Uninstalling vista
- How can you uninstall vista beta 2 so it will revert back to xp sp2, i cant see any uninstall button in the new programs files folder nor is there the normal add/remove programs as with xp, it's now this new programs file folder. So can vista be uninstalled ??
Answers
subwoofer wrote: How can you uninstall vista beta 2 so it will revert back to xp sp2, i cant see any uninstall button in the new programs files folder nor is there the normal add/remove programs as with xp, it's now this new programs file folder. So can vista be uninstalled ??
The best way I've found of uninstalling Vista is to re-format the partition. If you installed them into separate partitions, you can just use bdcedit to fix the boot track to boot back to XP with Vista gone after a reformat of the other patition.
All Replies
subwoofer wrote: How can you uninstall vista beta 2 so it will revert back to xp sp2, i cant see any uninstall button in the new programs files folder nor is there the normal add/remove programs as with xp, it's now this new programs file folder. So can vista be uninstalled ??
The best way I've found of uninstalling Vista is to re-format the partition. If you installed them into separate partitions, you can just use bdcedit to fix the boot track to boot back to XP with Vista gone after a reformat of the other patition.- what i did was just upgrade from xp to vista, didn't do a fresh install, just upgraded, so can i still uninstall vista by formating and then get back to xp the way you said ??
- I'm in the same boat as you and didn't see any warning about doing this. My computer is wrecked and want to get Visa off asap but can't figure out what to do. This should be posted by MS in a verry accessible place. If you have figured it out, please post. Thanks. Harry
I do hope that Microsoft will reply to these posts quickly, because I am facing the same issue.
Actually, I was prepared to do a clean format when I am done test-driving with Vista. I knew the risks. However, I would think that Microsoft would actually have some way to revert it back to Windows XP (I did an upgrade) since this is a beta release. So yeah, I am looking for a solution as well.
Also, when you boot-up the computer, there is an option to boot to Earlier Versions of Windows, but that thing never seems to work!
At the risk of sounding redundant...
NO!
There is no uninstall for Vista Beta 2.
To repeat what the forum moderator said - to get back to XP, you have to reformat the drive and install XP on a nice, new, virgin partition.
Harry,
I'm going to guess you downloaded the beta yourself.. Right? Did you bother reading any of the stuff posted BEFORE you started the download or did you just go on automatic pilot clicking your way through without the slightest pause to find out what you were getting yourself into?
For what it's worth, anytime you see the word "beta" in conjunction with "software" the FIRST thing you do is READ EVERYTHING you can about it before you put your system at risk of being hosed 8 ways till next Tuesday.
And when you see the word "beta" in conjunction with the words "Operating System" you have to be even TWICE as diligent and by all means NEVER, EVER install the beta on your primary work computer. THIS WARNING WAS POSTED MANY TIMES on the initial web sites for the Vista Beta: "DO NOT INSTALL ON A PRODUCTION MACHINE."
Beta - when used regarding software means that the software is somehow incomplete, the features are NOT ready for prime time - not to mention definitly NOT 100% bug free. It's purpose is to have people who have some expertise with computers and operating systems test the software, report back to the vendor what issues have come up so they can FIX them before it gets released to the general public.
Vista is NOT a bunch of patches to Windows XP. This is NOT XP service pack 3! When you installed the upgrade, it overwrote XP's files. Vista is a brand new version of all those files that make up Windows. There is NO uninstall for this except to
a.) back up your data
b.) insert your XP install CD
c.) boot to the CD
d.) format the partition
e.) and reinstall XP.
Have a nice day.
Hi, Thanks for your reply. I orderd the CD and did read warnings. I've beta tested (as a hobbyist - I'm not a professonal IS person) for over 12 years, going back the public NT beta, and I'm always careful. I'm also willing to much about to adjust - but to be honest, I can't do a thing with Vista (I'm amazed I haven't crashed yet in writing this reply to you). I try to uninstall programs that keep causting conflicts - but it won't let me uninstall them; it crashes every five minutes. So, after about 100 hours of trying to get this to work half normally, I give up. I confess that when I indicated "upgrade" I assumed there would be a way to uninstall. It would be a good idea for MS to say in bold letters at that option: no turning back. Anyway, it's done. Before I wrote here, I've been trying to do reinstall from my XP disk, but I can't get the machine to boot from the CD rom. The way I've done that before isn't available (and "install" is greyed out in the XP installation disk). If someone could kindly tell me how to boot from the CD rom or any other method for me to reinstall XP (and yes, I know I'll rewrite all data). I'd appreciate it. In the past, though, when there was a public beta, it was a bit more friendly than this, so I wish everyone would just be a bit more patient of those of us eager to try out the system and participate in the learning with good intentions. This isn't aimed at the person whom I'm replying to, who wrote a patient, helpful note.
Thanks for your help. Harry
Maybe there is no way to roll back Vista to XP, but there's no reason to get all self-righteous about it.
If Microsoft intends on shipping Vista anytime in the near future, they had really better get their act together. This operating system is absolute garbage. I have a brand new laptop with a gig of memory and a AMD 64-bit ML-34 processor, and Vista has absolutely trashed this machine. NONE of my old programs work, the screen keeps flashing on and off at completely random intervals, it is taking on average the processor running at 50 percent just to keep the interface running. I have never had this kind of problem with a beta before, so if they plan on shipping this product anytime in the near future their developers had better drink some more coffee and stay up late getting some serious work done. Because if the product they release to the public resembles this at all they are in serious trouble.
Jeff
- I'm not bragging or anything, but i've found Vista to be pretty solid and reliable. Sure, there are one or two conflicts with drivers/software etc but this is expected as its only a beta, and an early beta at that. I also knew that when i installed Vista, i knew that eventually i would have to reformat the partition and reinstall XP on it.
There are some software out there that can help you make a bootable CD so that you can reformat PC and reinstall XP, such as nLite and Ultimate Boot CD 4 Win. I havent tried these myself but they should be ok for your purposes.
Thank you Microsoft for trying to improve on XP. (Almost there!) Jeff,
You're absolutly right - 100% correct - with regards to the comment that Microsoft has an AWFUL lot of stuff to fix before they can release Vista to the general public and I'm sure they're probably going to be drinking a LOT more than coffee to get those bugs fixed - Jolt, Vault, and the entire plethora of energy drinks.
Given that, would you rather see Microsoft put all it's resources behind getting those bugs fixed? Or would you like to see them divert a significant amount of resources into writing an uninstall routine to revert Vista back to XP or 2000..?
Personally, I'd rather see them put their efforts into fixing the problems that exist rather than wasting time on something that may be close to impossible to do.
The "uninstall" instructions are out there - format and reinstall XP. Yes, it's a pain in the neck. Yes, it sucks rotten eggs to have to go through and install everything again. Then again, there were warnings about not installing Vista on a production machine.
So... I'm terribly sorry if you don't think I'm sympathetic to the cause.
Hi HarryinNYC,
If you can't get the CD to boot, you might try to go to the M$ website and get the floppy-disk boot file. They have one for each version of XP, and when you get it you have to install it on SIX floppies- it's intended to use when your machine won't boot from a CD.
This may or may not work, but at least it's worth a try. It will cost you about an hour of your time and six floppies, but that could be a way out of the hole Vista has dug for you.
Good luck.
Bill
- I don't agree with you fully. Microsft should have some kind of software that should uninstall Vista Beta 2. There is also the question of the first screen that apears when you start up the machice. It does ask you if you want to starup in Vista or XP but that does not work. I feel that if that bug was fixed; it would help a lot of people...
Fine.. Feel free to disagree.
As for uninstalling an upgrade is concerned, do you have ANY clue as to the complexity of the issue?
When you upgrade a computer, it overwrites exitsting files. You might have a file called XYZ.DLL version 5.1 in XP, but when you upgrade, it gets replaced by XYZ.DLL version 6.0 in Vista. In order to uninstall it, Vistas installer would have to make a back up copy of EVERY single file in place - requiring another 2-3 GB of disc space - depending on the size of the XP installation. Space, SOME users might not have or want to waste.
So, to save hard disk real estate, the obvious solution would be to NOT save the original files and have the user just insert the XP distribution CD and have it copy the files from there. Of course, that doesn't include the various service packs, hot fixes, and other patches that may have been installed over the years.
The bottom line, what you're going to wind up having is an uninstaller that is going to basically reinstall Windows XP.
Gee.. Why not have the Windows XP installer just do the job and do it RIGHT in the first place?
Any questions?
- Wolfie, I'm with you on this one.
I have a pretty hard time believing there are souls out there who are computer savvy enough to even want to try a beta OS without knowing the full ramifications of blowing away their previous installation. In my meager experience of installing operating systems, "upgrades" are a nightmare. The best course of action is always to format the disk and start anew. I wouldn't even want to upgrade any installation to the full production version of Vista, which this certainly ain't. If anyone is trying to hide behind "Microsoft should have told us [before we did something stupid]," it means you were up to your neck in this to begin with, and beta testing probably wasn't the best idea for you.
I'm truly sorry if someone hosed their machine by killing their perfectly good XP installation with a beta OS, but the warning signs were there. A dedicated test machine or dual boot situation is really the only safe way to do any of this. Samas wrote: Wolfie, I'm with you on this one.
I have a pretty hard time believing there are souls out there who are computer savvy enough to even want to try a beta OS without knowing the full ramifications of blowing away their previous installation. In my meager experience of installing operating systems, "upgrades" are a nightmare. The best course of action is always to format the disk and start anew. I wouldn't even want to upgrade any installation to the full production version of Vista, which this certainly ain't. If anyone is trying to hide behind "Microsoft should have told us [before we did something stupid]," it means you were up to your neck in this to begin with, and beta testing probably wasn't the best idea for you.
I'm truly sorry if someone hosed their machine by killing their perfectly good XP installation with a beta OS, but the warning signs were there. A dedicated test machine or dual boot situation is really the only safe way to do any of this.BUT that's JUST it.
On the FIRST page you went to when you were given the option to sign up for the beta, there's a warning in BRIGHT RED TEXT that tells you NOT to install Vista Beta 2 on your primary production machine or on your primary home computer!
Translate that - DO NOT install Vista on your main machine. We won't be responsible for your data being lost if you install Vista on your main work machine and it trashes your data files. Period.
About the ONLY thing Microsoft could have done to bring any more attention to it and make it any more clear would have been to put a neon sign around it and make it blink...
Oh.. And another thing.. Vista Beta 2 has it's share of bugs, issues, problems, etc... Some are showstoppers, some are only minor annoyances. What makes anyone think for a fraction of a millisecond that Microsoft is going to have an uninstaller routine that's 100% free of bugs and other issues and isn't going to botch the uninstall process forcing you to reinstall anyhow...?
Personally, I don't have much sympathy for people who just rushed into the beta program just so they could be on the bleeding edge and didn't read the clearly posted warning signs and didn't do their due dillligence - backing up important data BEFORE installing Vista and trashing everything.
People, people! All this quarrel about trying to uninstall Windows Vista to roll it back to Windows XP is a headache. Wolfie is correct in what he said about that there is NO roll back to Windows XP. Microsoft has even mentioned that once you load on Windows Vista, it cannot roll back to Windows XP. Believe me. You are reading this from a computer expert. I am a computer technician. Wolfie is also correct about backing up all files. Here is another way to clean off your hard drive. This is quick and easy, get the good ol' Windows 98 boot disk and boot off it when you turn your computer on and at the A:\ prompt, type fdisk and hit enter. Make sure you type in "Y" for each steps you go through. From there, it will give you a choice, select by hitting 3 for "Delete partition or Logical DOS Drive", then hit the enter key. Next, hit 4 "Delete Non DOS partition" and hit the enter key. You will see a flashing "Warning" and make sure that 1 is selected. If so, hit the enter key again. It will ask "Are you sure?", hit the "Y" key. This action will wipe out the partition completely. After that, hit the escape key until it goes back to the "A:\" prompt. Now insert the Windows XP cd and take the Windows 98 boot disk out of the floppy drive. From there, restart your computer and proceed with installing the Windows XP. Good Luck!
Um.. OK..
A bit overkill tho no? Last I checked, the XP setup has the means to a.) delete partitions, b.) create a new one and c.) format it without the need to dig up a floppy with 98's boot files on it.
Samas wrote: Wolfie, I'm with you on this one.
I have a pretty hard time believing there are souls out there who are computer savvy enough to even want to try a beta OS without knowing the full ramifications of blowing away their previous installation. In my meager experience of installing operating systems, "upgrades" are a nightmare. The best course of action is always to format the disk and start anew. I wouldn't even want to upgrade any installation to the full production version of Vista, which this certainly ain't. If anyone is trying to hide behind "Microsoft should have told us [before we did something stupid]," it means you were up to your neck in this to begin with, and beta testing probably wasn't the best idea for you.
I'm truly sorry if someone hosed their machine by killing their perfectly good XP installation with a beta OS, but the warning signs were there. A dedicated test machine or dual boot situation is really the only safe way to do any of this.What is your concept of a 'dual boot' machine? Do you mean separate partions on the same hard disk drive, or separate hard disk drives, booting from either? And if the latter, can Vista still reak havoc on a lone PC e.g: MBR's, CMOS, ectera? If I install Vista on a separate HDD with dual boot capability like using 'DiskDirector' or PartionMagic; surely this would enable XP and Vista to co-exist without interfering with each other? Can anyone advise, or confirm?
Obadiah wrote: What is your concept of a 'dual boot' machine? Do you mean separate partions on the same hard disk drive, or separate hard disk drives, booting from either? And if the latter, can Vista still reak havoc on a lone PC e.g: MBR's, CMOS, ectera? If I install Vista on a separate HDD with dual boot capability like using 'DiskDirector' or PartionMagic; surely this would enable XP and Vista to co-exist without interfering with each other? Can anyone advise, or confirm?
Obadiah, in my experience working with separate partitions on the same physical disk is more than enough to keep the operating systems away from each other. I have XP installed on one partition, used Disk Management to create another empty partition within my unpartitioned hard drive space, and chose that empty partition to install Vista on to. The trickiest thing then was getting Vista's boot configuration to know it was not king of the hill, but that is explained in an excellent post by JayTF in this forum. I would imagine if you did this on two physical hard drives instead, your BIOS would determine which one to boot from. That would certainly be even safer if you were really worried, but again I think partitions do the trick just as nicely (and are easier to work with in my opinion).
And Wolfie, I was actually agreeing with you, just not saying outright that people were being morons. I'm not sure why you felt the need to berate me for having sympathy, even though the act of relying on a beta OS for your primary machine is undoubtedly dumb. I just don't see the point in making someone who did such a thing feel even worse about it.By dual (or triple) boot, in my case, I'm using a couple of spare hard drives I've had laying about collecting dust to install the test versions. Once the beta's over and done with, they'll probably wind up collecting dust again. Also, when I did the initial install, I merely disconnected the drives physically to protect their content - as you said, partitions (as you mentioned) can be mucked up by an install gone bad.
Samas wrote:
And Wolfie, I was actually agreeing with you, just not saying outright that people were being morons. I'm not sure why you felt the need to berate me for having sympathy, even though the act of relying on a beta OS for your primary machine is undoubtedly dumb. I just don't see the point in making someone who did such a thing feel even worse about it.I know you were, and I'm sorry if I came off as berating you. My ire was NOT aimed at you.
My issue is this: There was one post with a guy wanting an uninstaller, followed immediately by someone who's at the very least a forum moderator, who knows what he's talking about who posted quite clearly, in plain english even - that there is no uninstaller and never will be an uninstaller.
Immediately following this post, there's a couple of people posting that they hope someone comes up with a solution to their dillema - i.e. an uninstaller.
Uh.. This is the part where they're showing an unwillingness to comprehend the word "NO." And sometimes you have to apply extra emphasis to get a point across - especially when there are those who are too stubborn to get it.
Wolfie,
You can do it either way. I thought it might be a little easier by using the Windows 98 boot disk. Usually it can be pretty accurate. But to erase the partitions won't matter either way though. This is just an idea I came up with to share.
- Let's keep this in mind here, This Windows Beta 2 is only an evaluation copy and it is not yet officially released. Microsoft is still working on it to further improve it. They will eventually come up with something like an uninstaller for it, but hopefully this will be available on an officially released copies. Who knows if they will have a separate uninstaller available on-line for downloading for this evaluation copy. We will just have to wait and see.
- Even if you didn't know that vista would not uninstall, what's the big deal? If you are not comfortable with installing an OS you should not have been playing around with Vista in the first place and if you don't know to backup your goods then I am suprised that you even found this forum(and was able to post on it!) I had no problems with the entire process and the only driver that would not work for me was a wireless networking card. Thanks for the preview MS. Speed it up and I just might buy it when it comes out.
- Fair enough... And it probably would make better use of the hard drive's native space as it is. 98's partitioning utility allows you to use most all of the available space. NT/2k/XP/Vista will stop like 7-9 MB shy of full capacity...
Um.. You're kidding. Right?
In the entire history of Windows - especially after Windows 95 - has there EVER been an uninstaller for a full version of the OS that would revert you to a previous version?
Think hard on this one before answering.
I'll save you the trouble. The answer is NEVER. Prior to 95, uninstalling Windows 2.x and 3.x was simply a matter of deleting some directories. Windows 95 and beyond requires a commitment to the new OS. If you want it off, you have to format the partition and install the old OS.
Service packs are likewise, an entirely different story. You're dealing with ONE version of the OS and are adding fixes and patches to the one that already exists.
But when you're going from one version to another, one with a fairly radical amount of changes, tweaks and complete rewrites, as we're seeing with Vista, don't hold your breath, it's NOT happening. Vista is NOT XP Service Pack 3.
Microsoft has more than enough bugs, issues, and tweaks they need to fix before Vista goes gold than to worry about or write a program that will uninstall it.
It's like I pointed out before - in order to do an uninstall, you have to have a complete backup of the entire Windows XP environment. This includes all of the C:\Windows and C:\Program Files trees. Normally, this can be at least 3-5 GB for a relatively clean installation, and probably going as far as 7 - 10 GB if you've got a lot of stuff installed. Why? Because Vista's versions of the component EXEs and DLLs are different and are, no doubt, incompatible with XP.
Now then, if you've got a monster hard drive with plenty of empty space, that 3 - 10 GB might not be a big deal. But if you're working on a cramped drive - say a 20 or 40 GB drive, that is a waste of space.
So the simplest way to do it would be to eliminate the files that are already backed up - namely on the Windows XP CD that came with your computer. So.. Now then, given this, what would be the simplest means to restore those files?
Anyone..? Anyone??
That's right, use the SETUP.EXE found on the XP CD.
Look, it might be nice of the folks at Microsoft to write an uninstaller. But as I said before, given the buggy nature of Vista (at least at this point) would you really seriously trust them to write a utility that would work 100% perfectly without a LOT of chaos, lost programs, broken apps, etc...? Didn't think so. And a fat lot of good an uninstaller would be if you can't get the OS to run properly to begin with. If you can't get the computer to boot to Vista, and XP is as good as dead, now you're going to need a bootable CD complete with enough operating system to support the uninstaller app. Gee.. The XP CD already has all that built in.
Not to mention the resources required would have to be diverted from fixing Vista. Personally, I would rather see them investing their time and effort into fixing the bugs causing the problems you're encountering than wasting time on something like an uninstaller for Vista that will probably not work as well as the advice they've already given - doing a clean install of XP, and a reinstall of the apps on the computer.
Get over it. It's a pipe dream. It's not gonna be happening...
Wolfie,
Windows 98 SE is one version that DOES have a "roll back", (NOT an uninstaller) even if you wanted to go back to Windows 95. Wolfie, I have OVER 10 YEARS of experience and I am a computer technician and I KNOW all this stuff. But yes you can't do that with Windows XP since it uses NTFS format. If you originally had either windows 98 or ME and upgraded to Windows XP and yes it will NOT roll back to Win 98 or ME because they are DOS based. Sorry about my misconception about the uninstaller. In this case, you might say a roll back which might eventually turn up in the Windows Update for the Beta version once if it is officially released. But you were right, there were no such thing as an "uninstaller", but a "Roll Back" DOES exists. In Windows XP, you can "Roll Back" your hardware drivers even. But Microsoft probably will come up with something like either an "uninstaller" or a "Roll back" for this beta version if it becomes official. Who knows? I can' t predict this stuff of what Microsoft will do.
- Generally, it is not necessary to recreate a partition just to load Windows XP or Windows Vista on it. What I am saying is, by using the Windows 98 boot disk is only to remove the partition completely so as to have a clean slate when you're ready to install Windows XP or Windows Vista just like as if you were to do it for the first time on a brand new hard drive. A lot of tech shops uses boot disks to remove the partition along with Windows in one shot on hard drives so that they can sell them clean and used.
- I am just a dumb kid who had his brother vista but just tell me how do u reformat the harddrive so that i can install the restore cd?
Your best bet would be to check the computer's manual, but for most situations, all you have to do is insert the restore/install cd and reboot from the restore disk.
You have to make sure your computer is configured to boot from the CD or DVD drive FIRST - that's usually done in the BIOS setup - once again, refer to your computer's manual for more information on how to do that.
Uninstalling Vista should be straightforward, IF it was installed in a separate partition from XP: reformat the Vista partition, delete a few files from the root directory of the boot drive (usually C:), and possibly modify a file or two in the boot drive root directory; plus a little cleanup, like deleting the $RECYCLE.BIN directories created by Vista.
(If you installed Vista on top of XP, there's no question that you get to reinstall XP.)
So...does anyone know which files, which are not in Vista partition, need to be deleted or modified?
Once again, there is NO way to uninstall it with this evaluation copy, NOT even to try deleting any files from the root directory especially the C:\ drive. If you do, that will bring total destruction and you will be spending your golden days to clean off your hard drive, reformat and re-install Windows XP and all the works that you have on there. If you have set up two partitions on the same hard drive, with Windows XP as C:\ drive and Windows Vista would be set up as drive D:\. In order to get Windows Vista off is simply by inserting your Windows XP CD in your CD drive and you need to select Drive D:\ partition and have it deleted. When you delete that partition, it also takes the Vista off completely in one shot. The easy way of deleting the partition in the safest way possible that I found is by having the Windows '98 boot disk and typing the command at A:\ prompt is fdisk and follow the instructions. In order to delete the partition that Windows Vista is on (usually drive D:\), "Delete Non-DOS partition" must be selected, then it will ask you which partition you want to delete. You would want Drive D:\. If you accomplish this task, you have saved the day. Good luck.
Immediately after I posted above, and before Powhammer replied, I reformatted my Vista Partition (drive E:), which was not the same partition as the XP partition (drive C:). I did not delete it, I just reformatted it. I had to use Partition Magic to do the format because XP would not allow me to format the drive. Partition Magic did give an error message during the format process and indicated that the format was unsuccessful (see the next paragraph).
Upon rebooting, I was still given the choice of booting into Vista or XP. Chosing Vista gave an error, which then returned me to the menu for choosing an OS. Choosing XP, booted up XP without any problems and I am using XP now. After rebooting to XP, it reported that drive E was not formatted and asked if I want to format it - I replied "yes, do a 'quick format,'" and XP formatted the drive without further complications. Subsequent reboots continue to show the OS-choice menu - as long as I choose XP everything proceeds normally and XP seems to be working just fine.
Vista was originally installed on drive E: as a clean install into an empty partition. While using Vista, newly installed programs for Vista were installed to drive E:. While Vista was installed, but when using XP, newly installed programs for XP were installed to drives other than drive E:.
The remaining question are: 1) how to remove the OS-choice menu. As nearly as I can tell it is part of the boot sector on drive C: - something that should not be messed with by anyone other than an expert. 2) What residual files/folders have been left behind that were not wiped out by formatting drive E: (the Vista partition) and where are they?
Deleting the $RECYCLE.BIN bin folders left behind by Vista is not a problem; XP uses RECYCLER folders for the recycle bin.
Drive C: now has a folder named "Boot" whose files all contain creation dates and times corresponding to the installation of Vista. I haven't deleted it yet because filenames like "bootfix.bin" look like they might be useful in dealing with the current issues. The root directory of drive C: contains (only) two files that appear to be left over from Vista: "bootmgr" (no extension), 434K, and "bootsect.bak", 8.0K. All other files in the root directory of C: appear to be XP files. I have not yet attempted to move or delete the two files that appear to be Vista vestiges. Yes, XP is showing me file extensions as well as hidden and system files. At the moment I am assuming that Vista did not (should not have) put anything into the C:\Windows directory or any of its subdirectories (which were created by XP).
- Thomas Lee, can you amplify on how to use bdcedit to do this?
Thomas Lee wrote: subwoofer wrote: How can you uninstall vista beta 2 so it will revert back to xp sp2, i cant see any uninstall button in the new programs files folder nor is there the normal add/remove programs as with xp, it's now this new programs file folder. So can vista be uninstalled ??
The best way I've found of uninstalling Vista is to re-format the partition. If you installed them into separate partitions, you can just use bdcedit to fix the boot track to boot back to XP with Vista gone after a reformat of the other patition.I assume that this is the proper way to remove the OS-choice menu.
I have looked at the "bdcedit /?" information and the verbiage is "insider/initiate" oriented...it assumes that we already know a lot of terms that, to me, appear to be new to Vista...ie, not used in previous versions of Windows.
Also, since bcdedit is in the Windows\System32 folder, created by Vista, it would seem that it should be used BEFORE deleting or reformatting the Vista partition. How might one get/use bcdedit after the Vista partition has been destroyed?
TIA.
- When installed on a separate partition, Vista can be removed from the OS-choice menu as descrinbed below:
- insert your XP CD-ROM and restart your PC;
- startup from CD-ROM and, when loaded, choose the Recovery-console (press R);
- type the administrator password;
- Type ' fixboot', press <Enter> and follow the instructions;
- Type ' fixmbr', press <Enter> and follow the instructions;
- Restart your PC.
Now the OS menu is removed. DO WITH EXTREME CAUTION. I would be very careful when messing with the 'MBR' (Master Boot Record), because if it doesn't recover for whatever reason you are looking at total system outage, and will need to reinstall everything (incuding the OP SYS). Thats okay if you have up to date 'backups' and have plenty of free time on your hands, if you dont, say your prayers. Fixing a 'Boot sector' with 'R' (repair) in the first startup option is okay as stated. Unless you are a 100% sure of what you are doing use other options as previously stated in the threads. E.G: going with the '98 boot, FDisk' option is the safest, or alternatley insert the 'Windows XP disc' (this takes longer), and when you get to the prompt for creating, delete, formating an 'NTFS' partition, do the delete on the identified 'Vista partion', this way you do not have to muck about with removing extraneous leftovers from whatever you had previously installed; all done in moments rather than ages...Hope this helps!
Hi MrDickie,
Well done and well said, I to have had no crashes and no real problems with vista, i do find that maybe i should have installed the 32 bit ver insted of the 64, as i find not a lot of programs run on it... lol i.e AVG anti virus.. that said, the first thing i did before installing vista was to BACKUP xp fully with norton ghost.... i also installed it onto a partition and i have read how to change the boot order and renameing the "older ver of windows" menu on boot up. for thoses that donot know how use BDCEDIT.exe and its usage you wil find here http://www.tech-resource.gotdns.com/shortcuts/sc_view.php?scid=6&id=28
anyway i recon when the final version is out it will be a good thing...
good luck and keep up the reviews fellas...
its 2006 people.. xp was out in 01.. its time to change .
Pete
Hey guys first post on here,
The other issue I've found with Vista is if you boot off the windows XP CD you can not even access any of your folders (other than windows) from the R option (recovery console) on the windows XP setup CD.
SO yeah, sucks to be us but I think the way windows Vista does it's file security has been altered since XP, so you can't really expect there to be any easy way to uninstall.
The way I'm going to handle it is share my folders out that have my important files in them under vista, copy them off from another machine on the network. Then go and rebuild (deleting the partition that Vista is on and creating a new partition and formatting).
Sounds like it should work, but the best laid plans often fall in a screaming heap (bit like my attempt to get my xbox360 to work with vista media centre). :) (I've got an non US xbox360, sucks to be in the other 99% of the world)
Thanks,
Avatar
Peter Parkinson wrote: Hi MrDickie,
Well done and well said, I to have had no crashes and no real problems with vista, i do find that maybe i should have installed the 32 bit ver insted of the 64, as i find not a lot of programs run on it... lol i.e AVG anti virus.. that said, the first thing i did before installing vista was to BACKUP xp fully with norton ghost.... i also installed it onto a partition and i have read how to change the boot order and renameing the "older ver of windows" menu on boot up. for thoses that donot know how use BDCEDIT.exe and its usage you wil find here http://www.tech-resource.gotdns.com/shortcuts/sc_view.php?scid=6&id=28
anyway i recon when the final version is out it will be a good thing...
good luck and keep up the reviews fellas...
its 2006 people.. xp was out in 01.. its time to change .
Pete
I understand all of that but it taks up gobs of my memory and I can't get rid of my old stuff or start fresh with just vista on without the stupid window.old which Iccannot get rid of.. so how would I restore the computer with the vista disk to have my memory back?That would be a huge waste of disk space. Keep this in mind. If XP were a house upgrading to Vista is NOT like adding on a room. It's the equivelent of building a whole new house. If Microsoft was to "backup" your XP installation it would have to store an image of all of the system files, registry etc. on a portion of your drive. That could be huge!
Beta means it's for testing. I've been running Vista since Beta 1 and once Beta 2 came out I've been living on it without too many troubles. Yes there are a few things that don't install properly or don't run at all but most of those programs are either old or I simply have to wait for the updates that will fix the problem. I've been doing this type of things for over 20 years and it never changes.
Those people that have the most trouble with Beta software seem to have drivers, software or hardware that's not considered mainstream stuff. What I mean by this is I've found in my years that those people that have the most trouble also have very inexpensive hardware such as video cards, drive controllers etc. If you pay the extra money and get things from well established companies they will generally have drivers that work right away or will have Beta drivers available.
I know it's frustrating when you're testing a piece of Beta software but keep in mind IT'S BETA! Don't scream at Microsoft all the time. Yes Vista is huge and it drives me nuts trying to find where things are in Vista verses XP but that's half the fun of being able to test new software. And they (Microsoft) actually seem to be listening to our suggestions after seeing the updates that are coming out in RC1 (check the Vista blog).
Just my own two cents worth.
MK
hey guys
I install Vista on D drive (ntfs) and have winxp in C drive (ntfs) now i have boot menu with both choices (microsoft windows and pre-vista legacy windows (windows XP))
I want to restore C drive boot record and delete folders related to vista from D drive.
what utility will restore my C drive ntfs boot record? i know that for fat32 where was bootprep DOS utility that convert fat32 dos (win98) boot into winXP boot, but what about ntfs partitions?
and this utility, if it exists, should i make bootable CD to run it or I could run it from win XP itself?
You all talking about re-formatting - this is the most crazyest thing i ever heard as a solution to replace new boot manager with winxp ntldr manager. This is such an overkill and for sure is a wrong way to deal with such a small thing. Also, my vista partiton is fully deletable (like program files, document and settings, windows folders) - are just normal folders under winxp. So where no need to re-format in any way.
Also some of you pointed to bcdedit , this program is like a boot.ini file - it can configure vista boot process but can not uninstall itself - so it is useless (unless someone know some tricky parameter of bcdedit to restore original winxp boot loader - i didnt find it..)
If where is no utility to convert boot record back to originals, I can always start new windows XP installation on drive E or something like this, and when interrupt this instalation after first restart, once all boot records will be replaced with windows xp and when delete all temporaly files from E drive. It's just somehow also an overkill to such a simple problem.
So please let me know of any (DOS/ Win XP/bootable CD) utility to restore ntfs winxp boot record..
thanks!
DvTHex wrote: Vista was originally installed on drive E: as a clean install into an empty partition. While using Vista, newly installed programs for Vista were installed to drive E:. While Vista was installed, but when using XP, newly installed programs for XP were installed to drives other than drive E:.
I was able to reformat the drive in safe mode while using XP as Operating system.
I agree that it's impractical to provide a roll-back on an entire OS, but if you were savvy enough to install Vista on a dual boot system, and want to get rid of the Vista installation and the necessary "choose OS" screen, it's not too hard...
In my own case, I installed Vista Beta 2 (using a dual-boot) which ran without problems, on a non-critical machine. When I upgraded that installation to RC1, though, the Audigy sound card refused to work, despite re-installing Vista drivers from Creative.
Anyway, I decided to remove Vista, and with my XP CD-ROM used recovery console and fixboot, as described by mvuem.
However, when I went to use fixmbr, the warnings flashed up - I remembered that this is a Dell machine, and the HDD contains a recovery partition proprietary to Dell... not wanting to lose that, I declined to run fixmbr.
Oddly enough, it all worked anyway... no "choose your OS" screen on start-up, and no issues. I deleted the Vista partition (using Partition Manager which had created it in the first place) and after running a chkdsk and fixing a "dirty" partition, everything is hunky dory. In essence, I restored the disk to its original configuration by merging the freed space back into C:\
I wonder if it really is necessary to run fixmbr as well as fixboot? Or did this only apply because I'm running a Dell PC with its proprietary partitioning?
HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!
HONEST OPINION AND THE BEST AND ONLY WISE ADVISE MS IS GOING TO GET FROM ANY ONE.... SCRAP THE WHOLE PROJECT!!!!
beta 1:nothing worked right it looked a mess and was not even worth bothering to call an OS
beta 2:something like looked the part but as time went on problems became more apparant more often etc.
RC1: not the slightest sign of improvement.
BY GOD scrap the idea end result release will be repetedly moved back and will eventualy not be released. move on to better things longhorn has been a faliure goon to blackcomb may be if you start early you might not make as much of fools of your self. HONESTLY. Im onli 17 and im sure i know wen to quit. 1 big problem ?! get rid of spargetti code!!!
there is a way..do you see boot.ini.bak and windows.old. hehehheheh
- I agree. Microsoft plan to release the OEM version next month, it will be windows 95 all over again. And as for the pricing of Vista, what a ripoff.
audit angel wrote: HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!
HONEST OPINION AND THE BEST AND ONLY WISE ADVISE MS IS GOING TO GET FROM ANY ONE.... SCRAP THE WHOLE PROJECT!!!!
beta 1:nothing worked right it looked a mess and was not even worth bothering to call an OS
beta 2:something like looked the part but as time went on problems became more apparant more often etc.
RC1: not the slightest sign of improvement.
BY GOD scrap the idea end result release will be repetedly moved back and will eventualy not be released. move on to better things longhorn has been a faliure goon to blackcomb may be if you start early you might not make as much of fools of your self. HONESTLY. Im onli 17 and im sure i know wen to quit. 1 big problem ?! get rid of spargetti code!!!
Yeah.. Right... No wonder this country is going to heck in a handbasket. We've got a bunch of quitters and crybabies who seem to think it's a good idea to stop working on something just because they think it's too hard...
Beta 1: Of course nothing worked right on it. It's a BETA. Do you even know what the purpose of a Beta cycle is?
Beta 2: Gee.. Could it be that the software is still in BETA?
RC1: You're blind if you think there haven't been improvements. Either that or you need glasses kid... There HAVE been improvements (as well as a few setbacks). There's still time to get the rest of the major issues fixed.
This is the real world. With an attitude like yours, we'd still be riding horses, dreaming of flying and going to the moon would have gotten you a nice long stay in the local sanatorium. But hey, we've got nice, shiny cars to drive around in, we can hop a jet and be on the other side of the planet in half a day and we've even sent men to the moon and brought them back.
The point is sonny, this is America. We rise to the occasion, not run away from it like a bunch of scared little girly boys.
And while you're at it - LEARN TO SPELL!! It's ONLY, WHEN and SPAGETTI. Sheesh.
- Shut up with the lectures, everyone agrees that Microsoft should have an easy rollback to XP if this is a beta. Christ they were just asking a common question.
lol nice one
how ever im not usualy a quitter nor when times get grim there are times wen its the wiser to know when to quit and DELETE all evidence u ever tried.
dont get get me wrong i aplored microsoft for their efforts. how ever i believe starting from scratch would surve them best.
getting back to the issue at hand. those facing issues with vista its most probably because u did a system upgrade rather than a clean intsall. there is no possible way to revurt changes made to the o.system. best resolve backup neccesary files, install xp and reload those files.
p.s english is not my first language forgive me if i make mistakes.
In the 1st place, it's "spaghetti".
In the 2nd, "rising to the occasion" is hardly what one is doing when using this POS. So far the only thing that I have seen that Vista is good for is running Vista. If you want to do anything else beside run this O/S (I'm being kind here), run XP, or 2000, or NT, or ME, or 98, or 95, or DOS.
"Executable code is trying to run on your computer. Executable code can be dangerous. Are you sure you want to let it do this?"
Hello??? If a computer isn't running executable code, it isn't doing anything. Somebody should tell Vista to get the hell out of the way and let the computer do what it was built to do. I don't have a $400 video card in my system so it can display a transparent title bar on a window, but have a 3 year old game (UT2004, which plays beautifully on XP) stutter so badly that it is unplayable. The "improvements" in Vista are all show and no substance.
I have been runing Vista RC2 for the last 3 weeks without any crashes. I have full functionality of everything except a CD/DVD Rom playing hide and seek. Because its a Beta product I live with it or without it. Even though I had no problem with XP SP2 I am happy with most of the changes with RC2 relative to XP.
The reason for trying something new (especially a Beta product) is to enjoy it and accept the consiquencies. It hirks me that MS gave us fair warning about possible problems and to USE AT OUR OWN RISKS and yet we complain when things go wrong. Common sense tells me that if one does a clean install on any operation system the possibility exists that we will have less problems. (when one upgrades we are upgrading any problems the system had before to the new OS). We are only into the 10th month of the year and I guarantee you that I have Reformated my hard drive at least 10 times between XP and Vista (Beta).
When you reformat your hard Drive and reinstall the OS everything runs like new. (Most of us has 25% to 50% of stuff we and our families put on the computer that is never used) Just seemed like a good idea at the time so we/they downloaded it and then never used it. When we reinstall we are surprised at how much we can live without. Bottom line we should reformat at least once a year to get rid of the bloat from our systems so that our systems can function smoothly.
Back to the subject. The idea of being a beta tester is that it should not be a pain in the but to uninstall and start all over again as you claim. It should be an enjoyment for you that when something does not function properly you do a little work and try to figure out what the problem might be. 1st by process of elimination. If i install a piece of software and then I start having problems. i then uninstall that software and no longer have the problem I was having than I know what was causing the problem, etc.
Mistake #1, You installed an OS (BETA) I might add, without first knowing what your options would be if it does not function properly. #2 you're not experience enough to realize that there is'nt any support for beta products. (SO THAT MEANS YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN IF THINGS F*** UP).
If you have the original XP DVD (Home or Professional)
Put the DVD in the DVD ROM and restart the computer. Keep an eye on the screen, you should be asked by the computer to press any key to boot from the CD. DO that (you should have about 10 seconds to press any key) and follow instructions from there. I'm sure you understand english enough to follow instructions.
You should be able to do the same thing with the Vista Beta DVD to do a clean install.
Good Luck
When I first installed Vista RC1 I only formatted my first Hard drive (to make a clean partition for Vista, and my second hard drive (which i use to store files between OS transfers, etc) was untouched during the install.......or so I thought.
While windows vista has no problem reading your XP-Formatted NTFS partitions, it will however "modify" the NTFS partition structure ever so slightly, but just enough to make things screwey when you go back to Windows XP.
And of course, since NONE of the currently available Drive utilities, such as Partition magic, or any of Acronis's programs support Transactional NTFS....you actually have to wipe ALL of your physical hard drives during the switch from Vista to XP.
I wish Windows Vista had a NTFS <--> TxF convert utility kinda like windows 98 had a FAT16 to FAT32 convert utility, that way you could safely convert the drive back after you were finished testing Vista.
Vista has some nice features, however I have noticed that the whole idea of a transactional filesystem causes the file transfers to be rediculously slow. Even using my SATA RAID-0 drives it seems to take longer to copy large files between drives than it did with a standard 7200RPM ATA-IDE drive, under windows XP.
I really like the new screensavers, and I really like that the OS reads media-file meta-data and displays it in folder view.
I dont like that alot of the OS still seems crippled, but I know alot of it has to do with the Hardware manufacturers not having stable drivers available even at beta testing time.......for example my ati radeon 9800 pro has to use beta drivers, because ATI, nVidia, and other companies slacked off about developing drivers for vista. You cant just port Windows XP drivers......you have to rewrite them from scratch because of the way that the NT6 kernel works.
oh well..........hopefully Windows Vista will have its first Service pack available shortly after release...
- One thing good from older versions of windows, and I qualify ME specifically is that it gave you an option to create a Floppy Rescue Disk which includes fdisk and format. I use this every time before crashing my PC and backloading XP
Im thinking perhaps there is some microsoft methodology at work here regards to not having an uninstall or rollback option with the beta of Vista....They want us to test this right and we would prob be too quick to rollback at the first sign of trouble. As much as I hate when things get messed it does seem to provide me with the greatest portion of my learning curve!
I am running 64 bit and 32 bit on seperate partitons and the 32 bit has some problems but the 64 bit platform is awesome rock solid...they are both hogs but come on this is microsoft we are talking about you knew that was coming. It just seems to me that Vista is xp of a different color..I have not decided yet if I truly like it.
Im thinking perhaps there is some microsoft methodology at work here regards to not having an uninstall or rollback option with the beta of Vista....They want us to test this right and we would prob be too quick to rollback at the first sign of trouble. As much as I hate when things get messed it does seem to provide me with the greatest portion of my learning curve!
Well, to a very slight degree, there may indeed be something to the idea behind Microsoft wanting people commited to testing Vista. Though, I doubt it's entirely intentional. It's very easy to panic, freak, break out the XP install cd and wipe Vista out. Truth be told, if I had a nickel for every post I've read here and elsewhere from someone who's done just that, I'd be fairly well off. Not filthy rich, but I'd have a nice modest income.
The main reason - as I've pointed out and others have as well - when you've got a 10 or 15 GB XP installation (Windows directory, Program Files, Registry, etc...), backing that up and slapping on another OS that's 8 or 9 GB by default with nothing else installed), you have to have a HUGE hard drive, plenty of free disk space, etc...
The problem with the broad general beta is that there are far too many people who want to check it out, install it, find some issue or other, decide that Vista is a pile left by their dog and proceed to revert back to whatever OS they had before. Of course, this is why Microsoft doesn't take the broad general beta quite as seriously as those who were invited. They'll take the general beta people's bug reports seriously, test and fix as needed, but those with the invites are, IMO taken a bit more seriously than the "unwashed masses."
I am running 64 bit and 32 bit on seperate partitons and the 32 bit has some problems but the 64 bit platform is awesome rock solid...they are both hogs but come on this is microsoft we are talking about you knew that was coming. It just seems to me that Vista is xp of a different color..I have not decided yet if I truly like it.
I had both the 32 and 64 bit versions of Beta 2 up and running on different partitions. I only did the 32 bit version of RC1 on my test box as I only had time to dedicate to one build. There's a LOT to like about Vista. IE7 playing in a sandbox, increased security, etc... There's stuff that I can live without as well. I wouldn't classify it as a different color of XP though. While Vista shares elements with XP, it also shares stuff that goes back to Windows 95. Sure, the skins might be different, but there's a LOT more going on under Vista's hood than a few changes.
- YOU CANNOT UNINSTALL WINDOWS VISTA UNLESS YOUR COMPUTER IS SPOILT!
- If you go to the Vista Help and Support file and type "can i unistall windows vista" and go down to "installing windows: frequently asked questions" (#26 i think) then go to "can i uninstall windows vista" and it will tell you that you cannot uninstall and that a fresh copy must be installed.
Thank you ChrisofElPaso for sharing this information. That is pretty standard that Microsoft has stated that there is NO uninstaller for Windows Vista and even Microsoft did not intend to create one either. (As I thought that they might create some kind of software something of that sort but I realized that I was wrong about that.) But, in their terms, it just does not exist. Windows Vista is going to be pretty much like a basic Windows just like the earlier versions except there has been a big change in it's functionality and the smooth looks. I did however experiment it on ANOTHER computer and I found it quite similiar to Windows XP Professional but in a big huge change. It can be pretty tricky but I have found how much Vista is a bit different from the Windows XP Professional. It is almost like the building blocks that created Windows XP Professional and now the building blocks rearranged into Windows Vista with so much added new features. It may be an open wound right now but just needs alot of patching up and repairs in order for it to function smoothly in every aspect from ground up. Well, hopefully it will improve finally before the introduction to the public expires in January, only if they plan to stick to the guns.
Not quite Wolfie, Windows XP did NOT share any "stuff" from Windows 95. It shared Windows 98's elements by very little, but did share mostly some from Windows NT as well, all mixed in. Windows 2000 rolled out succeeding Windows NT after Windows Millenium Edition rolled out succeeding Windows 98. Windows 2000 was in the "mixing bowl" taking portions of Windows NT and some of Windows Millenium Edition giving it a new version thus to succeed Windows NT. Take a good look at Windows ME's desktop view and compare that to Windows 2000's desktop. They both look the same right? Yes they are. Now, Where Windows XP comes from is an idea that Microsoft came up with is from Windows 2000. Windows 2000 became a big success for Microsoft and realistically, Windows XP actually shares much of the elements with Windows 2000. In the meantime, you may wonder, how did Windows ME come into existence? Well, It was very simple for Microsoft. They actually took Windows 98 SE (Second Edition) and added new features giving it a complete overhaul. A very few of Windows 98's features was stripped and scrapped to receive an overhaul with the all new features and was given a new name, Windows ME. But to the dismay of Windows ME, it suffered with some problems of it's own that upsetted some computer owners as well as the problem with hackers that found it so easy to pry into to steal valuable files from many computers. In just a matter of time, after seven years since Windows ME was released, Microsoft ended the Update Support for it as well as for Windows 98. Surprisingly, Windows 98 saw alot of Supported Updates than Windows ME did. Microsoft now has already moved away from both the Windows 98 and Millenium Edition because they are DOS - based windows which is another reason why their support ended. Microsoft no longer deals with DOS because of their sensitivity to hackers and the like. To top this off, I forgot to add in about Windows 95. Just to be brief, Windows 95 is actually a successor to Windows 3.1. Later, Windows 98 became the successor to Windows 95 by revamping it with additional new features.
Au contraire...
If you go back all the way to Windows 3.x, you'll recall it had a thing called Program Manager that contained all of the program startup links.
Starting with Windows 95, however, Microsoft broke with their established conventions and started using this thing called the task bar with the infamous "Start" button and System Tray. Every version of Windows since then - 98, ME, NT 3.5x, 4.0, 2000, XP and even Vista still SHARE this interface for the most part. The underlying code IS radically different between '95 and Vista, but the GUI is essentially the same ol', same ol'. Even though the Vista Start button doesn't say "Start" any longer, it's still the same general concept - it's STILL the place you click to get your program's launched. Your running programs still show up on the task bar - be it in '95 or Vista. Your running applets - clock, volume control, etc.. still show up on the System Tray.
The end result: a guy who's used to Windows '95 and hasn't had exposure to anything in between should be able to sit down in front of a brand new Vista box and with very little in the way of time he should be able to figure things out for the most part. The search feature in Vista's start menu might throw him for a minute, but once he gets to playing with it, he'll grok it.
The more things change, the more they stay the same...
- Well,That is correct what you said. Overall, much of all windows versions has not changed much but only the looks have changed. They just get add-ons and others get jumbled up in a different way. Windows Vista is becoming that way as you have noticed, I'm sure.
I am trying to uninstall Vista and I am having many problems. ive formatted C drive. Now, when I put in the XP disc, it keeps saying this:
Stop: c0000221 Unknown Hard Error
\SystemRoot\system32\ntdll.dllCan anyone help please?
- Why on earth do you have to be so mean about this topic, I am positive that people who install Vista are not as dumb as you portray. We are all on this boat together, and if someone has a question one should be so inclined to answer it. I believe you are very wrong and out of this conjuncture to be talking the way you do. A subtle list of directions have been more necessary, than to be as "smug" and pompous as your reply. I do hope you take this to heart, in hope that you might change your outlook on these forums. Sure M$ didn't do a wonderful job on Vista (yet so far), but if people weren't asking questions or solving there own problems then they would be better off using LINUX. If one were to give advice like yours my only suggestions aside from therapy would be to get off of these forums.
Thank you. - I cannot understand what all the fuss is about! Why don't all of us so-called beta testers use 'virtualisation' technology? If you have a new 'Dual Core' Pentium, the chip comes with it onboard! Better still, use something like 'VMWARE', or Microsofts own 'Virtual PC 2004', it's free! I know your systems may run a little slower in virtual mode, but so what! Todays machines are perfect for this type of task. Then you wont need to worry about 'trashing' your system settings, 'refomatting', or even 'ghosting' your backup image (thats of course if you ain't stupid and did not bother with an 'image' of your system). When I was in the 'Mainframe' business for IBM, there were three magic words: BACKUP! BACKUP! BACKUP! Really, by using 'virtualisation' you can all save yourselves a lot of wasted time trying to restore damaged systems; all you need to do is wipe the virtual image, and you can do this as many times as you like, with NO impact on your XP system, or any other system for that matter, then maybe this 'forum' would not be needed, and a lot of you would'nt feel the need to 'slag-off Microsoft !
- this is very simple i had to install xp fresh on another machine and then transfered my files and settings. yes i know it involves using another computer but it was the only way i could do it. it did work for me.
johnie,
The problem here you have is that you are trying to use the same partition that Windows Vista used in order to re-load Windows XP. You need to delete that partition and make a new one. Windows Vista has slightly different format than Windows XP and leaves a very small amount of remains on there.
There are two ways to do it. One way is: if you have either a Windows 98 boot disk or Windows ME boot disk, at A: prompt, type in fdisk after you re-boot your system, then choose " Delete a partition" and then from there choose "Delete NON DOS partition". After that, put your Windows XP CD in and restart your computer and it should load on smoothly. OR, simply use the Windows XP CD and select to delete the partition and then create a partition and then you can proceed with the formatting. It will then go on to re-install the Windows XP and should load on smoothly. I find using the Windows 98 boot disk a big help because it gives your hard drive a fresh new start, like as if it was brand new. Good luck johnie and I hope this helps you.
- Windows vista is the bigest garbage that i ever see..
- In one sense your right, and in another your wrong! But when it comes to an 'uninstaller', it should be noted all good software comes with one! Why Microsoft feels it does not need some kind of 'rollback' (particularly for beta testing) feature in 'Vista' escapes me completely! Maybe it's because they have a 'sadisatic' developement team on a par with their 'pricing' stratergies?
Well... To a degree, you're right. Most good software comes with an uninstaller. There IS, however, method to their madness...
As for why MS didn't feel it was a good idea to have a "roll back" to XP (or whatever previous OS was on the box) - it's simple. Two major reasons:
1.) We're not installing a service pack here. We're not just slapping a bunch of patches onto XP. Vista is a BRAND NEW OS and the upgrade does some rather drastic reorganization of the software previously installed on the box. For instance, stuff that previously was under C:\Documents and Settings\... is now under C:\Users\... If you're installing the 64 bit version of Vista, the Program Files folder gets renamed to "Program Files (32)". An upgrade has to rewrite the registry to make changes for the things that get changed. For an upgrade to work correctly, it pretty much has to overwrite whatever was there previously. We're talking thousands and thousands of little changes it has to keep track of for the sake of having the means to roll things back.
Which brings me to...
2.) Since we're dealing with a NEW operating system, in order to do a rollback, the installer would have to back up pretty much all of C:\Windows, C:\Program Files and of course, C:\Documents and Settings, etc... It would have to store all that somewhere. Even though modern hard drives are getting quite huge, it could take up several GB of disk space to store all those files in their native state. On one of my XP boxes, just those three folders eat up 8+ GB. And forget compressing the files as well. That could take HOURS, if not DAYS to do.
And you just KNOW there would be some wiseguy who'd complain that the backup was taking too much disk space or the process was taking WAAAAY too long to do.
And if that wasn't bad enough - Vista requires 15 GB just to install itself. It's native, virginal state - without anything else installed takes up about 8 - 9 GB by itself. That's because Vista's installer copies the installation files to the hard drive, then decompresses them on the fly from there as needed. So, if you were to do an upgrade AND wanted the means to roll it all back. then you would need at least 30 - 40 GB free (depending on the size of those three folders).
Whoops.
So much for installing on a drive smaller than say, 80 GB. Many computers from the past few years (even today) came with "dinky" 40 GB drives OR SMALLER.. Granted, some of those computers would probably be best served by never having Vista installed on them as they probably don't live up to the minimum hardware requirements in some way, shape or form.
So, for what it's worth - it ain't practical to make a backup of an entire hard drive just in case you want to roll back to XP. Besides. It's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to do so, NOT Microsoft's! Microsoft warned everyone right up front that this was a BETA - and as such, it should NOT be installed on production hardware. That would include your main home computer - you know, the one you rely on to do your email, finances, games and everything else for.
Installing a new version of an operating system - especially as large (and bloated, if you will) as they're getting - is NOT something that should be taken lightly. This isn't a question of installing Office or some other app - it's a matter of ripping the ENTIRE OS out and installing something different.
Your response is interesting and useful to know, but it does not solve the nightmares people have with installing these new OS's. As you said anyone with a HDD smaller than 40GB will find 'Vista' probably of know use to them; the average size now is 250GB, this leaves plenty of room for a 'Rollback'. A much preferable situation (I think) to most sensible users who do not want all their system and data corrupted. It beats having to backup, or even 'Ghost' the system, which can be so time consuming. Imagine the amount of hassles saved by simply 'rolling back to your previous working version of an OS. In my books it would be a 'best seller' regardless of the space required, and these days 'storage' is-a-plenty!
It is not a case of simly wanting to rollback to 'XP', you may not have the choice, if the new install goes badly wrong. And why is it my responsiblity, I am not the one who is encouraging the update, or new install of an Operating system, 'Microsoft' is? As for backing-up, that goes without saying for most 'IT' savvy people, but most users are not 'IT freaks', they have a limited undestanding of whats involved. It's alright for you and I, who I guess have a little more than the average knowledge about these things. I'm thinking of the average user who could do well without these kinds of senarios; whatever happened to the 'KISS' principle?
I don't think your argument holds 'any water' when you bother to consider the average user out there is not an 'IT' Geek!
I never did say things are going to be solved by anything I've said. This is simply a statement of fact. And while computers on sale TODAY have larger monster hard drives, MOST computers sold in the past few years have not. Most of them sold with drives that were MUCH smaller. Vista will run on older computers - provided they meet the minimum requirements. Granted, you probably won't get all the bells and whistles (Aero Glass, etc...) without an upgrade or two on many of them.
As far as rolling back goes - why not simply buy a spare hard drive - they're getting fairly cheap these days - even the larger "monster" drives are coming down to about $100 or less. Simply swap the drive in, install Vista on it, reinstall your old hard drive as a slave and play with it. If you don't like it, or it doesn't work - simply swap the old drive back to the primary drive position, install the new monster as the slave and wipe the contents, format and be on your way with a bunch of extra disk space.
Better still, if your motherboard supports setting drive's priority, changing the OS is only a reboot and a visit to the BIOS away. Either way - your data and previous OS and data are still intact.
As far as your data is concerned... It's YOUR responsibility - besides the obvious (it's YOUR data, not Microsoft's nor anyone else's) simply because up until November of last year, Vista was in BETA. Do you even understand what BETA means? It normally means software that is NOT ready for broad public consumption. It means there are bound to be BUGS, and other issues that CAN and probably will pop up and you CAN and probably WILL lose data. It means TREAD CAREFULLY! Why do you think Microsoft issued warnings that you shouldn't install the Vista beta on a production machine - or other computer if you don't have your data backed up? Maybe because they KNEW it had problems?
You can't use the word "beta" in the Google context - where everything Google's released for the most part - except for perhaps their search engine - is in perpetual "beta". Of course, their programs all pretty much work well enough and for the most part you can consider their software as good as released. When you beta test something like an operating system, you're dealing with the foundation that everything else on your computer runs on. If that has issues, then the odds of losing data is quite good. A little common sense is needed here.
- You don't necessarily have to use another computer to that. That can be done on the same computer as well.
Ok guys, just to fill you on this, One, is speaking of older computers, the requirements to load Windows Vista is that you have to have at LEAST 1 Ghz processing speed and at least 512 MB of memory and a larger hard drive. If you happen to have an older system, be prepared, for what they have had in there when they were first brand new, you're looking at doing an upgrade to it and as for any integrated peripherals, such as video and sound, you would need to get the updated drivers for Windows Vista, otherwise, they may be too outdated and needs to be disabled and you need to get a brand spanking new video card and sound card in order to meet the Windows Vista's standards. Windows Vista alone can fit on a 40 GB hard drive or bigger without the need of backing any files at all as Wolfie points out that the size of Windows Vista is 15 GB. It is true that you need a bigger hard drive if you need to back up your files and this does depend on your file size. You need at least 120 GB or bigger.
Now, speaking of the way Windows Vista sets itself up is entirely different than the way Windows XP sets itself up. If you remember that you could be able to do a partition and the formatting with the Windows XP CD and then be able to stop there if you wanted to. Well, you can't do that with the Windows Vista because it's a beta version. There's our BUG there. It may be possible to use the Windows XP CD in order to remove the Windows Vista from the hard drive simply by deleting it's partition. You CANNOT use the same partition that was used by Windows Vista to load Windows XP back on. Otherwise, you will get an error. That partition MUST be REMOVED. As a reminder, that partition is set up in the beta form. Like I said, Windows Vista and Windows XP are two different formats. It is true that if you are going to upgrade Windows XP to Windows Vista, Windows Vista does change the file names used by Windows XP and they get re-arranged. (Wolfie is right about that.) BUT, the thing is, there is no way that these files can go back to their original state when you want to put Windows XP back on. Windows Vista virtually "burns" through Windows XP's files and it's format, renaming them and re-arranging them and it also CONVERTS them to the beta format. You can't change the beta format back to the NTFS format. That's the same deal as I mentioned above about the partitions. Mainly, what I have found out about Windows Vista, it is a 64 bit version in the beta form. Windows XP is a 32 bit version in the NTFS form. Microsoft did release a 64 bit Windows XP version only for computers running on AMD processor chips. This 64 bit Windows XP version was "capped" so it does not work on computers running on Intel processor chips. Now, The 64 bit deal is that it appears that Microsoft took the 64-bit and integrated it into the Beta format so that it would work on computers running on Intel processor chips as well. But not only just that, it also makes it more secured from hackers and the what have you. Think about it, They gave us the Internet Explorer 7 in the BETA format for Windows XP. Same goes for the MSN Messenger Beta version which was re-named to Live Messenger now. So, yes, these two can be uninstalled off of Windows XP without any problems, but don't ask me how Microsoft managed to make them uninstall easily. All I know is that they are only apps and what originally came with Windows XP were automatically backed up and saved in case you wanted to go back to the original ones during installations.
To Wolfie2k6: Chill out bro! You have completely missed my point/analysis. I am not concerned about what to do, I am just pointing out the fact that most people do not know how slip-in/slip-out a drive never mind configure the Bios! Yes I do have a 'MB' that allows me to change boot priority, but this was never my point.
And Powhammer, since when did Windows XP x64 cease to run on an Intel based platform?
- I only stated the facts, not an argument. The facts I have given is only to understand how they work. Did I mentioned anything about BIOS? Nope, I didn't. Just a small facts once again, newer computers or motherboards today automatically configures any size hard drives now through BIOS. To get you familiar with me, I am a computer technician with over 10 years of experience and I run a small business. If you got questions, I will be glad to answer them for you if you like.
- Window XP 64 bit never did run on an Intel based systems. Good question though.
Dude... I'm perfectly "chilled"...
As far as the average bear not being able to handle swapping drives... That much is quite true. On the other hand, I don't really see the point of clueless users being part of the Beta process. Given the number of responses on this thread alone should be enough to justify my point. It doesn't provide any positive PR for Microsoft - the clueless who sign up, download, install and botch the installation and such only wind up with the opinion that Microsoft and Vista suck. And, of course, they wind up spreading that impression to their friends.
My point here is - beta testing an OS can be quite a hairy situation. It's something that isn't for everyone. Especially those who aren't that technically inclined or aren't willing to follow instructions or use common sense. When MS said - don't install this on production machines - the MEANT it.
My example - swapping drives and/or the BIOS priority trick - is an example of a solution for the issue without going thru the hassle of reinstalling XP after a botched installation. For what it's worth - that's the way my XP/Vista box is set up... Two drives - one XP and one Vista. Both work just fine.
As for the x64 version of XP not working on Intel platforms - that much may be true of 32 bit P4 chips... I could be wrong about that. Then again, given the lack of drivers and other issues - why would you wanna run XP 64 anyhow?
- Wolfie, As I was pointing out, The 64 bit Windows XP was meant for the new AMD chips. AMD aka American Micro Devices has constructed their chip differently from Intel's processor chips by beating the competition. The Windows XP 64-bit and the 32-bit both have the same NTFS format, so when it comes to drivers, They are bundled to work on both the 32-bit and the 64-bit. This is pretty much the same as most of the drivers for Windows 2000 that will work for Windows XP 32-bit version and yet it may work as well for the 64-bit version depending on how the companies bundles them. Also, the P4 was already out when the 64-bit version was released. That was why the 64-bit version was released for the new AMD processor chips due to the fact that Windows XP 32-bit version was a bit too slow on the AMDs.
Uh... Right.
Let's get a few things straightened out here...
1.) It's ADVANCED Micro Devices. Not American.
2.) The ONLY reason XP64 was only able to work with an AMD chip - specificallly the Athlon 64 and the Opteron families - is because they were the first to market. Intel was too busy trying to get their dreadful Itanic chip into the marketplace and no one was buying. AMD sucker punched them by taking their Athlon XP chip family and adding 64 bit extensions to the mix. Of course, I'm drasticallly oversimplyfing the advances made in the Athlon 64 chips compared to the Athlon XP line - I am merely doing so to focus on my point. The beauty of AMD's design is in the fact that all your current software will run on an A64 chip without having to buy a special Itanic version. At this point in time, you're right. XP 64 would ONLY run on an A64 based computer - if for no other reason than Intel was caught flatfooted because they didn't have anything comparable AT THE TIME.
3.) For what it's worth, the 32 bit version of XP runs just fine on my Athlon 64 box. In fact, as you might expect, it runs FASTER than it runs on my Athlon XP 2100+ box.
4.) Intel realized at some point that they were getting pounded into the dirt by AMD and jumped on the 32/64 bit bandwagon. They sent their lawyers over to AMD's offices and thanks to a judgment by the courts a while back, Intel has the rights to get their hands on pretty much anything AMD develops. They got AMD's hard work and cloned the 64 bit extensions on their P4 chip. Now, as to whether or not XP 64 would run decently on the P4 chip with their implementation of the 64 bit extensions, I wouldn't know. Don't particularly care to turn my computer into an Easy Bake Oven.
5.) NTFS has changed significantly since the original Windows 2000 and the original XP. In Win 2K SP4 and XP SP1, Microsoft added support for partitions larger than 137 GB. Drives formatted with the newer flavor of NTFS will NOT read correctly should you happen to install the drive on a pre SP4 Win 2K or XP original box. But besides that - NTFS is pretty much NTFS regardless of which version of Windows you're running - 32 bit or 64 bit - provided you've got the appropriate service pack installed.
Uh Wolfie, excuse my mistake about what AMD stands for, I couldn't think straight late last night. Another thing, I am NOT dumb enough to not know these things here, I know much of this stuff. Next thing, NTFS ONLY changed somewhat (Just the Windows files, nothing more.) since Windows NT had been around. I would suggest not trying to outsmart me because I work in the computer field. You claim that you are stating the facts, you're not. You are presenting an argument that I noticed a few people has responded to you stating that. Now, the 64-bit XP WILL NOT work on the Intel based systems. It is BLOCKED by whoever tries to install it unless Intel plans to implement their chips into the 64-bit form after trying to obtain what AMD has, for Intel's next new chip. I TOLD YOU THAT. Meanwhile, it may be true that Intel went after AMD on that subject because Intel was the first company to make the processor chips. Intel was the one that produced the chips for AMD for a little while when AMD first came around.
Finally, Good for you on how you managed to set up your computer and for what you are running on. Although, I am not concerned about that. To end it all, I really don't want to argue on these subjects and having you debating me on this. I am here to help others with the problems they come across, NOT argue with them. If you like to make arguments on this type of subjects, please take it somewhere else, but not on this board. Thank you.
Hey guys, you both (Wolfie2k6 & Powhammer) need to take a 'chill pill', this 'forum' is here to help people not slag them off! The people on 'Pirate forums' are better behaved than (appears to be) you so called professionals. Having said that x64bit does work on an 'Intel' platform via emulation called 'EM64T' I know that because I have a 'Pentium Dual Core' that is capable of running Windows x64; but true, why would you want to?
I would like some helpful advice on 'Dual Booting' XP (x86) and Vista (x86) using two seperate physical HDD. First: Will this senario create any problems with my original settings, and secondly which is the easiest and simplest root to go down? Thirdly: should I use a 'third party partition/boot manager, or just Windows disk or Vista's utilities?
Just maybe you guys could be helpful by transforming some of that pent-up aggression into a firm plausible answer?
For what it's worth - I'm chilled.
As far as dual booting using two individual hard drives it's fairly simple. Assuming you've already got XP installed on one of them already. The way I did my setup for Vista Beta 2 and RC1, I removed all hard drives from the computer and installed the target drive into the computer and fired it up. I had the DVD inserted into the drive and I let it go through the installation process.
Once it was done, I popped in the drive with the XP stuff on it, and fired the computer back up. I went into the BIOS, made sure the boot priority was set to go to the Vista drive. Rebooted, Vista loaded, detected the hard drive, rebooted again and it was ready for action.
Rebooted again, went into the BIOS, switched the boot priority to the XP drive and fired the box up - everything works fine.
I can copy or move files between the two drives without any issues - and I don't have to worry about any sort of residual should I decide to never use Vista again. Doing it this way requires NO boot manager - other than what comes built into the motherboard's BIOS. All in all, it adds maybe an extra 15 to 30 seconds to the boot process when I want to switch.
- Thanks heaps for this advice! But is there any other way of doing this without having to open the box?
Honestly... No.
If you leave both drives in during the install process, Vista will install bits of itself to your XP drive (assuming, the XP drive is the first drive on the system). It will install it's own boot manager and some files needed to boot Vista when it's not the primary partition.
Should you want to dump Vista later on, that could become a bit of a problem. By having only one hard drive in the system during the install, Vista won't have a chance to muck about with your XP drive.
CHECK THIS OUT WOLFIE2K6 AND TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK; JUNK OR FACTS? Makes for some very interesting reading!
A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection
===================================================Peter Gutmann, pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
Last updated 28 December 2006Executive Summary
-----------------Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to
provide content protection for so-called "premium content", typically HD data
from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs
considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical
support overhead, and hardware and software cost. These issues affect not
only users of Vista but the entire PC industry, since the effects of the
protection measures extend to cover all hardware and software that will ever
come into contact with Vista, even if it's not used directly with Vista (for
example hardware in a Macintosh computer or on a Linux server). This document
analyses the cost involved in Vista's content protection, and the collateral
damage that this incurs throughout the computer industry.Executive Executive Summary
---------------------------The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the
longest suicide note in history [Note A].Introduction
------------This document looks purely at the cost of the technical portions of Vista's
content protection [Note B]. The political issues (under the heading of DRM)
have been examined in exhaustive detail elsewhere and won't be commented on
further, unless it's relevant to the cost analysis. However, one important
point that must be kept in mind when reading this document is that in order to
work, Vista's content protection must be able to violate the laws of physics,
something that's unlikely to happen no matter how much the content industry
wishes it were possible [Note C]. This conundrum is displayed over and over
again in the Windows content-protection requirements, with manufacturers being
given no hard-and-fast guidelines but instead being instructed that they need
to display as much dedication as possible to the party line. The
documentation is peppered with sentences like:"It is recommended that a graphics manufacturer go beyond the strict letter
of the specification and provide additional content-protection features,
because this demonstrates their strong intent to protect premium content".This is an exceedingly strange way to write technical specifications, but is
dictated by the fact that what the spec is trying to achieve is fundamentally
impossible. Readers should keep this requirement to display appropriate
levels of dedication in mind when reading the following analysis [Note D].Disabling of Functionality
--------------------------Vista's content protection mechanism only allows protected content to be sent
over interfaces that also have content-protection facilities built in.
Currently the most common high-end audio output interface is S/PDIF
(Sony/Philips Digital Interface Format). Most newer audio cards, for example,
feature TOSlink digital optical output for high-quality sound reproduction,
and even the latest crop of motherboards with integrated audio provide at
least coax (and often optical) digital output. Since S/PDIF doesn't provide
any content protection, Vista requires that it be disabled when playing
protected content [Note E]. In other words if you've sunk a pile of money
into a high-end audio setup fed from an S/PDIF digital output, you won't be
able to use it with protected content.Say you've just bought Pink Floyd's "The Dark Side of the Moon", released as a
Super Audio CD (SACD) in its 30th anniversary edition in 2003, and you want to
play it under Vista. Since the S/PDIF link to your amplifier/speakers is
regarded as insecure, Vista disables it, and you end up hearing a performance
by Marcel Marceau instead of Pink Floyd.Similarly, component (YPbPr) video will be disabled by Vista's content
protection, so the same applies to a high-end video setup fed from component
video. What if you're lucky enough to have bought a video card that supports
HDMI digital video with HDCP content-protection? There's a good chance that
you'll have to go out and buy another video card that really *does* support
HDCP, because until earlier this year no video card on the market actually
supported it even if the vendor's advertising claimed that it did. As the
site that first broke the story put it in their article "The Great HDCP
Fiasco" (http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_nvidia_hdcp_support/) puts
it:"None of the AGP or PCI-E graphics cards that you can buy today support HDCP
[...] If you.ve just spent $1000 on a pair of Radeon X1900 XT graphics cards
expecting to be able to playback HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movies at 1920x1080
resolution in the future, you've just wasted your money [...] If you just
spent $1500 on a pair of 7800GTX 512MB GPUs expecting to be able to play
1920x1080 HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movies in the future, you've just wasted your
money".(The two devices mentioned above are the premium supposedly-HDCP-enabled cards
made by the two major graphics chipset manufacturers ATI and nVidia). ATI was
later subject to a class-action lawsuit by its customers over this deception.
As late as August of this year, when Sony announced it's Blu-Ray drive for
PCs, it had to face the embarassing fact that its Blu-Ray drive couldn't
actually play Blu-Ray disks in HD format ("First Blu-ray disc drive won.t play
Blu-ray movies",
http://www.cnet.com.au/desktops/dvdburners/0,239029405,240091720,00.htm):"Since there are currently no PCs for sale offering graphics chips that
support HDCP, this isn't yet possible".Indirect Disabling of Functionality
-----------------------------------As well as overt disabling of functionality, there's also covert disabling of
functionality. For example PC voice communications rely on automatic echo
cancellation (AEC) in order to work. AEC requires feeding back a sample of
the audio mix into the echo cancellation subsystem, but with Vista's content
protection this isn't permitted any more because this might allow access to
premium content. What is permitted is a highly-degraded form of feedback that
might possibly still sort-of be enough for some sort of minimal echo
cancellation purposes.The requirement to disable audio and video output plays havoc with standard
system operations, because the security policy used is a so-called "system
high" policy: The overall sensitivity level is that of the most sensitive data
present in the system. So the instant any audio derived from premium content
appears on your system, signal degradation and disabling of outputs will
occur. What makes this particularly entertaining is the fact that the
downgrading/disabling is dynamic, so if the premium-content signal is
intermittent or varies (for example music that fades out), various outputs and
output quality will fade in and out, or turn on and off, in sync. Normally
this behaviour would be a trigger for reinstalling device drivers or even a
warranty return of the affected hardware, but in this case it's just a signal
that everything is functioning as intended.Decreased Playback Quality
--------------------------Alongside the all-or-nothing approach of disabling output, Vista requires that
any interface that provides high-quality output degrade the signal quality
that passes through it if premium content is present. This is done through a
"constrictor" that downgrades the signal to a much lower-quality one, then up-
scales it again back to the original spec, but with a significant loss in
quality. So if you're using an expensive new LCD display fed from a high-
quality DVI signal on your video card and there's protected content present,
the picture you're going to see will be, as the spec puts it, "slightly
fuzzy", a bit like a 10-year-old CRT monitor that you picked up for $2 at a
yard sale [Note F]. In fact the specification specifically still allows for
old VGA analog outputs, but even that's only because disallowing them would
upset too many existing owners of analog monitors. In the future even analog
VGA output will probably have to be disabled. The only thing that seems to be
explicitly allowed is the extremely low-quality TV-out, provided that
Macrovision is applied to it.The same deliberate degrading of playback quality applies to audio, with the
audio being downgraded to sound (from the spec) "fuzzy with less detail"
[Note G].Amusingly, the Vista content protection docs say that it'll be left to
graphics chip manufacturers to differentiate their product based on
(deliberately degraded) video quality. This seems a bit like breaking the
legs of Olympic athletes and then rating them based on how fast they can
hobble on crutches.Beyond the obvious playback-quality implications of deliberately degraded
output, this measure can have serious repercussions in applications where
high-quality reproduction of content is vital. For example the field of
medical imaging either bans outright or strongly frowns on any form of lossy
compression because artifacts introduced by the compression process can cause
mis-diagnoses and in extreme cases even become life-threatening. Consider a
medical IT worker who's using a medical imaging PC while listening to
audio/video played back by the computer (the CDROM drives installed in
workplace PCs inevitably spend most of their working lives playing music or
MP3 CDs to drown out workplace noise). If there's any premium content present
in there, the image will be subtly altered by Vista's content protection,
potentially creating exactly the life-threatening situation that the medical
industry has worked so hard to avoid. The scary thing is that there's no easy
way around this - Vista will silently modify displayed content under certain
(almost impossible-to-predict in advance) situations discernable only to
Vista's built-in content-protection subsystem [Note H].Elimination of Open-source Hardware Support
-------------------------------------------In order to prevent the creation of hardware emulators of protected output
devices, Vista requires a Hardware Functionality Scan (HFS) that can be used
to uniquely fingerprint a hardware device to ensure that it's (probably)
genuine. In order to do this, the driver on the host PC performs an operation
in the hardware (for example rendering 3D content in a graphics card) that
produces a result that's unique to that device type.In order for this to work, the spec requires that the operational details of
the device be kept confidential. Obviously anyone who knows enough about the
workings of a device to operate it and to write a third-party driver for it
(for example one for an open-source OS, or in general just any non-Windows OS)
will also know enough to fake the HFS process. The only way to protect the
HFS process therefore is to not release any technical details on the device
beyond a minimum required for web site reviews and comparison with other
products.This potential "closing" of the PC's historically open platform is an
extremely worrying trend. A quarter of a century ago, IBM made the momentous
decision to make their PC an open platform by publishing complete hardware
details and allowing anyone to compete on the open market. Many small
companies, the traditional garage startup, got their start through this. This
openness is what created the PC industry, and the reason why most homes
(rather than just a few offices, as had been the case until then) have one or
more PCs sitting in a corner somewhere. This seems to be a return to the bad
old days of 25 years ago when only privileged insiders were able to
participate.Elimination of Unified Drivers
------------------------------The HFS process has another cost involved with it. Most hardware vendors have
(thankfully) moved to unified driver models instead of the plethora of
individual drivers that abounded some years ago. Since HFS requires unique
identification and handling of not just each device type (for example each
graphics chip) but each variant of each device type (for example each stepping
of each graphics chip) to handle the situation where a problem is found with
one variation of a device, it's no longer possible to create one-size-fits-all
drivers for an entire range of devices like the current
Catalyst/Detonator/ForceWare drivers. Every little variation of every device
type out there must now be individually accommodated in custom code in order
for the HFS process to be fully effective.If a graphics chip is integrated directly into the motherboard and there's no
easy access to the device bus then the need for bus encryption (see
"Unnecessary CPU Resource Consumption" below) is removed. Because the
encryption requirement is so onerous, it's quite possible that this means of
providing graphics capabilities will suddenly become more popular after the
release of Vista. However, this leads to a problem: It's no longer possible
to tell if a graphics chip is situated on a plug-in card or attached to the
motherboard, since as far as the system is concerned they're both just devices
sitting on the AGP/PCIe bus. The solution to this problem is to make the two
deliberately incompatible, so that HFS can detect a chip on a plug-in card vs.
one on the motherboard. Again, this does nothing more than increase costs and
driver complexity.Further problems occur with audio drivers. To the system, HDMI audio looks
like S/PDIF, a deliberate design decision to make handling of drivers easier.
In order to provide the ability to disable output, it's necessary to make HDMI
codecs deliberately incompatible with S/PDIF codecs, despite the fact that
they were specifically designed to appear identical in order to ease driver
support and reduce development costs.Denial-of-Service via Driver Revocation
---------------------------------------Once a weakness is found in a particular driver or device, that driver will
have its signature revoked by Microsoft, which means that it will cease to
function (details on this are a bit vague here, presumably some minimum
functionality like generic 640x480 VGA support will still be available in
order for the system to boot). This means that a report of a compromise of a
particular driver or device will cause all support for that device worldwide
to be turned off until a fix can be found [Note I]. Again, details are
sketchy, but if it's a device problem then presumably the device turns into a
paperweight once it's revoked. If it's an older device for which the vendor
isn't interested in rewriting their drivers (and in the fast-moving hardware
market most devices enter "legacy" status within a year of two of their
replacement models becoming available), all devices of that type worldwide
become permanently unusable.An example of this might be nVidia TNT2 video cards, which are still very
widely deployed in business environments where they're all that you need to
run Word or Outlook or Excel (or, for that matter, pretty much any non-gaming
application). The drivers for these cards haven't been updated for quite some
time for exactly that reason: You don't need the latest drivers for them
because they're not useful with current games any more (if you go to the
nVidia site and try and install any recent drivers, the installer will tell
you to go back and download much older drivers instead). If a TNT2 device
were found to be leaking content, it seems unlikely that nVidia would be
interested in reviving discontinued drivers that it hasn't touched for several
years, creating instant orphanware of the installed user base.The threat of driver revocation is the ultimate nuclear option, the crack of
the commissars' pistols reminding the faithful of their duty [Note J]. The
exact details of the hammer that vendors will be hit with is buried in
confidential licensing agreements, but I've heard mention of multi-million
dollar fines and embargoes on further shipment of devices alongside the driver
revocation mentioned above.This revocation can have unforeseen carry-on costs. Windows' anti-piracy
component, WGA, is tied to system hardware components. Windows allows you to
make a small number of system hardware changes after which you need to renew
your Windows license (the exact details of what you can and can't get away
with changing has been the subject of much debate). If a particular piece of
hardware is deactivated (even just temporarily while waiting for an updated
driver to work around a content leak) and you swap in a different video card
or sound card to avoid the problem, you risk triggering Windows' anti-piracy
measures, landing you in even more hot water. If you're forced to swap out a
major system component like a motherboard, you've instantly failed WGA
validation. Revocation of any kind of motherboard-integrated device
(practically every motherboard has some form of onboard audio, and all of the
cheaper ones have integrated video) would appear to have a serious negative
interaction with Windows' anti-piracy measures.The details of what will happen if a motherboard contains unused onboard audio
capabilities and an additional sound card alongside it, and the motherboard
drivers are revoked, is unknown. Windows can't tell that there's nothing
connected to the onboard audio because the user prefers to use their M-Audio
Revolution 7.1 Surround Sound card instead, so it'll probably have to revoke
the motherboard drivers even though they're not used for anything. Since
virtually all motherboards contain onboard audio, this could prove quite
problematic.An entirely different DoS problem that applies more to HDMI-enabled devices in
general has already surfaced in the form of, uhh, "DVI amplifiers", which take
as input an HDMI signal and output a DVI signal, amplifying it in the process.
Oh, and as a side-effect they forget to re-apply the HDCP protection to the
output. These devices are relatively simple to design and build using off-
the-shelf HDMI chips. Beyond the commercially-available models, individual
hardware hackers have built their own protection-strippers using chip samples
obtained from chip vendors. If you have the right credentials you can even
get hardware evaluation boards designed for testing and development that do
this sort of thing. And I won't even get into the territory of HD players
with non-HDMI digital outputs, for example ones that contain an HD-SDI (SMPTE
292M) interface. HD-SDI is an unencrypted digital link typically used in TV
studios but also available from various non-US sources as after-market
sidegrades for standard HD players, providing better-than-HDMI image quality
without the hassle of HDCP.Now assume that the "DVI amplifier" manufacturer buys a truckload of HDMI
chips (they'll want to get as many as they can in one go because they probably
won't be able to go back and buy more when the chip vendor discovers what
they're being used for). Since this is a rogue device, it can be revoked...
along with hundreds of thousands or even millions of other consumer devices
that use the same chip. Engadget have a good overview of this scenario at
http://www.engadget.com/2005/07/21/the-clicker-hdcps-shiny-red-button/.(Exactly what will happen when a key is leaked depends on how the attackers
handle it. The way HD-DVD/Blu-Ray keying works is that a per-device key is
used to decrypt the title key on the disk, and the title key is then in turn
used to decrypt the content. So the chain of custody is Device key -> Title
key -> Content. This level of indirection allows an individual device to be
disabled by revoking the device key without making the disk unplayable on all
devices, since other device keys can still decrypt the title key and thus the
content (I've simplified this a bit to cut down the length of the explanation,
see the AACS specification for more details).The device key is tied to a particular device/player/vendor, but the title key
is only tied to the content on disk. You can probably see where this is
going... by publishing the device key, the attacker can cause general mayhem
by forcing device revocation. On the other hand by publishing the title key
the attacker can release the content in an untraceable manner, since it's not
known which device key was used to leak the title key. In addition since
there's no way to un-publish the title key (encrypted content + title key =
unencrypted content), at that point it's game over for the content).Decreased System Reliability
----------------------------"Drivers must be extra-robust. Requires additional driver development to
isolate and protect sensitive code paths" -- ATI.Vista's content protection requires that devices (hardware and software
drivers) set so-called "tilt bits" if they detect anything unusual. For
example if there are unusual voltage fluctuations, maybe some jitter on bus
signals, a slightly funny return code from a function call, a device register
that doesn't contain quite the value that was expected, or anything similar, a
tilt bit gets set. Such occurrences aren't too uncommon in a typical
computer. For example starting up or plugging in a bus-powered device may
cause a small glitch in power supply voltages, or drivers may not quite manage
device state as precisely as they think. Previously this was no problem - the
system was designed with a bit of resilience, and things will function as
normal. In other words small variances in performance are a normal part of
system functioning. Furthermore, the degree of variance can differ widely
across systems, with some handling large changes in system parameters and
others only small ones. One very obvious way to observe this is what happens
when a bunch of PCs get hit by a momentary power outage. Effects will vary
from powering down, to various types of crash, to nothing at all, all
triggered by exactly the same external event.With the introduction of tilt bits, all of this designed-in resilience is
gone. Every little (normally unnoticeable) glitch is suddenly surfaced
because it could be a sign of a hack attack. The effect that this will have
on system reliability should require no further explanation.Content-protection "features" like tilt bits also have worrying denial-of-
service (DoS) implications. It's probably a good thing that modern malware is
created by programmers with the commercial interests of the phishing and spam
industries in mind rather than just creating as much havoc as possible. With
the number of easily-accessible grenade pins that Vista's content protection
provides, any piece of malware that decides to pull a few of them will cause
considerable damage. The homeland security implications of this seem quite
serious, since a tiny, easily-hidden piece of malware would be enough to
render a machine unusable, while the very nature of Vista's content protection
would make it almost impossible to determine why the denial-of-service is
occurring. Furthermore, the malware authors, who are taking advantage of
"content-protection" features, would be protected by the DMCA against any
attempts to reverse-engineer or disable the content-protection "features" that
they're abusing.Even without deliberate abuse by malware, the homeland security implications
of an external agent being empowered to turn off your IT infrastructure in
response to a content leak discovered in some chipset that you coincidentally
happen to be using is a serious concern for potential Vista users. Non-US
governments are already nervous enough about using a US-supplied operating
system without having this remote DoS capability built into the operating
system. And like the medical-image-degradation issue, you won't find out
about this until it's too late, turning Vista PCs into ticking time bombs if
the revocation functionality is ever employed.Increased Hardware Costs
------------------------"Cannot go to market until it works to specification... potentially more
respins of hardware" -- ATI."This increases motherboard design costs, increases lead times, and reduces
OEM configuration flexibility. This cost is passed on to purchasers of
multimedia PCs and may delay availability of high-performance platforms" --
ATI.Vista includes various requirements for "robustness" in which the content
industry, through "hardware robustness rules", dictates design requirements to
hardware manufacturers. The level of control the content producers have over
technical design details is nothing short of amazing. As security researcher
Ed Felten quoted from Microsoft documents on his freedom-to-tinker web site
about a year ago (http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=882):"The evidence [of security] must be presented to Hollywood and other content
owners, and they must agree that it provides the required level of security.
Written proof from at least three of the major Hollywood studios is
required".So if you design a new security system, you can't get it supported in Windows
Vista until well-known computer security experts like Disney, MGM, and 20th
Century-Fox give you the go-ahead. It's absolutely astonishing to find
paragraphs like that in what are supposed to be Windows technical documents,
since it gives Hollywood studios veto rights over Windows security mechanisms.As an example of these "robustness rules", only certain layouts of a board are
allowed in order to make it harder for outsiders to access parts of the board.
Possibly for the first time ever, computer design is being dictated not by
electronic design rules, physical layout requirements, and thermal issues, but
by the wishes of the content industry. Apart from the massive headache that
this poses to device manufacturers, it also imposes additional increased costs
beyond the ones incurred simply by having to lay out board designs in a
suboptimal manner. Video card manufacturers typically produce a one-size-
fits-all design (often a minimally-altered copy of the chipset vendor's
reference design, as illustrated by
http://www.trustedreviews.com/images/article/inline/2685-2.jpg, which shows
five virtually identical cards from different vendors with the only noticeable
difference being the logo on the heatsink), and then populate different
classes and price levels of cards in different ways. For example a low-end
card will have low-cost, minimal or absent TV-out encoders, DVI circuitry,
RAMDACs, and various other add-ons used to differentiate budget from premium
video cards. You can see this on the cheaper cards by observing the
unpopulated bond pads on circuit boards, and gamers and the like will be
familiar with cut-a- trace/resolder-a-resistor sidegrades of video cards.An example of omitting components from a high-end card to create a mid-range
card is shown at
http://images.infoteldistributors.com/itemDetails/C261-3053/C261-3053-out3-hl.jpg.
Note the large red rectangular area to the far left of the card, this is where
the manufacturer has omitted a component to produce a lower-cost model. The
same thing is visible in the card at
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q4/radeon-x1650xt/card.jpg. Conversely,
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video/radeon-8500/card-front.jpg shows an (at
the time it was released) top-of-the-line card with optional components
fitted, the chip to the left of the large square heatsink+fan handles video
encoding and can be added or removed (along with other optional components) to
create different levels of cards at different price points. The automotive
industry does the same thing, you have one basic model of each car type and
10,000 extras and options to suit everyone's needs and pockets.Vista's content-protection requirements eliminate this one-size-fits-all
design, banning the use of separate TV-out encoders, DVI circuitry, RAMDACs,
and other discretionary add-ons because feeding unprotected video to these
optional external components would make it too easy to lift the signal off the
bus leading to the external component. So everything has to be custom-
designed and laid out so that there are no unnecessary accessible signal links
on the board. This means that a low-cost card isn't just a high-cost card
with components omitted, and conversely a high-cost card isn't just a low-cost
card with additional discretionary components added, each one has to be a
completely custom design created to ensure that no signal on the board is
accessible.This extends beyond simple board design all the way down to chip design.
Instead of adding an external DVI chip, it now has to be integrated into the
graphics chip, along with any other functionality normally supplied by an
external chip. So instead of varying video card cost based on optional
components, the chipset vendor now has to integrate everything into a one-
size-fits-all premium-featured graphics chip, even if all the user wants is a
budget card for their kid's PC.Increased Cost due to Requirement to License Unnecessary Third-party IP
-----------------------------------------------------------------------"We've taken on more legal costs in copyright protection in the last six to
eight months than we have in any previous engagement. Each legal contract
sets a new precedent, and each new one builds on the previous one" -- ATI.Protecting all of this precious premium content requires a lot of additional
technology. Unfortunately much of this is owned by third parties and requires
additional licensing. For example HDCP for HDMI is owned by Intel, so in
order to send a signal over HDMI you have to pay royalties to Intel, even
though you could do exactly the same thing for free over DVI. Similarly,
since even AES-128 on a modern CPU isn't fast enough to encrypt high-bandwidth
content, companies are required to license the Intel-owned Cascaded Cipher, an
AES-128-based transform that's designed to offer a generally similar level of
security but with less processing overhead.The need to obtain unnecessary technology licenses extends beyond basic
hardware IP. In order to demonstrate their commitment to the cause, Microsoft
have recommended as part of their "robustness rules" that vendors license
third-party code obfuscation tools to provide virus-like stealth capabilities
for their device drivers in order to make it difficult to interfere with their
operations or reverse-engineer them. Vendors like Cloakware and Arxan have
actually added "robustness solutions" web pages to their sites in anticipation
of this lucrative market. This must be a nightmare for device vendors, for
whom it's already enough of a task getting fully functional drivers deployed
without having to deal with adding stealth-virus-like technology on top of the
basic driver functionality.The robustness rules further complicate driver support by disallowing features
such as driver debugging facilities in shipping drivers. Most Windows XP
users will at one time or another have encountered a Windows crash message
indicating that some application that they were using has terminated
unexpectedly, and would they like to send debugging information to Microsoft
to help fix the problem. Some device vendors even implement their own custom
versions of this debugging support in their drivers, an example being ATI's
VPU Recover, which captures graphics diagnostic and debugging information to
send to ATI when a graphics device problem occurs. Since this debugging
functionality could leak content or content security information, it can no
longer be used with audio or video components, considerably complicating
vendors' driver support and software enhancement processes (the ATI product
manager referenced in the "Sources" section lists these additional testing and
support costs as "potentially the highest cost of all").Unnecessary CPU Resource Consumption
------------------------------------"Since [encryption] uses CPU cycles, an OEM may have to bump the speed grade
on the CPU to maintain equivalent multimedia performance. This cost is
passed on to purchasers of multimedia PCs" -- ATI.In order to prevent tampering with in-system communications, all communication
flows have to be encrypted and/or authenticated. For example content sent to
video devices has to be encrypted with AES-128. This requirement for
cryptography extends beyond basic content encryption to encompass not just
data flowing over various buses but also command and control data flowing
between software components. For example communications between user-mode and
kernel-mode components are authenticated with OMAC message authentication-code
tags, at considerable cost to both ends of the connection.In order to prevent active attacks, device drivers are required to poll the
underlying hardware every 30ms to ensure that everything appears kosher. This
means that even with nothing else happening in the system, a mass of assorted
drivers has to wake up thirty times a second just to ensure that... nothing
continues to happen. In addition to this polling, further device-specific
polling is also done, for example Vista polls video devices on each video
frame displayed in order to check that all of the grenade pins (tilt bits) are
still as they should be. We already have multiple reports from Vista
reviewers of playback problems with video and audio content, with video frames
dropped and audio stuttering even on high-end systems. Time will tell whether
this problem is due to immature drivers or has been caused by the overhead
imposed by Vista's content protection mechanisms interfering with playback.
An indication of the level of complexity added to the software can be seen by
looking at a block diagram of Vista's Media Interoperability Gateway (MIG). Of
the eleven components that make up the MIG, only two (the audio and video
decoders) are actually used to render content. The remaining nine are used to
apply content-protection measures.On-board graphics create an additional problem in that blocks of precious
content will end up stored in system memory, from where they could be paged to
disk. In order to avoid this, Vista tags such pages with a special protection
bit indicating that they need to be encrypted before being paged out and
decrypted again after being paged in. Vista doesn't provide any other
pagefile encryption, and will quite happily page banking PINs, credit card
details, private, personal data, and other sensitive information, in
plaintext. The content-protection requirements make it fairly clear that in
Microsoft's eyes a frame of premium content is worth more than (say) a user's
medical records or their banking PIN [Note K].In addition to the CPU costs, the desire to render data inaccessible at any
level means that video decompression can't be done in the CPU any more, since
there isn't sufficient CPU power available to both decompress the video and
encrypt the resulting uncompressed data stream to the video card. As a
result, much of the decompression has to be integrated into the graphics chip.
At a minimum this includes IDCT, MPEG motion compensation, and the Windows
Media VC-1 codec (which is also DCT-based, so support via an IDCT core is
fairly easy). As a corollary to the "Increased Hardware Costs" problem above,
this means that you can't ship a low-end graphics chip without video codec
support any more.The inability to perform decoding in software also means that any premium-
content compression scheme not supported by the graphics hardware can't be
implemented. If things like the Ogg video codec ever eventuate and get used
for premium content, they had better be done using something like Windows
Media VC-1 or they'll be a non-starter under Vista or Vista-approved hardware.
This is particularly troubling for the high-quality digital cinema (D-Cinema)
specification, which uses Motion JPEG2000 (MJ2K) because standard MPEG and
equivalents don't provide sufficient image quality. Since JPEG2000 uses
wavelet-based compression rather than MPEG's DCT-based compression, and
wavelet-based compression isn't on the hardware codec list, it's not possible
to play back D-Cinema premium content (the moribund Ogg Tarkin codec also used
wavelet-based compression). Because *all* D-Cinema content will (presumably)
be premium content, the result is no playback at all until the hardware
support appears in PCs at some indeterminate point in the future. Compare
this to the situation with MPEG video, where early software codecs like the
XingMPEG en/decoder practically created the market for PC video. Today,
thanks to Vista's content protection, the opening up of new markets in this
manner would be impossible.The high-end graphics and audio market are dominated entirely by gamers, who
will do anything to gain the tiniest bit of extra performance, like buying
Bigfoot Networks' $250 "Killer NIC" ethernet card in the hope that it'll help
reduce their network latency by a few milliseconds. These are people buying
$500-$1000 graphics and sound cards for which one single sale brings the
device vendors more than the few cents they get from the video/audio portion
of an entire roomful of integrated-graphics-and-sound PCs. I wonder how this
market segment will react to knowing that their top-of-the-line hardware is
being hamstrung by all of the content-protection "features" that Vista hogties
it with?Unnecessary Device Resource Consumption
---------------------------------------"Compliance rules require [content] to be encrypted. This requires
additional encryption/decryption logic thus adding to VPU costs. This cost
is passed on to all consumers" -- ATI.As part of the bus-protection scheme, devices are required to implement
AES-128 encryption in order to receive content from Vista. This has to be
done via a hardware decryption engine on the graphics chip, which would
typically be implemented by throwing away a GPU rendering pipeline or two to
make room for the AES engine.Establishing the AES key with the device hardware requires further
cryptographic overhead, in this case a 2048-bit Diffie-Hellman key exchange
whose 2K-bit output is converted to a 128-bit AES key via a Davies-Meyer hash
with AES as its block transformation component. In programmable devices this
can be done (with considerable effort) in the device (for example in
programmable shader hardware), or more simply by throwing out a few more
rendering pipelines and implementing a public-key-cryptography engine in the
freed-up space.Needless to say, the need to develop, test, and integrate encryption engines
into audio/video devices will only add to their cost, as covered in "Increased
Hardware Costs" above, and the fact that they're losing precious performance
in order to accommodate Vista's content protection will make gamers less than
happy.Final Thoughts
--------------"No amount of coordination will be successful unless it's designed with the
needs of the customer in mind. Microsoft believes that a good user
experience is a requirement for adoption" -- Microsoft."The PC industry is committed to providing content protection on the PC, but
nothing comes for free. These costs are passed on to the consumer" -- ATI.At the end of all this, the question remains: Why is Microsoft going to this
much trouble? Ask most people what they picture when you use the term
"premium-content media player" and they'll respond with "A PVR" or "A DVD
player" and not "A Windows PC". So why go to this much effort to try and turn
the PC into something that it's not?In July 2006, Cory Doctorow published an analysis of the anti-competitive
nature of Apple's iTunes copy-restriction system ("Apple's Copy Protection
Isn't Just Bad For Consumers, It's Bad For Business", Cory Doctorow,
Information Week, 31 July 2006). The only reason I can imagine why Microsoft
would put its programmers, device vendors, third-party developers, and
ultimately its customers, through this much pain is because once this copy
protection is entrenched, Microsoft will completely own the distribution
channel. In the same way that Apple has managed to acquire a monopolistic
lock-in on their music distribution channel (an example being the Motorola
ROKR fiasco, which was so crippled by Apple-imposed restrictions that it was
dead the moment it appeared), so Microsoft will totally control the premium-
content distribution channel. Not only will they be able to lock out any
competitors, but because they will then represent the only available
distribution channel they'll be able to dictate terms back to the content
providers whose needs they are nominally serving in the same way that Apple
has already dictated terms back to the music industry: Play by Apple's rules,
or we won't carry your content. The result will be a technologically enforced
monopoly that makes their current de-facto Windows monopoly seem like a velvet
glove in comparison.Overall, Vista's content-protection functionality seems like an astonishingly
short-sighted piece of engineering, concentrating entirely on content
protection with no consideration given to the enormous repercussions of the
measures employed. It's something like the PC equivalent of the (hastily
dropped) proposal mooted in Europe to put RFID tags into high-value banknotes
as an anti-counterfeiting measure, completely ignoring the fact that the major
users of this technology would end up being criminals who would use it to
remotely identify the most lucrative robbery targets.The worst thing about all of this is that there's no escape. Hardware
manufacturers will have to drink the kool-aid (and the reference to mass
suicide here is deliberate [Note L]) in order to work with Vista: "There is no
requirement to sign the [content-protection] license; but without a
certificate, no premium content will be passed to the driver". Of course as a
device manufacturer you can choose to opt out, if you don't mind your device
only ever being able to display low-quality, fuzzy, blurry video and audio
when premium content is present, while your competitors don't have this
(artificially-created) problem.As a user, there is simply no escape. Whether you use Windows Vista, Windows
XP, Windows 95, Linux, FreeBSD, OS X, Solaris (on x86), or almost any other
OS, Windows content protection will make your hardware more expensive, less
reliable, more difficult to program for, more difficult to support, more
vulnerable to hostile code, and with more compatibility problems. Because
Windows dominates the market and device vendors are unlikely to design and
manufacture two different versions of their products, non-Windows users will
be paying for Windows Vista content-protection measures in products even if
they never run Windows on them.Here's an offer to Microsoft: If we, the consumers, promise to never, ever,
ever buy a single HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc containing any precious premium
content [Note M], will you in exchange withhold this poison from the computer
industry? Please?Acknowledgements
----------------This document was put together with input from various sources, including a
number that requested that I keep their contributions anonymous (in some cases
I've simplified or rewritten some details to ensure that the original,
potentially traceable wording of non-public requirements docs isn't used).
Because it wasn't always possible to go back to the sources and verify exact
details, it's possible that there may be some inaccuracies present, which I'm
sure I'll hear about fairly quickly. No doubt Microsoft (who won't want a
view of Vista as being broken by design to take root) will also provide their
spin on the details.In addition to the material present here, I'd be interested in getting further
input both from people at Microsoft involved in implementing the content
protection measures and from device vendors who are required to implement the
hardware and driver software measures. I know from the Microsoft sources that
contributed that many of them care deeply about providing the best possible
audio/video user experience for Vista users and are quite distressed about
having to spend time implementing large amounts of anti-functionality when
it's already hard enough to get things running smoothly without the
intentional crippling. I'm always open to further input, and will keep all
contributions confidential unless you give me permission to repeat something.
If you're concerned about traceability, grab a disposable account at Hotmail,
Gmail, or some similar provider and contact me through that. If you want to
encrypt things, my PGP key is linked from my home page,
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001.(In case the above hints aren't obvious enough, if you work for nVidia, ATI,
VIA, SiS, Intel, ..., I'd *really* like to get your comments on how all of
this is affecting you).Sources
-------Because this writeup started out as a private discussion in email, a number of
the sources used were non-public. The best public sources that I know of are:"Output Content Protection and Windows Vista",
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/stream/output_protect.mspx, from WHDC."Windows Longhorn Output Content Protection",
http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f3fe47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWEN05006_WinHEC05.ppt,
from WinHEC."How to Implement Windows Vista Content Output Protection",
http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/b/9/5b97017b-e28a-4bae-ba48-174cf47d23cd/MED038_WH06.ppt,
from WinHEC."Protected Media Path and Driver Interoperability Requirements",
http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f3fe47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWEN05005_WinHEC05.ppt,
from WinHEC.(Note that the cryptography requirements have changed since some of the
information above was published. SHA-1 has been deprecated in favour of
SHA-256 and SHA-512, and public keys seem to be uniformly set at 2048 bits in
place of the mixture of 1024 bits and 2048 bits mentioned in the
presentations).An excellent analysis from one of the hardware vendors involved in this comes
from ATI, in the form of "Digital Media Content Protection",
http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f3fe47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWEN05002_WinHEC05.ppt,
from WinHEC. This points out (in the form of PowerPoint bullet-points) the
manifold problems associated with Vista's content-protection measures, with
repeated mention of increased development costs, degraded performance and the
phrase "increased costs passed on to consumers" pervading the entire
presentation like a mantra.In addition there have been quite a few writeups on this (although not going
into quite as much detail as this document) in magazines both online and in
print, one example being PC World's feature article "Will your PC run Windows
Vista?", http://www.pcw.co.uk/articles/print/2154785, which covers this in the
appropriately-titled section "Multimedia in chains". Audience reactions to
these proposals at WinHEC are covered in "Longhorn: tough trail to PC digital
media" published in EE Times
(http://www.eetimes.com/issue/fp/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=162100180),
unfortunately you need to be a subscriber to read this but you may be able to
find accessible cached copies using your favourite search engine. The EFF has
an overview of the effects of Vista's revocation mechanisms in "Protected
Media Path, Component Revocation, Windows Driver Lockdown",
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003806.php.Mini-FAQ
--------This document seems to produce various reactions that come up repeatedly. To
respond to the more frequently-expressed views, I've added this mini-FAQ.1. This is just Microsoft-bashing.
It's bad-technology bashing. If this had been done by Linus Torvalds, Steve
Jobs, Alan Cox, or Theo de Raadt, I'd have said the same thing about it. As
far as I'm concerned computers are tools to get a job done and not a platform
for religious wars, and if something's bad I'll say so regardless of who's
doing it. Just for the record I run various versions of Windows on ...
[counting] ... seven of my machines (the rest are a mixture of Linux, FreeBSD,
and occasionally Solaris), so I'd be a rather unlikely Microsoft detractor if
I have their software all over my machines.2. This is a biased writeup.
Perhaps, but then I challenge anyone to read the specifications given in the
"Sources" section above and write a positive analysis of Vista's content
protection. Someone has to point out these problems, and it happened to be me
in this case, but I think anyone with technical skills who reads the relevant
documents would come to a similar conclusion.3. This is all FUD/rubbish.
The process that leads to comments like this tends to be (1) Quickly skim
through this document, (2) Decide that it sounds a bit implausible (possibly
even before performing step 1), (3) Post a rant saying it's FUD. To pick one
particular example, a Digg reader's reaction to the section of text that
states there isn't sufficient CPU power available for both decompression and
encryption was:I'm sorry, where does this come from? You do realize that this is completely
uncited, and very likely wrong? Entire paragraphs that follow are based on
this magical detail pulled out of thin air. [...] I'm no fan of this
asinine DRM bullshit, but the scenarios and postulates put forth in this
article are complete rubbish.Referring to the very first source listed in the "Sources" section shows that
this is picked not from thin air but from Microsoft's own documentation:The problem with regular AES is that it takes about 20 CPU clocks to encrypt
each byte. This is OK for compressed or semi-compressed video, but for the
multiple HD uncompressed case, it is too much even for a 2006 processor.and then again:
In the case of premium content, whether video can play back smoothly when
using regular AES with uncompressed video will be a function of the
resolution of the uncompressed video and the power of the processor. It is
unlikely to work well in 2006 for uncompressed HD premium contentIf you don't believe what you've read here, go back to Microsoft's own
documentation and read that (in fact read the Microsoft documents no matter
what you believe, because they're quite scary). If you still think it's FUD
then you can at least post informed comments about it.4. Microsoft is only doing this because Hollywood/the music industry is
forcing them to."We were only following orders" has historically worked rather poorly as an
excuse, and it doesn't work too well here either. While it's convenient to
paint an industry that sues 12-year-old kids and 80-year-old grandmothers as
the scapegoat, no-one's holding a gun to Microsoft's head to force them do
this. The content industry is desperate to get its content onto PCs, and it
would have quite easy for Microsoft to say "Here's what we'll do with Vista,
take it or leave it. We won't seriously cripple our own and our business
partners' products just to suit your fancy". In other words they could make
it clear to Hollywood who's the tail and who's the dog.Here's an illustrative story about a past example of what can happen when the
content-industry tail tries to wag the dog. About 10-15 years ago, music
companies told a bunch of NZ TV stations that they had to pay fees in order to
screen music videos. The TV stations disagreed, saying that they were
providing free advertising for the music companies, and if they didn't like
that then they'd simply stop playing music videos. So they stopped playing
music videos.After a few weeks, cracks stated to appear as the music companies realised
just how badly they needed the TV channels. One of the music companies bought
an entire prime-time advertising block (at phenomenal cost, this wasn't a
single 30-second slot but every slot in an entire prime-time ad break) just to
play one single new music video.Shortly afterwards, music videos reappeared on TV. The details of the
settlement were never made public, but I imagine it consisted of a bunch of
music company execs on their knees begging the TV stations to start playing
music videos again, and they don't have to pay a cent, and let's please never
bring this matter up again.It's the same with Microsoft, the content industry needs them as badly (or
more badly) than Microsoft needs the content industry. Claiming that they're
only following orders from Hollywood is a red herring - if Microsoft declined
to implement this stuff, Hollywood would have to give in, because they can't
afford to lock themselves out of 95% of the market, in the same way that the
music companies couldn't afford to cut out their primary advertising channel.5. You're just upset because you can no longer steal content under Vista.
Yes, someone really did send me email with this claim in it. It's silly
enough that I just had to include it for the amusement value :-).Quotes
------A few fun quotes, included for amusement value.
"I propose that each copy of the OS should ship with an orange jumpsuit and
sensory deprivation goggles, since all Vista users have been unilaterally
declared 'enemy combatants' by the content apparatchiki" - Daniel Nevin."Windows Vista? And what a vista! All you see as you look around your garden
is a 60foot high brick wall" - Crosbie Fitch."your latest girly moan *** rant is making the rounds on every news site
just about isn't it? are you on cnn yet? are women throwing their panties at
you?" - A friend (who requested anonymity)."The HDCP scheme will serve to make the illegal product the most full featured
and least restrictive, and thus the most attractive to the consumer. Add in
the expense of buying new equipment to vew the legal content (when existing
equipment is perfectly capable) and the performance drain imposed by in-line
encryption/decryption and they've put out the biggest incentive to piracy
yet" - "Greg".Use, Modification, and Redistribution
-------------------------------------This document is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License,
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/. This means that you can copy,
distribute, display, and perform the work, and make derivative works, provided
that you credit the original author and provide a link back to the original
work (at the URL given in the title). To quote the Creative Commons site,
"This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work,
even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This
is the most accommodating of licenses offered, in terms of what others can do
with your works".Footnotes
---------Note A: This comment was inspired by Sir Gerald Kaufman's similar comment
about the British Labour Party's 1983 election manifesto, which resulted in
Labour turning in its worst election results since its founding (it was so bad
that Labour's opponents in the election reprinted and distributed it
themselves). At 44 pages, Microsoft's "Output Content Protection and Windows
Vista" squeezes out Labour's 37-page manifesto to take the crown.Note B: This document uses "cost" in the sense of "penalty", "damage", "harm",
"injury" and "loss" rather than the more financial "expense", "outlay", and
"price". A full financial analysis would require a top-to-bottom internal
audit of the design, development, production, distribution, support, and legal
costs for each vendor involved, something for which even the vendors
themselves would have difficulty producing a precise figure.Note C: I'll make a prediction at this point that, given that it's trying to
do the impossible, the Vista content protection will take less than a day to
bypass if the bypass mechanism is something like a driver bug or a simple
security hole that applies only to one piece of code (and can therefore be
quickly patched), and less than a week to comprehensively bypass in a
driver/hardware-independent manner. This doesn't mean it'll be broken the day
or week that it appears, but simply that once a sufficiently skilled attacker
is motivated to bypass the protection, it'll take them less than a day or a
week to do so.(In a recent development which is still subject to change as more reports come
in, a sort of re-run of the DeCSS/Xing player story from a few years ago has
occurred when someone appeared to have figured out how to extract HD-DVD and
Blu-Ray keys from the PowerDVD player software, allowing all(?) HD disk
content to be decrypted and played back on any HD display, without content-
protection measures getting in the way. The fact that the legally-purchased
content wouldn't play on a legally-purchased player because the content
protection got in the way appears to have been the motivating factor for the
crack. The time taken was about a week).Note D: In order for content to be displayed to users, it has to be copied
numerous times. For example if you're reading this document on the web then
it's been copied from the web server's disk drive to server memory, copied to
the server's network buffers, copied across the Internet, copied to your PC's
network buffers, copied into main memory, copied to your browser's disk cache,
copied to the browser's rendering engine, copied to the render/screen cache,
and finally copied to your screen. If you've printed it out to read, several
further rounds of copying have occurred. Windows Vista's content protection
(and DRM in general) assume that all of this copying can occur without any
copying actually occurring, since the whole intent of DRM is to prevent
copying. If you're not versed in DRM doublethink this concept gets quite
tricky to explain, but in terms of quantum mechanics the content enters a
superposition of simultaneously copied and uncopied states until a user
collapses its wave function by observing the content (in physics this is
called quantum indeterminacy or the observer's paradox). Depending on whether
you follow the Copenhagen or many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics,
things then either get wierd or very wierd. So in order for Windows Vista's
content protection to work, it has to be able to violate the laws of physics
and create numerous copies that are simultaneously not copies.Note E: There is SCMS, but that has all the effectiveness of a "Keep out"
sign.Note F: As an example of an experience that's likely to become commonplace
once more "premium content" is rolled out, Roger Strong reports from Canada
that "I've just had my first experience with HD content being blocked. I
purchased an HP Media Center PC with a built-in HD DVD player, together with a
24" 'high definition' 1920 x 1200 HP flat panel display (HP LP2465). They
even included an HD movie, 'The Bourne Supremacy'. Sure enough, the movie
won't play because while the video card supports HDCP content protection, the
monitor doesn't. (It plays if I connect an old 14" VGA CRT using a DVI-to-VGA
connector)". "muslix64" tells a similar tale: "when I disable my HD monitor,
I can watch the movie, on my old VGA screen, but, what is the point of having
a HD monitor and not being able to watch a HD movie on it". muslix64 was so
upset at not being able to play his legitimately-purchased movies on his
legitimately-purchased monitor attached to his legitimately-purchased player
that he broke the AACS protection just to be able to see his own movies, see
Note C above.Note G: The question of how content producers other than the major studios who
can afford expensive custom equipment are supposed to create and manipulate
high-definition content has been raised by a number of readers. For example
one contributor who works with people in the content industry comments that "I
have seen [smaller content producers] going from just recording weddings and
the like, to ones that have gone all the way to make a full featured movie.
They have gone through problems like where to edit HD material, which cameras
to use, which format, etc. Their decisions have been based on availability of
equipment to make their projects, not really costs". It has been suggested
that the large content producers are quite happy with this situation, since it
prevents any competition from more innovative, creative, and agile newcomers.Note H: Philip Dorrell has a neat cartoon that illustrates this problem at
http://www.1729.com/blog/LookingForAWinWin.html.Note I: There is some confusion over exactly how much functionality gets
disabled when a revocation occurs. The HDCP requirements are quite clear that
once this happens (in technical terms once a revoked device's key selection
vector (KSV, effectively it's unique ID) appears on a revocation list) the
device is effectively dead since it won't be supplied with content any more.
However the behaviour of devices subject to revocation in a mixed-content
environment is made very unclear in the specs. Some documents imply that it's
an HDCP-style kill switch ("Vista will [...] revoke any driver that is found
to be leaking premium content [...] if the same driver is used for all the
manufacturer's chip designs, then a revocation would cause all that company's
products to need a new driver"), while others indicate that the device will
still work, but be unable to render premium content. Exactly how well this
hope can be realised in practice (if it can be realised at all) remains to be
seen.Note J: I see some impressive class-action suits to follow if this revocation
mechanism is ever applied. Perhaps Microsoft or the content providers will
buy everyone who owns a device that inadvertently leaks content and is then
disabled by the revocation process replacement hardware for their system.Some contributors have commented that they can't see the revocation system
ever being used because the consumer backlash would be too enormous, but then
the legal backlash from not going ahead could be equally extreme. For anyone
who's read "Guns of August", the situation seems a bit like pre-WWI Europe
with people sitting on step 1 of enormously complex battle plans that can't be
backed out of once triggered, no matter how obvious it is that going ahead
with them is a bad idea. Driver revocation is a lose/lose situation for
Microsoft, they're in for some serious pain whether they do or they don't.
Their lawyers must have been asleep when they let themselves get painted into
this particular corner - the first time a revocation takes out a hospital,
foreign government department, air traffic control system, or whatever,
they've guaranteed themselves a front-row seat in court proceedings for the
rest of their natural lives.Note K: The Enterprise and Ultimate editions of Vista do feature this type of
encryption, but the features of these high-end versions will never get into
the hands of typical users. In addition it's an all-or-nothing encryption
where (to quote Microsoft) "all user and system files are encrypted" when what
really counts is swap-file encryption, since that's what contains copies of
sensitive in-memory data. The OpenBSD approach of generating a random swap-
file encryption key at boot time and encrypting any memory data that gets
paged to disk is the correct way to handle this.Note L: The "kool-aid" reference may be slightly unfamiliar to non-US readers,
it's a reference to the 1978 Jonestown mass-suicide in which Jim Jones'
followers drank Flavor Aid laced with poison in order to demonstrate their
dedication to the cause. In popular usage the term "kool-aid" is substituted
for Flavor Aid because it has more brand recognition. There's also an
earlier, less well-known link to fruit juice laced with LSD, I'll avoid the
obvious comment about that and some of the thinking behind Vista's content
protection.Note M: If I do ever want to play back premium content, I'll wait a few years
and then buy a $50 Chinese-made set-top player to do it, not a $1000 Windows
PC. It's somewhat bizarre that I have to go to communist China in order to
find vendors who actually understand the consumer's needs.A reductio ad absurdum solution to the "premium-content problem", proposed by
a Slashdot reader, is to add support to Windows Vista for a black-box hardware
component that accepts as input encrypted compressed premium content and
produces as output encrypted (or otherwise protected) decoded premium content.
In other words, move the entire mass of hardware, driver, and software
protection into a dedicated black box that's only used in media PCs where it's
(arguably) required.Now compare this add-on black box to the canonical Chinese-made $50 media
player. Why would anyone buy the black box (which will almost certainly cost
more than $50) when they can buy a complete dedicated media player that does
the same thing and more?Windows Vista includes an extensive reworking of core OS elements in order to
provide content protection for so-called "premium content", typically HD data
from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD sources. Providing this protection incurs
considerable costs in terms of system performance, system stability, technical
support overhead, and hardware and software cost.Extensive? For HD content only? Hardly. A lot of the security that's gone into Vista has to do with keeping the bad guys (spyware, viruses and other malware) OUT of your system. Secondly... That protection only went into Vista 64. It's not built into Vista 32. There's no support of HD content in Vista 32 (as a carrot to get people to use Vista 64...). Third, if you don't have an HD drive (And at THIS point where the typical drive costs as much if not more than the rest of the computer so it's not like everyone's got one) - be it Blu-Ray or HD-DVD - then there's no reason why that content protection - read DRM - would be loaded into memory.
Now then, as far as other systems (OSX or Linux) go, you're going to run into the same sort of situation - i.e. DRM'd content - and at this point, I'm not even sure there's any current products supporting OSX and Linux is pretty much dead in the water for the moment. I'm sure there's some programmer(s) working on it but, any product for Linux that is designed to view DRM'ed HD content is likely to get a chilly reception - even colder than the one "DVD John" the guy who wrote the DeCSS app and cracked DVD encryption - at least from a legal standpoint.
Executive Executive Summary
---------------------------The Vista Content Protection specification could very well constitute the
longest suicide note in history [Note A].Ok.. Is it as long as this guy's rant - er Analysis??
But seriously...
For what it's worth, how long does it really take to crack any DRM? Seems to me that they're a day late and a dollar short already given that Muselix64 guy published a crack for HD DVDs and Blu-Ray content along with a video last week. Ok.. So you can't play your HD DVD copy of some movie or other directly from your HD drive. So you crack it and watch the cracked version - on the otherwise disabled hardware. Ok. It's an extra step. It requires a bit of extra work on the end user's part. Big deal.
The bottom line - if you want something bad enough, odds are you will find a way to get it to work the way you want it to. Where there's a will, there's a way.
At any rate, you can thank the MPAA and to a lesser degree, the RIAA for the extra DRM *** being loaded into Vista. Microsoft may have written in support for HD content, it's not like they had much in the way of choice. HD and Blu-Ray are emerging technologies. If they didn't build in the support, then they'd be criticized for not doing it. Building in some level of support ahead of the curve will make things a lot easier down the road.
Does it hurt performance? Eh.. Probably not under most circumstances. The only time your system will take a hit is when you're playing encrypted content. But then again, gee.. Your computer right now, already has to decrypt the content when you're playing a DVD. Granted, the encryption on HD content is a lot stronger than it is on DVDs, but what's the big deal? As long as you're not trying to do something else while you're watching the HD content, then what's the big deal?
Does it boost the price of Vista? No doubt. Whenever you have to write extra code, you've got to pay the programmer(s) responsible for it.
Bottom line: It's much ado about very little.
Thanks for the input! Still I note that this person has done some research, and there appears to be some things to be concerened about regarding DRM, even if it will only be fully implemented in the Vista x64 edition? Probably more concerning; as this is the way of the future!
Regarding the 'Dual Boot' query; I am still getting so many mixed reviews (even from MS buffs), which make it almost impossible to come to some informed decision on whether to put my 'production' system at risk. My test system being an 'AMD Athlon XP1700+' P4 equivalent will run Vista, but I only have 8meg, (16meg shared) onboard intergrated graphics, this of course will not allow me to run 'Areo and 3d flip, or will it? From what I have read; no! I have no 'AGP' or 'PCI x' slot at all on the 'VIA' MB which means I cannot add graphics, (even if it were possible) and disable the onboard allotment. I'm not complaining, the test PC was given to me.
Here is another statement given by an MVP: Don't dual boot XP and Vista unless you can hide the Vista partitions from XP's VSS driver, volsnap.sys. If you don't you will lose Vista's VSS files, such as system restore points, every time you boot XP (except in Safe Mode).
"JackM" <JackM@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F6D4834B-DB40-4D1F-A13C-66B45E76439C@microsoft.com...
> Neither Director or true image work within Vista, so your advice from
> Acronis is correct. However, if you dual boot from XP or XPx64, you can use both
> programs to "see" Vista partitions and folders. True Image has a problem
> during restore if used this way, but have used Director from XPx64 and had no problems.
>
> Good luck. Incidentally, IMHO the only way to install Vista when it comes
> out is in dual boot with either XPx86 or XPx64. You can use XP programs
> within this OS to effect changes within Vista without the compatibility
> problems. Be warned - some MS sources say that one should not run XP (any
> version) with Vista. No explanation given. I have been running all Vista
> versions with both XP's in dual boot for a year now without any problems.
>
> "pvdg42" wrote:So what do think, and do have any further advise?
Hmmm.....interesting stuff recrec, sounds like what they are saying, don't mingle with the files, say like you're in Windows XP and you see Windows Vista's files, you don't want to mingle Vista's files or any files that you happen to put there when in Windows Vista and vice- versa. I could be wrong, but it kind of sounds that way to me.
recrec wrote: Thanks for the input! Still I note that this person has done some research, and there appears to be some things to be concerened about regarding DRM, even if it will only be fully implemented in the Vista x64 edition? Probably more concerning; as this is the way of the future!
Regarding the 'Dual Boot' query; I am still getting so many mixed reviews (even from MS buffs), which make it almost impossible to come to some informed decision on whether to put my 'production' system at risk. My test system being an 'AMD Athlon XP1700+' P4 equivalent will run Vista, but I only have 8meg, (16meg shared) onboard intergrated graphics, this of course will not allow me to run 'Areo and 3d flip, or will it? From what I have read; no! I have no 'AGP' or 'PCI x' slot at all on the 'VIA' MB which means I cannot add graphics, (even if it were possible) and disable the onboard allotment. I'm not complaining, the test PC was given to me.
Here is another statement given by an MVP: Don't dual boot XP and Vista unless you can hide the Vista partitions from XP's VSS driver, volsnap.sys. If you don't you will lose Vista's VSS files, such as system restore points, every time you boot XP (except in Safe Mode).
"JackM" <JackM@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F6D4834B-DB40-4D1F-A13C-66B45E76439C@microsoft.com...
> Neither Director or true image work within Vista, so your advice from
> Acronis is correct. However, if you dual boot from XP or XPx64, you can use both
> programs to "see" Vista partitions and folders. True Image has a problem
> during restore if used this way, but have used Director from XPx64 and had no problems.
>
> Good luck. Incidentally, IMHO the only way to install Vista when it comes
> out is in dual boot with either XPx86 or XPx64. You can use XP programs
> within this OS to effect changes within Vista without the compatibility
> problems. Be warned - some MS sources say that one should not run XP (any
> version) with Vista. No explanation given. I have been running all Vista
> versions with both XP's in dual boot for a year now without any problems.
>
> "pvdg42" wrote:So what do think, and do have any further advise?
Agreed.. the guy did a LOT of research into his post. Nothing too surprising though. DRM is here for the moment anyhow. Somehow, I have a feeling that DRM is only a passing fad that will fade away in the future. People are getting more hip to the obstructionist nonsense DRM presents and will put their collective feet down.
As far as the situation with your test box goes... As you already figured - 8 or 16 MB video memory will NOT get you Aero nor the Flip 3D stuff. At best, you'll get the same sort of interface as you already get with XP or Win 2K.
Now then... I take it the motherboard has a built in video subsystem - no video card at all... In that case, you could consider an upgrade - newer motherboard, CPU and RAM - but that will cost a bit of cash. You can save SOME money by finding a motherboard that can make use of the CPU and RAM you've already got. There are some available on eBay.
OR you could look for a PCI based video card - however, those will not deliver the greatest in performance. They may or may not give you enough to run Vista in all it's glory.
For what it's worth - running Vista the way I have it set up - install each version of Windows on it's own and on separate drives, I never ran into any oddities implied by the poster. I even had Vista 64 installed on a 3rd hard drive - once again, installed by itself - and had full access to the 32 bit Vista drive as well as the XP drive - no problems.
For RC1, however, I decided to focus on only one version of Vista - running both on the same machine at the same time was impossible and I wanted to test RC1 and find as many bugs as I could...
It's not really THAT difficult to get into the guts of the computer and unplug hard drives temporarily.
- Thanks heaps for your help and advice wolfie2k6! I will probably do what you did; open the box, power-off the the non-target drives, and install Vista that way. It would be nice to get hold of a regular 'PCI' graphics card and see if it could do the job on my test machine, without having to change the MB. Anyway I will ponder what to do.
Yes, getting rid of Vista to go back to XP is a bit of a task. As stated already, you can NOT revert back to XP from Vista after an upgrade. However, if you did do an upgrade, it stores your Docs & Settings, Windows & Program Files folders to a folder called Windows.OLD. You can save those files somewhere and then reinstall XP. If you have installed Vista on a seperate partition or physical disk then it's quite easy.
Before you format your Vista partition (to remove it), boot into XP.
-Click the 'Start' button.
-Click 'Run'
-Type the following (without quotes): 'D:\boot\bootsect.exe /nt52 all' (It may be a different drive letter for you..)
-The above replaces BOOTMGR (Boot Manager.. installed by Vista) with NTLDR (NT Loader for XP) so you don't have any issues after removing the Vista partition.
-At this point you can proceed to removing Vista and XP should be fine afterward.
-Reiteration: AGAIN YOU CANNOT UPGRADE VISTA TO XP, THEN REVERT DIRECT BACK TO XP. You must do a clean XP install.
Hope this helps somebody.
- I have a solution to the rolling back issue....Go out and get a MAC!! HAHAHA All you suckers using microsoft products! Dont you remember Windows 95 crashing on Bill Gates!! Do yourself a favour, buy a new mac, I did and I wouldnt look back. No viruses, No crashes, Great seamless OS!! Dont take my word for it!
It seems that many people are having difficulty with uninstalling Vista, and reverting back to a previous version of Windows. Despite the uninstall option being unavailable, it is relatively simple to revert.
Assuming this is an upgrade installation, Vista should have created a Windows.old folder on the root of your primary hard drive. The first step in the process would be to verify Windows.old exists. Also, take note of its total file size on disk, to make sure reverting will go smoothly. Next you will want to make sure your data is backed up!
You must boot your system from the Vista DVD. Once loaded, you will see a screen asking for Language settings and Locale information. Click next.
On the next screen, there should be an Install Now option, with a Repair your computer link in the lower left corner. Click Repair.
It will now scan for currently installed versions of Windows, and give you a menu asking you to select Microsoft Windows Vista. Click next.
If all goes as planned, you will be shown the System Recovery Options menu. Click Command Prompt.
Here's where the fun begins.
Assuming everything is in the default locations, this procedure should revert your OS.
At the command prompt, enter in the following commands:
c:
cd\
ren Windows Windows.vista
ren "Program Files" "Program Files.vista"
ren Users Users.vista
rd "Documents and Settings" (make sure your data has already been backed up)
xcopy /s /h c:\windows.old\*.* c:\
This step may take a while, depending on how large the folder is. Once it completes, your data has now been reverted. Next, you will need to rebuild the boot sector.
e: (being your dvd drive)
cd boot
bootsect /nt52 c:
Once this process completes, you may remove the DVD, and reboot.
Windows XP should now be loading, as it had before you upgraded. If not, you might need to rebuild the boot loader. bootrec /rebuildbcd
GOOD LUCK!
- Thats Right exept if its on DEFerent PARTITION
I find your comments almost offensive. This is how you treat the people who buy your stuff and need help after. I would rethink flaming someone who needs help and mabey go get in your car and not say a word if you cannot be helpful. In the corporate world this kind of attitude buys you a quick trip home and a copy of the want ads.
- JEFF YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I JUST ORDERED THE NEW VERSION OF VISTA BASIC HOME UPGRADE ABOUT $100.00 FROM AMAZON.COM. NOT THE BETA. WE ALWAYS HAD TO FORMAT THE PARTITION. AND PUT WINDOWS XP BACK ON AND THEN THE VISTA UPDATE. THATS WHY I ALWAYS HAVE MY SOFTWARE ON CD SO I CAN PUT IT BACK IN. YES ITS A PAIN IT TAKES TIME. BUT YOU CAN BE BACK UP DOING YOUR BASIC STUFF IN LESS THAN A HALF A DAY. JUST SAVE ALL YOUR IMPORTANT FILES TO CD OR DVD. PLUS THEN YOU WILL HAVE THE LATEST STUFF JUST IN CASE YOU HAVE A VIRUS PROBLEM.
- I am a student, and now I can't do my homework because of Vista and Office 2007. I want XP professional back. How do you reformat drives so that I can install XP again.
I think so It may help U to configure Ur MBR with Vista
You installed a different Windows version and Windows Vista is no longer on the boot menu
Each time you install a version of Windows, it rewrites the MBR to call its own boot loader, If you install Windows Vista as a second operating system on a PC where Windows XP is already installed, the Windows Vista boot menu incorporates the options from the older boot menu But if you install a fresh copy of Windows XP on a system that is already running Windows Vista, you’ll overwrite the MBR with one that doesn’t recognize the Windows Vista Boot Loader To repair the damage, open a Command Prompt window in the older operating system and run the following command from the Windows Vista DVD, substituting the letter of your drive for <d> here
<d>:\Boot\ Bootsect.exe –NT60 All
When you restart, you should see the Windows Vista menu to restore the menu entry for your earlier version of Windows, open an elevated Command Prompt and enter this command:
Bcdedit –create {ntldr} –d “Older Version of Windows”
Substitute your own description for the placeholder text the next time you start your
Computer, the menus should appear as you intended
How do you remove Windows Vista from a dual-boot installation and restore the Windows XP boot loader? Enter the following command at a command prompt:
<d>:\Boot\Bootsect.exe –NT52 All
You can now delete all system files from the volume containing the Windows Vista installation you no longer plan to use. For even more effective removal, use the Disk Management console in Windows XP to reformat the drive and start fresh.
@Oddlike7 U have done nice job. I have figured that No one have extact solution to Uninstall Vista.Unfortunate, as you stated, get self-righteous... One must look at some of the very tempting offers and upgrades like "attractive Nuisances." As an attorney and technology chaser, I find myself constantly being intrigued with and sucked in to the latest and greatest. MS Vista is no exception. Further, it is NOT the Beta users that make Microsoft the Billions of dollars every year; it's the Common Every Day User! There seems to be an inherent trust when one sees the company "Microsoft." Therefore, I do not find it ridiculous, unreasonable, silly to put Blind Trust in a company like Microsoft not to put a product on the market that will wreck havoc with one's computer, components and or software. The fact is, I have a Dell XPS M1710 (2.33) with 2GB memory... with a prominent sticker stating "Windows Vista Compatible." And I too have found myself with issues... That I would love to merely roll back to my XP OS, do to the fact that Vista has killed my Intel Pro Wireless card and precludes me from logging on to my wireless NAS drives as well as the Internet. Ran the compatibility program and it didn't say it would disable the hardware? So, it is very reasonable to Rely on and implied warranty that what Microsoft is putting on the market for purchase or otherwise one should not be harmed. Should not have to be a Full time Certified Technician or be inconvenienced or expensed while making this corporations, it's officers, employee's, stock holders et al, money! Why should the Consumer have to suffer do to a product that is known to cause problems? Would it not be reasonable that a program in the process of installing, verifies it's compatibility and if it isn't, will not load and cause harm. That during a reasonable installation trial period, should the program not be able to be loaded, the buyer be given a full refund by Microsoft re-sellers. And sure, we all should sit down and read every document disclaimer that comes with just about everything...(you know, we all have so much time...) That one of these disclaimers was tested in a Senate oversight hearing wherein the Senator, lawyer, former law professor couldn't make heads or tales out of the legal jargon. That most everyone with lives, Rely on things to be "suitable." And do not have time or expertise to desifer what it is that is or isn't warranted etc. So in closing, I hope there is a simple fix, but my guess is that I will Pay Again, to have my system Fixed and when the next Intisment comes along, I will be sucked in by that too... Unless, those racking in the bucks grows some ethic cells and will not allow a product to screw up another if there are issues... Who knows, they might stimulate a Full Sale of a New PC / Lap Top with all the trimmings... So Good Luck... I will be calling my Tech guy tomorrow...
- My question for anyone who might can help me is that I recently bought a new computer and it won't do anything with the vista home premium on it. I have tried several times to reinstall windows xp on it, while talking to the dell techs. When I put the cd in and hit boot from cd it runs the scan and after that the screen freezes and tells me that windows is shutting down to prevent further damage. Has anyone had this problem before and is there any solutions? Thank you for any help that you could give me.
Hey Johnie,
I just got a Acer laptop ww/ vista -I did not install anything on it and want to go back to xp . What is the simplest way and effective way?? I have no floppy disk..thanks
mamajane,
I know exactly what your talking about and I'm looking for help myself. I to purchased a new PC (Gateway) with vista home premium. I hate Vista, the system has crashed 4 times in the 2 months I've owned it. When I try to downgrade to XP my system also freezes and then windows shuts down. I've had all I can take with Vista and would much like to go back to XP as well, if any one could tell us how. Thank you
- I finally talked to a guy at Dell who knew about the blue screen. He said that it was a problem with the bios and the way the computer was set up before it was sent to me. I do not know all the techinal slang, but basically it cannot be fixed at home. He said it was not set up to to take a downgrade back to xp. They even sent me a new copy of xp professional and I still got the blue screen. He then took control of my computer from his site and after about 30 minutes said it could not be done from home. I did not have the xp drivers or bios or anything else on my computer to take xp. They sent me a brand new computer with xp installed and it is now running great, so give them a call and don't take no for an answer. It is not anything you have done or not done. I hope this helps you.
OK Guys, I am now fully convinved that I should stick to xp professional on my Dell.
But . . . I have related problem you may be able to help me with.
Have patience ! I am 81 years young, and may have to ask to repeat the advise.
I dropped my Gateway notebook and wrecked my harddrive.
No fear, for 58 bucks I got a blank new one.
Then realized that without a floppy slot I could not format the drive from my DOS rescue disk.
Next, cannot find the xp home edition drive it came with.
Got a "brilliant"(sic) idea . . . .use my xp professional from the Dell; It should have a format command somewhere. Bigger mistake !
xp professional installed beautiful, but only with a 30 day life. (you may only use ONE copy on ONE machine at the time) Going to command prompt while in windows will show the format c;\ response, but will not format.
Trying to "overinstall" Win 2000, results in a deactivation by xp of the setup of 2000.
Any ideas other than flush the new drive down the toilet ????
Thanks in advance.
HN
haen wrote: OK Guys, I am now fully convinved that I should stick to xp professional on my Dell.
But . . . I have related problem you may be able to help me with.
Have patience ! I am 81 years young, and may have to ask to repeat the advise.
I dropped my Gateway notebook and wrecked my harddrive.
No fear, for 58 bucks I got a blank new one.
Then realized that without a floppy slot I could not format the drive from my DOS rescue disk.
Next, cannot find the xp home edition drive it came with.
Got a "brilliant"(sic) idea . . . .use my xp professional from the Dell; It should have a format command somewhere. Bigger mistake !
xp professional installed beautiful, but only with a 30 day life. (you may only use ONE copy on ONE machine at the time) Going to command prompt while in windows will show the format c;\ response, but will not format.
Trying to "overinstall" Win 2000, results in a deactivation by xp of the setup of 2000.
Any ideas other than flush the new drive down the toilet ????
Thanks in advance.
HN
Ouch. Not a good thing. You don't have to flush the drive away. The fix is fairly simple given your old drive is trashed and presumably you don't have any files to restore to the laptop. ALL flavors of NT (NT4, 2K, XP, Vista) protect the system volume (drive C: ) from being formatted while you've got it up and running. Since XP is newer than 2000, of course, XP won't let you "upgrade" the OS to the older version. Likewise XP Pro is considered a "higher" version than Home - therefore, XP Pro will stop you every time.
All is not lost. At this point, you've got a few options:
1.) You can get a restore disk or a live copy of XP Home from somewhere like eBay. Assuming you've got the COA* sticker with the XP Home product key on the bottom of the laptop. In that case, all you really need then is the software itself - and there are plenty of vendors who will part with the CD alone for a few bucks. Note - you'll need to follow the instructions on #2 on how to get things installed.
2.) You can wipe out the XP Pro installation with Windows 2000 (or XP Home) entirely. When you boot the computer to install 2K (or XP Home), make sure you're booting from the CD - and not the hard drive. Since you've got XP Pro installed, it won't let you "upgrade" to an older version (or lesser version in the case of XP Home). When you boot from the CD, you will see the typical NT/2K/XP install process - the blue screen where you set up the drive partition(s) and drive format. You don't have to kill the existing partition before installing - just be sure to format it first.
Now, there may be an issue with getting the laptop to boot from the CD first. In this case, you'll need to access the BIOS (see the manual for how to do this) and set the optical (CD/DVD) drive as the first boot device. Once you've done that be sure to save the changes and have the disk in the drive. You should then be able to boot from the CD and install away.
3.) Optionally, you can look for a used COA for XP Pro, also on eBay (or other sources). This typically goes for a few extra bucks more than the CD. The only catch, you will have to use the phone option for activation. Simply explain to the tech that your old laptop died and you wish to use the COA on this other one - you lost the CD that came with THIS one (which is the truth anyhow) and they will give you the green light and you're up and running. Note - the COA sticker will likely be attached to something, most likely the bottom of a dead laptop. This IS the easiest means since you've already got XP Pro installed.
Now if you do this, and want to be 100% legit, you'll need a blow dryer or heat gun that gets very hot. Heat melts the glue that holds COA stickers to the case. Simply remove the old XP Home COA sticker and replace it with the XP Pro sticker.
*Certificate of Authenticity
Thank you Wolfie. I will try that and keep you posted.
HN
- I would like to uninstall Vist and go back to windows XP
WOW! My prepubescent wanna-be geek brain just exploded all over the Brand new HP POS I was sent; to replace the one that after almost a year was defective....? (notebook MB failure inherent in that particular model, uh.... ok). Long story short here? I HATE Vista and think dark evil things about those that developed, or stole it.(both).
Please help!? Is it possible to wipe my drive and load my XP Pro annnnnd still have all the bells and whistles that this machine has work? Then it wouldn't be such a bad machine. I'm concerned over the drivers (I know that you can't mix the two) and all the built in hardware being useless. Of course HP hypes it as the latest and best version of Vista BLAH, BLAH, BLAH... IT Does Not Work! I just want to be able to study.
I'm not a dolt and before you laugh and bash remember. ALL geeks started out like me......
Maybe my one final request would be a quick and dirty solution to this monster called M*&#$@!%t.
Wolfie.....
you quote:
Anyone..? Anyone??
That's right, use the SETUP.EXE found on the XP CD.
...when the setup.exe is ran, the option to instal XP isn't there...
Ok.. So you're running the Setup.exe from the CD... But are you booting from the CD or are you running XP's setup from Vista?
Boot from the CD....
It's been 2 weeks without a computer and I'm having serious withdrawels
All of the advise I have seen here for uninstalling Vista, presumes that you did an upgrade to install in the first place. I decided to do a totally clean install so I could see everything that Vista had to offer without worrying about the condition of my hard drive, adware, etc..
Now, I have spent the last 2 weeks trying everything I can think of to go back to XP. I have tried all the things you folks have posted like going to the Vista command prompt, booted to different versions of Windows, tried drive scrubbers, disk partition software, recovery software etc. NONE OF THEM WORK.
Every one will boot to the disk, but within seconds or minutes (depending on the software) my system shuts off. Like it's protecting itself from anything I am doing. I have tried everything I can think of to "trick it", to no avail.
The answers you have been giving here---has any one of you actually had to do them? They don't work.
Please, Please someone give me the correct information.
Thank you,
Chaska
Chaska,
This sounds like you have a serious problem that has gone haywire. I understand the problems you are having there, What you need to do as I will explain this step by step. If my steps does not correct the problem for you, then you will need to take it to your nearby computer shop. I do service on all computers and you can have the option to send your computer to me in order to repair it as well. Here's the steps: (Print this out if you need to.)
1) When you first turn on your computer, press a key according what it shows on your screen, it will be one of those keys, the F2, F10, F11, or the DEL. This is what you need to do is get into the BIOS and you need to set it to the DEFAULT. After that, hit the ESC key and allow it to save and exit.
2) Once that is completed, shut off your computer and disconnect the power cord from it. Open the computer case, check and make sure that nothing is disconnected such as your hard drive and CD ROM drive and other hardware inside it. Your hard drive should be plugged into the IDE 1 slot on the motherboard and your CD ROM drive should be plugged into the IDE 2 slot. Once everything looks good, close the case cover and plug your power cord back in.
3) If you have the good old Windows 98 boot disk, use it and insert it in your floppy disk drive if there is one, if not, use your Windows XP CD and turn your computer back on. Once the Windows XP cd kicks in, follow it's instructions carefully. What you need to do is have it to delete the partition completely and then have it to make a new partition. If you do have the floppy disk drive, put the Windows 98 boot disk in and at the A:\ prompt, type "fdisk" and follow it's instructions carefully. ( The Windows 98 boot disk works wonders for me.) There, you want to delete the "Non-DOS partition". After you delete it, hit the "Esc" key until you are back to the A:\ prompt. Shut your computer off and take the boot disk out and put your Windows XP CD in the CD ROM and then turn your computer back on, then as soon as it kicks in, follow it's instructions carefully as you will need to create a new partition before setting the windows back up. Once it installs sucessfully without any problems, you will be on your way to using your computer again. Don't forget to re-install all your hardware drivers! If you don't have the drivers for them, you can get them at Driverguide.com.
If this is all confusing to you, please have your computer to your local computer shop or you may ship it to me to repair it at your request. Good luck.
wolfie
i know you have explained this stuff to others.
my problem is i bought this computer with this on,from what the little man said i had no choice,who am i to disagree,just a mere mortal.
any way all my bits an peices don't work on here an i would rather be going back to xp pro of which i have a disk for,when i said to the guy i was wanting to do this an he said i'd mess it up as i wouldn't get the drivers for all the software on here.
whats your opinion?
thanks for any help you can give
simon
Simon,
That's hard to say. I have no idea if the hardware in question that you've got has XP drivers - BUT... odds are fairly good that they DO exist - somewhere. XP is still being sold on brand new computers and depending on the motherboard in the computer, and the peripherals, there's a damn good chance that they exist. They may or may NOT be on the computer maker's web site, you may have to go to Nvidia, or ATI or VIA or any of the other chipset makers to find the right ones. You may also have a problem where the motherboard's BIOS may have been flashed with an OEM version. If this is the case, drivers may or may not behave exactly as expected, depending on what the OEM did to it.
Case in point... I recently bought a Gigabyte motherboard that was supposed to be brand new and when I booted it for the first time, it came up with a Packard Bell (ugh!) logo... Turns out the board was a spare board that Gigabyte made for PB. I had to flash it with the latest Gigabyte BIOS to get rid of the PB stuff in order to get some of the drivers to work properly.
But now there's another issue here all together. You say you've got a Windows XP CD. Great. But what about the Windows COA with the CD Key? Is it a retail version or is it an OEM version? If it's retail, i.e. a Windows XP upgrade CD, then you can reapportion the Key to a new computer. You'll probably have to call Microsoft's activation line and talk to them about activating the copy of Windows with the new hardware.
If it's an OEM copy, then you're basically S.O.L. OEM licenses are locked to the motherboard of the computer. So, unless the new hardware has the exact same motherboard, odds are excellent you won't be able to get through the activation sequence.
So... It's up to you. You've got options - install XP, find drivers and hope you can get it activated or hold out for Vista drivers for the bits that aren't working properly. Either way, if you don't feel the slightest bit comfortable with it all, I'd recommend getting ahold of someone who's savvy with computers and getting some help. Might cost you a bit of change, but then again, the frustration level can be quite a bit lower.
Simon,
I wish to share this with you on your subject concerning your situation, as I am a computer technician with many years of experience. What I have discovered here for what is purchased either the computer or a laptop, if it came with Windows Vista loaded on, chances are that these hardware is not compatible with Windows XP because these hardware are too new and is specifically made for Windows Vista only. It also does not offer drivers for Windows XP either. Since obviously you bought a computer with Windows Vista loaded and you try to revert it to Windows XP, you will not be able to find the drivers to support Windows XP. When you mentioned this: when i said to the guy i was wanting to do this an he said i'd mess it up as i wouldn't get the drivers for all the software on here. Here, this guy is correct of what he said. My suggestion to you is to take it back to him and ask for an exchange in computers with the Windows XP loaded instead. Once you do that, later on, if you decide you want to load Windows Vista on it, chances are you may be able to get updated drivers for that through the hardware company Support website, for example, if the computer is a Dell, then you would go into the Dell's Support website to retrieve the updated drivers for all of the hardware that is in it. For any bits and pieces of hardware you have on hand to put in it, chances are, there are no updated drivers for them to meet the requirements in Windows Vista unless if you are lucky enough that Windows Vista itself has the alternative drivers for them. If not, then this means that you would have to replace any hardware you have on hand for new ones that will support Windows Vista. I truly hope that this information that I have given you is very helpful to you.
Really you people...y'all get yourselves in to a terrible knot! Apply the 'KISS' principle in any, and all disciplines, including technology. If you have a 'Desktop PC' make sure you get at least 2x physical HDD (since these days storage capacity is so vast and cheap) and most new systems 'BIOS' features include a 'pop-up boot menu' which you can use to intervene with your choice of device. You can also configure the 'default boot' option, and then only make your choice when u wish. Either way, you do not have to 'stuff' around with peski 'Boot Managers' anymore, unless you want new hedaches. As for a Notebook/Laptop get a 'Desktop replacement' one which will easily support a 'Dual' HDD physical implementation. Why waste money on these 'lightweight' Notebooks...you want the damn thing to do what your Desktop does, don't you?
Once you have done this it is a smooth ride; forget all the 'techno babble,' that is put out by the industry and all other disciplines to make themselves sound intelligent, and with the intention of confusing you in order to 'lighten' your wallets/handbags/purses etcetra (we all have to make a living), so that's why Doctors/lawyers/and all other so-called professionals use 'industry jargon,' code if you like, just so they can get 'one-over-on-you.' We humans are such silly creatures (we take ourselves far to seriously), the 'Animal Kingdom' must look in absolute wonderment at our 'carry-on's' and sigh with relief they are not like us!
In addition, this way you can have two perfectly clean Operating systems (Windows/linux/Solaris/Unix/MVS/OS390....blah...blah) without the hassle of known conflicts!
One: Before installing anything, DISCONNECT/POWER-OFF the HDD's and any other periphral devices. Two: Target one Hard Drive Disk/device only, and install whatever OP/sys you like, and in any order you like. This way none of the above/posts can happen, i.e. 'Boot loaders/managers from various operating systems 'stomping' over each other. They (Op/sys), now have it all (the enviroment) to themselves, just how they like it. Once you have finished one install, DISCONECT/POWER-OFF the 'used target drive' then do the next/following: CONNECT/POWER-ON the second/next HDD (you can do this with as many HDD's as your system can support...one at a time, I have five, but it can support eight), and install whatever OP/Sys to the connected target drive/device you like. Run through the installation process again...remember you must finish the complete cycle the OP/Sys requires e.g. recycling/booting process with the single target HDD. Only then when the system is up and running (you can load all the extra drivers/utilities later once you have all the Op/Systems installed), DISCONNECT/POWER-OFF and do the next install. Once you have completed this process RECONNECT/POWER-ON all the HDD/devices, and you will be able to boot into any system you like and access/manipulate/see all your data on the different HDD/devices, especially if you are using compatible systems like Windows XP and Vista. By doing/using this method you can avoid all the 'DRAMA' that is evident from the above posts in this ongoing thread/saga!
BTW once your systems are in place, you can then load all your old and new programs on the workable/desired platform at your leisure, as well as being 'future-proofed' for Vista, once you no longer need/desire to use XP.
This process can be applied over and over again in the case of system corruption due to either viruses/nasties or just plain old 'Windows intolerance, and, or future operating systems! You will also save on the shiekels/stress bigtime!
PS it is always best to start afresh on new hardware. You can shorten/hasten the installation by using a utility like 'Norton Ghost' 8.2, or 2003 or something similar (the latest offerings are ***!) by 'mirrowing' the HDD, but you still need to do a Windows 2nd repair boot install for hardware recognition. I do not think this can be done with 'Vista' and future Windows offerings. A fresh install is the way to go! Forget 'in-place' upgrades (only if you can afford it), because in the long-haul, you are better off with a fresh system.
Really...take my advise, you will sleep soundly once again, and you won't have to listen to all that industry 'gobblygook,' or be subjected to a 'million' advisors, all with a 'million' different answers! Granted...there are several ways to skin a Cat, but not my Cat thankyou very much!
Blessings from your non-MVP advisor.
I wish to share this with you on your subject concerning your situation, as I am a computer technician with many years of experience. What I have discovered here for what is purchased either the computer or a laptop, if it came with Windows Vista loaded on, chances are that these hardware is not compatible with Windows XP because these hardware are too new and is specifically made for Windows Vista only. It also does not offer drivers for Windows XP either. Since obviously you bought a computer with Windows Vista loaded and you try to revert it to Windows XP, you will not be able to find the drivers to support Windows XP.
There's a couple of bones I got to pick with that assessment...
1.) Windows XP hasn't gone away. In fact, Microsoft has extended the time XP can be sold till the end of January '08...
2.) Hardware is hardware. An Intel Core 2 chip - regardless of how many cores - is the same regardless of which OS comes stock on the computer. The same goes for ALL of the peripherals found on the motherboard. USB 2.0 is still USB 2.0. There are only so many options for the chipset as well. It's either from Intel, AMD, Nvidia, or Via and maybe one or two other sources.
Given that, since the hardware hasn't gone through any quantum leaps forward in technology, it would be logical to conclude that hardware drivers are quite probably available. Since Dell and other vendors DO sell computers with either XP or Vista preloaded, there is NO sense in them having more than one motherboard for each type of system they sell. That would undoubtably only confuse the tech support people unnecessarily.
Yes, it may take some digging for drivers on the web, but you can find them if you look hard enough.
Wolfie,
In an answer to your line of subject, don't try to contradict me in the hardware issues here. What I have discovered is what they ARE. What you have mentioned there is quite incorrect! I have worked on some of those newer systems implanted with Windows Vista as I mentioned earlier that I discovered that some of the hardware such as graphics cards and etc. (NOT the motherboard (except the integrated graphics and etc.), memory boards, USBs or the CPUs!) was made specifically for Windows Vista, NOT for Windows XP. For those newer systems with continued Windows XP implanted in them, MAY have updated drivers (depending on the hardware used in them) upon upgrading to Windows Vista. (Check with the manufacturers' support info BEFORE upgrading! This varies on the manufacturers.) Some of the older hardware (if purchased in stores) or older systems with original hardware that came with Windows XP when XP was first released usually are NOT built to meet the Windows Vista's standards because of it's newly constructed platform. (Of course at that time, nobody knew what Microsoft's new OS was going to be like.) Many of the manufacturers has the options to make updated drivers for the older hardware devices by testing them to see if they will or will not work, BUT, most of them are not able to pass the Windows Vista's standards, in this case the chips may be too old or that they prefer not to update the drivers because of the fact that they are trying to sell new ones. Now, with the issue with Intel and AMD processor chips, they nearly have NO impact on any versions of Windows especially Microsoft's next future OS which only depends on their speeds as to whether or not they can handle the burden of the windows versions and the main issue is that they DO NOT require drivers. (That, is when you check with Microsoft's spec info on the minimal CPU's speed.) USBs will be hanging around for quite a good long while because of their stability and capabilities and thus they are the same, nothing different. As far as looking hard enough for the updated drivers for Windows Vista when if they state that there are NO updated drivers for them, you ARE wasting your precious time! Especially when they tell you that there is NO updated drivers for whatever particular hardware there is. What have you been doing? Reading between their lines? Read their hardware Support info before you jump the gun to blurt it out thinking that there are drivers that will or might support Windows Vista. For whatever hardware that you are looking to get the updated drivers to meet the Windows Vista's specifications, READ the manufacturer's support information FIRST, if they tell you that there are NO drivers available for Windows Vista, that MEANS THERE ARE NO DRIVERS FOR THEM and NOT meant for the Window Vista! THERE ARE NO SUBSTITUTE DRIVERS BY OTHER MANUFACTURERS EITHER, UNLESS Microsoft provided them and included them in Windows Vista. If the manufacturer states that there is an updated drivers for Windows Vista, then you're in luck as they will provide them.
Most people out there who are not that very knowledgeable in computers are already frustrated with Windows Vista because of certain new features and/or problems that they see, don't know how to resolve them and they tend to want to stick with Windows XP instead because they are used to it and having no problems with it which is why they are puchasing the new systems with XP on them. Now, with many of these conflict issues with computers and hardware certainly DOES NOT confuse me at all. When the facts are stated by the manufacturers, is a FACT! Uh Wolfie, did you ever mentioned that you are a PC techinician?, I didn't hear a thing out of you which makes me assume that you are not??? Thank you for your attention.
Another thing Wolfie, as you mentioned, Since Dell and other vendors DO sell computers with either XP or Vista preloaded, there is NO sense in them having more than one motherboard for each type of system they sell. That would undoubtably only confuse the tech support people unnecessarily. You're close, but not true. They will use the same or similiar motherboards, in the same computer casings with the same or similiar model numbers, but different peripherals such as sound cards, graphic cards, and etc. I mean two different ones, one will support Windows XP, the other to support Windows Vista. The ones that supports Windows Vista WILL NOT support Windows XP if anyone tries to change it to Windows XP if they are left intact inside the casing. As far as Intel and AMD CPUs, that's their options for either Windows versions as well as the memory boards, size wise. For USBs, they are pretty standard and already integrated into the motherboards that will work with both versions. Laptops are an entirely different story. There's one of each for different versions as well and those that comes with Windows Vista, CANNOT support Windows XP in ANYWAY AT ALL! Laptops ARE NOT BUILT THE SAME WAY AS REGULAR COMPUTERS! They are ALL integrated. For computer vendors, they KEEP records on every models that they manufacture. Gee, how can they get confused??? Anyways, This type of subject should NOT be discussed in this section of the forum.
Pow,
I still stand by my statement - hardware is still hardware. The ONLY real advance/change in hardware under Vista is that of DirectX 10. Most, if not all DirectX 10 chipsets out there in the wild have Windows XP drivers. The only thing you don't get is DirectX 10 under XP - and that's not the hardware, nor the driver's fault. That's Microsoft's choice not to rewrite the entire graphics subsystem in XP to make it DirectX10 compliant.
That's NOT to say that a DirectX 10 capable video card - such as the Nividia 8000 series - won't work under XP. In fact, I've got an Nvidia 8500 GT based card in the box I'm writing this on - and it's running XP SP2. And yes, it works just fine, thank you very much. Should I ever decide to upgrade this box to Vista, I can always get Vista drivers for the card and it will do DirectX 10 as well.
As for CPUs not needing drivers... I suggest you look at your computer's device manager. You will see the Computer at the top, followed by the plethora of devices installed on the system, including, but not limited to hard drives, optical drives, floppy drives, their respective controllers, keyboards, mice, monitors, NICs and various other hardware followed by a catagory called "PROCESSORS" - which SHOULD show up right below the ports, Under the Processors section, you should see the CPU chip that's in your box.
In my Processors section I see two entries, both reading - "AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+". There are, of course, two entries for this because it's a dual core chip. Should I right-click on either entry and select Properties, I'm taken to a properties dialog with three tabs. Tab 1 - General - gives you the standard "this device is working properly..." bit. If I click on the Driver tab - it gives me the usual summary of the drivers involved and options to view driver details, update drivers, roll back drivers and uninstall the device. Should I click on Driver Details, I get the actual name of the driver file - c:\windows\system32\drivers\processors.sys.
So you can see, your assertion that CPUs do NOT require drivers is utterly and completely mistaken. In fact, pretty much EVERY install of Windows XP I've ever come across has had the processors section except for one. And that installation was FUBAR.
Your next bit is irrelevant. You're going on about Vista drivers for older hardware. The issue in question is "downgrading" a computer's operating system FROM Vista down TO Windows XP. My point was (and still is) hardware hasn't changed THAT drastically in the last year. There aren't any newfangled USB 2.5 or 3.0 ports, nor terabit NICs, or other bits that go onto any modern motherboard that have come out that do NOT have Windows XP drivers. In short, a Windows XP based motherboard made in the last 2 years will have pretty much the same hardware features as one they're now hawking as a Vista computer. Yes, the Vista box will have a bit more RAM, a bigger hard drive, maybe a newer video chipset, but it's still pretty much the SAME thing as the XP box.
Now why, then, would a hardware manufacturer say there aren't any XP drivers for their new hardware? Simple. Vista, as nice an OS as it is... It isn't perfect. There are issues. The most predominant of which is the lack of peripheral drivers. It took HP something like 9 months to come out with drivers for my Color Laserjet 1600. Inexcusable. But I digress.
Hardware manufacturers are attempting to push Vista out into the world. They do want people to buy Vista on their new computers. If they told them they could revert back to XP, then Vista would NEVER get adopted and that would NOT be good for business. Like it or not Vista is the future (for the moment - at least until the next version of Windows comes out) and the hardware people need to do their part to insure Vista gets adopted.
The drivers may NOT exist in one nice, tight, convenient package. You may have to go to each component maker's web site and pick and choose each individual component's driver, but if you want XP desperately enough on a given computer that's allegedly got NO drivers for XP available, AND you're willing to dig for the drivers you need, you can have it.
<Sigh>
Where ARE you getting your misinformation? AMD and Intel have only ONE type of each processor family. They're general purpose chips that aren't optimized or otherwise fudged for XP, nor Vista nor for Mac OSX nor Linux. They just are. In fact, the Intel CPUs that get popped into PCs are exactly the same as the ones they pop into Macs these days. In fact, there aren't many differences between a PC and a Mac as far as the hardware goes except for the motherboard.
As far as laptops are concerned... Your point is ludicrous. Have you had a good look at the back of a modern desktop PC...? Hello.. EVERYTHING is built into the motherboard - USB, sound, NIC, video, etc... How is that any different from a laptop? True, a laptop's built a bit differently - the connectors and such are arranged in a way to make it convenient to stick in it's case, but it's still the same general components that go into desktops.
While it IS true that an older laptop that has limited video memory won't be able to run Vista in all it's glory, odds are quite excellent that you CAN run XP on a laptop rigged up to run Vista. Remember, Vista's system requirements are a bit steeper than XPs...
Wolfie,
I have NO TIME to argue with you! All the information I have said ARE TRUE FACTS! These are NOT misinformed facts! You can believe all you want, but your information on some issues is inaccurate or that in this case, you may have MISunderstood me. As I see it the way you talk here, you are NOT a PC technician! THIS IS THE END OF THE STORY!
Why don't you two (powhammer, Wolfie), give it a rest, and stop SHOUTING! This board is meant for everyone, not just for you two to get-your-rocks-off at each other...chill the 'testosterone' will ya, for everybodies sake!
Did I miss something?? (cited). Yeah you both did!
NOW CHILL OUT...or you will both be dead before your time, due to stress related illnesses.
Dude.. I'm utterly chilled out. In fact, if I were any more "chilled", I'd be frozen solid. I'm not shouting either. I've been merely pointing out that where there's a will, there's a way.
For what it's worth, I'm not going to bother answering him any further on the issue. I can see I'm beating a dead horse. He'll never be convinced. And that's the end of that.
Thanks for your concern... Seriously...
Powhammer,
You need to take it easy there killer. Your post is generalizing all hardware as if it's all the same. "THERE ARE NO SUBSTITUTE DRIVERS BY OTHER MANUFACTURERS EITHER" is entirely inaccurate.
http://www.omegadrivers.net/about.php <--- No other substiture drivers??? That's odd, these guys have been doing it for years.
I have been working/struggling with computer hardware for multiple operating systems for years, and there have been many situations where the manufacturer has missed the boat on releasing drivers, while third party or open source developers have created suitable drivers for such things as video cards, and sounds cards. As for windows xp or vista specific hardware, I can't say I have had too many issues except for the lack of support for certain Creative sound cards that use direct sound chips on the boards, but that's all changing with OpenAL.
Either way, I haven't encountered any "newer systems" that have cpu's and usb controllers specifically designed for Vista, and I find it very hard to believe that any chip manufacture would design a chip that can only be operated by one specific OS. That's just absurd in my mind.
Since there is no way to post a discussion question given the level of complexity of the Discussion Group's web interface:
Perhaps someone might know how anyone could post a new message to any discussion group. I get an Error sound effect when I select New Question. I have shut off pop-up blocking, which still doesn't help. There is no feedback or error message with the Error sound effect.
I am not trying to post a message to the wrong group; there is simply no other web interface which functions.
Also, if anybody knows, why even something trivial is turned into an ordeal, in the area of computing? That has always puzzled me.Thank you greatly,
- how can get it out of my computer
TechFrkz,
Thank you for offering your information and the link you provided. I did take a look at it but it appears that they are a little behind on it and it doesn't state the Vista listed on there yet. As you can see, there are updates just for the certain brands and certain models. The rest are updated software supporting certain peripherals and does not cover all peripherals that was once used in Windows XP and earlier OSes. I will give you a link as a good example of what will work in Windows Vista and what will not work. This is the best example of these and it may be helpful to you as it will easily provide you with enough info to give you an idea where you stand rather than trying to stuggle all day looking for the updated drivers on-line. This also might help wolfie in the LOOOOOONNNNGGG run since his brain is made out bricks and NOT a PC technician. Check this link out: http://winqual.microsoft.com/hcl/. This is the Windows Vista Hardware Compatibility List provided by Microsoft and it does offer links to the manufacturers for updated drivers to work in Windows Vista. It will also give you other peripherals listed that won't have updated drivers for Windows Vista. (How accurate can this get? I think it is very accurate.) TechFrkz, As you mentioned this: any "newer systems" that have cpu's and usb controllers specifically designed for Vista. Did I mention this part? No I didn't. Motherboards with integrated USB controllers and CPU's are compatible with all versions of Windows including Windows Vista. This is what I have been telling all along. Some of you guys do not realize that I AM a PC Technician and I know ALL about computers and their functionality as well as ALL the information behind them that no one ever knew about. Enough is said on this forum and if any of you still doubt me on this, all I can say is, if you get further problems on your computers and don't know what to do, my suggestion to any of you is seek a nearby QUALIFIED PC Technician to repair it and they will also tell you as is. This will be my LAST input on this information. I am here ONLY to help others that are NOT skilled, out with their computer problems that cannot resolve on their own, NOT argue with anyone, so please leave it at that and rest your case, thank you.
WIndows NT 4.0 Doesn't support usb of any kind lol.
- You're correct wizz, Windows NT did not support USB's, neither did the first early edition of Windows 95 until Microsoft released a second version of Windows 95 with USB Support as it was called Windows 95 "b".
We are discussing operating systems that were written after the technology was developed and widely used... NT was released in 1996; USB 1.0 was introduced in 1995... Your statement is not relevant to the argument. You could say that OS/2 did not support USB, or VMS did not support USB... same affect. My car supports USB :-) wait, that's not relevant either.
- Your statement is true TechFrkZ. If you think about this for a moment, what you said there, it took awhile for Microsoft, Apple-Macintosh and others to incorporate the new USB into their software to work it. This is quite similiar to what we have been going through with Microsoft that released Windows Vista which took companies awhile to incorporate their hardware peripherals to work with Vista. Quite funny as it seems how companies get stumped into something new that has to work together.
I would like to know the answer to this question also. My son tried to install Vista on a computer running XP. Now although we are running XP, I can't reformat the hard drive (which desparately needs to be done) because Vista is running in the background somewhere. When I put my XP disk in to reformat it says I can't because of Vista running also!
HELP!!!!! Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Hello Katet130,
I did post this a while back. Some parts of this post will give you answers to many of the problems that people have faced. I will post this again for you. I hope this will work out for you and hopefully you won't be confused with it. Here is the instructions.......The problem here you have is that you are trying to use the same partition that Windows Vista used in order to re-load Windows XP. You need to delete that partition and make a new one. Windows Vista has slightly different format than Windows XP and leaves a very small amount of remains on there.
There are two ways to do it. One way is: if you have either a Windows 98 boot disk or Windows ME boot disk, at A: prompt, type in fdisk after you re-boot your system, then choose " Delete a partition" and then from there choose "Delete NON DOS partition". (Don't forget to take the boot disk out first!) Then, put your Windows XP CD in and restart your computer and it should load on smoothly. OR, simply use the Windows XP CD and select to delete the partition and then create a partition and then you can proceed with the formatting. It will then go on to re-install the Windows XP and should load on smoothly. I find using the Windows 98 boot disk a big help because it gives your hard drive a fresh new start, like as if it was brand new.
In another case, if you have Windows XP loaded on sharing the same hard drive with Windows Vista, the bad news is that, you will need to take the both partitions off the hard drive until there is nothing on it. As a suggestion, it is best not to have Windows XP and Windows Vista on the same hard drive. Purchase another hard drive so that you can have Windows XP on one and Windows Vista on another. Once done this way, upon starting your computer up, you can toggle between what Windows you want to bring up and this also helps to avoid further problems between the two versions of Windows. If you are still confused with this and not sure how to do this, the best thing to do is, bring your computer to a qualified PC shop and I would ask them to put an extra hard drive in it and have Windows XP loaded on one drive and Windows Vista on the other. Hope this helps you.
I am running xp home edition on one of my system. I am buying a new hard and windows vista only to play halo 2. My question is can I dual boot xp and vista home basic from separate hard drives?
The answer is a resounding YES.
The way I did it - in order to keep the XP hard drive from having problems later on - was to use the BIOS on the motherboard to select the boot device. Note - NOT all motherboards allow this. Check your motherboard's manual to see if it'll work.
Many motherboards allow you to select the boot order, effectively changing the 2nd or 3rd or even 4th hard drive into the 1st drive boot position - effectively making it your C: drive. Note - this is not the same thing as selecting the overall boot order - where you choose your first boot device, second boot device, etc... This is where you physically reorganize the order your hard drives are in.
The reason doing it this way makes sense - if you install it to the 2nd or 3rd drive, the Vista installer will modify the boot partition on the 1st drive (the one with XP on it). Later on, should you have a need to reinstall XP by deleting and formatting the partition, you may find yourself locked out because Vista modifed some information on the partition and as a poster earlier on this chain found out, they had great difficulty with doing that.
When I installed Vista (Beta 2), I removed all of the hard drives from the machine except the target drive. I installed Vista (B2) on the drive, powered down, reinstalled the original C: drive (with XP) into it's usual spot. I then used the BIOS to change the Vista drive as the primary boot device and let it boot. No problems. When I wanted to go back to XP, it was a simple matter of rebooting, going back into the BIOS, and switching the XP drive back to the primary boot device and everything was good. When Vista RC2 came along, I repeated the process with a 3rd drive - and was able to switch between XP, Vista B2 and RC2 with maybe an extra 10 seconds by going into the BIOS and doing the switch.
Alternatively, there's another option - buying a pair of removable hard drive cages which you can quickly switch out between sesssions. It may not be the prettiest solution, but it's likewise going to keep the XP drive from being modified by Vista. And it's an alternative if your motherboard doesn't support drive reorganization.
- Yes, that will work. Make sure that you have at least 512 MB or more in order to run the Windows Vista. If you are not sure of how much memory you have, in Windows XP, go into the Control Panel and click on System, the amount of memory can be found there towards the bottom. Also check the Halo 2 game requirements found on it's package.
- if your vista is ppreinstalled for example, vista was on your laptop when you got it then you can't change it. but if you had xp before find your windows xp driver disc and put that in your laptop then follow through the process (you must read all of it. do not skip anything without reading) and then it will install on your laptop and tada you have windows xp. NOTE: if vista was on your laptop when you got it you can not install windows xp. this will work with a desktop aswell! nath -jr. NJA
Hi i am currently using an acer aspire 5310 which has come pre installed with vista , which is not working really great.I do not have a floppy drive to boot. so pls give me the link to uninstall vista and install xp professional on my laptop.
- Put your Windows XP CD in and turn on your computer to boot it up, then select it to delete the partition and then create a new partition. After that, follow it's instructions to install Windows XP. You may run into a small problem as far as drivers goes. Some of your Acer's peripherals may not have alternative drivers for Windows XP. But you can check to see what is available for Windows XP at the Acer Support website. Good luck.
The Gutmann article is pure non-sense!
Gutmann's claims are baseless...he never
even ran Windows Vista!
Read the truth!
Peter Gutmann turns to smear tactics with help from PCWorld NZ
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=718
Claim that Vista DRM causes full CPU load and global warming debunked!
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=673&tag=rbxccnbzd1
Busting the FUD about Vista's DRM
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=284
Everything you've read about Vista DRM is wrong (Part 1)
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=299
Everything you've read about Vista DRM is wrong (Part 2)
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=304&tag=rbxccnbzd1
Everything you've read about Vista DRM is wrong (Part 3)
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=309&tag=rbxccnbzd1Is it possible to de-grade windows vista back to xp? if it is, how can u do it? preferrably without having to send it to a shop or anything.
what the *** is a patition? i have no idea about computers can someone please explain in simple terms =]tomethy1636 wrote: what the *** is a patition? i have no idea about computers can someone please explain in simple terms =]
In short, a partition is a container that is created electronically on a hard drive that defines how data should be stored. It can contain the entire amount of free space or can be limited to smaller sizes. You can have multiple partitions on a given hard drive as well.
A partition is then formatted to accomodate the file system native to the operating system. For Windows, the native format would be NTFS - the NT (New Technology) File System. Windows treats each partition as a separate drive letter. You may have two partitions on a given hard drive and you'll see a C: and a D: drive on your system.
P.S.... Given your lack of expertise, you should seriously consider consulting someone who's more experienced with that Vista to XP downgrade.
Wolfie2k6 wrote: Harry,
I'm going to guess you downloaded the beta yourself.. Right? Did you bother reading any of the stuff posted BEFORE you started the download or did you just go on automatic pilot clicking your way through without the slightest pause to find out what you were getting yourself into?
For what it's worth, anytime you see the word "beta" in conjunction with "software" the FIRST thing you do is READ EVERYTHING you can about it before you put your system at risk of being hosed 8 ways till next Tuesday.
And when you see the word "beta" in conjunction with the words "Operating System" you have to be even TWICE as diligent and by all means NEVER, EVER install the beta on your primary work computer. THIS WARNING WAS POSTED MANY TIMES on the initial web sites for the Vista Beta: "DO NOT INSTALL ON A PRODUCTION MACHINE."
Beta - when used regarding software means that the software is somehow incomplete, the features are NOT ready for prime time - not to mention definitly NOT 100% bug free. It's purpose is to have people who have some expertise with computers and operating systems test the software, report back to the vendor what issues have come up so they can FIX them before it gets released to the general public.
Vista is NOT a bunch of patches to Windows XP. This is NOT XP service pack 3! When you installed the upgrade, it overwrote XP's files. Vista is a brand new version of all those files that make up Windows. There is NO uninstall for this except to
a.) back up your data
b.) insert your XP install CD
c.) boot to the CD
d.) format the partition
e.) and reinstall XP.
Have a nice day.
nope that does not work i have a pc with vista on it and she wants vista off. and xp pro installed it wont let me redo the
partition it keeps telling me windows can not complete tha ttask.
am having this problem
My question for anyone who might can help me is that I recently bought a new computer and it won't do anything with the vista home premium on it. I have tried several times to reinstall windows xp on it, while talking to the dell techs. When I put the cd in and hit boot from cd it runs the scan and after that the screen freezes and tells me that windows is shutting down to prevent further damage. Has anyone had this problem before and is there any solutions? Thank you for any help that you could give me
is there away around this ?
Graphite07 wrote: am having this problem
My question for anyone who might can help me is that I recently bought a new computer and it won't do anything with the vista home premium on it. I have tried several times to reinstall windows xp on it, while talking to the dell techs. When I put the cd in and hit boot from cd it runs the scan and after that the screen freezes and tells me that windows is shutting down to prevent further damage. Has anyone had this problem before and is there any solutions? Thank you for any help that you could give me
is there away around this ?
Graphite,
There is a workaround for it. First, to let you become aware of this, since you bought a new computer, it is under a warranty that if you plan on making any changes to it or modify the computer in any way will void the warranty. Since you are putting yourself at risk to lose that warranty on that computer, so, that choice will be yours. I will guide you on how to go from Windows Vista to Windows XP.
First, If you have your important files you want to keep, back them up by either transferring them to a flash drive or burn them to a blank CD-RW CD. Next, (this option may be all you have) Put the Windows XP CD in and follow it's instructions carefully, you will need to delete the partition that Windows Vista is on. Delete the entire partition. (The reason for this is because the Windows Vista's platform is slightly different than Windows XP's. Windows XP uses NTFS platform and Windows Vista also uses the same platform except it is more advanced than Windows XP's. You cannot use Windows Vista's platform to install Windows XP because of that I mentioned above.) After you delete the entire partition, now you can create a new partition for Windows XP and make sure that partition is fully formatted for use with Windows XP . After you complete that, follow it's instructions carefully when setting up Windows XP. You will need to install the drivers for the hardware peripherals for that computer. I do not know what brand computer you have, but you can go to the computer manufacturer's Support website to retrieve the drivers for it. Just a note: There may not be any drivers available for Windows XP for certain hardware peripherals in your computer. Drivers for Windows Vista will not work under Windows XP, but check carefully for any that may be available only for Windows XP. If there are only a few or none at all, you're out of luck. Chances on finding the XP drivers for those peripherals are very slim or none at all. Please read this carefully, even if you have to, print this out. Hope this works for you and I wish you luck.
this pc is out of warranty and its for a daycare my wife works at, the direct hates vista and wants xp pro. i know how to remove the partition but it wont let me! yes i know about drivers and other stuff. its a gate GT5404 pc.
thanks for your help can i run fdisc to do this?
i got a HP laptop tha that had vista to run on xp and i found a lot of the drivers i needed
sound
video
wireless
cd/rw/dvd rom drivers
m/b drivers
usb
like all of them but one driver. the lap top is doing great.
thanks for your help and reply.
okay do i want to delete the non dos partition or the primary do partition?
Yes you can. You can use the Windows 98 boot disk to get into "fdisk". Here is a link to download the Windows 98 boot files. It will need to be placed on a clean blank floppy disk: http://www.bootdisks.us/category/windows-98 Once you have it on a clean blank floppy disk, pop it in and start the computer up, and select, "Boot without CD-rom support". At the "A:" prompt type "fdisk".
That will bring you to the partition selection. Select it to "Delete Non-DOS partition". Type in "Y" once it asks you if you are sure that you want to delete it. After this, hit the "ESC" key to go back to the "A:\" prompt. Take the boot disk out and put the Windows XP CD in and restart your computer. Follow the Windows XP's instructions carefullly.
I have checked out on the specs for that computer hardware-wise for the drivers as indicated here: http://support.gateway.com/support/drivers/search.asp?param=GT5404&st=kw These drivers are for Windows Vista, but none for Windows XP. Gateway has stated that these Vista drivers are not compatible with Windows XP like I mentioned to you earlier. While chances are very slim, Windows XP may have substitute drivers for them, otherwise it may not. You can also check the Windows Updates to see if there are any availiable for them or you might google around for them. I pretty much doubt there are any for Windows XP when googling for them. You are welcome at any time. I have done my very best for you to help you out.
