Will this work? ? ?

[casey.o]

I'm going to be moving my Win98 system to a much faster computer. It's
another IBM machine, with similar Intel Processor and chipset, but
rather than being 1.0Ghz, it's 3.0 ghz. This out to make Win98 run
really fast.

Anyhow, I know I can just transfer the Win98 harddrive to the new
system, install a few drivers and it will run. (I've done this many
times with Win98). But my current system has Win2000 dual boot. The D:
partition is for Win2K. I'm not sure how that will transfer over. I've
never moved it before to another computer. So, I'm prepared to
reinstall it, which is no big deal since I dont have many programs
installed, and all my personal files can be gotten from Win98. (I
mostly just use Win2K for USB transfers to my ext. HDDs that Win98 can
not access).

Getting to the XP part of this message, I'm considering replacing Win2K
with XP. All I really need to do is more a few eprsonal folders from D:
to another partition, and reformat D:, which will wipe off Win2K. Then,
of course, edit boot.ini to remove the dual boot. Once this is dont, a
person would normally install XP onto drive D: and as the secondary OS.

I know that XP *MUST* be installed AFTER Win98 is installed. I dont
think there is another way.

But this is where I'm checking out the possibility of doing something
unusual. This computer which I will be using, was semi-home built. I'm
transporting the motherboard from another working system, which came
with a hard drive containing a fresh install of XP. (which was drive
C. (so it's matched to the motherboard).

Would it be possible to clone the XP files to my drive D:, manuallty
modify boot.ini, and thus have WinXP operate correctly as my dual boot?
Yes, I am aware that all programs in "Program Files" will need to have
their location changed from C: to D:, which may take some time, but
isn't hard to do. But I'm wondering if there will be other issues?

Normally, I'd just reinstall, but the present XP installation is for XP
Pro. I dont have an XP Pro install CD. The COA is also for XP-Pro.
Plus, I know all the drivers for this motherboard are already there, so
I dont have to hunt around to get all of them online. Therefore, it
seems like it would make more sense to try to transplant the whole
installation to drive D:.

I do have XP home, CD, but that wont work with this COA and I'll be
lacking the drivers.

Thanks

 

[BillW50]

I'm going to be moving my Win98 system to a much faster computer. It's
another IBM machine, with similar Intel Processor and chipset, but
rather than being 1.0Ghz, it's 3.0 ghz. This out to make Win98 run
really fast.

Anyhow, I know I can just transfer the Win98 harddrive to the new
system, install a few drivers and it will run. (I've done this many
times with Win98). But my current system has Win2000 dual boot. The D:
partition is for Win2K. I'm not sure how that will transfer over. I've
never moved it before to another computer. So, I'm prepared to
reinstall it, which is no big deal since I dont have many programs
installed, and all my personal files can be gotten from Win98. (I
mostly just use Win2K for USB transfers to my ext. HDDs that Win98 can
not access).

Getting to the XP part of this message, I'm considering replacing Win2K
with XP. All I really need to do is more a few eprsonal folders from D:
to another partition, and reformat D:, which will wipe off Win2K. Then,
of course, edit boot.ini to remove the dual boot. Once this is dont, a
person would normally install XP onto drive D: and as the secondary OS.

I know that XP *MUST* be installed AFTER Win98 is installed. I dont
think there is another way.

But this is where I'm checking out the possibility of doing something
unusual. This computer which I will be using, was semi-home built. I'm
transporting the motherboard from another working system, which came
with a hard drive containing a fresh install of XP. (which was drive
C. (so it's matched to the motherboard).

Would it be possible to clone the XP files to my drive D:, manuallty
modify boot.ini, and thus have WinXP operate correctly as my dual boot?
Yes, I am aware that all programs in "Program Files" will need to have
their location changed from C: to D:, which may take some time, but
isn't hard to do. But I'm wondering if there will be other issues?

Normally, I'd just reinstall, but the present XP installation is for XP
Pro. I dont have an XP Pro install CD. The COA is also for XP-Pro.
Plus, I know all the drivers for this motherboard are already there, so
I dont have to hunt around to get all of them online. Therefore, it
seems like it would make more sense to try to transplant the whole
installation to drive D:.

I do have XP home, CD, but that wont work with this COA and I'll be
lacking the drivers.

Thanks

Moving 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8 to another dissimilar machine usually
won't even boot. The trick is to do what Windows does when it installs
Windows for the first time. That is to use generic drivers. How? 2000/XP
has them on the install disc and Vista and up should be living in the
Windows folder.

Now the registry has to be changed to boot up using the generic drivers.
The easy way is to use Acronis (you need the Premium edition) or Paragon
(some of their products have this built in). I don't know if either one
will restore 2000? Although I do know it will work with XP and up though.

And I am curious why you have both Windows 98 and 2000 on the same
machine? I understand why 2000 is there for the USB drive support. But
won't 2000 do all of the jobs you do under 98 anyway?

 

[casey.o]

Moving 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8 to another dissimilar machine usually
won't even boot. The trick is to do what Windows does when it installs
Windows for the first time. That is to use generic drivers. How? 2000/XP
has them on the install disc and Vista and up should be living in the
Windows folder.

Maybe I wasn't clear. This install of XP *IS* from this motherboard, so
it's the same machine. I just want to move oit from C: to D:
Everything else will be darn near the same as far as drives and Ram,
except to clone it to a different harddrive and move it to D: (and turn
it into a dual booter thru boot.ini (which I can do manually). [I
think].

Now the registry has to be changed to boot up using the generic drivers.
The easy way is to use Acronis (you need the Premium edition) or Paragon
(some of their products have this built in). I don't know if either one
will restore 2000? Although I do know it will work with XP and up though.

This is useful info in case I ever have to move an install of XP to
another computer. Just for the heck of it, I'm going to try to move my
Win2000 and see what happens. As I said, this is basically the same
chipset and CPU, just newer and faster. (IBM NetViata 1ghz to an IBM
Thinkcentre 3.0ghz.)

I do know about moving XP to a different machine. I tried it once, and
it was a total mess.

This same install of Win98 has been moved to at least 6 computers so
far.... 98 can easily be transported. The biggest problem is usually
video drivers. The trick is to set it to the lowest video settings
before moving the drive. After being moved, the new video drivers are
installed. (Too bad they didn't make XP so easy to move).

And I am curious why you have both Windows 98 and 2000 on the same
machine? I understand why 2000 is there for the USB drive support. But
won't 2000 do all of the jobs you do under 98 anyway?

NO. If you recall, from my previous threads, I CAN NOT connect to the
internet decently with any NT based OSs. Both Win2000 and XP do the
same thing. Modem(s) just wont connect well, but in W98, they work
fine. Plus, I have used this install of W98 for 15 years or so. I
installed 2000 just a few years ago. Plus 2K dont allow me to use the
true Dos stuff. But it would make more sense to have XP as my second OS
now that I'm used to it.

 

[casey.o]

Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 4GB - Windows 8.1 Pro w/Media Center

Comment: I didn't think anyone on this newsgroup used Win8. I see you
do. So, now I'll have to confess what I did. I've never touched Win8
till last week. I was at Walmart and playing with their demo computers
with Win8.1. I managed to get into control panel / display settings,
when I discovered that there is a setting called "Landscape Reversed".
Well, it turns the screen upsidedown. I did it, and could not resist
the urge to leave it that way.....

I bet every one of those guys who work in the electronics dept. (and
dont know shit), are trying to figure out how the screen got
upsidedown.......

In fact I should go back thios week and see if that computer is on sale
really cheap <LOL>.

 

[Paul]

Moving 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8 to another dissimilar machine usually
won't even boot. The trick is to do what Windows does when it installs
Windows for the first time. That is to use generic drivers. How? 2000/XP
has them on the install disc and Vista and up should be living in the
Windows folder.

Now the registry has to be changed to boot up using the generic drivers.
The easy way is to use Acronis (you need the Premium edition) or Paragon
(some of their products have this built in). I don't know if either one
will restore 2000? Although I do know it will work with XP and up though.

And I am curious why you have both Windows 98 and 2000 on the same
machine? I understand why 2000 is there for the USB drive support. But
won't 2000 do all of the jobs you do under 98 anyway?

Casey has dialup modem problems, and for some reason Win98
makes the modem work right.

Paul

 

[BillW50]

On 5/17/2014 2:27 AM, (e-mail address removed) wrote: [...]
And I am curious why you have both Windows 98 and 2000 on the same
machine? I understand why 2000 is there for the USB drive support. But
won't 2000 do all of the jobs you do under 98 anyway?

Casey has dialup modem problems, and for some reason Win98
makes the modem work right.

Oh yes, thanks Paul. When I used modems in the 90's and early 00's, I
really liked those US Robotics 56k v.92 Fax USR5686 modems. They work
with any OS and hardware as long as you have a RS-232 port. I just
checked on eBay and there are tons of them still available for as little
as 10 bucks or less.

 

[Paul]

Comment: I didn't think anyone on this newsgroup used Win8. I see you
do. So, now I'll have to confess what I did. I've never touched Win8
till last week. I was at Walmart and playing with their demo computers
with Win8.1. I managed to get into control panel / display settings,
when I discovered that there is a setting called "Landscape Reversed".
Well, it turns the screen upsidedown. I did it, and could not resist
the urge to leave it that way.....

I bet every one of those guys who work in the electronics dept. (and
dont know shit), are trying to figure out how the screen got
upsidedown.......

In fact I should go back thios week and see if that computer is on sale
really cheap <LOL>.

We use Windows 8. We just don't use it for very long.

1) I can't run 16 bit code in Win8 x64. I was trying to compare
two text files in Windows 8, for differences, go to use
my copy of diff.exe and blammo - the machine tells me it is
16 bit code. I have to reboot a 32 bit OS to continue
what I was doing. If you have to reboot into the other OS,
why not just stay there ?

2) Win8 has an annoying habit of doing maintenance when
you're in the middle of doing something. I was running
an HDTune benchmark of a drive, when Win8 maintenance
started towards the end of my benchmark run. For serious
work (posting something that can be verified by others),
I have to collect my benchmark results in an OS I can trust,
like WinXP.

Win8 is suited to content consumption, and if that
was their objective, why isn't everyone just using
a Chromebook instead ?

Go back to the Walmart, and turn the display
on the Chromebook upside-down

http://www.walmart.com/ip/HP-14-Pav...16GB-Solid-State-Drive-and-Chrome-OS/33120738

Paul

 

[BillW50]

Moving 2000, XP, Vista, 7, and 8 to another dissimilar machine usually
won't even boot. The trick is to do what Windows does when it installs
Windows for the first time. That is to use generic drivers. How? 2000/XP
has them on the install disc and Vista and up should be living in the
Windows folder.

Maybe I wasn't clear. This install of XP *IS* from this motherboard, so
it's the same machine. I just want to move oit from C: to D:
Everything else will be darn near the same as far as drives and Ram,
except to clone it to a different harddrive and move it to D: (and turn
it into a dual booter thru boot.ini (which I can do manually). [I
think].

Oh... wait... this can be done very easily and it can be done very
difficultly. If the XP install see itself installed on the C drive, I
would keep it that way and more about this later. Now if you want it to
see itself as the D drive...

I would not recommend doing this. Nor would I do a fresh install of 2000
and up and using any other drive than C. Windows itself doesn't care
what drive letter it gets installed on and that isn't the big problem.
The big problem is some application installs will install part or all of
itself on the C drive only.

Here is how I would do it. Let's say you had installed 9x and XP
separately and they never saw one another during the Windows installs
and they both see themselves installed on drive C. Fine, no problem. You
could put them in any primary partition or a different drive you want
to. Although I will assume they will be on the same drive that the BIOS
sees as the first boot drive.

So say you copy, clone, or whatever 9x on the first partition and put XP
on the second partition. Now as long as the drive has a MBR on the boot
sector, you should be able to boot either one without much trouble. How?

I would set the XP partition as active and adjust boot.ini on the XP
partition so you could boot either 9x or XP. Now no matter which OS you
boot from, they see themselves as booting from the C drive. This is the
best way to do it IMHO. This requires you to be smart enough to remember
that these two drive letters changes depending on what OS is booted.

If this is just unacceptable, you have a huge task of changing this.
First, zillions of registry entries must be changed to accept 9x or XP
to see itself as a different drive letter than what it was installed as.
And I don't think I ever heard of one actually being successful in
finding everything. There are utilities that claim to pull this off, but
I don't think they are very successful either.

This is useful info in case I ever have to move an install of XP to
another computer. Just for the heck of it, I'm going to try to move my
Win2000 and see what happens. As I said, this is basically the same
chipset and CPU, just newer and faster. (IBM NetViata 1ghz to an IBM
Thinkcentre 3.0ghz.)

I do know about moving XP to a different machine. I tried it once, and
it was a total mess.

This same install of Win98 has been moved to at least 6 computers so
far.... 98 can easily be transported. The biggest problem is usually
video drivers. The trick is to set it to the lowest video settings
before moving the drive. After being moved, the new video drivers are
installed. (Too bad they didn't make XP so easy to move).

I will pop out a drive from one machine and use it in another to
troubleshoot if I have a software or hardware problem (sometimes it can
be hard to tell for some problems). Although I have more than one of the
same model. Branded OEM installs doesn't trip the activation so that
isn't a problem. Retail Windows installs can trip reactivation even on
the same like model. I have done this on branded XP and 7 installs. I
don't have any branded Windows 8, but just retail Windows 8 so far.

I don't recall trying W9x and moving it to another machine. That is nice
to know that works pretty well.

NO. If you recall, from my previous threads, I CAN NOT connect to the
internet decently with any NT based OSs. Both Win2000 and XP do the
same thing. Modem(s) just wont connect well, but in W98, they work
fine. Plus, I have used this install of W98 for 15 years or so. I
installed 2000 just a few years ago. Plus 2K dont allow me to use the
true Dos stuff. But it would make more sense to have XP as my second OS
now that I'm used to it.

I forget why you just don't go with an US Robotics 56k v.92 Fax Modem
USR5686 which would solve all of those modem problems (it needs a RS-232
port though). The DOS thing, I can still run most DOS software without
any changes with 2000/XP/7/8 (32-bit Windows). Some DOS programs
(especially DOS games) needs help from DOSBox. It is a free DOS
emulator. And that should clear up and DOS problems under 2000 or up.

 

[Mayayana]

I used to have a patch to let 98 run on 1 GHz. I
can't find it now. If you don't have that you might
want to check mdgx.com. He should have anything
relevant. (I used to have 2 patches. I don't remember
what the second one was. But I gave up trying to
use Win98 years ago and eventually deleted those
files.)

As Bill50 said, you can't move it with the drivers.
But you don't need to install new or change the Registry,
in my experience. I generally prefer to move a disk
image if possible, rather than reinstalling. In XP I just
uninstall the board drivers. It's also not a bad idea to
uninstall the graphics drivers. You don't need to install
generic drivers. That's what Windows uses on 1st boot.
If you uninstall drivers, then move the install, it will just
boot up with generic drivers.
On Win98 I never needed to do that. I would just
delete HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Enum before shutting
down. Then after the move Win98 would start up
as though you had just installed from disk, with no
3rd-party drivers.


| I'm going to be moving my Win98 system to a much faster computer. It's
| another IBM machine, with similar Intel Processor and chipset, but
| rather than being 1.0Ghz, it's 3.0 ghz. This out to make Win98 run
| really fast.
|
| Anyhow, I know I can just transfer the Win98 harddrive to the new
| system, install a few drivers and it will run. (I've done this many
| times with Win98). But my current system has Win2000 dual boot. The D:
| partition is for Win2K. I'm not sure how that will transfer over. I've
| never moved it before to another computer. So, I'm prepared to
| reinstall it, which is no big deal since I dont have many programs
| installed, and all my personal files can be gotten from Win98. (I
| mostly just use Win2K for USB transfers to my ext. HDDs that Win98 can
| not access).
|
| Getting to the XP part of this message, I'm considering replacing Win2K
| with XP. All I really need to do is more a few eprsonal folders from D:
| to another partition, and reformat D:, which will wipe off Win2K. Then,
| of course, edit boot.ini to remove the dual boot. Once this is dont, a
| person would normally install XP onto drive D: and as the secondary OS.
|
| I know that XP *MUST* be installed AFTER Win98 is installed. I dont
| think there is another way.
|
| But this is where I'm checking out the possibility of doing something
| unusual. This computer which I will be using, was semi-home built. I'm
| transporting the motherboard from another working system, which came
| with a hard drive containing a fresh install of XP. (which was drive
| C. (so it's matched to the motherboard).
|
| Would it be possible to clone the XP files to my drive D:, manuallty
| modify boot.ini, and thus have WinXP operate correctly as my dual boot?
| Yes, I am aware that all programs in "Program Files" will need to have
| their location changed from C: to D:, which may take some time, but
| isn't hard to do. But I'm wondering if there will be other issues?
|
| Normally, I'd just reinstall, but the present XP installation is for XP
| Pro. I dont have an XP Pro install CD. The COA is also for XP-Pro.
| Plus, I know all the drivers for this motherboard are already there, so
| I dont have to hunt around to get all of them online. Therefore, it
| seems like it would make more sense to try to transplant the whole
| installation to drive D:.
|
| I do have XP home, CD, but that wont work with this COA and I'll be
| lacking the drivers.
|
| Thanks
|
|
|
|

 

[BillW50]

As Bill50 said, you can't move it with the drivers.
But you don't need to install new or change the Registry,
in my experience. I generally prefer to move a disk
image if possible, rather than reinstalling. In XP I just
uninstall the board drivers. It's also not a bad idea to
uninstall the graphics drivers. You don't need to install
generic drivers. That's what Windows uses on 1st boot.
If you uninstall drivers, then move the install, it will just
boot up with generic drivers.

I don't believe that your method will work in all cases. As sometimes
Windows will also need the correct Windows HAL and kernel. It is also my
understanding that 2000/XP deletes the generic chipset and video drivers
once Windows replaces them. While Vista/7/8 does not. Although it is
very interesting how you got this to work. I suppose it also trips
Windows reactivation, eh?

Paragon explains how they pull this off.
https://www.paragon-software.com/technologies/components/adaptiverestore/

 

[98 Guy]

I used to have a patch to let 98 run on 1 GHz.

There was one file on the Win-98 FIRST EDITION that had issues when the
CPU was 2.2 ghz or faster, and Microsoft issued a patch for that years
ago.

Win-98se out-of-the-box has no issues with CPU speed.

 

[Mayayana]

| On 5/17/2014 8:12 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| > As Bill50 said, you can't move it with the drivers.
| > But you don't need to install new or change the Registry,
| > in my experience. I generally prefer to move a disk
| > image if possible, rather than reinstalling. In XP I just
| > uninstall the board drivers. It's also not a bad idea to
| > uninstall the graphics drivers. You don't need to install
| > generic drivers. That's what Windows uses on 1st boot.
| > If you uninstall drivers, then move the install, it will just
| > boot up with generic drivers.
|
| I don't believe that your method will work in all cases.

Maybe not, but it's worked for me.

| As sometimes Windows will also need the correct Windows
| HAL and kernel.

There's only one kernel. I don't know of any problems
with hal.dll. There will be problems if the motherboard drivers
are not removed, though. I've actually replaced hal.dll "in
flight", which works fine. If you move from single core to
multi-core XP will work fine, but will only run on one core.
The hal.dll version has to be switched out to see the other
cores.

| It is also my
| understanding that 2000/XP deletes the generic chipset and video drivers
| once Windows replaces them.

I don't see how that's possible. Otherwise how could
you boot into safe mode? As far as I know, the basics
are always part of the core system. Though I can't
say for certain that there can never be any problems.
The OEMs do some funky stuff sometimes.

 

[Mayayana]

| Mayayana wrote:
|
| > I used to have a patch to let 98 run on 1 GHz.
|
| There was one file on the Win-98 FIRST EDITION that had issues when the
| CPU was 2.2 ghz or faster, and Microsoft issued a patch for that years
| ago.
|

That sounds familiar. Maybe the 1 GHz patch was for Win95.

| Win-98se out-of-the-box has no issues with CPU speed.

Ah. So I held onto that patch for all those years
for no reason. Oh, well.

 

[Bob F]

I forget why you just don't go with an US Robotics 56k v.92 Fax Modem
USR5686 which would solve all of those modem problems (it needs a
RS-232 port though).

I should add to the modem suggestions. The best I ever used was a USR Courier
v.92 modem.

 

[BillW50]

| On 5/17/2014 8:12 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| > As Bill50 said, you can't move it with the drivers.
| > But you don't need to install new or change the Registry,
| > in my experience. I generally prefer to move a disk
| > image if possible, rather than reinstalling. In XP I just
| > uninstall the board drivers. It's also not a bad idea to
| > uninstall the graphics drivers. You don't need to install
| > generic drivers. That's what Windows uses on 1st boot.
| > If you uninstall drivers, then move the install, it will just
| > boot up with generic drivers.
|
| I don't believe that your method will work in all cases.

Maybe not, but it's worked for me.

| As sometimes Windows will also need the correct Windows
| HAL and kernel.

There's only one kernel. I don't know of any problems
with hal.dll. There will be problems if the motherboard drivers
are not removed, though. I've actually replaced hal.dll "in
flight", which works fine.

I don't know if there is only one kernel or not. But that link I posted
earlier says the kernel and HAL might need to be changed. Here it is, it
is still in my clipboard history.

https://www.paragon-software.com/technologies/components/adaptiverestore/

If you move from single core to multi-core XP will work fine, but
will only run on one core. The hal.dll version has to be switched out
to see the other cores.

I have one XP machine which XP was installed with a Celeron CPU (single
core). Later I dropped in a Core2 Duo and I figured I would have some
sort of problem using both cores. Oddly enough everything worked fine.

I didn't install XP myself, but it came refurbished with a fresh install
on it. What do you think that will happen if the reverse was true? Say
they had taken a fresh install of XP on a dual core and then imaged it
on a single core machine?

| It is also my
| understanding that 2000/XP deletes the generic chipset and video drivers
| once Windows replaces them.

I don't see how that's possible. Otherwise how could
you boot into safe mode? As far as I know, the basics
are always part of the core system. Though I can't
say for certain that there can never be any problems.
The OEMs do some funky stuff sometimes.

I read that on Paragon or Acronis website on how their restores work.
And that is what they stated. But that doesn't mean they were correct
though. They also stated you will need the install disc for 2000/XP so
they can grab the generic drivers. They said it wasn't necessary for
Vista and up since Windows keeps those generic drivers. But you do ask
an interesting question, how would safe mode work without them?

 

[Mayayana]

| I don't know if there is only one kernel or not. But that link I posted
| earlier says the kernel and HAL might need to be changed. Here it is, it
| is still in my clipboard history.
|
| https://www.paragon-software.com/technologies/components/adaptiverestore/
|

That's neither here nor there. It's like the Acronis site. They're
trying to sell up their software by making it sound like the whole
thing is too complex to manage on your own. I've never had a
problem as long as I've removed the motherboard drivers.

| > If you move from single core to multi-core XP will work fine, but
| > will only run on one core. The hal.dll version has to be switched out
| > to see the other cores.
|
| I have one XP machine which XP was installed with a Celeron CPU (single
| core). Later I dropped in a Core2 Duo and I figured I would have some
| sort of problem using both cores. Oddly enough everything worked fine.
|

Did you try checking it with something like cpuid to see if
you're getting both cores? You're probably only getting one.
You need to change out the version of hal.dll in that case.

| I didn't install XP myself, but it came refurbished with a fresh install
| on it. What do you think that will happen if the reverse was true? Say
| they had taken a fresh install of XP on a dual core and then imaged it
| on a single core machine?
|
Good question. I would guess it just sees a "multiple"
of one core, but I haven't tried it.

 

[casey.o]

Oh yes, thanks Paul. When I used modems in the 90's and early 00's, I
really liked those US Robotics 56k v.92 Fax USR5686 modems. They work
with any OS and hardware as long as you have a RS-232 port. I just
checked on eBay and there are tons of them still available for as little
as 10 bucks or less.

--

That is what I'm using. My old modem would get the spiral of death
syndrome on Win2K or XP, but worked fine in Win98. The USR modem works
on all the OSs, but connects at 28kb or slower on XP or 2K, and connects
at as high as 48kb on Win98. So I just use Win98 for internet.

 

[casey.o]

There was one file on the Win-98 FIRST EDITION that had issues when the
CPU was 2.2 ghz or faster, and Microsoft issued a patch for that years
ago.

Win-98se out-of-the-box has no issues with CPU speed.

Of course I'm using Win98SE..... And kernel-EX.

Best OS ever made by MS, but I know others will disagree.......

 

[BillW50]

| I don't know if there is only one kernel or not. But that link I posted
| earlier says the kernel and HAL might need to be changed. Here it is, it
| is still in my clipboard history.
|
| https://www.paragon-software.com/technologies/components/adaptiverestore/
|

That's neither here nor there. It's like the Acronis site. They're
trying to sell up their software by making it sound like the whole
thing is too complex to manage on your own. I've never had a
problem as long as I've removed the motherboard drivers.

Very good to hear.

| > If you move from single core to multi-core XP will work fine, but
| > will only run on one core. The hal.dll version has to be switched out
| > to see the other cores.
|
| I have one XP machine which XP was installed with a Celeron CPU (single
| core). Later I dropped in a Core2 Duo and I figured I would have some
| sort of problem using both cores. Oddly enough everything worked fine.
|

Did you try checking it with something like cpuid to see if
you're getting both cores? You're probably only getting one.
You need to change out the version of hal.dll in that case.

Yes I did, although it has been years since I investigated it. I only
use it as a DVR for the pass few years. But it is easy enough for me to
pop it in this dock and use it for a day or so.

| I didn't install XP myself, but it came refurbished with a fresh install
| on it. What do you think that will happen if the reverse was true? Say
| they had taken a fresh install of XP on a dual core and then imaged it
| on a single core machine?
|
Good question. I would guess it just sees a "multiple"
of one core, but I haven't tried it.

That is something we should try on a rainy day.

 

[BillW50]

That is what I'm using. My old modem would get the spiral of death
syndrome on Win2K or XP, but worked fine in Win98. The USR modem works
on all the OSs, but connects at 28kb or slower on XP or 2K, and connects
at as high as 48kb on Win98. So I just use Win98 for internet.

Whoa what? You are using (or did) an USR5686 modem?