Re: setup 2000 on laptop w/out CD drive?

• Previous message: Steve Wilson: "Re: 100% CPU Usage"
• In reply to: Bilbo: "Re: setup 2000 on laptop w/out CD drive?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:42:37 +1000

See below. Here is a summary: If you want to install an
operating system then you have two options:

a) Get a bootable CD drive, or
b) Ask an expert to do it for you.

"Bilbo" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:037801c4a1c1$bfd9f970$a501280a@phx.gbl...
>
> >> Also, what is drive d:? My laptop only has one hard
> disk
> >> and it's not d:. I also don't have Win98.
> >*** I said "drive D:" - there was no mention of a second
> >*** disk. You can split your existing disk into two or
> >*** more drives. Having Windows on drive C: and your
> >*** data on drive D: has some big advantages, e.g. when
> >*** re-installing the operating system.
>
> I agree that there are advantages to partitioning a hard
> drive; however, you suggested, "I recommend you take your
> laptop to a dealer and pay him a small fee for copying
> your Win2000 CD to your hard disk, preferably to drive D:.
> You could then boot your laptop with an ordinary Win98
> boot disk and start the setup process." If I'm having
> trouble booting my system from the Win2k CD, then why
> should I expect any less trouble trying to boot from a
> Win98 boot disk?
*** This is getting a little bizarre. In your first post you
*** wrote "... but i have no cd drive to go with it" whereas
*** now you say that you have trouble booting your system
*** from the Win2k CD. That's a completely different scenario!
*** Furthermore, booting from a floppy disk relies on different
*** mechanisms than booting from a CD.

> >> I do have a Win2k install disk and I keep wondering why a
> >> big, rich, successful company like Microsoft can't make a
> >> product that works better -- i.w., why all us happy W2k
> >> users have to go through all this crap just to reinstall
> >> our OS. It just shouldn't be this difficult.
> >*** It seems that MS became rich and successful because
> >*** they deliver a product that meets the needs of many
> >*** people. The Ford Motor Company did this too, yet
> >*** few people would be able to exchange an engine by
> >*** themselves - yet this is precisely what you're trying
> to do.
>
> I'm not going to debate how MS became rich, other than to
> point out that there are other reasons, including the fact
> that their business practices have been declared illegal
> in more than one country.
*** I don't the time or inclination to discuss Microsoft's
*** business practices.

> Also, I would hardly put a
> software install in the same category as exchanging a car
> engine.
*** You're not installing software; you're installing the
*** operating system. In other words, you're starting
*** with a blank hard disk, withouth the usual support
*** that Windows gives you for installing software.

> Few people ever need to exchange a car engine,
> but ordinary people need to install software all the
> time.
*** . . . and few people (other than experts) attempt
*** to install an operating system without having
*** a CD drive they can boot from.

> Indeed, it is a well-known fact that hard drives
> wear out, so installing OS software is obviously something
> that many ordinary people need to do. Also, since a new
> hard drive contains has no other software to cause
> conflicts, installing OS software should be the easiest of
> all.
*** It is fairly easy - if you have the right hardware
*** (i.e. a working CD drive).

> Sorry, but there just isn't any good reason for
> Win2k to be this much of a pain to install.
*** Spend the money and get a working CD drive!

> I'm not
> blaming you, but I am frustrated that a company like
> Microsoft doesn't do a better job of simplifying something
> that should be a whole lot easier than they have made it.
>

• Previous message: Steve Wilson: "Re: 100% CPU Usage"
• In reply to: Bilbo: "Re: setup 2000 on laptop w/out CD drive?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]