TheTechGuide Forum

General Category => Software => Topic started by: djlazer on July 15, 2001, 02:45:24 PM

Title: Win2k bootable cd error - not discussed before?
Post by: djlazer on July 15, 2001, 02:45:24 PM
I have made some bootable win2k cds, and finally got it to boot the computer. It goes through the motions until after it reformats as NTFS, then copies all files onto the computer, then restarts.  Upon restart, however, i get a \"Fatal Error Setup was unable to retrieve the Product ID because of the following error: RegQueryValueEx returned invalid data (Type = 1), or Pid has invalid length (Length = 8).\"

Anyone know what this is about? Could it be someting as simple as the fact that I changed the \"Setupp.ini\" files [PID] information from 000 to 270?  Any help would be appreciated.
Title: Win2k bootable cd error - not discussed before?
Post by: djlazer on July 15, 2001, 02:49:05 PM
sorry to reply to my own post, but i forgot to mention this.  If i restart the computer and boot from the cd the second time, I have the option of repairing the installation.  If i do the repair, the process will complete but it won\'t prompt for any user name or password. therefore i cant log on once windows starts up.
Title: Win2k bootable cd error - not discussed before?
Post by: Josetann on July 15, 2001, 03:57:08 PM
I\'ve seen that error before, when you\'re modifying an evaluation version of win2k.  You have to use the official version (I\'ve tried it on the retail version, I can\'t be certain it works on the upgrade or oem).
Title: Win2k bootable cd error - not discussed before?
Post by: vandaboy on July 15, 2001, 10:47:42 PM
I\'ve got the same problem... I guess we\'ll just have to insert that Key ourselves. My CD Volume label is W2PIS_EN and during setup is says it is installing win2k pro. I\'m trying to figure out what version of 2k this is.
Title: Win2k bootable cd error - not discussed before?
Post by: Anonymous on July 16, 2001, 01:10:27 PM
i have the same version W2PIS_EN, but also have another one that is W2POEM, i think.  I havent tried it with that one, but if that is the reason, then I can just change it back to 000s. I dont mind entering that number, but it would be nice to be able to avoid it.  I will let you know what happens with this.  thanks for the replies.
Title: Win2k bootable cd error - not discussed before?
Post by: Salaminizer on July 17, 2001, 11:10:50 AM
<<>>

Works perfectly on the Upgrade version.
Title: Win2k bootable cd error - not discussed before?
Post by: Anonymous on July 18, 2001, 06:22:49 PM
Hey All.......The problem is the modification date on the setupp.ini file.  When you modify the file to put the 270 in, it changes the modification date to today\'s date.  Windows 2000 will not let you install it with the wrong modification date.  You have to use a utility like \"Touch\" to change the modification date back to the original date.  The date/time has to be exact down to the second, or it will give you the errors that you have talked about.  Once you have changed the date back to the original date, make sure you reformat your drive before reinstalling.  If you dont, the bad file will still be on your computer, and it will not let you install again.  You can get the \"Touch\" utility at www.downloads.com.  Do a search for unix2dos or unixdos.  It will be shareware, but you can use it for 30 days.  This is the only way I have found to make this work.  Hope this helped
Title: Win2k bootable cd error - not discussed before?
Post by: Big_Z on July 18, 2001, 10:33:57 PM
Back when I modded my setup.ini, I set back the clock on my computer to get to same date/time as the original file.

Did the same thing for sysoc.in_ file as well.
(remove \"hide\" in the file and it increases the number of items in Windows Components in add/remove programs)

Drivers and Windows Tweaks Here
[email protected]
Title: Win2k bootable cd error - not discussed before?
Post by: Josetann on July 19, 2001, 10:10:44 AM
That\'s odd, because I\'ve never had that problem.  I didn\'t check the file date after I modified, but I could only assume it was changed.