Can't boot without Vista DVD in drive - "a kernel file is missing..."

[andy]

Hi,


I just received my Vista Business DVD (thanks, Power Together!) and
installed Vista on a freshly formatted NTFS partition on my 36GB WD
Raptor SATA drive.

The install has gone well. However, I cannot boot my computer without
the original (won't recognize a backup I made) DVD in the drive on
bootup.

Originally, I received a "DISK BOOT FAILURE. INSERT SYSTEM DISK AND
HIT ENTER" message on boot. i Googled a bit and found advice to set
the main C drive as "Active". I did that and restarted.

The message went away, but was simply replaced by another message: "a
kernel file is missing. (then more about insert system disk...)" and
the same symptoms -- won't boot unless the original DVD is inserted.

Mine is a fairly new Athlon 64 X2 3800+ w/2GB of RAM and the
aforementioned 10K RPM drive... everything else seems to be fine.

But my computer (technically) won't boot!

Technically, your computer does boot. The problem is the Vista DVD
loader does the booting. Run Vista's Disk Management snap-in, and see
which disk contains the system partition. That is the disk that you
want the motherboard BIOS (hard disk boot priority) to boot.

 

[Richard Urban]

You don't have to make reality appear anyway other than what it is.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!



When are

 

[Kerry Brown]

That is more dictated by point haired bosses than anything else.
The IT pros use OpenVMS, AIX, Solaris, MVS, etc. rather than use windows.

Actually Windows has the most marketshare of all server OS'

http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-6041804.html

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=12180

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/32706.html

And I don't think anyone will dispute it has the most marketshare for
desktops.

I'm making the assumption that more Windows Servers and certainly more
Windows desktops means more Windows Professionals. Then again Windows is so
easy to manage compared to some that maybe the other's need more
professionals to manage them. (I'm kidding about that last part)

Guffaw!! Age means maturity... Vista is just a newborn babe that has to
go thru a teething stage and get all the bugs worked out.

I don't disagree with you here, but the question was about legacy code not
maturity. Vista will most likely get better as it matures. The reference I
was refuting was that OS X was somehow better than Windows because 'Windows
is considered "legacy" code by all computer professionals'. I was pointing
out that the point didn't make any sense. One could certainly argue that
Unix is more mature but which OS has more legacy code has nothing to do with
how good an OS is. Maybe, as is the case with Unix, the legacy code was
pretty good and a lot of it doesn't need updating.

But FYI, if you are upgrading an XP box, you better back up all of your
third party media codecs first. Vista will wipe them out.

Exactly why I would never upgrade a production machine. You have no idea
what will survive the upgrade and if it will work properly or not. It
doesn't matter what OS I'm using when going from one major version to
another I do a clean install. It's the only way to know for sure that some
"legacy" issue isn't the cause of a problem.

 

[Wegie]

I actually laughed out loud when I read this.

First off there are far more computer professionals that use Windows than
use OS X. OS X is actually based on Unix which is older than Windows NT
which is the base for all current Windows versions. Unix even predates DOS
by about ten years. Given that time line please tell me which one is
"legacy". Secondly can you show me a study that proves people who use
Microsoft products are poorly educated? So far all you have proved is that
some poorly educated people use Apple products.

you are a shining example of someone that doesn't understand the
situation. While you are correct in that Unix is the foundation of most
stable OSes in use today, and Apple uses FreeBSD which is one of the
very best.

BUT all OSX software has been written in the last 6 years, thus far more
modern than Windows software. That's why Macs have a stronger software
library today than Windows. There are over 14, 000 quality Apps on OSX,
while only 2,400 quality Apps for Windows. Now you know why MS is having
such trouble stemming the tide of people moving up to the Mac.

Please educate yourself.

 

[Wegie]

I am sure if you polled Mac users who recently upgraded the results would be
similar.

Incorrect. Apple users have had 3 major updates to OSX and none of them
have caused horror stories that are seen every few minutes in this
newsgroup.

Or maybe not since Apple completely abandoned users with existing
software when they released OS X.

They did? That is totally incorrect. Legacy software ran just fine when
people upgraded to OSX. Don't you realize Apple created "Classic" which
allowed everything over the last 20 years to run unaltered? Apple has
never abandoned it's users, that's why it has such a stellar reputation.

That must have been very liberating not to
be trapped into using their old software on the latest version of their OS.

Again, everything old, ran just fine... Apple knows how to program, MS
doesn't.

Please tell me which current OS doesn't have endless updates, patches,
fixes, and service packs. It would be one I would avoid.

With OSX it's seamless to the user, yes, once in awhile you restart
after an update, but never, ever does it cause problems for the user.
Again, Apple knows far more about programming than MS software engineers
do.

 

[Wegie]

You really are such an abject fool that these mindless posts are
starting to amaze me a little.
-- Many people make their living working in applications that don't
exist in Mac versions. My brother develops educational CDs in
Macromedia Authorware. He has no Mac option. There are many other
examples like this one.

Then run Parallels, if you still need to run obscure code, I think you
are misunderstanding the Mac runs ALL software, not just Mac software.
It's the most universal machine ever made. Here is a list of the Windows
OSes it runs. (with no slow down, it runs natively, at the same time)

http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/os/

-- Who uses Apple servers in mission-critical enterprise installations?
Many use Linux, many use Windows. No one uses Apple products

What? When did that happen? some of the most mission critical government
and private firms use big OSX iron exclusively. Macs ran the world's 3rd
fastest SuperComputer just awhile back. Sounds like you have lots of
outdated info running around in your head.

If you want high uptime and the lowest cost, fastest Unix hardware, you
get Xserves EVERYTIME.

Walmart is in love with OSX and Xserve RAID... they have 1,000's of them
in operation. Sounds like you have been watching what Apple is doing
lately.

http://www.apple.com/xserve/

-- Many people feel that they can get a LOT more bang for their buck
buying hardware that comes with some version of Windows than they could
buying a Mac that costs much more than a PC for similar specs.

That's impossible. Apple is the leader in price when it comes to
Servers, and has been for several years now. There is no Microsoft Tax,
Unlimited seats, and is FAR, FAR cheaper for a Dual 64-bit Dual-Core
Intel Xeon than you can get anywhere.

http://www.apple.com/xserve/intel.html

Infoworld is in LOVE with Apple's Servers.

You can KILL 2 Windows Servers just with 1 Apple Xserve!

http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisemac/archives/2006/12/kill_two_windo
w.html

-- Many people resent the CLOSED architecture of Apple more than they
resent the monopolistic attitude of Microsoft.

Apple hasn't had a closed architecture for what, 9 years now. If it's
not OPEN, Apple won't use it. Apple is all about OPEN STANDARDS, so it
sounds like you haven't looked at Apple for about a decade.

I could go on and on.

Yes, and every one of your "old ideas" would be WRONG. You haven't been
keeping up, and it shows.

Overall, when you continually make outlandish, totally unsubstantiated
claims, it simply makes people disregard ANYthing you say. You're the
proverbial "little boy who cried 'wolf'." Even if you ever spout
something that's not pure nonsense, no one will be listening. When are
you going to understand that what you're doing in this forum is the
opposite of what you're intending (unless you're a troll planted by MS
to make Apple lovers appear to be idiots)?

I never make unsubstantiated claims, I stay with only FACTS.

You should try it sometime!

 

[Kerry Brown]

Incorrect. Apple users have had 3 major updates to OSX and none of them
have caused horror stories that are seen every few minutes in this
newsgroup.

This has nothing to do with my statement which was talking about pollong
users to see why they upgraded. In any case I was talking about major
version upgrades not service packs. e.g version 7 to 8 to 9 to X. Each one
has left some of the previous machines in the dust. This is true of all OS'
that I've seen and I've seen most of them over the years.

They did? That is totally incorrect. Legacy software ran just fine when
people upgraded to OSX. Don't you realize Apple created "Classic" which
allowed everything over the last 20 years to run unaltered? Apple has
never abandoned it's users, that's why it has such a stellar reputation.

Ah yes, Photoshop ran just fine without upgrading, so did Quark Express. Two
of the top Mac apps and when OS X came out you needed to spend major dollars
to upgrade them or run them in emulation mode that ran so slow as to be
unusable.

Again, everything old, ran just fine... Apple knows how to program, MS
doesn't.

One word - Quicktime

With OSX it's seamless to the user, yes, once in awhile you restart
after an update, but never, ever does it cause problems for the user.
Again, Apple knows far more about programming than MS software engineers
do.

You don't get it. I actually like Macs and OS X just as I like Linux,
Solaris, whatever. This doesn't mean I ignore facts and try to get everyone
to change to my favorite OS. They all have good points and bad points. You
are almost as obnoxious as the religious proselytizers who go door to door
looking for converts.

 

[Dizzledorf]

I know for a fact that if an IDE drive is left connected Vista will write

some of the boot code to that drive.

Richard, I believe that was it. Posting the resolution here for
people who might have similar problems.

I found the boot code on the D: partition (my PATA drive). I tried to
copy it over to C: (SATA), but Vista wouldn't let me. Why is this
still in use? Haven't I finished booting? Haha.

I tried the EasyBCD & VistaBootPro programs, they confirmed my D: boot
code pointers, but did nothing to fix it.

I tried booting from DVD and using Windows Repair, but that did
nothing.

Finally, I disconnected everything save for my primary SATA Raptor
drive, ran the Windows repair on that... and now I can finally slip
that Vista DVD back in its sleeve.

Thanks for the pointers, guys.

Moral of the story: only boot & install Vista with your primary
drive/partition installed. Add all the other drives later and let
Vista find them (the [non-gaming] driver database seems fairly
complete).

--DIZZLE

 

[Richard Urban]

How many quality applications for Windows??

What are YOU smoking?

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Maverick]

Actually Windows has the most marketshare of all server OS'

http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-6041804.html

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=12180

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/32706.html

And I don't think anyone will dispute it has the most marketshare for
desktops.

That is an easy one to dispute. One can have XP pro and run Apache web
server... which I've heard is around 70% of the servers used in the
market place now because it is pretty much free.
On larger systems, you'll need scalability under large loads. The
larger expensive machines with four or more processors scale very well,
and the scaling issues are there with the os in use. Suns server
software and hardware scale very well under very heavy loads. An
example is of the Major League baseball video services served by Sun
hardware. And a lot of people on Sun hardware choose not to spend
anymore money than they have to, so they load Apache to cut the costs.

So saying that there are more windows servers out there isn't exactly a
measure of market share, as one installation I know of required more
2003 server licenses to do the same job that they found out later could
be done on once good machine, rather than 4.
In this their TCO went down by quite a bit.

I'm making the assumption that more Windows Servers and certainly more
Windows desktops means more Windows Professionals. Then again Windows is
so easy to manage compared to some that maybe the other's need more
professionals to manage them. (I'm kidding about that last part)



I don't disagree with you here, but the question was about legacy code
not maturity.

A lot of UNIX legacy code seems to work that I've found. Much of the
X11 code tho needs to be redone. But it is the core that is mature and
helps with stability.

Vista will most likely get better as it matures.

I'm sure it will. As some industry pundits are saying, that Vista may
well be Microsofts last operating system. Most likely, there will be
improvements along the way. The biggest improvements that Microsoft
should pay attention to are the new 64-bit multi-core cpus comming out.
Their compilers need to be revamped for this. Right now, and I've never
been able to get a fix on this, is that current Vista Home version is
just 32-bit. The problem arises here in that your new 64-bit core 2 duo
processor from Intel is reduced to a dual 32-bit cpu that can't run the
enhanced instruction set. There are many new general purpose registers
provided that the VS compiler won't take advantage of in 32-bit mode,
essentially rendering the new instruction set useless and unused.
I'm not sure if the internals of the core 2 duo processor chip will
automatically take advantage of the new instructions internally or not.

The
reference I was refuting was that OS X was somehow better than Windows
because 'Windows is considered "legacy" code by all computer
professionals'. I was pointing out that the point didn't make any sense.
One could certainly argue that Unix is more mature but which OS has more
legacy code has nothing to do with how good an OS is. Maybe, as is the
case with Unix, the legacy code was pretty good and a lot of it doesn't
need updating.

Most don't, but a lot of the older UNIX code was written with CDE/Motif
in mind and has to be ported. The great majority of that code took into
account the X11 protocol.

Exactly why I would never upgrade a production machine. You have no idea
what will survive the upgrade and if it will work properly or not. It
doesn't matter what OS I'm using when going from one major version to
another I do a clean install. It's the only way to know for sure that
some "legacy" issue isn't the cause of a problem.

From what I understand, isn't there a DRM issue involved here?
I've heard that the codecs supplied aren't near as good as the older
codes on XP.

 

[Maverick]

you are a shining example of someone that doesn't understand the
situation. While you are correct in that Unix is the foundation of most
stable OSes in use today, and Apple uses FreeBSD which is one of the
very best.

BUT all OSX software has been written in the last 6 years, thus far more
modern than Windows software. That's why Macs have a stronger software
library today than Windows. There are over 14, 000 quality Apps on OSX,
while only 2,400 quality Apps for Windows. Now you know why MS is having
such trouble stemming the tide of people moving up to the Mac.

Myself, I just got tired of getting my Wintel box from getting infected
between virus updates when I was connected to a very poor ISP.
I then switched to the Mac for many reasons, but the virus part was the
main reason. Too bad that Microsoft just couldn't do the security part
correctly, as there are a lot of games for those that like games to play.
Late in 2005 I tried out an HP Pentium D with XP Pro on it.
After some research I discoverd that XP Pro is 32-bit and would not
utilize the extended instruction set of the new processor. I promptly
returned the PC back to Costco for a refund. I then looked up on the
net for an alternative and took a hard look at Apples G5 series. I
further went to IBMs website of docs and read about the 970FX processor
and at the time found it to be superior to the Pentium D in performance.
But that wasn't all. OS X obviously did utilize all that the IBM
processor had which means I'm 100% utilitization. Also the os will
allow both 32-bit code to execute on a 64-bit processor as well as
64-bit programs, plus of course a complete development environment was
included. So there were many reasons to switch. I've found OS X to be
both stable and secure. My wifes eMac has been virus free for three
years now and my iMac 1 year virus free.

 

[Richard Urban]

Glad you are up and running.

The problem we are seeing does not seem to occur with all M/B's. I firmly
believe that is occurs mainly on older vintage boards with the earliest
implementation of the SATA specs.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

I know for a fact that if an IDE drive is left connected Vista will write
some of the boot code to that drive.

Richard, I believe that was it. Posting the resolution here for
people who might have similar problems.

I found the boot code on the D: partition (my PATA drive). I tried to
copy it over to C: (SATA), but Vista wouldn't let me. Why is this
still in use? Haven't I finished booting? Haha.

I tried the EasyBCD & VistaBootPro programs, they confirmed my D: boot
code pointers, but did nothing to fix it.

I tried booting from DVD and using Windows Repair, but that did
nothing.

Finally, I disconnected everything save for my primary SATA Raptor
drive, ran the Windows repair on that... and now I can finally slip
that Vista DVD back in its sleeve.

Thanks for the pointers, guys.

Moral of the story: only boot & install Vista with your primary
drive/partition installed. Add all the other drives later and let
Vista find them (the [non-gaming] driver database seems fairly
complete).

--DIZZLE

Install Vista to your hard drive while all other drives are disconnected.

I know for a fact that if an IDE drive is left connected Vista will write
some of the boot code to that drive. After the install has been completed
you will find that Vista will NOT boot. It will give you the EXACT message
that you posted here.

Now, it may be that if you have USB drives connected - and active - when
you
install Vista, the same thing happens.

It's worth a try, yes?

 

[Ron Miller]

Then run Parallels, if you still need to run obscure code, I think you
are misunderstanding the Mac runs ALL software, not just Mac software.
It's the most universal machine ever made. Here is a list of the Windows
OSes it runs. (with no slow down, it runs natively, at the same time)

Oh, yes. A developer will certainly want to create software for Windows
on a different operating system running emulation software. He will
certainly want to pay a huge premium for the computer, spend $80 on
Parallels, and then trust that nothing in this concoction could possibly
lead to bugs in the software he creates when it runs on the OS for which
it's actually coded. And he would STILL be running the OS (some flavor
of Windows) which you have stated should be run by no one. Your
reasoning ability approximates that of a mature cucumber.

http://www.parallels.com/products/desktop/os/


What? When did that happen? some of the most mission critical government
and private firms use big OSX iron exclusively. Macs ran the world's 3rd
fastest SuperComputer just awhile back. Sounds like you have lots of
outdated info running around in your head.

Give me some figures on who uses Apple servers. You certainly know that
they're as rare as hen's teeth in the enterprise environment. The
purpose of my example was to dispute your idiotic claim that there's no
reason to run a PC or Windows in this day and age. The fact that
virtually all enterprise servers run Apache or Windows software is
offered as a compelling reason to run Windows. As usual, you miss the
point entirely and state that Apple servers do exist. That's very true
and TOTALLY irrelevant to the point being made

If you want high uptime and the lowest cost, fastest Unix hardware, you
get Xserves EVERYTIME.

Walmart is in love with OSX and Xserve RAID... they have 1,000's of them
in operation. Sounds like you have been watching what Apple is doing
lately.

What you offer here is a reason why someone would want to use Apple
products. As usual, you've added 1 + 1 and gotten 3. We're not
debating why one would want to have an Apple. We're talking about your
absurd claim that there's no reason to have a PC. Until ALL servers are
Apple, it's not illogical for people to run PCs

http://www.apple.com/xserve/


That's impossible. Apple is the leader in price when it comes to
Servers, and has been for several years now. There is no Microsoft Tax,
Unlimited seats, and is FAR, FAR cheaper for a Dual 64-bit Dual-Core
Intel Xeon than you can get anywhere.

http://www.apple.com/xserve/intel.html

Infoworld is in LOVE with Apple's Servers.

You can KILL 2 Windows Servers just with 1 Apple Xserve!

http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisemac/archives/2006/12/kill_two_windo
w.html

Yada, yada, yada, yawn. True, true, true, and irrelevant to the
discussion at hand.

Apple hasn't had a closed architecture for what, 9 years now. If it's
not OPEN, Apple won't use it. Apple is all about OPEN STANDARDS, so it
sounds like you haven't looked at Apple for about a decade.


Yes, and every one of your "old ideas" would be WRONG. You haven't been
keeping up, and it shows.

If Apple doesn't have closed architecture, then I can build my own Mac
from parts available at Newegg.com and buy the Mac OS to install on it.
Right? WRONG. The architecture is CLOSED.

I never make unsubstantiated claims, I stay with only FACTS.

BS, regardless of what anyone on this forum asks, you entirely disregard
the problem and reply with "Get a Mac, stupid. I, Wegie, the Guru of
the Universe, have decreed that this is the answer to EVERY question."
Your responses are TOTALLY unsubstantiated, because they never address
the OP's actual problem.

You should try it sometime!

You do have some facts at your command. Unfortunately, NONE of them is
relevant to the argument about your statement that there is no reason to
have or run a Windows PC. Your logic goes exactly as follows: Premise:
Macs are good. Conclusion: Windows PCs are therefore worthless.
Corollary: No question about the new Vista OS is legitimate, and no
answer should be given. The question should always be ignored, and the
questioner should always be told simply to buy a Mac instead.
You get an A for facts, but you get an F in logic.
Until you're willing to participate in some meaningful way in the
discussions on this forum, please just go away. We don't care where you
go, just stop making your inane comments here. People here are engaged
in serious discussions, and you're like a small child running in and
out, to and fro, screaming nothing but "Get a Mac, get a Mac." Can you
truly not understand how infantile your intrusions are?

 

[Guest]

Thank you for this thread. I had your problem verbatim, but I simply took
out the ide drive only (left a 2nd sata drive in). Had to re-install Vista,
but now the "CD sleeve" is put away. Thank you for your posts.