bad sectors

[jin29_neci]

hello guys another pc came to me lately.
Its my sister in law PC, she told me that she want her pc to be reformatted.
So I Immmediately formatted the PC, here are the SPECS: P4 1.8 ghz, ECS mthrbrd (P4VMM2), 128 mb of RAM, 40 gb of HD.

I tried to format the said drive and I tried to format using FDISK and suddenly an error came up ALLOCATION something.... and I realize that FDISk is not compatible with large hardrives like 40 gb so i decided to download a FDISK that can configure a large drives and I tried to reformat it. Then suddenly I decided to install windows XP PRO, the problem is this when Im in the middle of installing the OS and partitioning and using NTFS as the file system the dirve into 2 drives I decided to install it in C:/ and it hangs on the formatting process, then I decided to install it in D:/ and it continues on working on its setup process and in the stage where Installing packages its just stops there and doesnt continue to anymore it remains 32% I waited for about 15 min. it remained as is.

After this scenario I decided to partition it into 3 drives, I insatlled it in E:/ still the same, nothing change.

I think a possible bad sector isnt guys?
Im really positive with this, its the first time I ever experienced this.,
Any SMART post guys in this scenario, or willl I try to install win98 first and then Winxp, whatever post may do.

THANKS IN ADVANCE, AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

[nightcat]

I'm not sure about bad sectors thing, but if I were you, I'd use XP formating facility to remove all the partitions. You have this facility when running Windows setup.

After that try formating from scratch.

[nihil]

jin~

What make of hard drive is it?...............you need to get the diagnostics program from the drive manufacturer's site. It will be capable of creating a bootable floppy/CD.............use that to check the drive..........hopefully it will "repair" the bad sectors, then the drive will work fine...........for a while

My personal and professional advice is to replace the drive, if the manufacturer's diagnostics turn up any errors.

NOW!

You :

Then suddenly I decided to install windows XP PRO

On a machine with 128Mb of RAM?............. NO!...........here are my recommendations, they are purely personal opinion..............

Windows 98/98SE.................64Mb RAM...better at 128Mb ...............DO NOT exceed 512Mb
Windows ME..........................256Mb.........better at 384Mb.........DO NOT exceed 512Mb
Windows XP...........................256Mb.........better at anything above

Windows 2000 will work reasonably on 128Mb and above.

And everything works better with properly licenced software

Just my thoughts.................

[Nokia]

Why on earth did you get negged for your post nihil? Sounds like pretty good advice you gave!

[foxyloxley]

From what I can make out of your post, and I realise that English might not be your primary language, is that you seem to be trying everything at once.........

One thing at a time, let it FINISH, before you start part next.

If it helps, write down what you want to do, and the order you want to do it in.

As for the dual boot question. Install the earlier Windows OS FIRST.
Remember : NTFS file system OS's can 'see' FAT systems, but FAT cannot 'see' NTFS.

98 - ME - 2000 - XP

Get yourself a copy of 'Partition Magic' to sort out what partitions go where.

And get them to buy a NEW HDD, AND some extra memory [128 MB more at least]

[nihil]

That is an easy one to answer................

A certain person does not accept that 512Mb is the maximum for stability in Windows 9x/ME

Even though you can find that information on the Microsoft Official Support Site

Anyways I replied to him and told him to neg William Gates III..............it is his OS and his technical support advice, after all?

Cheers

AND I STAND BY WHAT I SAID.................because it is based on experience, as opposed to arrogance and B/S

But, as I only cut my first code in 1970, I obviously know bugger all about what I am saying?

Cheers, and thanks for asking............

[Juridian]

According to the microsoft website, xp pro minimum supported is 64 megs, 128 is recommended. Given that the post was off base and giving out screwed info...and then he went and threw his screwed info into the replies he got for negs...

You can also go over the 512 limit, but it can require some tweaking as per the microsoft kb article.

Running minimum requirements sucks but is doable.

It just sounds to me like your drive is hosed and nihil is being an ass. Quit taking your stupid little dots personally.

References:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...g/sysreqs.mspx

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q253912/

I stand by my info and back it up....so bite me.

[chsh]

Personally I think your drive is probably on its way out. You should test it in another computer if at all possible to ensure it's not the drive. I'm guessing by the age of the machine it's nowhere close to being covered under warranty, so if you're looking for a replacement, you'll probably find 60GB drives to be around $50-75 US (I bought an 80GB 7200RPM about 2 months ago at $115 CAN).

Originally posted here by Nokia
Why on earth did you get negged for your post nihil? Sounds like pretty good advice you gave!

Because it's BS regarding the > 512MB cap on Win9x. As for the "you can find it at Microsoft", I suggest you go read the various knowledgebase articles; they mention you may get errors starting applications, not that it affects stability whatsoever. In fact, if you apply the workaround found here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q253912/ you'll probably find your system is more stable than with less RAM. Then again, what's actual experience with the particular configuration in question worth here; this is a web forum...

WinXP will run on 128MB of RAM, and while not running well for a power user, it will be fine for single-app style use. I wouldn't recommend it, but I've seen it run on less.

[jin29_neci]

sorry guys, my english is not that good. Its true that its not my primary language...

Regarding your suggesytions and POST thanks, and I already solved the problem, my sister in law forgot to tell that, there was a virus. So decided to fix the MBR, then repartition again, and I downloaded a tool in the manufacturer's to isolate the bad sectors.

In the middle of installation, PRESTO it doesnt hang anymore!!

Thanks guys for the advice.

Is it possible to reformat a 40 Gb using a FAT 32 file system? Im planning to buy a large drive I think 120 gb, and I want to install win 98 and win xp. How I am suppose to install this win 98 in a large drive using a FAT 32 file sysytem? any post and suggestions?

Im not really positive, I downloaded a FDISK which supports large drives, I dont know if this will work. Ill try to analyze this bye.......

[nihil]

jin~

Your problem will most likely be with your BIOS, NOT the operating system...............Win98 will support 120Gb. You will need to get a drive that has an installation program that includes something like EZdrive............that intercepts the BIOS and recognises the larger drive.

here are my recommendations, they are purely personal opinion..............

So, one is no longer allowed to have a personal opinion on AO? According to the great Chris Shepherd and Mr. GodAlmighty Juridian ..................that would seem to be the case?

It just sounds to me like your drive is hosed and nihil is being an ass. Quit taking your stupid little dots personally.

"When I have money, I buy books"............what's the point when you obviously cannot read?

I take my professionalism very personally, but there again I am a professional As for the "drive is hosed"

My personal and professional advice is to replace the drive, if the manufacturer's diagnostics turn up any errors.

What is it about the English language you guys don't understand?

jin~ has posted:

"and I downloaded a tool in the manufacturer's to isolate the bad sectors.

In the middle of installation, PRESTO it doesnt hang anymore!!"

So, my bullsh1t, based on many years experience, does not work?

Mr Shepherd actually posted this:

Then again, what's actual experience with the particular configuration in question worth here; this is a web forum...

WHAT!

I rest my case................................