BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 32d, 1h, 4m | CPU: 62% | MEM: 2267MB of 4007MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Windows NT Workstation 5.0, Build 1585        Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:14 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:38 pm

Posts
71

Location
Germany
I have this Build 1585, but it will not work in vmware and qemu. what make I wrong? or is this build uninstallable^^.

_________________
Windows "2000" is the worst OS ever, followed by Windows XP.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:17 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
I have it as well, installing in Virtual PC on a Mac failed with a BSOD telling something about a failing processor identification or something like that... Do you also get a BSOD?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:19 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:38 pm

Posts
71

Location
Germany
yes, after the Windows NT 5.0 bootsplash, before text mode starts zu setup Windows NT.

_________________
Windows "2000" is the worst OS ever, followed by Windows XP.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:23 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Yep, that's exactly where it's failing here as well. I noticed it says something about a debugger on COM2:. Maybe it expects one to be available there and stops if it can't find one? Just a wild and unlikely guess, though...


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 4:26 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:38 pm

Posts
71

Location
Germany
my version: COM1-Port, but my computer doesn't hava a com port...

_________________
Windows "2000" is the worst OS ever, followed by Windows XP.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:06 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
The apparent uninstallability (new word?!) of NT5 puzzled me for a very long time. One of the things you definitely have to do to avoid these blue screens that otherwise appear at various stages of the installation is to go into your virtual machine's BIOS and disable everything related to ACPI before starting to install it. I can't remember right now if there was something else you have to do as well, but if it still fails then post back and I'll try to work out what else it was I did to eventually get an NT5 build to install. It's not actually that it wants a hardware debugger - that's what I originally thought too.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:19 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Hmm, good point. But 1) I don't know if Qemu supports ACPI (but it boots Vista and I think it requires ACPI) and 2) various other NT5 builds, such as 1631, 1671, 1877 and 1906 and later builds such as 1946 and 2000 installed perfectly fine under the exact same circumstances.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:50 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
empireum wrote:
I don't know if Qemu supports ACPI (but it boots Vista and I think it requires ACPI)


I couldn't get further than "Windows is loading files" with the x64 version of Vista RC1 in QEMU - would that be an ACPI issue, do you reckon?

I'm pretty sure changing both ACPI settings in the VPC BIOS alowed NT5 1631 Server to install, but I could be wrong - I thought I saw somewhere the ACPI was buggy on a lot of NT5 builds so you have to disable it.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:38 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:38 pm

Posts
71

Location
Germany
1631??? You have 1631? nice!! I have 1729 for that ;)

_________________
Windows "2000" is the worst OS ever, followed by Windows XP.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:09 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Windows NT wrote:
1631??? You have 1631? nice!!


Yep :) Must have got it in the "old days", as I can't see a copy available now (although there is 1671, which is probably very similar). Nice little build - only uses 23 MB of memory on startup after disabling some services - it was still pretty similar to NT4 at this stage, although it does have both the new MMC-based admin tools and the old NT4 ones.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:21 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Windows NT wrote:
I have 1729 for that

Nice :) I'd love to add it to my collection. Would you share it?

Vista Utimate R2 wrote:
Yep Smile Must have got it in the "old days", as I can't see a copy available now (although there is 1671, which is probably very similar). Nice little build - only uses 23 MB of memory on startup after disabling some services - it was still pretty similar to NT4 at this stage, although it does have both the new MMC-based admin tools and the old NT4 ones.

Yep, I also got my 1631 Server copy in the "old days" as well. :) I believe all 15xx and 16xx builds of NT5 were very similar to NT4 as it was the (pre-)Beta 1 stage. Starting with 17xx, where some changes have been made and especially with the (post-)Beta 2 (18xx/19xx), the betas of NT5 have become very similar to... well, the final product (and we all know how this is unfortunately named).

PS: A note regarding Build 1585: It failed in VirtualPC 7 on a Mac as well, and I know for sure this VM doresn't support ACPI.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:06 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:38 pm

Posts
71

Location
Germany
I can share 1729 against 1631^^

_________________
Windows "2000" is the worst OS ever, followed by Windows XP.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:10 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Windows NT wrote:
I can share 1729 against 1631^^

Okay :) I will upload it to the AbyssUnderground server #2, when Andy has moved it, it'll be available for download.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:11 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:38 pm

Posts
71

Location
Germany
very nice, I can upload it later ;)

_________________
Windows "2000" is the worst OS ever, followed by Windows XP.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:40 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Build 1631 (Server) is currently being uploaded by me. (AbyssUnderground #2).


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:45 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:38 pm

Posts
71

Location
Germany
how big is it? my NT 5.0 1729 is 123 MB.

_________________
Windows "2000" is the worst OS ever, followed by Windows XP.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:57 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
1631 is 152,6 MB = 159,891,423 Bytes. It's a RAR archive, BTW.

edit: Upload finished.

edit 2: I see 1729 is up :) Great! Now to wait till it's moved.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:34 pm 
Reply with quote
Been there, done that as far as this build is concerned...
I tried installing it on a system with a 97 bios date where acpi was
nowhere to be found in the bios { PC-Chips M550 - 439tx chipset }
Tried on a Gigabyte GA 686NX { 443fx chipset }
Microstar MS6161 { 443LX chipset } & a compaq deskpro 443BX
chipset board - P3-600..
Even tried increasing the ram amount, to no avail..
So I tried a socket 7 board , a Socket 8, socket 370 & a slot 1..
In all cases the errors showed as posted above , & no amount of bios
changes made a single difference , then I woke up to the fact that the
darn CD isn't bootable :roll: , why not - because it was meant to be
installed purely & simply as an upgrade {well, so i'd concluded}
So - I installed NT4 then put the NT5 - 1585 CD in & let it autoplay,
it copied some files, rebooted & did the dos file copy, rebooted again &
setup proceded - whallah , installed perfect 1st go, mind you, it took 2
full nights after work & a failed dozen or so attempts until I woke up
to the fact...
You'll notice on the second shot here it gives the option to make floppies
& boot from them, again it failed, can't remember why atm, then I
wondered if that was just left behind from a previous build as is the case
with a lot of code during OS compiles, or whether it really could install
as a full version , Who knows, either way, it installs perfect as an
upgrade on top of NT4...
ImageImage
ImageImage
ImageImage


Last edited by KenOath on Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:07 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:55 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:05 pm

Posts
698

Location
Or-stray-liagh
@Ken, offtopic I know, but why does the start button on some of those shots say "Unicode debug"? o_O

_________________
pr0gram the pr0grammer
BetaArchive retiree | OSBA Expat


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:00 pm 
Reply with quote
pr0gram the pr0grammer wrote:
@Ken, offtopic I know, but why does the start button on some of those shots say "Unicode debug"? o_O

I pulled an NT4 CD out of the one of the cases without checking
what it was, turned out to be a Checked / Debug version..
When I 1st saw the start button I thought WTF , then looked at the
CD & then realised why... :roll:

Then, the next day, to be sure that the only reason why
build 1585 installed wasn't just because it was installed on top
of the CH/Debug version, I then formatted, installed a retail of
NT4 & re-installed build 1585 & took a couple more screenshots..


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Dec 06, 2006 10:58 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Thanks for the info KenOath, that's what was necessary. I will try this as soon as possible. The inability to get #1585 running was driving me nuts... :)

edit: 1631 (uploaded by me) & 1729 (uploaded by Windows NT) are available for download!


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:56 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:38 pm

Posts
71

Location
Germany
cannot install Build 1631, in vmware or qemu. :(

_________________
Windows "2000" is the worst OS ever, followed by Windows XP.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:04 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
When/where does it fail? Does 1671 work in VMware?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:15 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:38 pm

Posts
71

Location
Germany
Hi. 1671 works in vmware. It stops after bootsplash bevor text mode setup begins.

_________________
Windows "2000" is the worst OS ever, followed by Windows XP.


Top  Profile  WWW  ICQ
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 2:07 pm 
Reply with quote
Another thing I forgot to mention
{ been 2 years since installing 1585 }

The files within the I386 folder aren't compressed at all, You'll see in my
second screen shot above where I started the installation within NT4 ,
It showed an open dialog whereas it gave the option to put a tick in
the second option down { Advanced Settings \ Use floppy disks for
booting into setup }
When I chose that option it gave errors something like " file copy error"
or " not enough room on floppy" some sort of error I can't remember..
So I looked at the floppies contents & realized it was indeed full..
So I looked at the Dosnet.inf to validate the contents that should be on
each floppy, Then collected all the files into separate folders
eg: disk1 \ 2 \ 3 , then compressed the files that would normally be
compressed & reconstructed the 3 boot-disks as the layout specified
in the Dosnet.inf..
Then booted the computer with the 3 floppies & all was looking good,
it did the file copy process as it should, rebooted & gave the com port
error as listed above, so that was 2 + hours down to make 3 floppies..
So then I got to thinking that perhaps the setup was meant to be run
as an upgrade, & perhaps the com error is because it looks for system
settings or hardware settings to run error reporting services
{or something of that nature}
that may be configured to run during setting up of the OS..
The one thing I never got to testing was whether it would install as an
upgrade using the 3 bootdisks I made, I suspect it would, I just spent
too much time at the time to try, getting it installed was enough then..

Another thing that got me wondering too was that the Layout.inf clearly
specified the 3 bootdisks & their label...

Just another mystery for someone else to solve one day...


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


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