i have bought the xp pro retail box however i have damaged the flo

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

firstly i'll just state that i am from the United Kingdom and not from the US.

I am a university student and i found out that it would be cheaper to build
my own pc and than purchase the OS cd. the system i built for £250 is P4
2.4Ghz, 512MB ram, 120Gb HDD, cd...etc which is good...

Anyways the question goes as follows:
I bought a second hand (used) winxp pro retail box. However i have damaged
the floppy disks and the only things that remain undamaged is the cd. I don't
have any other operating system. if i had 98 i would install that and than
just upgrade, but that can't be done, cos i ant got the cd.

how am i going to install this on my newly built computer?
heeeelp! Any help will be much apporiated !!!
 
You'll need a Microsoft Windows 95/98/ME or 2000 CD
to qualify for installing an upgrade version of Windows XP
Professional as a "clean install". If you do not have one of
those CDs, you'll have to purchase a "Full Version" of Windows
XP in order to install it.

Clean Install Windows XP
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/cleanxpinstall.html

[Courtesy of MS-MVP Michael Stevens]

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/default.aspx

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

:

| firstly i'll just state that i am from the United Kingdom and not from the US.
|
| I am a university student and i found out that it would be cheaper to build
| my own pc and than purchase the OS cd. the system i built for £250 is P4
| 2.4Ghz, 512MB ram, 120Gb HDD, cd...etc which is good...
|
| Anyways the question goes as follows:
| I bought a second hand (used) winxp pro retail box. However i have damaged
| the floppy disks and the only things that remain undamaged is the cd. I don't
| have any other operating system. if i had 98 i would install that and than
| just upgrade, but that can't be done, cos i ant got the cd.
|
| how am i going to install this on my newly built computer?
| heeeelp! Any help will be much apporiated !!!
 
If you have a "FULL" retail version of Windows XP, the CD is bootable. Boot
from the CD and start the installation from there.

If you have an "UPGRADE" version of Windows XP, you will need to purchase
either a qualifying operating system to upgrade from, or a full version of
Windows XP.
 
I thought that university students in England knew how to
spell and use proper grammar.

XP does not come with floppies, just a CD. XP Pro in a
retail box should come with paperwork. If you bought a
retail upgrade it will not install w/o the prior
installation of a Windows OS. Not sure what Dell charges
for a computer in merry old England, but you didn't save
much.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


message
| firstly i'll just state that i am from the United Kingdom
and not from the US.
|
| I am a university student and i found out that it would
be cheaper to build
| my own pc and than purchase the OS cd. the system i built
for £250 is P4
| 2.4Ghz, 512MB ram, 120Gb HDD, cd...etc which is good...
|
| Anyways the question goes as follows:
| I bought a second hand (used) winxp pro retail box.
However i have damaged
| the floppy disks and the only things that remain undamaged
is the cd. I don't
| have any other operating system. if i had 98 i would
install that and than
| just upgrade, but that can't be done, cos i ant got the
cd.
|
| how am i going to install this on my newly built computer?
| heeeelp! Any help will be much apporiated !!!
 
CheapBrit said:
firstly i'll just state that i am from the United Kingdom and not
from the US.

I am a university student and i found out that it would be cheaper
to build my own pc and than purchase the OS cd. the system i built
for £250 is P4
2.4Ghz, 512MB ram, 120Gb HDD, cd...etc which is good...

Anyways the question goes as follows:
I bought a second hand (used) winxp pro retail box. However i have
damaged the floppy disks and the only things that remain undamaged
is
the cd. I don't have any other operating system. if i had 98 i would
install that and than just upgrade, but that can't be done, cos i
ant
got the cd.

how am i going to install this on my newly built computer?
heeeelp! Any help will be much apporiated !!!


Simply boot from the WinXP installation CD. You'll be offered the
opportunity to delete, create, and format partitions as part of the
installation process. (You may need to re-arrange the order of boot
devices in the PC's BIOS to boot from the CD.)

HOW TO Install Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;316941

http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/cleanxpinstall.html

http://www.webtree.ca/windowsxp/clean_install.htm

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having
both at once. - RAH
 
Jim Macklin said:
I thought that university students in England knew how to
spell and use proper grammar.

Why would you think that? University students in the US can't spell or
write.
 
But I was under the impression that England had higher
standards for their universities. But it seems that grammar
and spelling are suffering world-wide, perhaps due to the
SMS cellphone and IM services on the Internet.

It is true, many students in the USA at all levels can't
spell using proper words, but they also have union teachers
who can't spell themselves.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


|
in message
| | > I thought that university students in England knew how
to
| > spell and use proper grammar.
|
| Why would you think that? University students in the US
can't spell or
| write.
|
|
 
Jim Macklin said:
But I was under the impression that England had higher
standards for their universities. But it seems that grammar
and spelling are suffering world-wide, perhaps due to the
SMS cellphone and IM services on the Internet.

It is true, many students in the USA at all levels can't
spell using proper words, but they also have union teachers
who can't spell themselves.

WTF do "union teachers" have to do with anything? Think about it for a
minute (I know that's asking a lot). Let's say that there are incompetent
teachers that can't be fired because of the strength of their union, which I
assume is what you're whining about. Where did the incompetent teachers
come from? Did they only become incompetent *after* they joined the union?
I don't think so. I think they were incompetent to begin with. OK, let's
say there is no union, and it's easy to fire incompetent teachers (and it
*is* relatively easy to do, even *with* a union). Where does your
replacement teacher come from? The same pool that produced the original
incompetent teacher. What makes you think the pickin's will be any better
the second--or third--time around?
This is the kind of mindless ditto-head bullsh|t we have to look forward to
for the next four years. Try and come up with an actual solution rather
than just pi$$ing on the problem.
 
Without a union, incompetent teachers would be fired.
Unions for teachers primary purpose is to protect stupid
teachers.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


|
in message
| | > But I was under the impression that England had higher
| > standards for their universities. But it seems that
grammar
| > and spelling are suffering world-wide, perhaps due to
the
| > SMS cellphone and IM services on the Internet.
| >
| > It is true, many students in the USA at all levels can't
| > spell using proper words, but they also have union
teachers
| > who can't spell themselves.
| >
| >
| > --
| > The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
| > But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
|
| WTF do "union teachers" have to do with anything? Think
about it for a
| minute (I know that's asking a lot). Let's say that there
are incompetent
| teachers that can't be fired because of the strength of
their union, which I
| assume is what you're whining about. Where did the
incompetent teachers
| come from? Did they only become incompetent *after* they
joined the union?
| I don't think so. I think they were incompetent to begin
wit h.OK,let's
| say there is no union, and it's easy to fire incompetent
teachers (and it
| *is* relatively easy to do, even *with* a union). Where
does your
| replacement teacher come from? The same pool that
produced the original
| incompetent teacher. What makes you think the pickin's
will be any better
| the second--or third--time around?
| This is the kind of mindless ditto-head bullsh|t we have
to look forward to
| for the next four years. Try and come up with an actual
solution rather
| than just pi$$ing on the problem.
|
|
|
 
Jim Macklin said:
Without a union, incompetent teachers would be fired.
Unions for teachers primary purpose is to protect stupid
teachers.

Then why are there incompetent teachers in places where there is no union?
And you didn't answer my question: If you get rid of the unions and fire all
of the incompetent teachers, where will the replacements come from? Don't
you think it's irresponsible ( I know how you reactionaries love personal
responsibility) to impugn an entire profession without any data to back up
your misguided contention? Not surprising that you can't support your
knee-jerking drivel with anything that makes sense.
 
Stupid, left-wing teachers began teaching in teacher's
colleges forty years ago. They have a large base of stupid
college bound students to select as the next generation of
teachers.

Home schooling is very successful, not because the parents
are smarter, they just care more and have higher standards.
There are excellent and qualified teachers in all levels of
schools, but the dregs are there too, and one zero lowers
the average tremendously.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


|
in message
| | > Without a union, incompetent teachers would be fired.
| > Unions for teachers primary purpose is to protect stupid
| > teachers.
| >
| >
|
| Then why are there incompetent teachers in places where
there is no union?
| And you didn't answer my question: If you get rid of the
unions and fire all
| of the incompetent teachers, where will the replacements
come from? Don't
| you think it's irresponsible ( I know how you
reactionaries love personal
| responsibility) to impugn an entire profession without any
data to back up
| your misguided contention? Not surprising that you can't
support your
| knee-jerking drivel with anything that makes sense.
|
|
 
Jim said:
Stupid, left-wing teachers began teaching in teacher's
colleges forty years ago. They have a large base of stupid
college bound students to select as the next generation of
teachers.

Home schooling is very successful, not because the parents
are smarter, they just care more and have higher standards.
There are excellent and qualified teachers in all levels of
schools, but the dregs are there too, and one zero lowers
the average tremendously.

You didn't answer the question--what do unions have to do with it? By
your own reasoning, the pool is contaminated anyway. By the way, there
is no evidence to support the oft-cited contention that home-schooled
kids perform better academically than they would in public schools.
You've hit on the core of the problem, which is parents. Don't expect
teachers to be able to do magic.
 
Government schools, often called public schools, are the big
cash cow for union teachers. The goal is not to educate
citizens, but to educate subjects to be willingly led by the
government. Teachers' unions seek more money for schools,
even though class room size and money per pupil does not
increase student performance, it does increase the power of
the "school lobby" since it is for the children.
When the Russians launched there first satellite, the nation
panicked and everybody decided that our public schools
needed to be run by and at the direction of the federal
government.
Federal education standards and unions have worked hand in
hand to limit the scope of citizenship education skills,
such as the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic and
detailed processes of creative thought. History of the
nation, political processes were not taught in detail. Thus
after 40-45 years, the majority of citizens have no
understanding of politics and they are easily led around by
the likes of a Michael Moore or Dan Rather.
But I have hope, the Internet and talk radio may change that
back to thinkers. The Internet has so many good things and
so many bad, but the key is that it open and isn't even
under control in China.

I personally saw the change in the public schools in the
late 50's and monitored my own children's education and the
quality of their textbooks and teachers. Perhaps you are a
union teacher, that would mean that you are unable to see
the forest for the trees.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Stupid, left-wing teachers began teaching in teacher's
| > colleges forty years ago. They have a large base of
stupid
| > college bound students to select as the next generation
of
| > teachers.
| >
| > Home schooling is very successful, not because the
parents
| > are smarter, they just care more and have higher
standards.
| > There are excellent and qualified teachers in all levels
of
| > schools, but the dregs are there too, and one zero
lowers
| > the average tremendously.
| >
| >
|
| You didn't answer the question--what do unions have to do
with it? By
| your own reasoning, the pool is contaminated anyway. By
the way, there
| is no evidence to support the oft-cited contention that
home-schooled
| kids perform better academically than they would in public
schools.
| You've hit on the core of the problem, which is parents.
Don't expect
| teachers to be able to do magic.
 
Jim said:
Government schools, often called public schools, are the big
cash cow for union teachers. The goal is not to educate
citizens, but to educate subjects to be willingly led by the
government. Teachers' unions seek more money for schools,
even though class room size and money per pupil does not
increase student performance, it does increase the power of
the "school lobby" since it is for the children.
When the Russians launched there first satellite, the nation
panicked and everybody decided that our public schools
needed to be run by and at the direction of the federal
government.
Federal education standards and unions have worked hand in
hand to limit the scope of citizenship education skills,
such as the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic and
detailed processes of creative thought. History of the
nation, political processes were not taught in detail. Thus
after 40-45 years, the majority of citizens have no
understanding of politics and they are easily led around by
the likes of a Michael Moore or Dan Rather.
But I have hope, the Internet and talk radio may change that
back to thinkers. The Internet has so many good things and
so many bad, but the key is that it open and isn't even
under control in China.

I personally saw the change in the public schools in the
late 50's and monitored my own children's education and the
quality of their textbooks and teachers. Perhaps you are a
union teacher, that would mean that you are unable to see
the forest for the trees.

No, I'm not a teacher, union or otherwise. I think the fact that you
don't know the difference between "there" and their" (or you don't care
about it) is very telling. "Government school" is dittohead
gobbledygook. I also think it's very telling that so many neocons are
taking their children out of the public schools rather than staying
there and *working* to help make them better, for the better of the kids
and the community at large. It's *much* easier just to run away from the
problem and whine about it. And you keep going in circles--another
common dittohead trait. It's the unions--no, wait it's the parents--uh,
maybe it's the leftist educators of the sixties--just more and more
regurgicrap.
 
A typo, I'm not a typist and the spell check inserted the
wrong correction and I missed it.
But, whether the weather is cold, hot or mild, I will not
change your mind and you won't change mine.
Just to say, that I do understand the difference between
they're, their, and there as well as site, sight and cite.
Or two, to and too, too.
The only radio talk show host to call them "government
schools" is Neal Boortz www.boortz.com and Rush Limbaugh
does not call them government schools. The term dittohead
applies to Rush.

But you should be aware that I formed my positions on
government about 30 years ago, more than a decade before
Rush became a talk show host. In fact, you might say that
they are following my pattern.


| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Government schools, often called public schools, are the
big
| > cash cow for union teachers. The goal is not to educate
| > citizens, but to educate subjects to be willingly led by
the
| > government. Teachers' unions seek more money for
schools,
| > even though class room size and money per pupil does not
| > increase student performance, it does increase the power
of
| > the "school lobby" since it is for the children.
| > When the Russians launched there first satellite, the
nation
| > panicked and everybody decided that our public schools
| > needed to be run by and at the direction of the federal
| > government.
| > Federal education standards and unions have worked hand
in
| > hand to limit the scope of citizenship education skills,
| > such as the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic
and
| > detailed processes of creative thought. History of the
| > nation, political processes were not taught in detail.
Thus
| > after 40-45 years, the majority of citizens have no
| > understanding of politics and they are easily led around
by
| > the likes of a Michael Moore or Dan Rather.
| > But I have hope, the Internet and talk radio may change
that
| > back to thinkers. The Internet has so many good things
and
| > so many bad, but the key is that it open and isn't even
| > under control in China.
| >
| > I personally saw the change in the public schools in the
| > late 50's and monitored my own children's education and
the
| > quality of their textbooks and teachers. Perhaps you
are a
| > union teacher, that would mean that you are unable to
see
| > the forest for the trees.
| >
| >
|
| No, I'm not a teacher, union or otherwise. I think the
fact that you
| don't know the difference between "there" and their" (or
you don't care
| about it) is very telling. "Government school" is
dittohead
| gobbledygook. I also think it's very telling that so many
neocons are
| taking their children out of the public schools rather
than staying
| there and *working* to help make them better, for the
better of the kids
| and the community at large. It's *much* easier just to run
away from the
| problem and whine about it. And you keep going in
circles--another
| common dittohead trait. It's the unions--no, wait it's the
parents--uh,
| maybe it's the leftist educators of the sixties--just more
and more
| regurgicrap.
 
Jim said:
A typo, I'm not a typist and the spell check inserted the
wrong correction and I missed it.
But, whether the weather is cold, hot or mild, I will not
change your mind and you won't change mine.
Just to say, that I do understand the difference between
they're, their, and there as well as site, sight and cite.
Or two, to and too, too.
The only radio talk show host to call them "government
schools" is Neal Boortz www.boortz.com and Rush Limbaugh
does not call them government schools. The term dittohead
applies to Rush.

But you should be aware that I formed my positions on
government about 30 years ago, more than a decade before
Rush became a talk show host. In fact, you might say that
they are following my pattern.

"Dittohead" is the perfect appellation, regardless of the neocon
knee-jerk stimulator whose sheep-like listeners invented it.
 
Except Rush and Neal are MY dittoheads.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > A typo, I'm not a typist and the spell check inserted
the
| > wrong correction and I missed it.
| > But, whether the weather is cold, hot or mild, I will
not
| > change your mind and you won't change mine.
| > Just to say, that I do understand the difference between
| > they're, their, and there as well as site, sight and
cite.
| > Or two, to and too, too.
| > The only radio talk show host to call them "government
| > schools" is Neal Boortz www.boortz.com and Rush Limbaugh
| > does not call them government schools. The term
dittohead
| > applies to Rush.
| >
| > But you should be aware that I formed my positions on
| > government about 30 years ago, more than a decade before
| > Rush became a talk show host. In fact, you might say
that
| > they are following my pattern.
| >
|
| "Dittohead" is the perfect appellation, regardless of the
neocon
| knee-jerk stimulator whose sheep-like listeners invented
it.
 
What we all need to remember is that unions exist strictly for the
benefit and protection of their members. Work skills and knowledge are
unimportant to the unions. How much they can enlarge the membership,
and gain in salaries and benefits is.

The National Education Association has a huge membership, and a very big
lobby with loads of money. This gives them much control in politics,
local and federal. They also have a large and effective PR dept. We
are bombarded with demands from many sources for more money for
education no matter how much per student is being spent.

Also, check on teachers in your area and see how much in benefits they
get, and what kind of health care coverage they have. For each teacher
add the costs for these plus the employers part of Social Security to
the salary, and that's the true salary being paid. You'll probably be
amazed.

Bob


| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > A typo, I'm not a typist and the spell check inserted the
| > wrong correction and I missed it.
| > But, whether the weather is cold, hot or mild, I will not
| > change your mind and you won't change mine.
| > Just to say, that I do understand the difference between
| > they're, their, and there as well as site, sight and cite.
| > Or two, to and too, too.
| > The only radio talk show host to call them "government
| > schools" is Neal Boortz www.boortz.com and Rush Limbaugh
| > does not call them government schools. The term dittohead
| > applies to Rush.
| >
| > But you should be aware that I formed my positions on
| > government about 30 years ago, more than a decade before
| > Rush became a talk show host. In fact, you might say that
| > they are following my pattern.
| >
|
| "Dittohead" is the perfect appellation, regardless of the neocon
| knee-jerk stimulator whose sheep-like listeners invented it.
 
Jim said:
Except Rush and Neal are MY dittoheads.
OK. This is OT and has gone on long enough. I'm surprised none of the
net cops haven't slapped our wrists already. One parting shot,
however--it would seem that you're taking at least partial credit for
the country now being in the hands of idiots--congratulations.
 
Back
Top