XP Install Disks

[Guest]

Hi,
I have recently built a new computer with 250 gig hard drives. I have
Windows XP Home, which I purchased back when it first came out. The install
disk that I have does not have any Service Packs on it, so it does not
recognize hard disk space above 136 gig (?). This was OK for the new install
on the empty drive, as I later added SP2 then expanded the sole partition to
250 gigs.
My question is what will happen if I need to do a Repair Install? Will
data above 136 gigs be erased? I think I should get an XP install disk with
SP2 on it in case I need to do a Repair Install, but cannot find any info on
how to obtain one. Does Microsoft make these available? Other than, of
course, going out and buying XP Home again?
As I have already paid for it and the SP's are free downloads, I don't
feel I should have to pay $100 for a new copy. I have heard of merging the
original disk and the Service Pack, but have also heard that this can lead to
a buggy installation.
.............Bill

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

Hi,
I have recently built a new computer with 250 gig hard drives. I have
Windows XP Home, which I purchased back when it first came out. The install
disk that I have does not have any Service Packs on it, so it does not
recognize hard disk space above 136 gig (?). This was OK for the new install
on the empty drive, as I later added SP2 then expanded the sole partition to
250 gigs.
My question is what will happen if I need to do a Repair Install? Will
data above 136 gigs be erased? I think I should get an XP install disk with
SP2 on it in case I need to do a Repair Install, but cannot find any info on
how to obtain one. Does Microsoft make these available? Other than, of
course, going out and buying XP Home again?
As I have already paid for it and the SP's are free downloads, I don't
feel I should have to pay $100 for a new copy. I have heard of merging the
original disk and the Service Pack, but have also heard that this can lead to
a buggy installation.
............Bill

I don't think it's a good idea to run have Windows installed
on such a large partition. IMHO, installing WinXP on a
20 GByte partition would be far better for several reasons.
The remainder of the disk could then be used for data. This
would step around the potential problem you mention in
your post.

 

[Bob Knowlden]

I suggest that you prepare a new version of the installation CD with SP2
"slipstreamed" onto it. I did it using:

http://www.tacktech.com/display.cfm?object=article.cfm&id=160

I've never tried it, but "autostreamer" is supposed to be an easier way to
prepare a slipstreamed CD.

As for a "buggy installation". I've had better luck with a slipstreamed CD
than installing SP2 onto an existing XP installation.


Address scrambled. Replace nkbob with bobkn.

 

[Rock]

...........Bill wrote:

<snip>

I have heard of merging the original disk and the Service Pack, but have
also heard that this can lead to

a buggy installation.
............Bill

Create a new installation CD by slipstreaming the files from SP2 with
the original installation files. You heard wrong - there is nothing
"buggy" about doing an installation with a slipstreamed CD.

http://unattended.msfn.org/beginner/slipstream.htm
http://www.theeldergeek.com/slipstreamed_xpsp2_cd.htm

 

[Guest]

Hi Pegasus,
Thanks for answering. Do you mean that XP (without SP1 or 2) does not
recognise partitions larger than 136gig or hard disks larger than that? If
the latter, wouldn't it still cause a problem? It does take a 250gig
partition on that drive and turn it into a 136gig one, but I never had data
in the excess part.
Does Microsoft make replacement install disks with SP's on them?
...............Bill

 

[Pegasus \(MVP\)]

I don't know if it can. If you're unwilling to create a system
partition and a data partition then you either have to find
out for yourself or slipstream a WinXP CD as per the
other respondents' suggestions.

 

[Plato]

I don't think it's a good idea to run have Windows installed
on such a large partition. IMHO, installing WinXP on a
20 GByte partition would be far better for several reasons.
The remainder of the disk could then be used for data. This
would step around the potential problem you mention in
your post.

A 20 gig C: is way too small for XP, even if, of course, you tell all
new software installs to write to another drive letter.