0x0000009c Install Error

Here's what MS has on that stop error:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/3292...1&PA=1&SD=HSCH

"Steven Jobs" wrote:

> I get an 0x0000009c error during, well I should say before install. It is
> very annoying, I have searched all over the web for info on these errors,
> most places tell you it is a hardware error. Mine happens upon loading the
> disk, after the first bar, I never get to see any install info, or setup.
>
> In my case, not only have a run a hardware test of many kinds(PC Doctor,
> memtest, ontrack, burnintest and others, all of which pass) but Windows XP
> 64, and many versions of linux have or currently run successfully on this
> computer and have for months.
>
> My setup:
> GA-K8U-939 Motherboard
> AMD Athlon 64 3500+
> 1gig ram(2x512,tried both dual channel and single)
> ATI 9600XT 256Mb graphics card, ATI, not 3rd party
> Creative Audigy 2
> Pinnacle DV Capture Card
> 1 100 Gig WD IDE HD
> 1 160 Gig Hitachi SATA
> 1 250 Gig Samsung SATAHD(have tried using the 100 and the 160 as
> install(first boot) drives)
> USB mouse and Keyboard, also tried PS/2s though
>
> I have tried removing all the hardware down to bare onboard and still
> nothing. I know I have no issues with my hardware, I know all my settings and
> BIOS are correct with the latest available BIOS. Is there a setting I am
> missing or does it come down to a bad Beta 2? Is this Beta really so beta it
> can't even the install kernel can't load under some set of conditions? Either
> way, is this something I can work around, or is Vista just plain not ready
> for use?

Thanks, I have seen that posted in many places, and found that article as
part of my basic googling. It is entirely unapplicable to my, and numerous
others' situations. It is not a hardware error, the article points out these
as causes:
• System bus errors
• Memory errors that may include parity or Error Correction Code (ECC)
problems
• Cache errors in the processor or hardware
• Translation Lookaside Buffers (TLB) errors in the processor
• Other CPU-vendor specific detected hardware problems
• Vendor-specific detected hardware problems

In response:
All my hardware passes tests and works fine in Windows XP 64, it isn't a
hardware issue.

They also mention:
Machine check exceptions are frequently caused by one of the following
conditions: • You are running the processor or mainboard beyond its
specifications. For example, you are overclocking the processor or bus. We
recommend that you run your hardware at the manufacturer-rated speeds.
• Noisy power, overstressed power strips, outmatched power supplies and
failing power supplies can destabilize your computer. Make sure that you have
a stable, reliable power supply to your computer.
• Extreme thermal conditions caused by the failure of cooling devices such
as fans may damage your computer. Make sure that your cooling devices are all
working.
• You have damaged memory or memory that is not the correct type for your
computer. If you recently changed the memory configuration, revert to the
previous configuration to determine what is wrong. Make sure that you are
using the correct memory for your computer.

To which I say:
Machine check exceptions are frequently caused by one of the following
conditions:
• I run at spec. I do not overclock.
• My power is fine, my PSU is fine, and all pins rate normally with normal
voltage. I am using a very highend batterybackup which is also fine, and
aagain my system runs other OSes just fine.
• My CPU fans and system fans all run just fine. I use high quality bearing
fans in a good case. CPU temp is about 41c, not bad for an Athlon 64 3500+
• My memory passes all tests and works just fine in this computer with other
OSes.

Any ideas that a basic googling would turn up?

"Happy w/Microsoft " wrote:

> Here's what MS has on that stop error:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/3292...1&PA=1&SD=HSCH
>
> "Steven Jobs" wrote:
>

> > I get an 0x0000009c error during, well I should say before install. It is
> > very annoying, I have searched all over the web for info on these errors,
> > most places tell you it is a hardware error. Mine happens upon loading the
> > disk, after the first bar, I never get to see any install info, or setup.
> >
> > In my case, not only have a run a hardware test of many kinds(PC Doctor,
> > memtest, ontrack, burnintest and others, all of which pass) but Windows XP
> > 64, and many versions of linux have or currently run successfully on this
> > computer and have for months.
> >
> > My setup:
> > GA-K8U-939 Motherboard
> > AMD Athlon 64 3500+
> > 1gig ram(2x512,tried both dual channel and single)
> > ATI 9600XT 256Mb graphics card, ATI, not 3rd party
> > Creative Audigy 2
> > Pinnacle DV Capture Card
> > 1 100 Gig WD IDE HD
> > 1 160 Gig Hitachi SATA
> > 1 250 Gig Samsung SATAHD(have tried using the 100 and the 160 as
> > install(first boot) drives)
> > USB mouse and Keyboard, also tried PS/2s though
> >
> > I have tried removing all the hardware down to bare onboard and still
> > nothing. I know I have no issues with my hardware, I know all my settings and
> > BIOS are correct with the latest available BIOS. Is there a setting I am
> > missing or does it come down to a bad Beta 2? Is this Beta really so beta it
> > can't even the install kernel can't load under some set of conditions? Either
> > way, is this something I can work around, or is Vista just plain not ready
> > for use?

Okay, I have a solution.

Boot order was not the issue, the simple fact I had ANY SATA drive connected
was. After unplugging both SATA drives, installation went perfectly. I will
write back after testing and installing all my drivers to make sure once
installed, up and running, I can then plug the SATAs in without issue.

"Steven Jobs" wrote:

> I get an 0x0000009c error during, well I should say before install. It is
> very annoying, I have searched all over the web for info on these errors,
> most places tell you it is a hardware error. Mine happens upon loading the
> disk, after the first bar, I never get to see any install info, or setup.
>
> In my case, not only have a run a hardware test of many kinds(PC Doctor,
> memtest, ontrack, burnintest and others, all of which pass) but Windows XP
> 64, and many versions of linux have or currently run successfully on this
> computer and have for months.
>
> My setup:
> GA-K8U-939 Motherboard
> AMD Athlon 64 3500+
> 1gig ram(2x512,tried both dual channel and single)
> ATI 9600XT 256Mb graphics card, ATI, not 3rd party
> Creative Audigy 2
> Pinnacle DV Capture Card
> 1 100 Gig WD IDE HD
> 1 160 Gig Hitachi SATA
> 1 250 Gig Samsung SATAHD(have tried using the 100 and the 160 as
> install(first boot) drives)
> USB mouse and Keyboard, also tried PS/2s though
>
> I have tried removing all the hardware down to bare onboard and still
> nothing. I know I have no issues with my hardware, I know all my settings and
> BIOS are correct with the latest available BIOS. Is there a setting I am
> missing or does it come down to a bad Beta 2? Is this Beta really so beta it
> can't even the install kernel can't load under some set of conditions? Either
> way, is this something I can work around, or is Vista just plain not ready
> for use?

"Steven Jobs" <StevenJobs@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:838DA7FF-4A3D-4E71-B0AC-81C6769F088E@microsoft.com...

> Okay, I have a solution.
>
> Boot order was not the issue, the simple fact I had ANY SATA drive
> connected
> was. After unplugging both SATA drives, installation went perfectly. I
> will
> write back after testing and installing all my drivers to make sure once
> installed, up and running, I can then plug the SATAs in without issue.
>

Sadly that's of no help to me as my PC only has SATA drives.

> Sadly that's of no help to me as my PC only has SATA drives.

>
>

I'm in the same boat - SATA drives only - very frustrating!

Jez wrote:

>> Sadly that's of no help to me as my PC only has SATA drives.
>>
>>

> I'm in the same boat - SATA drives only - very frustrating!

I'm having the same problem also. I have IDE and Sata drives in my
computer and the SATA drive I use as my boot drive(it's the fastest
drive). Hopefully MS fixes it in RC2.

--
---------------------------------
http://www.myspace.com/araxen
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Not much to add here, except that to say that I have the exact same
problem...

My system:
Asus A8N CSM Motherboard
AMD Athlon 64 3200
1 Gig ram (128 MB used for o/b video)
nVidia 6150 video (o/b video)
Creative Audigy 2
1 120 Gig (WD) <-- XP installation
1 40 Gig (Maxtor) <-- drive vista is being installed on

I'm leaning towards "not ready for prime time" myself. FYI, my system is
fairly new - i.e. parts bought in last 2 months. Runs XP and Ubuntu Linux
fine.

"Steven Jobs" <StevenJobs@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:EF16F69B-42A6-4B37-970D-A055453510EE@microsoft.com...

>I get an 0x0000009c error during, well I should say before install. It is
> very annoying, I have searched all over the web for info on these errors,
> most places tell you it is a hardware error. Mine happens upon loading the
> disk, after the first bar, I never get to see any install info, or setup.
>
> In my case, not only have a run a hardware test of many kinds(PC Doctor,
> memtest, ontrack, burnintest and others, all of which pass) but Windows XP
> 64, and many versions of linux have or currently run successfully on this
> computer and have for months.
>
> My setup:
> GA-K8U-939 Motherboard
> AMD Athlon 64 3500+
> 1gig ram(2x512,tried both dual channel and single)
> ATI 9600XT 256Mb graphics card, ATI, not 3rd party
> Creative Audigy 2
> Pinnacle DV Capture Card
> 1 100 Gig WD IDE HD
> 1 160 Gig Hitachi SATA
> 1 250 Gig Samsung SATAHD(have tried using the 100 and the 160 as
> install(first boot) drives)
> USB mouse and Keyboard, also tried PS/2s though
>
> I have tried removing all the hardware down to bare onboard and still
> nothing. I know I have no issues with my hardware, I know all my settings
> and
> BIOS are correct with the latest available BIOS. Is there a setting I am
> missing or does it come down to a bad Beta 2? Is this Beta really so beta
> it
> can't even the install kernel can't load under some set of conditions?
> Either
> way, is this something I can work around, or is Vista just plain not ready
> for use?

No version of windows can install on a drive that isn't the first drive in
the boot order. You may want to make usre the 40 is first. Once you have it
installed, you can put the 120 back and let Ubuntu , or more accurately LILO
or GRUB handle booting Vista from the 2nd drive.
Vista also cannot install on a SATA, and I personally couldn't even load it
with a SATA plugged into my system. Others just say it has to be installed
on an IDE.

I will point out to you since you also have an Audigy series, no beta 2
drivers yet, you will not have any sound until Creative releases
drivers(which is in theory later this week)
"Jason Smith" wrote:

> Not much to add here, except that to say that I have the exact same
> problem...
>
> My system:
> Asus A8N CSM Motherboard
> AMD Athlon 64 3200
> 1 Gig ram (128 MB used for o/b video)
> nVidia 6150 video (o/b video)
> Creative Audigy 2
> 1 120 Gig (WD) <-- XP installation
> 1 40 Gig (Maxtor) <-- drive vista is being installed on
>
> I'm leaning towards "not ready for prime time" myself. FYI, my system is
> fairly new - i.e. parts bought in last 2 months. Runs XP and Ubuntu Linux
> fine.
>
> "Steven Jobs" <StevenJobs@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:EF16F69B-42A6-4B37-970D-A055453510EE@microsoft.com...

> >I get an 0x0000009c error during, well I should say before install. It is
> > very annoying, I have searched all over the web for info on these errors,
> > most places tell you it is a hardware error. Mine happens upon loading the
> > disk, after the first bar, I never get to see any install info, or setup.
> >
> > In my case, not only have a run a hardware test of many kinds(PC Doctor,
> > memtest, ontrack, burnintest and others, all of which pass) but Windows XP
> > 64, and many versions of linux have or currently run successfully on this
> > computer and have for months.
> >
> > My setup:
> > GA-K8U-939 Motherboard
> > AMD Athlon 64 3500+
> > 1gig ram(2x512,tried both dual channel and single)
> > ATI 9600XT 256Mb graphics card, ATI, not 3rd party
> > Creative Audigy 2
> > Pinnacle DV Capture Card
> > 1 100 Gig WD IDE HD
> > 1 160 Gig Hitachi SATA
> > 1 250 Gig Samsung SATAHD(have tried using the 100 and the 160 as
> > install(first boot) drives)
> > USB mouse and Keyboard, also tried PS/2s though
> >
> > I have tried removing all the hardware down to bare onboard and still
> > nothing. I know I have no issues with my hardware, I know all my settings
> > and
> > BIOS are correct with the latest available BIOS. Is there a setting I am
> > missing or does it come down to a bad Beta 2? Is this Beta really so beta
> > it
> > can't even the install kernel can't load under some set of conditions?
> > Either
> > way, is this something I can work around, or is Vista just plain not ready
> > for use?

>
>
>