> when they change to new hardware.
>
>Which is a rare case and there is a perfectly good mechanism for handling
>it: a repair install.
>

That's is where you and I differ, I don't consider a repair install to
be saving people "a lot of grief."

>Not to mention that simply 'bypassing' the specific IDE controller wouldn't
>take care of it as the entire hardware configuration is (potentially)
>different.
>

And I can tell you I've had great success moving a PCI controller/HDD
over to a brand new, considerably different motherboard, and had no
problems with XP configuring the new hardware.

>Why would anyone go to extraordinary lengths providing a solution that
>doesn't solve the problem when one that does already exists?
>

Because it works? I don't see how it is "extraordinary" at all. I
consider a repair install to "extraordinary lengths."
>
>>>> NT/2000/XP/2003 uses specific disk controller drivers it has
>>>>installed in \%windir%\system32\drivers. What adding the Promise disk
>>>>controller does is give you a portable controller you can move from
>>>>one system to the other, or from one motherboard to another to be more
>>>>specific. This works because adding the controller into the existing
>>>>system installs the driver on that system. Your system doesn't know
>>>>beans about your new motherboards disk controller, and it will "blue
>>>>screen" when it gets to the point of using the controller driver,
>>>>doesn't have one, and can't see the hard disk anymore.
>>>>
>>>>I know, you ask: Why does it boot from the drive just fine, then all
>>>>of a sudden decide to use a specific device driver in the middle of
>>>>booting? You'll have to ask the guys in Redmond about that one.
>>>
>>>Simple. It starts with the generic driver, since at initial boot it doesn't
>>>know what the specific configuration is, and then loads in the hardware
>>>specific drivers along with all the other hardware drivers. If the drivers
>>>do not match the hardware then it will hang when they are loaded because,
>>>all of a sudden, there is no working IDE controller anymore: wrong driver.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> What I meant was - why Redmond left out the ability to continue to
>> boot off the generic driver when it didn't find the specific driver
>> was a mystery to me.
>
>Because, for one, it doesn't solve anything.
>

It would solve the original posters dilemma - since they no longer
have a CD to do the "repair" install with.

>> It would save people a lot of trouble in the
>> event of a motherboard replacement,
>
>No, because a repair install is still needed.
>

No it's not. There are other options - one of which is to buy a PCI
IDE controller card.

>> or a corrupt driver for that
>> matter.
>
>Mechanisms to 'fix' a corrupt driver already exist.
>
>

Not for the OP. They've don't have a CD.

>>>>Another option I have heard works is to add the specific driver to
>>>>\%windir%\system32\drivers your new motherboard will be using. Thing
>>>>is, you better get it right because once you tear out the old
>>>>motherboard, you won't want to put everything back in if it doesn't
>>>>work.
>>>
>>>The thing to do is a repair reinstall so the hardware gets redetected and
>>>configured properly.
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's your take on how to do it.
>
>Not just 'my take'. It's based on how HAL works.

It's not the only way to handle the situation. If it was then every
time you installed a new device, such as a sound card or network card,
your advise would be to run a repair install.

>
>> A repair install may fix the
>> problem, but it also requires you to install a service pack and fixes
>> afterwards.
>
>Yep.
>
>> Personally I've been very successful with using a PCI disk controller
>> (the above mentioned Promise Ultra100/133tx2) to move the system to a
>> new motherboard, and I didn't have to do anything except install any
>> new device drivers that windows didn't already have.
>
>Then you were either lucky or things may not be working as well as they
>might otherwise because there's a heck of a lot more to a motherboard, and
>supporting drivers, than just the IDE controller.
>

I wasn't lucky and things are working just fine. Just because you
don't agree with the method doesn't make it wrong in any way.

>
>> The OP already has sunk 450 quid into this. Another 20 for a
>> controller card isn't going to break the bank.
>
>He'd still need to do a repair install.
>

No he/she wouldn't and I've got more than one system that says so.

>>
>> MT
>>
>> <snip>

MT
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b \ Driver
February 9, 2005 9:26:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

My copy of XP pro corp. edition is no longer licensed and my disc has damage
on it so I can not re-install without forking out for a new copy.
I also do not have any experience of ghosting, backing up or migrating
files,programs etc.

"Al Puzzuoli" <apuzzuoli@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c73782a63a05d6098968e@news.giganews.com...
> hi,
>
> I've come late to this thread so sorry if I missed it, but is there a
> specific reason you need to keep your OS? If your major concern is
> moving all your programs and data, I would recommend running a migration
> package like Alohabob on your current setup:
> http://www.alohabob.com
> Archive the backup it creates and then after installing your new mobo
> and OS, Alohabob can bring back all your stuff.
>
> --Al
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b \ Driver
February 10, 2005 5:02:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:14:09 -0600, David Maynard
<dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:


>
>Why would anyone go to extraordinary lengths providing a solution that
>doesn't solve the problem when one that does already exists?
>

Because the lengths shouldn't be so extraordinary? Some
consider Safe Mode to be an environment that to really be
effective, would NEED to be able to completely boot with
generic drivers such that a different board would work
regardless of how different it is.

Given the size of the company and the depth of the pockets,
it probably wasn't something they'd "need" to work on,
rather something they had worked out but chose not to do. I
can't help but wonder if little flaws like this, related
things like [boot failure due to someone forgetting to load
RAID drivers during installation], would be issues that
still existed if MS had to compete for business in the PC
sector.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b \ Driver
February 10, 2005 6:42:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

kony wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:14:09 -0600, David Maynard
> <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Why would anyone go to extraordinary lengths providing a solution that
>>doesn't solve the problem when one that does already exists?
>>
>
>
> Because the lengths shouldn't be so extraordinary?

And you base that in depth analysis on what?

> Some
> consider Safe Mode to be an environment that to really be
> effective, would NEED to be able to completely boot with
> generic drivers such that a different board would work
> regardless of how different it is.

So all the devices on the second PCI bus disappear? Or do you figure
reducing system support to a 'plain' PC is all Windows 2000/XP should do?


> Given the size of the company and the depth of the pockets,
> it probably wasn't something they'd "need" to work on,
> rather something they had worked out but chose not to do. I
> can't help but wonder if little flaws like this, related
> things like [boot failure due to someone forgetting to load
> RAID drivers during installation], would be issues that
> still existed if MS had to compete for business in the PC
> sector.

It's great fun to speculate how 'it should work' when you aren't the one
who has to do it.

And there is competition. Try booting a typical Linux distribution off a
specialized RAID controller without drivers.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b \ Driver
February 10, 2005 7:10:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Michael Thomas wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:14:09 -0600, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:24:51 -0600, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Michael Thomas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:27:30 GMT, "joanne grint"
>>>>><joanne.grint@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi, Sorry but I don't understand what difference would this card make to the
>>>>>>installed devices and drivers I have. Why does it allow you not to remove
>>>>>>things?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 etc. unfortunately doesn't use a generic disk
>>>>>driver when it loads,
>>>>
>>>>Actually, it does. And then switches to the installed driver when drivers
>>>>are loaded.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>to completion.
>>>>
>>>What I meant to say was it doesn't use the generic driver to
>>>completion, not that it didn't use one at all. It obviously does or
>>>it wouldn't get to the point of booting the OS at all. I should have
>>>been more clear.
>>
>>I was just clarifying.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>There wouldn't be much use for optimized and hardware specific drivers if
>>>>it used the generic ones 'to completion'.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If it did, you wouldn't have to
>>>>>sweat any of this and it would work just like Windows 95/98/Me - as in
>>>>>finding the hard disk, booting off it, and plug-n-playing all the new
>>>>>devices.
>>>>
>>>>As far as starting with the generic driver, and then loading in the
>>>>hardware specific one when drivers are loaded, it *does* work 'just like'
>>>>Windows 9x.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Up to the point when it tries to load a specific driver and then
>>>chokes if it can't find it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Windows 2000/XP, however, supports an infinitely more complex hardware
>>>>configuration than Win9x does. SMP, multiple PCI busses, device
>>>>serialization, just to name a few. And it's not feasible to dynamically
>>>>reconfigure the core components, as those are, on every boot. Especially
>>>>since that is a rare case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Too bad it's not smart enough to bypass the "specific driver" when it
>>>can't match one to the hardware.
>>
>>It isn't a matter of *just* 'the specific driver'. There's an entire system
>>configuration involved.
>>
>
> Are you saying that a generic driver wouldn't be able to boot the
> system all the way into windows?

I'm saying the system configuration is a heck of a lot more than an IDE
controller.

>>> It would save people a lot of grief
>>>when they change to new hardware.
>>
>>Which is a rare case and there is a perfectly good mechanism for handling
>>it: a repair install.
>>
>
> That's is where you and I differ, I don't consider a repair install to
> be saving people "a lot of grief."

I didn't say a thing about 'grief', one way or the other. I said it was a
rare case and a perfectly good mechanism exists to handle it.


>>Not to mention that simply 'bypassing' the specific IDE controller wouldn't
>>take care of it as the entire hardware configuration is (potentially)
>>different.
>>
>
>
> And I can tell you I've had great success moving a PCI controller/HDD
> over to a brand new, considerably different motherboard, and had no
> problems with XP configuring the new hardware.

I'm glad you were lucky.


>>Why would anyone go to extraordinary lengths providing a solution that
>>doesn't solve the problem when one that does already exists?
>>
>
>
> Because it works?

You're changing topics and pretending they're the same. Moving a controller
so you have an already installed driver is not the same thing as expecting
Windows 2000/XP to magically work with the wrong drivers.

> I don't see how it is "extraordinary" at all.

Write your own operating system and then get back with how 'un'
extraordinary it is.

> I
> consider a repair install to "extraordinary lengths."

Certainly nothing compared to writing an operating system so it
automagically reconfigures itself on the fly every time it boots on the off
chance someone picked today to completely change the entire configuration.


>>>>>NT/2000/XP/2003 uses specific disk controller drivers it has
>>>>>installed in \%windir%\system32\drivers. What adding the Promise disk
>>>>>controller does is give you a portable controller you can move from
>>>>>one system to the other, or from one motherboard to another to be more
>>>>>specific. This works because adding the controller into the existing
>>>>>system installs the driver on that system. Your system doesn't know
>>>>>beans about your new motherboards disk controller, and it will "blue
>>>>>screen" when it gets to the point of using the controller driver,
>>>>>doesn't have one, and can't see the hard disk anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>>I know, you ask: Why does it boot from the drive just fine, then all
>>>>>of a sudden decide to use a specific device driver in the middle of
>>>>>booting? You'll have to ask the guys in Redmond about that one.
>>>>
>>>>Simple. It starts with the generic driver, since at initial boot it doesn't
>>>>know what the specific configuration is, and then loads in the hardware
>>>>specific drivers along with all the other hardware drivers. If the drivers
>>>>do not match the hardware then it will hang when they are loaded because,
>>>>all of a sudden, there is no working IDE controller anymore: wrong driver.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What I meant was - why Redmond left out the ability to continue to
>>>boot off the generic driver when it didn't find the specific driver
>>>was a mystery to me.
>>
>>Because, for one, it doesn't solve anything.
>>
>
>
> It would solve the original posters dilemma - since they no longer
> have a CD to do the "repair" install with.

And it would be nice if Windows would unscrew the old motherboard and
install the new one too but I don't expect it to nor do I expect it to fix
a lost or damaged install CD.

I feel for the guy but it isn't an O.S. 'problem'.

>>> It would save people a lot of trouble in the
>>>event of a motherboard replacement,
>>
>>No, because a repair install is still needed.
>>
>
> No it's not. There are other options - one of which is to buy a PCI
> IDE controller card.

You're assumption that because you got lucky that means it will work in
every case is rash and bad logic.

>>>or a corrupt driver for that
>>>matter.
>>
>>Mechanisms to 'fix' a corrupt driver already exist.
>>
>>
>
> Not for the OP. They've don't have a CD.

That's not an O.S. 'problem'.


>>>>>Another option I have heard works is to add the specific driver to
>>>>>\%windir%\system32\drivers your new motherboard will be using. Thing
>>>>>is, you better get it right because once you tear out the old
>>>>>motherboard, you won't want to put everything back in if it doesn't
>>>>>work.
>>>>
>>>>The thing to do is a repair reinstall so the hardware gets redetected and
>>>>configured properly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That's your take on how to do it.
>>
>>Not just 'my take'. It's based on how HAL works.
>
>
> It's not the only way to handle the situation. If it was then every
> time you installed a new device, such as a sound card or network card,
> your advise would be to run a repair install.

No, because those are not core HAL components.

>>> A repair install may fix the
>>>problem, but it also requires you to install a service pack and fixes
>>>afterwards.
>>
>>Yep.
>>
>>
>>>Personally I've been very successful with using a PCI disk controller
>>>(the above mentioned Promise Ultra100/133tx2) to move the system to a
>>>new motherboard, and I didn't have to do anything except install any
>>>new device drivers that windows didn't already have.
>>
>>Then you were either lucky or things may not be working as well as they
>>might otherwise because there's a heck of a lot more to a motherboard, and
>>supporting drivers, than just the IDE controller.
>>
>
>
> I wasn't lucky

And what do you base that assumption on?

> and things are working just fine. Just because you
> don't agree with the method doesn't make it wrong in any way.

And just because it worked for you doesn't mean it works in all cases.


>>>The OP already has sunk 450 quid into this. Another 20 for a
>>>controller card isn't going to break the bank.
>>
>>He'd still need to do a repair install.
>>
>
>
> No he/she wouldn't and I've got more than one system that says so.

Want to bet your life that I can't find a system it doesn't work on?

>
>
>>>MT
>>>
>>><snip>
>
>
> MT
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b \ Driver
February 10, 2005 2:30:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 04:10:14 -0600, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

<snip>

>> No he/she wouldn't and I've got more than one system that says so.
>
>Want to bet your life that I can't find a system it doesn't work on?
>

Yes, of course. Winning this argument means everything to me.

MT
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b \ Driver
February 10, 2005 9:30:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Michael Thomas wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 04:10:14 -0600, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>No he/she wouldn't and I've got more than one system that says so.
>>
>>Want to bet your life that I can't find a system it doesn't work on?
>>
>
>
> Yes, of course. Winning this argument means everything to me.
>
> MT
>

Hehe
!