# Windows 8 not booting



## jhawk (Nov 18, 2010)

Hello, 
I've been trying to install the Windows 8 Consumer Preview on my "test" PC. When I initially tried to install it off a USB stick I got all the way to the product key screen, and I could not get anywhere. So, I re-downloaded the .iso file and tried again - this time, I would boot off it in BIOS and it would load the files, then the screen will go black, and go nowhere. I've confirmed the hash is good, system requirements are fine, tried it 10+ times. Using Windows 7 USB/DVD Download tool. 
Any ideas as to why this is happening?

Thanks!


----------



## managed (May 24, 2003)

Not sure why you're having problems. You could try the later ISO from here :- http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/iso

I just installed 8 from the 32 bit ISO after using the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download tool to put it on a Usb stick. It worked perfectly.


----------



## jhawk (Nov 18, 2010)

I used that link - downloaded from it 4 times.


----------



## managed (May 24, 2003)

So you used the latest 'Release Preview' ISO ?

Try using a DVD instead of the Usb stick. Shouldn't make any difference in theory but worth a try.

Maybe you could remove any hardware you don't actually need for the install, if any.


----------



## jhawk (Nov 18, 2010)

Well, the PC doesn't have a DVD drive, just CD . . . that's my problem. I need my keyboard and mouse and USB stick, and that's all that's connected.


----------



## managed (May 24, 2003)

How much Ram is in the 'test' PC ? Is it the Dell in your specs ?


----------



## jhawk (Nov 18, 2010)

About 800 MB (roughly), and no - it's not in my specs, this is another one given to me for my A+ cert studying.


----------



## managed (May 24, 2003)

For Windows 8 32 bit Micro$oft recommend at least 1GB of ram (and 2GB for 64 bit).

I'm not sure if that is the problem here though.

Are you doing clean installs each time (by formatting first) ?


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

managed said:


> For Windows 8 32 bit Micro$oft recommend at least 1GB of ram (and 2GB for 64 bit).


It very well could be that it won't install on less than 1 GB. Certainly, Microsoft has done that in the past with other operating systems, and this being a "preview", they would want to minimize peoples' bad impressions that could be due to installations on machines that did not meet the standards.

Considering how some people are, they would install it on a machine with half the recommended RAM and a graphics card that didn't support all the graphics, and then write a review about how slow it was, how horrible it looked, and how the hard drive never stopped spinning.


----------



## managed (May 24, 2003)

I think that happened a lot with Vista. Computers that could barely run it had it pre-installed and of course it looked slow to anyone used to a properly running XP.

Then 'Vista bashing' seemed to catch on and the rest was history.

I suppose 7 is what Vista should have been but I can't help feeling M$ were unfairly treated over Vista. Perhaps they should have tried to exert more control over the hardware it was pre-installed on. Then again they were getting paid for each sale.

Looks like Windows 8 might be the 'new' Vista !


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

managed said:


> Looks like Windows 8 might be the 'new' Vista !


I hope not. But the reviews have not been good among the general public. It may be more of a change than many people are able or willing to swallow.

And 7 has turned out to be a very solid OS. I understand that new features are needed for new hardware, but it just seems too soon to be dumping 7 already.

Yes, Vista got a bad rap. People were not ready for an OS that needed that much more RAM than they were used to having and tried it on their unprepared machines. Those who had good results were just silent because it was, after all, just doing what it was supposed to do. But the people who had bad results were definitely the squeaky wheels.


----------



## Compiler (Oct 11, 2006)

managed said:


> I think that happened a lot with Vista. Computers that could barely run it had it pre-installed and of course it looked slow to anyone used to a properly running XP. Then 'Vista bashing' seemed to catch on and the rest was history.


Er... no, Vista was crap out the door. It came out when an entry level PC was $400 with 512MB of RAM. And yes, HP, Acer, Dell and the rest sold such PCs with Vista. A good running Vista box needed at least 4GB of RAM... and when a 1GB XP box would still do things better... vista deserved every bad review it deserves. The "Vista-lovers" yaked about people trying to install it on their own OLD hardware. I call bull on it, as almost nobody bought vista to "upgrade" - it just came with the NEW computer they had just bought. Remember the email from the MS-Exec Mike Nashs complaint that compatibility problems turned his $2,100 PC into nothing more than an email machine.

Keep in mind, back when Vista came out in 2006 - The price per GB was $100... remember how many PCs eventually came with 6~8GB as a standard? Vista handling of memory was horrible. It was fixed with Windows7. The driver issues is mostly MS's fault not handling it correctly to begin with and of course the developers for not taking MS seriously about the changes. Even to this day, at one of the offices I work for - HP doesn't make a functional driver for a $6000 plotter with Win7.

My opinions of Vista is based on experience using it, mostly. Vista not shutting down, not waking up, taking forever to unpack a ZIP file (minutes vs seconds). SP1 fixed most of the bugs, but the memory issues are built into vista. Still, what many Vista users would post "disable" the UAC and other functions to get more performance... uh-huh... so turn off the "features", reducing it to "XP" security wise, etc... so why bother? Windows7 does much better.

Windows7 fixed many of the problems (memory) and added some useful functional features (jump lists for one). Other than the AERO skin, vista didn't really offer or change anything.



managed said:


> I suppose 7 is what Vista should have been but I can't help feeling M$ were unfairly treated over Vista. Perhaps they should have tried to exert more control over the hardware it was pre-installed on. Then again they were getting paid for each sale.
> Looks like Windows 8 might be the 'new' Vista !


MS hasn't got pure control of the hardware, sure they want it... prevent Linux installs, etc. MS said hardware was Win7 "capable" with intel hardware that can't deal with the design defects of vista. As far as I'm concerned, MS didn't care - they will FORCE people to buy Vista, people will get it anyway when they upgraded... But many people didn't upgrade or upgraded to WinXP.

I ran Windows7 Preview edition, I used it as my MAIN OS for many months before RTM up until it expired. I used to run my "slow" Thinkpad with 1GB RAM on Win7... it ran better with Win7 than it did with the XP-Pro it came with.

If Vista wasn't the DEFECT it is, than Windows7 would have just as problematic as Vista... and I'd be using XP or Linux today.

Vista never reached above 25% market share in the 3 years it one on market. Win7 quickly surpassed Vista in about a year, vista went to dust instantly. Nobody was offering a "Win7 to Vista downgrade". When the last Vista PC dies, there will still be millions of people still using XP.

Windows8 is functionally stable, its fast, lite on memory, has improvements over Win7. There are things to LIKE about it. Such as the ability to HIDE the ribbon interface on Explorer. File Transfer. Even faster startup. I like the tweaks to AERO in the CP version of 8, but when they talk about going completely FLAT & plain with the RTM version - if what I am seeing is the final Win8, they have gone overboard and made the GUI PLAIN UGLY.

Yes, I've already know I can go my entire life not EVER using Metro on the desktop. Be it Windows8, 9 or 10... by then Microsoft will be dead.


----------



## Compiler (Oct 11, 2006)

Elvandil said:


> People were not ready for an OS that needed that much more RAM than they were used to having and tried it on their unprepared machines.


Unlike today in which 8GB of RAM is $40~60... back when Vista was new, it was $100 per GB! It means going from XP to Vista = A Dual core CPU required along with 6~8GB of RAM for a power user along with a 64bit OS which meant even LESS compatibility with printers and such.

So to DO the same job on an XP desktop, a Vista desktop would require a $300~1000 upgrades in hardware alone.

Actually, I am on Microsoft's side for doing a NEW OS every 3 years - even thou Win7 is quite stable. As shown with XP - the market become stagnate, the software & hardware developers become lazy. Hence the painful change from XP to vista.
They COULD have done some tweaks to XP and release an upgraded version. That is how I saw XP-MCE - which I bought/used in client PCs until Win7. It has an updated skin, it has mostly XP-PRO features for $40 less.

Look at Apple, OS-X is older than XP, yet every 18 months Apple releases an updated version of the OS that looks mostly the same, but adds (or removes) functions, applications and support... for $30~10 per computer. (vs $100~200 for MS)

The desktop/notebook form factor just doesn't need much more... it is what it is. Just like a desktop GUI doesn't really work on a tablet/cell phone, it goes back the otherway.

With PC gaming going into the toilet, murdered by consoles... The Windows platform is becoming nothing more than a support system for MS-Office. And if you don't need MS-Office (and Adobe products) - then you don't Microsoft/windows. The Mac of course has the same Adobe line up... Linux has nothing. If someone wants to turn the screws on Microsoft, they'd pay Adobe a few million to make Linux version of their CS (Creative Suite).

The browser is the most use "APP" anyone uses... it means anyone can run MS Office (Office 365) on any platform/OS, including the zombie Amigas. 80% of profit that Microsoft makes is from Windows/Office. Xbox can't support the company, the rest is other software and their licenses. MS just announced their NEW tablet (yawn)... with them charging $85 per install of Win8RT onto tablets to their "partners" - why bother? It means each MS tablet costs at least $75~100 more than the Android or Apple versions. Ouch.

The bad taste that Win8 Metro will give to people will severely hurt their tablet / cell phone sales... something that MS has 1~5% of the market. MS has released failures.... BOB.

Remember this: In July 2009, in only eight hours, pre-orders of Windows 7 at amazon.co.uk surpassed the demand which Windows Vista had had in its first 17 weeks.


----------



## alphanumeric (Jul 12, 2003)

What happens when you get to the product code screen? Did you enter the product code?
Product Key: TK8TP-9JN6P-7X7WW-RFFTV-B7QPF
Media Center: MBFBV-W3DP2-2MVKN-PJCQD-KKTF7


----------



## DonDeDonDon (Jun 19, 2012)

jhawk said:


> Hello,
> I've been trying to install the Windows 8 Consumer Preview on my "test" PC. When I initially tried to install it off a USB stick I got all the way to the product key screen, and I could not get anywhere. So, I re-downloaded the .iso file and tried again - this time, I would boot off it in BIOS and it would load the files, then the screen will go black, and go nowhere. I've confirmed the hash is good, system requirements are fine, tried it 10+ times. Using Windows 7 USB/DVD Download tool.
> Any ideas as to why this is happening?
> 
> Thanks!


I'm having the same problem. I had the older version of Windows 8 and for some reason it quit taking updates so I downloaded the new one and burned it to a disc. When I try to install it as a dual boot on my second HD it seems to be installing then when it tries to reboot during the install it hangs up and the screen goes black. I then need to go into bios to get Windows 7 to boot up again. I then see the Windows 8 files are on my other drive but they don't work.
I'm running a dual 2 gig CPU with 3 gigs of ram, a 320 gig HD and a 1.5TB HD.


----------



## TerryNet (Mar 23, 2005)

> this time, I would boot off it in BIOS and it would load the files, then the screen will go black, and go nowhere.


That (sorta) happened to me this morning when I installed using a USB flash drive. When the screen goes black after copying the files it is rebooting. I wasn't watching closely and did not realize. I also did not realize that with the USB it will boot again from it w/o, as with a CD/DVD, asking for a "hit any key." So, the second time I paid more attention and when the screen went blank I removed the USB flash drive and everything then went smoothly. 

Maybe your problem is different, as you said "and go nowhere."


----------



## managed (May 24, 2003)

When the install restarts it needs to boot the HDD that the 8 files have been copied too.

With Usb stick install if possible use the Bios boot menu to select Usb stick at the start but have the HDD as 1st boot device in the Bios, then you don't need to change anything manually at the restart.

Using a DVD to install should be ok if you _don't_ 'press any key' after the restart.

BUT when there is more than one HDD you have to ensure the drive the 8 files get copied too will boot after the restart. It's easiest with just one HDD connected for the 8 install, you can add entries to 8's boot menu later when the other HDD(s) are connected again.


----------



## DonDeDonDon (Jun 19, 2012)

Another thing is I can hardly read my monitor screen as it's broken up when I start the setup and enter the key. Does this sound like I have a bad disc? It has done this on two different discs I burned from two downloads.


----------

