BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 24d, 22h, 24m | CPU: 69% | MEM: 5603MB of 12227MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Windows Georgia Builds (Not Bootable?)        Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:16 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:16 am

Posts
725

Location
TeXaS

Favourite OS
Windows Vista Beta 1 (6.0.5112)
So I was scrolling through my list of Georgia builds when I noticed something that I had almost forgotten about...none of these builds are bootable! My question is, did they come like that or did someone extract the files (and not extract it as an image.) Anyone have any ideas? :?

_________________
Laptop: Precision M6300 2.4GHz Core 2 T8300 / 4GB RAM / 320GB HD / ATI Quadro FX 3600m
Server: PowerEdge 1950 (Gen III) (x1) 2.5Ghz Xeon E5420 / 24GB FB-DDR2 / 1.5tb 7.2k SAS RAID 0
Desktop: Precision T5500 2.66GHz Xeon X5650 / 24GB DDR3 ECC / 2x 300GB Seagate 15k7


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:46 am 
Reply with quote
All the millennium builds were released as upgrades, all upgrades in the win9x series
weren't made bootable.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:02 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat May 12, 2007 1:05 pm

Posts
5271

Location
The Collection Book

Favourite OS
Windows & Phone
You can install them with a Windows 98 bootdisk.

First run Fdisk and Format, then copy the folder with the .cab files (all files) to a folder on C:\ and start setup as normal.

No need for Windwos 95/98.

_________________
Image
http://www.thecollectionbook.info
Subscribe to our Image for updates and like us on Image.

Reading Mode only, PM's possible.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:27 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:16 am

Posts
725

Location
TeXaS

Favourite OS
Windows Vista Beta 1 (6.0.5112)
I already knew that I could perform a full setup after using a boot disc, but I didn't know that they were all meant as upgrades...weird. Thanks for the info. :D


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:58 pm 
Reply with quote
also, georgia was the 2000/me GUI (theme) codename, ME's codename was "millennium"


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:24 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:16 am

Posts
725

Location
TeXaS

Favourite OS
Windows Vista Beta 1 (6.0.5112)
Namronia wrote:
also, georgia was the 2000/me GUI (theme) codename, ME's codename was "millennium"


Ahh...true. I forgot about that. Ok, so all the Millenium beta's were upgrades...why did they decide to release a full Windows ME version?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:49 am 
Reply with quote
btw, found another proof that me was codenamed "millennium"

Image

:D


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:55 am 
Reply with quote
Namronia wrote:
btw, found another proof that me was codenamed "millennium"

That's no secret, it was always known as Millennium. Find a proof for the Georgia codename, because that's the one no one could link with ME so far.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:56 am 
Reply with quote
unblestone wrote:
Namronia wrote:
btw, found another proof that me was codenamed "millennium"

That's no secret, it was always known as Millennium. Find a proof for the Georgia codename, because that's the one no one could link with ME so far.


well, i just wanted to show that its NOT georgia, georgia was the 2000/me gui, but still many people think georgia was ME....


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:59 am 
Reply with quote
Namronia wrote:
well, i just wanted to show that its NOT georgia, georgia was the 2000/me gui, but still many people think georgia was ME....

Do you have any references or links to show this is the gui codename.
I'd be interested in seeing them if you have, thanks.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:01 pm 
Reply with quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Shell

and also on some other sites, but i have to search for them


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:05 pm 
Reply with quote
Namronia wrote:
georgia was the 2000/me gui, but still many people think georgia was ME....

And what is the source for that statement? The GUI was never meant to change much from Windows 98 (the new parts already had codenames), so why should it have got a different codename? And if that's what you think, then why do you still list Georgia as the codename for ME on your website?

I think no one was ever able to show some document from Microsoft that even mentions the Georgia codename. And as long as that doesn't change, everything is just pure (and waste) speculation.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:11 pm 
Reply with quote
unblestone wrote:
Namronia wrote:
georgia was the 2000/me gui, but still many people think georgia was ME....

And what is the source for that statement? The GUI was never meant to change much from Windows 98 (the new parts already had codenames), so why should it have got a different codename? And if that's what you think, then why do you still list Georgia as the codename for ME on your website?

I think no one was ever able to show some document from Microsoft that even mentions the Georgia codename. And as long as that doesn't change, everything is just pure (and waste) speculation.


there were lots of changes, mainly the theme got less dark and more light, so its "friendlier", also the task pane from xp, which was introduced in neptune/me,
im sorry for that, i forget to update that, but its done now :P

well, i hope we can find one ;)


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:12 pm 
Reply with quote
Namronia wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Shell

If it doesn't give references, it's useless. That's the whole problem with Wikipedia anyway.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:13 pm 
Reply with quote
unblestone wrote:
Namronia wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Shell

If it doesn't give references, it's useless. That's the whole problem with Wikipedia anyway.


ok, thats right, but i think it would make sense that way...


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS