PDA

View Full Version : My Compaq dislikes NT based os's?

SufferWell1396
02-07-2007, 08:23 PM
Just curious here but why does my Compaq (specs in sig) normally get some sort of BSOD when installing an NT based operating system? Every time i try to install an MS-DOS based OS installation is as smooth as can be. My Compaq had the "Designed for Windows Me" sticker on the front, but i dont think that contributes. Does anyone know why it does this?
NOTE: BIOS has the latest flash update.
azzey
02-07-2007, 08:29 PM
Try running the XP upgrade adviser.

What is the exact error message? Does it happen during or after the installation?
SufferWell1396
02-07-2007, 08:31 PM
it took me a while to get XP working, i kept getting the bsod listing USBPORT.SYS or something like that, i assumed it was my keyboard/mouse because they are USB.
123456
02-07-2007, 08:32 PM
Make sure your BIOS's option, Plug and Play OS is set to off.
SufferWell1396
02-07-2007, 09:01 PM
Alright i restarted and i got this BSOD when trying to enter setup, PAGE_FAULT_IN_NON_PAGED_AREA

any ideas?

Oh and 123456, my BIOS is a compaq so it limits me to control of only boot order basically.
mjc
02-07-2007, 09:06 PM
My Compaq had the "Designed for Windows Me" sticker on the front, but i dont think that contributes.

Actually, it can have a lot to do with it...

Basically, what that means, is that particular computer would work with ME and was fully supported by Compaq for such a purpose, but any other (including 9x) version of Windows was taking a chance for the machine to not work. With 9x (especially 98se) the chances of working were excellent...with the NT based versions, probably not so good.

This is likely due to cheap/proprietary hardware that isn't supported by the NT based version of Windows (natively) or doesn't/wouldn't have drivers available. It may even be that the retail version of your motherboard would be perfectly fine, but some setting/option has been bypassed/disabled on this OEM version (very likely). Or a cheaper/less compatible component has been substituted for the standard version on the retail board...

For your latest error...

http://www.smartcomputing.com/techsupport/detail.aspx?guid=&ErrorID=21149

(But it could also be the crappy RAM timings set by the OEM BIOS are coming into play)
saphalline
02-07-2007, 09:24 PM
It's that frickin' i810 chipset! Intel even admits that there are known issues with the BIOS foundation, but support and development got pulled from it quickly. In short, there are errors associated with that chipset that were never fixed, and never will be.
mjc
02-07-2007, 09:47 PM
It's that frickin' i810 chipset!

Umm...I must have a mental block on that. :p

But, yeah, that too...
saphalline
02-07-2007, 09:53 PM
You know, I'm actually very happy about that. I haven't had to work with that chipset in quite some time. Seems nearly all of them have finally died off. Good riddance!
SufferWell1396
02-07-2007, 10:01 PM
Alright could it be the fact that the thing is reading my sticks ive tried (1 Kingston 256, 1 no name 256, 1 TCR 128, and 1 no name 64) come up as like say insted of 256 255 and it comes up wit the error 164-Memory Error or something, could that have to do with it?

Could i possibly clean my RAM or the ram Slot?
mjc
02-07-2007, 10:11 PM
Actually, SW...take the thing out back, grab a shovel and dig a big hole...drop it in.

I would take a close look at all the capacitors...I think that board is about to give up the ghost.
SufferWell1396
02-07-2007, 10:26 PM
Nope the board is fine, every capacitor is level and OK, the compaq is pretty stable when it gets up and running, it just cant run that much :(

mjc and saph, what do you expect me to do? run that AST as my main desktop??? thats a 767MHz drop and a 448 meg drop in RAM, the Compaq is still better than that
kiosk
02-08-2007, 08:23 AM
I have a 440EX-based board that does pretty much the same thing with XP. The hardware was (and still is) in great working order, but NT-based operating systems simply refuse to work properly with it - I was getting random lockups and BSODs at the oddest of times.
123456
02-08-2007, 03:04 PM
My 440BX runs 98SE, DOS, NT4, 2000 and XP perfectly. Minus the removal of the ram stick when installing NT4, I just add it after installing SP6.
SufferWell1396
02-08-2007, 03:24 PM
i ran memtest. Everything checked out... What now?
mjc
02-08-2007, 05:59 PM
Then, it is like Saph said, XP/NT kernel just doesn't like that motherboard...you are stuck in 9x/ME land.
saphalline
02-08-2007, 10:05 PM
Compaq or no, I've had more problems with that chipset than all others combined. I'm telling you, that chipset is a huge problem! There are documented errors that will never be fixed! There's no jumper setting or BIOS flash that will miraculously fix it! The chipset itself is broken and that's that. I and many others have spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours working on i810-based systems with very little luck. Do a Google search and you'll see what I mean. If it won't work, just give up.
mjc
02-08-2007, 10:36 PM
Like I told you in the chatroom last night, one of the worst chipsets ever made was the i810.
kiosk
02-09-2007, 10:43 AM
Like I told you in the chatroom last night, one of the worst chipsets ever made was the i810.

Second only to no-name chipsets (with fake sticky labels on them!) from PC-CHIPS boards. Oh, and those came with fake cache, as well. I guess noone can beat that.
azzey
02-09-2007, 02:08 PM
Sufferwell,

If you feel the problem is being caused by the OEM motherboard, I would be more than happy to send you a different Compaq one. I have a number of them with the i815 chipset, and are known to be fully compatible with XP. I have built a number of systems using them.

If you're interested, let me know by PM.