On Tue September 28 2004 16:58, Kevin Anderson wrote: > It gets better. So far, the "recommended" way on most forums is to install > onto a PATA drive, and then GHOST it onto the SATA drive. > > I've found a thread that seems to point to some other experimental drivers > that might work... But geez...
That doesn't sound too far different than what I've heard for Linux installs using third party-supported SATA drives (meaning there's no kernel driver for it). So, really, I think there's two points to be made here: one about (against?) SATA, and one about Windows installs. My two cents is that I don't think anyone ever said a Windows install was easy -- just pretty. ;-) But you're right -- one of the big MS draws is supposed to be hardware support. If the install process is going to be the same trouble as a Linux install using the same hardware, well, why even bother? ;-) Curtis > Kev. > > On Tuesday 28 September 2004 16:29, Kevin Anderson wrote: > > So I'm installing XP on a brand new machine (at work). > > > > Athlon 64 3500+, SATA Drives, etc. > > > > The boxes don't have floppies, because we won't need them. > > > > So I'm installing XP, and it doesn't have a driver for SATA. > > > > and can I load it from a cdrom? NO, of course not... > > > > This is Windows XP 64bit edition. Bleeding edge MS code. > > And it can't be installed on a legacy-free system. > > > > But thankfully, Moms and pops all over the world find that Windows is far > > easier to install.?!?!?!? > > > > I haven't heard that in a while, and now I see why. > > > > Kev. _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca
