Windows 9x/2K/XP Installation Methodology

[btvillarin]

I wanted to start a thread on the best steps for installing any flavor of Windows (preferably Win98/2K/XP). I was just having a look at this thread at the THG forums, and found it very informative.

Well, I think most everyone wants a stable setup. So, if any of you would be kind enough, please post what your method is, and why it's worked for you. Here's the way I install Windows XP (after booting to the CD):
1) Format the partition to NTFS
2) Install Windows XP
3) After installation, I install the chipset drivers (i.e. VIA 4-in-1 drivers). Second, the critical updates. Third, any other drivers, except the video card. I save that last.
4) Tweak the system as best as possible.
5) Install all necessary programs
6) Image setup to second hard drive + CDR in case of future screw-up

Please join in!

 

[Haribo]

Major fault in step 2!

 

[Haribo]

- This is the right way to do it:
1. Start the computer with the Win2k bootcd
- After the "cd" has formated your hd to ntfs and installed itself:
2. Install the lates service pack

Done!

Now do whatever you want


No need for VI4in1 cause smart people don't use Via chipsets cause they suck as$! Also no need for ghosting cause win2k doesn't screw up

 

[Kappo]

WoW, XP has been very little hassle for me at all, aside from having a bad CD-ROM. Must be your non-willingness to learn or your extreme narrowmindedness Ah, well, I guess some people need to dog the stuff they don't use (typically lack of being "smart")

I ALWAYS download my drivers first and either burn them to CD or put them on a network drive.
Boot from CD and install SCSI drivers, let it format NTFS and install.
Install latest 4in1, then network, then video.
Restore favorites folder, set up user accounts and change desktop.
Install utilities (Mike Lin stuff mostly, and antivirus) and tweaks.
Install office (now office XP).
Install other stuff.

I dont bother to burn and image of my drive because it doesnt take me all day to do this, and typically I am installing a new OS if I am formatting.

 

[Nothinman]

Must be your non-willingness to learn or your extreme narrowmindedness Ah, well, I guess some people need to dog the stuff they don't use (typically lack of being "smart")

Well he's not alone then, all of our experiences at work have been that Win2K is more stable, runs better with less resources and runs certain 'bad' programs better. Even though XP should have been a very minor update to NT MS managed to shuffle enough stuff around to make it 'not quite ready' for our general use.

I do use XP on my laptop, because it came with it, although I'm contemplating installing 2K because XP's VM seems unbalanced and favors the file cache way too much.

 

[Kappo]

works great for me, no matter if I am in .net, photoshop, Quake III, burning a CD, using remote desktop, ect. Must be my really crappy via chipset.

 

[Haribo]

Kappo,

Do this:
1. Take a big video file (wma,mpg,avi or whatvever) and place it on your desktop.
2. Higlight it.
3. Then Press the [DEL] key and then the [Enter] key quickly after eachother... because you want to get rid of the file, Enter because you want to confirm the deletion directly when the promt comes up.

------------------------

What will happen:

XP Scenario:

XP will start the video file which it shouldn't.. and then you have to close the video player before you can press OK on the confirmation box that has come up!

Win2k Scenario:

The file gets deleted instantly.

------------------------

Probably works with any file but that was one of the first extremely anoying LATENCY issues i experianced with XP. After finding probably a dussin extremely anoying things like that I emediatly installed Win2k again.

 

[Nothinman]

works great for me, no matter if I am in .net, photoshop, Quake III, burning a CD, using remote desktop, ect. Must be my really crappy via chipset.

Probably has something to do with your exreme sarcasm and tendency to call people stupid without knowing the whole story. You're one of those "it works for me, there for you're stupid" people that makes boards like this a lot less attractive.

 

[Kappo]

Well, typically I turn off delete confirmation, but tried what you were saying. Mine deleted. I know this because it was a debian ISO and it is nowhere to be found. Also tried it with a 42 meg .wav file and restored it about 5 times to retry. If stuff like that annoys you (and it certainly has me, in the past) then TURN OFF DELETE CONFIRMATION! Tons of options in there if you look.

The point I was trying to make is that
a) because you dont use it does NOT mean it sucks.
b) the "smart" people do not only use what you use.
c) it COULD be that it sucks because you dont understand how to set it up?

The point of this guy's post was to gather information on the way that people install thier systems, not reasons that people DONT like something.

[EDIT]
"No need for VI4in1 cause smart people don't use Via chipsets cause they suck as$! Also no need for ghosting cause win2k doesn't screw up"

I wasnt the one who wrote that.

 

[Nothinman]

The point I was trying to make is that

I know what you were trying to say, but you don't have to be a dick about it.

"No need for VI4in1 cause smart people don't use Via chipsets cause they suck as$! Also no need for ghosting cause win2k doesn't screw up"

I wasnt the one who wrote that.

I know you weren't, but frankly I agree with him. VIA has some of worst problems with chipsets, some are so bad simple DMA transfers will corrupt data, hence the need for the 4-in-1s.

 

[Haribo]

"debian ISO"

you dumbas$!
don't you understand that it has to be something it can start like a video file which it opens with Media Player (yeah that's another sucky XP thing MEDIA PLAYER 7.0 is pure crap).

anyway I didn't need you to verify it.. I know the latency is there and it sucks.. and yes I could turn the confirmation off but why would I??? It worked perfectly in Win2k as alot of other things did. In my eyes and many other people XP is a downgrade. Ordinary vanilla users wouldn't notice all these flaws though so fine let them use XP. But make no misstake Win2k is a faster and more stable OS.

And after my Via remark didn't you notice a smiley? I wasn't totaly serious there... but still Via isn't the best choice out there.

 

[btvillarin]

Thanks for writing in so far. Just don't make this out to be a flame war, capice?

I'm aware about the VIA problems. Luckily, I haven't had any major problems. I don't have a SB Live soundcard to hog my bandwidth, so that makes it all better.

About the imaging of my "perfect" setup: The only reason why I do this is because I don't want to have to go through 3 hours of reinstallation, if I screw up. This means that if I install a beta that messes everything up, I don't want to just restore a point, but I don't want to have any trace of it. It takes about 10 minutes tops to restore my image. To create the image, using Drive Image 5.0, I can do it from Windows XP. Then, it'll reboot, image, then go back to Windows XP all for me. Plus, a 24x CD writer makes it all better.

Next time I build a computer, I'm looking at another chipset...that's for sure.

About my initial post:
The only reason why I install the latest video drivers manually (not using it's setup.exe file) is because of the suggestion from that other thread. I trust that person since he's very knowledgeable.

If I was installing Win2K, I would do it exactly as Haribo described, adding the VIA 4-in-1 drivers after #2.

In regards to Kappo, I too download my drivers first. Anything I download or type and save goes to my second hard drive. That's dedicated for my data only. When I install everything, I usually don't personalize it that much (like the IE homepage or anything), in case of a future restore, I decide to change how everything looks. Plus, what's <<Mike Lin stuff>>? Can you also explain why you install in this order? Thanks...

Hey Nothinman, what's this about <<XP's VM seems unbalanced and favors the file cache way too much>>? I would think about going to Win2K, only if 1) I have good drivers for my Aureal Vortex 2 sound card, and 2) if I had the CD.

And lastly, one of the first things I do with customizations (in Windows XP) is remove the Hibernate feature to save 512MB, turn off the screen saver, resize the VM, resize the recycle bin, and turn off that delete confirmation.

 

[Haribo]

<< My goal is to help the people who are using Windows XP to be able to tweak their systems to the fullest potential, without having to wonder whether or not the idea has been tested. >>



Hehe... you mean tweak it so that it works like it should

 

[btvillarin]

You checked out my site! But yeah...basically...

 

[Nothinman]

Hey Nothinman, what's this about <<XP's VM seems unbalanced and favors the file cache way too much>>?

For instance, I was copying some data (think it was ~500M) across my network (100Mb hub :/) at home and XP thought it would be a good idea to swap out a bunch of the foreground apps to so it could cache the network copy better, soon as I went to use any of those apps the disk thrashed more because it had to swap them back out again. The problem is probably exaggerated because I noticed it on a slow laptop hard disk, but it's still annoying.

 

[btvillarin]

Is that something Cacheman can fix?

 

[mOrphine]

im lazy, i usually do a clean install and run winupdate

on another note, i think btvillarin started the thread with the best intention and except for Kappo's reply, noone else seems to have offered anything regarding the topic in question?

and he did say windows 9x/2k/xp in the topic... i mean, surly said installation methodology can pretty much apply to the 3 flavours of windows.

but we end up with anothe os bashing thread, congratulations.

 

[Rooster286]

<< "debian ISO"

you dumbas$!
don't you understand that it has to be something it can start like a video file which it opens with Media Player (yeah that's another sucky XP thing MEDIA PLAYER 7.0 is pure crap).

anyway I didn't need you to verify it.. I know the latency is there and it sucks.. and yes I could turn the confirmation off but why would I??? It worked perfectly in Win2k as alot of other things did. In my eyes and many other people XP is a downgrade. Ordinary vanilla users wouldn't notice all these flaws though so fine let them use XP. But make no misstake Win2k is a faster and more stable OS.

And after my Via remark didn't you notice a smiley? I wasn't totaly serious there... but still Via isn't the best choice out there. >>



Hey Haribo, I've had that same problem numerous times.

Odd thing is, it was with Win2k and NOT xp. So I'm pretty sure it's dependent on the box you run. You'll also notice better sucess if you turn off video previewing, which causes alot of the latency.

 

[Dreadogg]

nice job on the site Btvillarin! here is how I set up a OS
Im starting with a drive that has already been partitioned.
1) Download newest or most stable drivers for my system considering that I will be checking for problems between chipsets, hardware, and OS for the best compadibility! I leave them on partition # 2 which is D:
2) Make Boot disk if needed
3) Insert Boot disk or CD rom and bootup considering my bios is set to the right settings for boot sequence!
4)if needed format from dos command prompt or from CD (if im installing Xp I'll be setting the partition to NTFS)
5)Install Windows
6)Install networking card drivers
7)UPDATE WINDOWS!!!!!! (since I am installing the newest drivers )
8)Since I have all VIA perfectly stable systems I will be installing the AWSOME 4 and 1 drivers that are always sooooooooooo easy to install!
9)Install video card drivers
10)Install sound card drivers
11)check for this (!) in the device manager!
11)check to make sure DMA is enabled on all my drives!
12)configure OS to my liking!
13)TWEAK TWEAK TWEAK

 

[btvillarin]

Hey, thanks Dreadogg!

The only reason why I would install the video card drivers last can be explained in the same thread I started in the THG forums. Toejam always explains his thoughts thoroughly, which make me side with him. Not that I don't have my own opinion, but he can prove his theory. I hope that sounds semi-reasonable.