Howard J. Rogers wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:53:18 +0100, Konstantinos M wrote:
>
>
>>"Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:pan.2003.02.28.09.37.50.433537_at_yahoo.com.au...
>>
>>>On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:51:19 +0000, Konstantinos M wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>I went through many posts here and elsewhere but didn't find a
>>>>solution to my problem so I could definitely use some help.
>>>>I am installing 9i on a P4 Win 2K machine which has already 8.1.7 to a
>>>>different oracle_home. I am having a problem because OUI quits right
>>>>after I pick the installation type (enterprise, standard, whatever),
>>>>and the installaction.log mentions no error but its last entry is
>>>>about prerequisite queries. I don't think it's the P4 bug, metalink
>>>>says this problem was fixed with 9i but just to make sure I am
>>>>installing from HD after renaming the symsomething.dll but still have
>>>>the problem. Does anybody have any ideas what could be wrong ? I am
>>>>starting to get kinda desperate.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks in advance
>>>>Kostas
>>>
>>>
>>>I wish we could clear this nonsense up once and for all. Oracle 8i (that's
>>>EIGHT EYE) was released before the Pentium 4 processor, and hence the
>>>Pentium 4 bug. Oracle 9i was released after the Pentium 4 processor had
>>>been around for a long time, and hence THERE IS NO PENTIUM 4 BUG IN 9I.
>>>
>>>There are zero problems installing 9i on a Windows machine that is
>>>*clean*.
>>>
>>>And that's all the advice I can give you.
>>>
>>>Sorry
>>>HJR
>>
>>Howard, I think you need a vacation.
>
>
> Whatever. Personally, I find it ridiculous in the extreme that anyone who
> had done the least bit of research as to the nature of the P4 bug would
> even propose it as an excuse for their problems in 9i. You're not alone in
> jumping to totally illogical conclusions, either. It's become something of
> a mantra here '9i install won't work...must be the P4 bug'.
>
>
>>Anyway, since we both agree it's not the P4 bug (stupid me tried everything
>>cause I was desperate), and apart from yelling, do you have a solution ? If
>>not, your advice besides wrong (*) is completely useless and your answer
>>irritating.
>
>
> Not as irritating, I venture, as not telling us minor details like your
> service pack level or the amount of RAM you have. Nor as irritating as
> people latching onto some non-existent bug as if it absolves them of the
> need to think.
>
>
>>It's like saying to a guy with a half loaded truck and loading
>>problems that they would not have problems loading an empty one. Um ok,
>>yeah, thanks I guess.
>
>
> OK: Put it this way then: I've installed 9iR1 and 9iR2 onto W2K and XP machines
> probably over 100 times, and I've never had an issue doing it. Your
> machine has got 8i on it already. I've also done plenty of those sorts of
> install... but I start with a fresh Windows install, install 8i, install
> 9i. No problems.
>
> Yet you are having problems. So either you don't know how to install
> Windows properly. Or your 8i installation is not fresh. Or there's
> something else on that box that's stuffing up the 9i install. (Such as,
> for example, an installation of Java somewhere).
>
> In each case, starting with a clean machine gives you an opportunity to
> sort the kak out.
>
>
>>I take the chance to mention here that older (2002) threads in Metalink with
>>the exact same problem are unfortunately still open.
>>
>>(*) At home I had a clean w2k machine with NOTHING on, where I tried to
>>install 9i. The installer told me at the beginning that it cannot be
>>installed without service pack 1
>
>
> So what you're telling me is that you don't read the installation
> documentation, because otherwise this requirement would not have been a
> surprise. That might explain a lot.
>
>
>>(which I hadn't installed) and after I
>>installed the latter smoothly OUI aborted at 30something% saying that the
>>SP1 was not installed. So much for the "zero problems installing 9i on a
>>Windows machine that is*clean*"
>
>
> And in over 100 installs, I've never had such a problem. So you explain
> how come I can get it right and you can't?
>
> Of course, I've never tried installing in anything less than 192MB of RAM.
> I know how to configure Windows. I don't apply Service Pack 3 until
> after Oracle is safely installed. And I don't stint on swapfile space.
>
> So, as for my advice being wrong... maybe. But at least I'm running 9i on
> W2K on a Pentium 4, and you're not. Go figure.
>
> HJR
>
I had an installation today on a Xeon SMP machine (running NT...) that
failed to start 8i installer - same fix as for p4 resolved the issue.
Bottom line: "this is not a P4" may be a Xeon... with the same issues
on 8i (mind you - Not 9i!) installations. Perhaps the Xeon is P4's
big brother?
--
Regards, Frank van Bortel
Received on Mon Mar 03 2003 - 13:46:53 CST
