Re: 9i install quit right after setting installation types

Howard J. Rogers <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:pan.2003.02.28.17.27.42.708287_at_yahoo.com.au...
> 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'.

Actually I agree with you here; I would find what you describe ridiculous too. Only thing is I HAVEN'T done research about the P4 bug. I should have done some though; that would have kept you happy, no ? Or at least less angry ?

> > 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.
> 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).

If my not telling you details about my setup is more irritating, then I was wrong: you don't need a vacation. You may need a career break. When you say that in those 100+ times you never had an issue, you are either the first person I 'meet' that managed to work on the first time all ok while dealing with Oracle and Windows or you just mean that you did have issues but you solved them. In the second case that's what I am trying to do too. To solve an issue. That's why I asked a question here. You didn't like the way I asked my question ? Now if that isn't ridiculous I don't know what is.

> In each case, starting with a clean machine gives you an opportunity to
> sort the kak out.

True. But why re-invent the wheel when you just don't know how to put the last few nails ?

> > (*) 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?

It's simple: you have more experience / knowledge than me. Try to use it to help me, not to point out my inexperience. Otherwise this knowledge that you have is useless to anybody but you, which makes it unnecessary (to say the least) for you to answer posts here. Am I wrong ?

> Of course, I've never tried installing in anything less than 192MB of RAM.

Well, I have and I have succeeded, too. Go figure.

> 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.

In the end, we all want to have a system that's functional with everything that has to be on it. Some people find problems that others don't. I like too to clean up PCs and start afresh with windows and oracle but that is not always easy, let alone doable. If you had ever had that problem and solved it, I would need your help. Since your 100+ installs were all problem-free, you are simply not the person to answer. And one other thing. Let's say that we take two identical machines and put exactly the same software on (OS, applications, oracle, etc). You think that in this senario everything would happen in one machine exactly as it would happen on the other ? No errors ? No abnormal terminations ? No Dr Watson reports ? No messed up registries by an installation that worked on the second time when it should have worked in the first one ?

Anyway all that is pointless. Regarding the problem, thanks for trying to help (in your own way). Regarding your first reply that led us here, I think you must relax a bit. I understand that sometimes some posts can be upsetting but nobody's perfect. Not even one who has done as many succesful installations as you.

Kostas Received on Sat Mar 01 2003 - 17:00:22 CST