i have bought the xp pro retail box however i have damaged the flo

firstly i'll just state that i am from the United Kingdom and not from the US.

I am a university student and i found out that it would be cheaper to build
my own pc and than purchase the OS cd. the system i built for £250 is P4
2.4Ghz, 512MB ram, 120Gb HDD, cd...etc which is good...

Anyways the question goes as follows:
I bought a second hand (used) winxp pro retail box. However i have damaged
the floppy disks and the only things that remain undamaged is the cd. I don't
have any other operating system. if i had 98 i would install that and than
just upgrade, but that can't be done, cos i ant got the cd.

how am i going to install this on my newly built computer?
heeeelp! Any help will be much apporiated !!!

You'll need a Microsoft Windows 95/98/ME or 2000 CD
to qualify for installing an upgrade version of Windows XP
Professional as a "clean install". If you do not have one of
those CDs, you'll have to purchase a "Full Version" of Windows
XP in order to install it.

Clean Install Windows XP
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/cleanxpinstall.html

[Courtesy of MS-MVP Michael Stevens]

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect Your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...t/default.aspx

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"CheapBrit" wrote:

| firstly i'll just state that i am from the United Kingdom and not from the US.
|
| I am a university student and i found out that it would be cheaper to build
| my own pc and than purchase the OS cd. the system i built for £250 is P4
| 2.4Ghz, 512MB ram, 120Gb HDD, cd...etc which is good...
|
| Anyways the question goes as follows:
| I bought a second hand (used) winxp pro retail box. However i have damaged
| the floppy disks and the only things that remain undamaged is the cd. I don't
| have any other operating system. if i had 98 i would install that and than
| just upgrade, but that can't be done, cos i ant got the cd.
|
| how am i going to install this on my newly built computer?
| heeeelp! Any help will be much apporiated !!!

If you have a "FULL" retail version of Windows XP, the CD is bootable. Boot
from the CD and start the installation from there.

If you have an "UPGRADE" version of Windows XP, you will need to purchase
either a qualifying operating system to upgrade from, or a full version of
Windows XP.


--
steve


remove _thenut_ to reach me


"CheapBrit" wrote in message
...
firstly i'll just state that i am from the United Kingdom and not from the
US.

I am a university student and i found out that it would be cheaper to
build
my own pc and than purchase the OS cd. the system i built for £250 is P4
2.4Ghz, 512MB ram, 120Gb HDD, cd...etc which is good...

Anyways the question goes as follows:
I bought a second hand (used) winxp pro retail box. However i have damaged
the floppy disks and the only things that remain undamaged is the cd. I
don't
have any other operating system. if i had 98 i would install that and than
just upgrade, but that can't be done, cos i ant got the cd.

how am i going to install this on my newly built computer?
heeeelp! Any help will be much apporiated !!!

I thought that university students in England knew how to
spell and use proper grammar.

XP does not come with floppies, just a CD. XP Pro in a
retail box should come with paperwork. If you bought a
retail upgrade it will not install w/o the prior
installation of a Windows OS. Not sure what Dell charges
for a computer in merry old England, but you didn't save
much.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


"CheapBrit" wrote in
message
...
| firstly i'll just state that i am from the United Kingdom
and not from the US.
|
| I am a university student and i found out that it would
be cheaper to build
| my own pc and than purchase the OS cd. the system i built
for £250 is P4
| 2.4Ghz, 512MB ram, 120Gb HDD, cd...etc which is good...
|
| Anyways the question goes as follows:
| I bought a second hand (used) winxp pro retail box.
However i have damaged
| the floppy disks and the only things that remain undamaged
is the cd. I don't
| have any other operating system. if i had 98 i would
install that and than
| just upgrade, but that can't be done, cos i ant got the
cd.
|
| how am i going to install this on my newly built computer?
| heeeelp! Any help will be much apporiated !!!

Well, after duties and the VAT...:-)

--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...
I thought that university students in England knew how to
spell and use proper grammar.

XP does not come with floppies, just a CD. XP Pro in a
retail box should come with paperwork. If you bought a
retail upgrade it will not install w/o the prior
installation of a Windows OS. Not sure what Dell charges
for a computer in merry old England, but you didn't save
much.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


"CheapBrit" wrote in
message
...
| firstly i'll just state that i am from the United Kingdom
and not from the US.
|
| I am a university student and i found out that it would
be cheaper to build
| my own pc and than purchase the OS cd. the system i built
for £250 is P4
| 2.4Ghz, 512MB ram, 120Gb HDD, cd...etc which is good...
|
| Anyways the question goes as follows:
| I bought a second hand (used) winxp pro retail box.
However i have damaged
| the floppy disks and the only things that remain undamaged
is the cd. I don't
| have any other operating system. if i had 98 i would
install that and than
| just upgrade, but that can't be done, cos i ant got the
cd.
|
| how am i going to install this on my newly built computer?
| heeeelp! Any help will be much apporiated !!!

CheapBrit wrote:
firstly i'll just state that i am from the United Kingdom and not
from the US.

I am a university student and i found out that it would be cheaper
to build my own pc and than purchase the OS cd. the system i built
for £250 is P4
2.4Ghz, 512MB ram, 120Gb HDD, cd...etc which is good...

Anyways the question goes as follows:
I bought a second hand (used) winxp pro retail box. However i have
damaged the floppy disks and the only things that remain undamaged
is
the cd. I don't have any other operating system. if i had 98 i would
install that and than just upgrade, but that can't be done, cos i
ant
got the cd.

how am i going to install this on my newly built computer?
heeeelp! Any help will be much apporiated !!!


Simply boot from the WinXP installation CD. You'll be offered the
opportunity to delete, create, and format partitions as part of the
installation process. (You may need to re-arrange the order of boot
devices in the PC's BIOS to boot from the CD.)

HOW TO Install Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default...B;en-us;316941

http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/cleanxpinstall.html

http://www.webtree.ca/windowsxp/clean_install.htm

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having
both at once. - RAH

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...
I thought that university students in England knew how to
spell and use proper grammar.

Why would you think that? University students in the US can't spell or
write.

But I was under the impression that England had higher
standards for their universities. But it seems that grammar
and spelling are suffering world-wide, perhaps due to the
SMS cellphone and IM services on the Internet.

It is true, many students in the USA at all levels can't
spell using proper words, but they also have union teachers
who can't spell themselves.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


"Wislu Plethora" wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
| I thought that university students in England knew how
to
| spell and use proper grammar.
|
| Why would you think that? University students in the US
can't spell or
| write.
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...
But I was under the impression that England had higher
standards for their universities. But it seems that grammar
and spelling are suffering world-wide, perhaps due to the
SMS cellphone and IM services on the Internet.

It is true, many students in the USA at all levels can't
spell using proper words, but they also have union teachers
who can't spell themselves.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.

WTF do "union teachers" have to do with anything? Think about it for a
minute (I know that's asking a lot). Let's say that there are incompetent
teachers that can't be fired because of the strength of their union, which I
assume is what you're whining about. Where did the incompetent teachers
come from? Did they only become incompetent *after* they joined the union?
I don't think so. I think they were incompetent to begin with. OK, let's
say there is no union, and it's easy to fire incompetent teachers (and it
*is* relatively easy to do, even *with* a union). Where does your
replacement teacher come from? The same pool that produced the original
incompetent teacher. What makes you think the pickin's will be any better
the second--or third--time around?
This is the kind of mindless ditto-head bullsh|t we have to look forward to
for the next four years. Try and come up with an actual solution rather
than just pi$$ing on the problem.

Without a union, incompetent teachers would be fired.
Unions for teachers primary purpose is to protect stupid
teachers.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


"Wislu Plethora" wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
| But I was under the impression that England had higher
| standards for their universities. But it seems that
grammar
| and spelling are suffering world-wide, perhaps due to
the
| SMS cellphone and IM services on the Internet.
|
| It is true, many students in the USA at all levels can't
| spell using proper words, but they also have union
teachers
| who can't spell themselves.
|
|
| --
| The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
| But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
|
| WTF do "union teachers" have to do with anything? Think
about it for a
| minute (I know that's asking a lot). Let's say that there
are incompetent
| teachers that can't be fired because of the strength of
their union, which I
| assume is what you're whining about. Where did the
incompetent teachers
| come from? Did they only become incompetent *after* they
joined the union?
| I don't think so. I think they were incompetent to begin
wit h.OK,let's
| say there is no union, and it's easy to fire incompetent
teachers (and it
| *is* relatively easy to do, even *with* a union). Where
does your
| replacement teacher come from? The same pool that
produced the original
| incompetent teacher. What makes you think the pickin's
will be any better
| the second--or third--time around?
| This is the kind of mindless ditto-head bullsh|t we have
to look forward to
| for the next four years. Try and come up with an actual
solution rather
| than just pi$$ing on the problem.
|
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...
Without a union, incompetent teachers would be fired.
Unions for teachers primary purpose is to protect stupid
teachers.



Then why are there incompetent teachers in places where there is no union?
And you didn't answer my question: If you get rid of the unions and fire all
of the incompetent teachers, where will the replacements come from? Don't
you think it's irresponsible ( I know how you reactionaries love personal
responsibility) to impugn an entire profession without any data to back up
your misguided contention? Not surprising that you can't support your
knee-jerking drivel with anything that makes sense.

Stupid, left-wing teachers began teaching in teacher's
colleges forty years ago. They have a large base of stupid
college bound students to select as the next generation of
teachers.

Home schooling is very successful, not because the parents
are smarter, they just care more and have higher standards.
There are excellent and qualified teachers in all levels of
schools, but the dregs are there too, and one zero lowers
the average tremendously.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


"Wislu Plethora" wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
| Without a union, incompetent teachers would be fired.
| Unions for teachers primary purpose is to protect stupid
| teachers.
|
|
|
| Then why are there incompetent teachers in places where
there is no union?
| And you didn't answer my question: If you get rid of the
unions and fire all
| of the incompetent teachers, where will the replacements
come from? Don't
| you think it's irresponsible ( I know how you
reactionaries love personal
| responsibility) to impugn an entire profession without any
data to back up
| your misguided contention? Not surprising that you can't
support your
| knee-jerking drivel with anything that makes sense.
|
|

Jim Macklin wrote:
Stupid, left-wing teachers began teaching in teacher's
colleges forty years ago. They have a large base of stupid
college bound students to select as the next generation of
teachers.

Home schooling is very successful, not because the parents
are smarter, they just care more and have higher standards.
There are excellent and qualified teachers in all levels of
schools, but the dregs are there too, and one zero lowers
the average tremendously.



You didn't answer the question--what do unions have to do with it? By
your own reasoning, the pool is contaminated anyway. By the way, there
is no evidence to support the oft-cited contention that home-schooled
kids perform better academically than they would in public schools.
You've hit on the core of the problem, which is parents. Don't expect
teachers to be able to do magic.

Government schools, often called public schools, are the big
cash cow for union teachers. The goal is not to educate
citizens, but to educate subjects to be willingly led by the
government. Teachers' unions seek more money for schools,
even though class room size and money per pupil does not
increase student performance, it does increase the power of
the "school lobby" since it is for the children.
When the Russians launched there first satellite, the nation
panicked and everybody decided that our public schools
needed to be run by and at the direction of the federal
government.
Federal education standards and unions have worked hand in
hand to limit the scope of citizenship education skills,
such as the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic and
detailed processes of creative thought. History of the
nation, political processes were not taught in detail. Thus
after 40-45 years, the majority of citizens have no
understanding of politics and they are easily led around by
the likes of a Michael Moore or Dan Rather.
But I have hope, the Internet and talk radio may change that
back to thinkers. The Internet has so many good things and
so many bad, but the key is that it open and isn't even
under control in China.

I personally saw the change in the public schools in the
late 50's and monitored my own children's education and the
quality of their textbooks and teachers. Perhaps you are a
union teacher, that would mean that you are unable to see
the forest for the trees.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


"Phil McCracken" wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| Stupid, left-wing teachers began teaching in teacher's
| colleges forty years ago. They have a large base of
stupid
| college bound students to select as the next generation
of
| teachers.
|
| Home schooling is very successful, not because the
parents
| are smarter, they just care more and have higher
standards.
| There are excellent and qualified teachers in all levels
of
| schools, but the dregs are there too, and one zero
lowers
| the average tremendously.
|
|
|
| You didn't answer the question--what do unions have to do
with it? By
| your own reasoning, the pool is contaminated anyway. By
the way, there
| is no evidence to support the oft-cited contention that
home-schooled
| kids perform better academically than they would in public
schools.
| You've hit on the core of the problem, which is parents.
Don't expect
| teachers to be able to do magic.

Jim Macklin wrote:
Government schools, often called public schools, are the big
cash cow for union teachers. The goal is not to educate
citizens, but to educate subjects to be willingly led by the
government. Teachers' unions seek more money for schools,
even though class room size and money per pupil does not
increase student performance, it does increase the power of
the "school lobby" since it is for the children.
When the Russians launched there first satellite, the nation
panicked and everybody decided that our public schools
needed to be run by and at the direction of the federal
government.
Federal education standards and unions have worked hand in
hand to limit the scope of citizenship education skills,
such as the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic and
detailed processes of creative thought. History of the
nation, political processes were not taught in detail. Thus
after 40-45 years, the majority of citizens have no
understanding of politics and they are easily led around by
the likes of a Michael Moore or Dan Rather.
But I have hope, the Internet and talk radio may change that
back to thinkers. The Internet has so many good things and
so many bad, but the key is that it open and isn't even
under control in China.

I personally saw the change in the public schools in the
late 50's and monitored my own children's education and the
quality of their textbooks and teachers. Perhaps you are a
union teacher, that would mean that you are unable to see
the forest for the trees.



No, I'm not a teacher, union or otherwise. I think the fact that you
don't know the difference between "there" and their" (or you don't care
about it) is very telling. "Government school" is dittohead
gobbledygook. I also think it's very telling that so many neocons are
taking their children out of the public schools rather than staying
there and *working* to help make them better, for the better of the kids
and the community at large. It's *much* easier just to run away from the
problem and whine about it. And you keep going in circles--another
common dittohead trait. It's the unions--no, wait it's the parents--uh,
maybe it's the leftist educators of the sixties--just more and more
regurgicrap.