0x0000001E error

John John wrote:
> I'm not convinced that ntoskrnl.exe is corrupt or damaged or the
> offending module....

> Nothing much happens if ntoskrnl is broken, it is the Windows kernel,
> the heart of the operating system. Rather, I think that another driver
> or a software hive is corrupt and ntoskrnl cannot load it so it
> generates the stop error....

Agreed - the stop message being received is most likely a SYMPTOM of the
problem, not an indicator of the problem itself.

> How to use the Windows 2000 Recovery Console on a computer with Windows
> NT 4.0
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;293314
>
> (I can't find the articles specifically for the NT RC but for all
> intents and purposes it's almost identical).

There is NO recovery console for NT4.0 as such - the idea first appeared with
Win2k and I suspect came about because of the howls of protest from NT
administrators over how difficult it was to repair a damaged file on a NTFS boot
partition and how difficult it was to 'adjust' the registry on a broken system.
The only option prior to Win2k RC was a 'parallel install' or a third party product.

Calvin.
 >> Stay informed about: 0x0000001E error 

Calvin wrote:

> There is NO recovery console for NT4.0 as such - the idea first appeared
> with Win2k and I suspect came about because of the howls of protest from
> NT administrators over how difficult it was to repair a damaged file on
> a NTFS boot partition and how difficult it was to 'adjust' the registry
> on a broken system. The only option prior to Win2k RC was a 'parallel
> install' or a third party product.

DOH!!! I should have known that... No wonder I couldn't find anything on
the subject on the MSKB. Thanks for the correction Calvin. Now that I
think of it that is exactly why I have always thought and still think
that the best place for the NT4 system partition is on a 2gig FAT16
partition. I have always thought of NT4 to be a FAT16 operating system
that can read NTFS files, although I am sure many would argue otherwise
or say that my thinking is upside down! Now a days with newer NTFS
tools readily available it makes many believe that in the early NT4 days
doing NTFS maintenance on downed systems was simple, it wasn't unless
you forked up good money for NTFS DOS!

John
 >> Stay informed about: 0x0000001E error 

the xxx-pee recovery console is a FREE download
from ms and can be used to repair nt4:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=841384
STOP 0x00000079" error message appears on a Windows
NT 4.0-based computer
To work around this problem, follow these steps:
restart by using the Windows XP Setup disks
(( How to obtain Windows XP Setup boot disks
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310994
iirc it makes 6 floppys that you boot from ..))
When the "Welcome to Setup" screen appears, press R
to start the Recovery Console

Description of the Windows XP Recovery Console
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314058/EN-US/

How to install and use the Recovery Console in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb;en-us;307654&spid=1173&sid=216

((btw my NTFS alternate nt4 folder C:\WINNT2
is only 80 megabytes after sp6a applied (use custom
install and choose NO network, etc ..)
and C:\boot.ini has:
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Windows NT Workstation
Version 4.00"
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT2="WINNT2 Win NT Workstation
Version 4.00"

to enable booting into winnt2 if problem with winnt ))
 >> Stay informed about: 0x0000001E error 

John John wrote:

> Now that I
> think of it that is exactly why I have always thought and still think
> that the best place for the NT4 system partition is on a 2gig FAT16
> partition. I have always thought of NT4 to be a FAT16 operating system
> that can read NTFS files, although I am sure many would argue otherwise
> or say that my thinking is upside down! Now a days with newer NTFS
> tools readily available it makes many believe that in the early NT4 days
> doing NTFS maintenance on downed systems was simple, it wasn't unless
> you forked up good money for NTFS DOS!


Yep, in the early days you didn't have a lot of options at all, and a parallel
install was often impractical due to severe HDD space constraints. In the
'modern' world however, such problem have really evaporated and that is why I
recommend the boot partition be NTFS. I'm still a strong advocate of the SYSTEM
partition being FAT16 - or FAT16 for the lot if you combine system and boot
partitions into one.

Calvin.
 >> Stay informed about: 0x0000001E error 

Hi NT4-Eva,

I'd have actually suggested the Win2k RC, simply because you only need 4 floppy
disks to hold it. Having not played around with the XP RC I'm curious to know,
does it offer any advantages over the Win2k version ?

Calvin.
 >> Stay informed about: 0x0000001E error 

Calvin said:
"Having not played around with the XP RC I'm curious to know,
does it offer any advantages over the Win2k version ? "

i have no idea not having used either one; just that the xp
rc is free download whilst after searching the ms site
could not find any such for 2000 rc ..
 >> Stay informed about: 0x0000001E error 

Calvin said:
"I'm still a strong advocate of the SYSTEM
partition being FAT16"

as usual the Terminology is screwed up;
ie System Partition is that with the files
ntldr, boot.ini and ntdetect.com whilst
the Boot Patition is that with folder
\WINNT\system32 ie file: NTOSKRNL.EXE

so at risk of trying to teach
"Old Dogs New Tricks" i submit only
advantage of System Partition FAT16
is you can boot to DOS and replace those
three files .. ??

if so then Why Not have a Boot Floppy
(or if you are smart can create Bootable CD)
with those three files that will boot
the so called boot partition ntoskrnl.exe ?

that way All your partitions can be NTFS
with Same advantages as having System
Partition FAT16 .. ?

(( i was fan of FAT16 from 1982-DOS-1 until
2002 when i realized the Huge Advantages
of NTFS .. Quote: "When I was a child;
I spake as a child; then .. ))
 >> Stay informed about: 0x0000001E error 

Hi Rod,

nt4-ever wrote:
> Calvin said:
> "I'm still a strong advocate of the SYSTEM
> partition being FAT16"
>
> as usual the Terminology is screwed up;
> ie System Partition is that with the files
> ntldr, boot.ini and ntdetect.com whilst
> the Boot Patition is that with folder
> \WINNT\system32 ie file: NTOSKRNL.EXE
>
> so at risk of trying to teach
> "Old Dogs New Tricks" i submit only
> advantage of System Partition FAT16
> is you can boot to DOS and replace those
> three files .. ??
>
> if so then Why Not have a Boot Floppy
> (or if you are smart can create Bootable CD)
> with those three files that will boot
> the so called boot partition ntoskrnl.exe ?
>
> that way All your partitions can be NTFS
> with Same advantages as having System
> Partition FAT16 .. ?

You hit the nail on the head - primarily I have my system partition as FAT16 so
I can have a fully fledged MS-DOS installed and boot from it if I need to. For
quick jobs like reflashing a firmware somewhere or doing system hardware
diagnostics this partition gets a regular workout.

I actually do have a 'boot floppy' as well, and a parallel install of NT4
sitting on a Syquest 270MB removable HDD cartridge (Syquest drive is SCSI
interface) and I can boot to that parallel instance even if the HDD is totally
toast - and this has happened once.

I agree with you too - BIG selling point of NT4, a fully SPed and hotfixed
instance of the OS will fit in an 80MB footprint if you know what you are doing
- lets see Win2k or XP do that !

NOW - OFF TOPIC, but maybe interesting to some - a story (not-so-tall-tale) of
the week:

Win2k box died the other day - simple enough fault, failure of a SDRAM module
(top 128kB BANK stuffed, total of 512MB on the machine. Fault: bit D25 stuck at
one in every location, most likely a failed column driver in the chip) Boy, did
that set off a chain of events:

1. Win2k dies with a blue screen of death - good, safe and sensible thing to do
under the circumstances - OS is doing it's job.

2. Operator, thinking it is a random death reboots system - dies again with a
totally different blue screen of death.

3. Operator reboots again, another TOTALLY unrelated STOP error. OS being
totally unhelpful with STUPID error messages - doesn't Win2k check and verify
it's RAM at boot ??? - NT4 used to catch this obvious error EVERY time)

4. After about 4 operator reboots, system has damaged a critical system file
(kernel or driver related - we think) and now stuck in a reboot loop - we enter
to try to straighten out this mess.

5. We find and remedy the RAM fault.

6. We attempt a reload of the damaged boot partition from the most recent backup
- no good - still stuck in a reboot loop.

7. Several hours spent chasing our tales trying to work out why this would happen.

8. Chase our tale time includes all obvious checks like installing and booting
from a parallel install to prove hardware is now stable and running, a chdsk on
all partitions whilst in the clean OS instance to ensure the file systems are
all intact - no errors or problems encountered.

8. Ultimately, in despairation, reformat the boot partition and restore from
backups again - success. It would appear the underlying NTFS file system on the
boot partition had been damaged, but in such a way as to not flag any errors or
warnings when being checked, but to create a situation where the OS could not boot.

Moral of the story - don't take it as holy writ that a chdsk report that says a
volume is clean can be relied on to be accurate - if in doubt reformat from a
known clean OS.

Calvin.
 >> Stay informed about: 0x0000001E error 

Calvin said: "Win2k box died the other day"
wow .. what a story .. best i can suggest
is that "HindSite" method althouth imho
i can Not see where you went wrong ..

Just that the BIOS has option for
"Fast Boot" which elimanates memory
checks on boot up .. whereas if Not
checked it goes thru memory 3 times

memtst86 has an iso image that
can be burned to bootable cd
to test for memory errors
 >> Stay informed about: 0x0000001E error 

nt4-ever wrote:

> wow .. what a story .. best i can suggest
> is that "HindSite" method althouth imho
> i can Not see where you went wrong ..
>
> Just that the BIOS has option for
> "Fast Boot" which elimanates memory
> checks on boot up .. whereas if Not
> checked it goes thru memory 3 times
>
> memtst86 has an iso image that
> can be burned to bootable cd
> to test for memory errors

That was the weird thing - the RAM test in BIOS was already set to 'full' mode
(not quick), I always have machines set that way, even though it makes the boot
take significantly longer (You can always use the 'Esc' key to skip the test
anyway but the BIOS RAM test DIDN'T pick up the SDRAM error, only Memtest
did, which was weird seeing it was such and obvious error.

I usually have MemTest86 on a floppy and do my testing that way. Oh btw - I ran
across a group who have taken MemTest86 and enhanced it. Apparently they were
unhappy with the speed of progress on this open source project and decided to
create a new 'branch'. They are based in France. The new project is called
MemTest86+ http://www.memtest.org

all the best,

Calvin.
 >> Stay informed about: 0x0000001E error