Windows 2000 won't install
I got the iso off your site, the professional sp4 one. Burned it to a cd and after it says "Setup is loading windows" it gives a bsod with 0x00000c2 bad_pool_caller. I tried a different iso, as well as running from a usb install instead. Still error. Tried same isos on another pc, it gave a bsod as well. I also tried slipstreaming the iso with sata drivers, again, still a bsod on both computers. I can install xp with drivers slipstreamed just fine, but 2k just hates me. Also tried to emulate the iso in vmware 5 instead of installing onto harddrive, and it hangs at the loading screen :( could it be the iso? i've downloaded 4 different ones by now. maybe i didn't slipstream correctly??
Comments
The 0x00000c2 error happens on a netbook from 2009, came withe either xp or 7 starter preinstalled (starter sucks lol), it says if you see the screen again to disconnect any new hardware.
The desktop computer gives 0x000007b Inaccesible_boot_device. It's from 2012 with 7 home edition. it says run chkdsk.
No hardware was connected though, just the usb flash drive or the usb cd drive (for netbook).
You realize you can change the theme, right?
Windows 7 is the last Windows version to support the classic theme.
What kind of system are you trying to run this on? 2000 doesn't even support Chrome anymore..
http://productforums.google.com/forum/# ... s2Sg7j-G-E
But I guess i'll stick with xp and try to install 2k over a legacy laptop sometime. It's somewhere in the attic and dates from 2002 so it should be able to handle pre-xp just fine.
So what about the icon pack you mentioned?
Here's a win95 one: http://eggi36.deviantart.com/art/Window ... -184901086
<windows 8 removed classic theme>
Noo!!! (rip classic theme&start menu 1995-2012)
Anyway, windows xp has the classic theme, but not the default web view like windows 2k and before. Xp can get web view the problem is that you have to manually apply it to every folder. Plus, it won't work for certain folders. So if there is a way to do the good old web view in xp, that would be nice.
This one.
http://hp-bios.free-driverdownload.com/ ... bios-f-19/
It might be because i need to format my hard drive with the 2k installer. Problem is, i have to boot the installer from my harddrive because the 0x0000007b error occures when booting it from a usb cd drive or flash drive. Booting from the hard drive might be the problem. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/822051#6b
I have the latest service pack iso (Sp4) and slipstreamed the proper harddrive driver (iaStor ICH7).
If you can boot Windows 2000 at all, which you can, the legacy BIOS emulator is functional. It's also possible that it's poorly implemented, but I don't know anything about your model. But if it's well-implemented it should appear to be a (sufficiently) compliant ACPI machine. Is there an option to disable ACPI or certain features such as extended power saving modes?
Not $hit for options. Just the C4 "sleep mode", which 2k still gives error when disabled. Under boot options there is only boot order.
Make sure it's got a gig of ram and away you go, it's running the modern versions of application software that kills them. You'd probably find Win2K wouldn't be as power efficent as XP either as it wouldn't be able to support some of the power saving functions, or give you some other such headache for drivers.
To me as silly as it sounds it could just be a case of WIn2K is too old to install with the hardware youre running.
Doesn't sound silly to me, sounds perfectly reasonable.
The hardware and OS should match... don't try to run something 4 generations old on something that's only 2 or 3 generations old.
Why does the age matter, it's not like windows 98 couldn't get everything done. Why upgrade (besides the ability to use the internet)? Every new version of windows just brings more junk into the system slowing it down. There have been few useful upgrades since the 98~2k era.
At my work we had windows 2k since y2k, and we had to upgrade to 7 in 2011 because our printer broke and it couldn't read the new printer.
Is that during the install or have you been able to get windows installed?
I'm a big advocate of Windows98SE, used it for years and it could get everything done and maybe even quite usable today, at least if you're not expecting anything super special.
Now as well al know the internet was quite different back then in '98 or so but Win98 did work quite fine into 2003 or 2004 with IE6 and a decent copy of FireFox for web browsing. Although my main machine was running XP back then, I still used 98 machines regularly.
Ultimately though the software eventually has most of it's limitations found out as newer and faster hardware comes out and people do make patches or work arounds. But sometimes you don't get the full features or functionality. Hence why there are newer versions of operating systems made, to support the newer features nativly with proper functionality.
I've not had problems running Windows XP for example on P2's at 300MHz, that was back in the day. The software at the time was still more simpler, less visualy demanding and all the rest of it. But I'd hate to think what it would be like today trying to browse the net on a system like that.
My point here is you said you were using Win2000 until a few years back at your work place and you had to upgrade because there was no printers with Win2000 support. Does that mean your computers were still from turn of 2000 or had they been on an upgrade cycle?
If so when were they upgraded? if not, thats still fine if they do the job and can run the software required why change.
But you're trying to run Win2000 on a netbook thats nearly half a decade younger than it. I agree you should be able to install software of a reasonable age onto it and have it work, but the big companies can't really offer that kind of support due to multiple factors mainly cost and time.
So whilst you should be able to run Win2000 on a system from 2006 ultimatly there is very little point as you probably won't gain any benefits from doing it and you're just making it harder for your self.
Seriously though XP with SP3 installed on a fresh system with drivers can take as little as like 96MB of RAM sometimes at worst 150MB. on a gig or two of RAM which most netbooks support, there is more than enough resources available.
Hell I remember advising people to move upto 256MB of PC100 SDRAM if they wanted a smooth ride with XP back in 2001. If they could 384MB or even a whopping 512MB. I knew a few people who had like 1GB and they did a lot of design work at the time.
Well, yes that is during the install. When running the installer off the hard drive, it installs fine (hangs at part 2 though). Usb simply says screw you 0x0000007b :twisted:
My point here is you said you were using Win2000 until a few years back at your work place and you had to upgrade because there was no printers with Win2000 support. Does that mean your computers were still from turn of 2000 or had they been on an upgrade cycle?
If so when were they upgraded? if not, thats still fine if they do the job and can run the software required why change.
They actually came with windows 98 however when i started working then they upgraded to 2k. We originally upgraded to xp in 2009 but then we got enough money to get new computers with windows 7 altogether.
But you're trying to run Win2000 on a netbook thats nearly half a decade younger than it. I agree you should be able to install software of a reasonable age onto it and have it work, but the big companies can't really offer that kind of support due to multiple factors mainly cost and time.
Hmm, yes you cannot expect support. However, the only thing I run that needs a newer os is the interenet. I use programs that generally don't require much in the 1st place (dos, debuggers, hex editor, notepad, nes emulator
So whilst you should be able to run Win2000 on a system from 2006 ultimatly there is very little point as you probably won't gain any benefits from doing it and you're just making it harder for your self.
Seriously though XP with SP3 installed on a fresh system with drivers can take as little as like 96MB of RAM sometimes at worst 150MB. on a gig or two of RAM which most netbooks support, there is more than enough resources available.
I will gain about 200mb more of ram. A clean install of xp sp3 uses ~200 to 250. 2k in vmware used only 50. So with 2k as default, that leaved 950mb of ram free which can run some more hogging games like command and conquer generals.
Hell I remember advising people to move upto 256MB of PC100 SDRAM if they wanted a smooth ride with XP back in 2001. If they could 384MB or even a whopping 512MB. I knew a few people who had like 1GB and they did a lot of design work at the time.
My first pc had nt 4.0, with 256mb ram and 333mhz. ran like a charm 8) though it broke over the years.
Blue text on a dark grey background.
At least blue text is readable...