Partitions recognized with different drive letters - x32 vs x64?
 

I recently installed x64 trial in a dual boot configuration which used RAID 1
on a Silicon Image SATARAID controller. My x32 configuration continued to
work without issue. I had partitioned my 160GB hard drive such that X32 had
40% and x64 had 60%. My partitions showed as "C" and "D" in My Computer.

My x64 configuration worked until I installed some application software in
that region. A subsequent reboot failed: it simply rebooted each time I
attempted to start x64.

I booted into x32 and was greeted by a long CHKDSK that fixed a ton of
indices and orphaned files in the x64 partition. The RAID went into a
rebuild mode automatically when Windows XP32 started.

When I retraced my steps, I realized that x64 had recognized the x32
partition as "C" and the x64 partition as "E", obviously in conflict with the
x32 view of the drive.

Is this an architectural difference in x64? Or should I look to the driver
provider (ATI) for a solution?

Re: Partitions recognized with different drive letters - x32 vs x64?
 

One note of caution. Be very careful when installing software to make sure
where it is placing your files. This is particularly true when you install
Nvidia drivers since they default to C even if your current boot drive is
something else. I have a similar situation. x86 (E + P) x64 (E + D)


"Joe64" <Joe64@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A661DE85-37FC-4121-AF70-F90406776358@microsoft.com...
>I recently installed x64 trial in a dual boot configuration which used RAID
>1
> on a Silicon Image SATARAID controller. My x32 configuration continued to
> work without issue. I had partitioned my 160GB hard drive such that X32
> had
> 40% and x64 had 60%. My partitions showed as "C" and "D" in My Computer.
>
> My x64 configuration worked until I installed some application software in
> that region. A subsequent reboot failed: it simply rebooted each time I
> attempted to start x64.
>
> I booted into x32 and was greeted by a long CHKDSK that fixed a ton of
> indices and orphaned files in the x64 partition. The RAID went into a
> rebuild mode automatically when Windows XP32 started.
>
> When I retraced my steps, I realized that x64 had recognized the x32
> partition as "C" and the x64 partition as "E", obviously in conflict with
> the
> x32 view of the drive.
>
> Is this an architectural difference in x64? Or should I look to the
> driver
> provider (ATI) for a solution?

RE: Partitions recognized with different drive letters - x32 vs x64?
 

Hello Joe,
The drive letter changes are not due to a difference in the platforms.
The drive letter differences are due to how the drives are viewed and
configured at setup time if the same driver set is available for each
controller on the system.
This is simply disk and volume enumeration, how and what happened during
setup determines this.
The drive lettering is not the cause of the disk corruption issues that you
are seeing, that is a separate issue.
There is no problem with a partition being seen as separate drive letters
in different Operating Systems
Thanks,
Darrell Gorter[MSFT]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
--------------------
<Thread-Topic: Partitions recognized with different drive letters - x32 vs
x64?
<thread-index: AcWowhnjYJkWmCYGTMOk0RqYW7dtdQ==
<X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 209.188.119.135
<From: "=?Utf-8?B?Sm9lNjQ=?=" <Joe64@discussions.microsoft.com>
<Subject: Partitions recognized with different drive letters - x32 vs x64?
<Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:40:06 -0700
<Lines: 19
<Message-ID: <A661DE85-37FC-4121-AF70-F90406776358@microsoft.com>
<MIME-Version: 1.0
<Content-Type: text/plain;
< charset="Utf-8"
<Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000
<Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
<Importance: normal
<Priority: normal
<X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.0
<Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
<NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGXA03.phx.gbl 10.40.2.250
<Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFT NGXA03.phx.gbl
<Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:15792
<X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
<
<I recently installed x64 trial in a dual boot configuration which used
RAID 1
<on a Silicon Image SATARAID controller. My x32 configuration continued to
<work without issue. I had partitioned my 160GB hard drive such that X32
had
<40% and x64 had 60%. My partitions showed as "C" and "D" in My Computer.
<
<My x64 configuration worked until I installed some application software in
<that region. A subsequent reboot failed: it simply rebooted each time I
<attempted to start x64.
<
<I booted into x32 and was greeted by a long CHKDSK that fixed a ton of
<indices and orphaned files in the x64 partition. The RAID went into a
<rebuild mode automatically when Windows XP32 started.
<
<When I retraced my steps, I realized that x64 had recognized the x32
<partition as "C" and the x64 partition as "E", obviously in conflict with
the
<x32 view of the drive.
<
<Is this an architectural difference in x64? Or should I look to the
driver
<provider (ATI) for a solution?
<

Re: Partitions recognized with different drive letters - x32 vs x64?
 

Hi, Darrell.

> There is no problem with a partition being seen as separate drive letters
> in different Operating Systems

No problem for the computer. But the human gets awfully confused!

I'm still trying to rationalize the shifting letter assignments as I
quad-boot the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of WinXP and Vista beta 1. It
doesn't help, of course, that I have a single IDE HD and a pair of SATA HDs
(no RAID). It seems that the BIOS, Boot.ini and Disk Management never can
agree on whether rdisk(0) is also Disk 0 or HDD-0. :>( Sure makes it hard
to configure Boot.ini, especially if there is a Boot.ini on each of the 3
HDs, allowing booting from any of them by switching BIOS settings. And the
new startup files (the C:\boot folder and \Windows\System32\winload.exe)
simply add to my confusion.

Your tip in an earlier NG thread - about booting into WinXP, then accessing
the DVD drive and installing Vista from inside WinXP - helped a lot. As you
said, this causes Vista Setup to respect the letters I've already assigned,
letting me choose which letter will be assigned to my new Boot Volume for
Vista. Thanks for that tip!

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
rc@corridor.net
Microsoft Windows MVP

""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" <Darrellg@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:xfZtwyNqFHA.3148@TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl...
> Hello Joe,
> The drive letter changes are not due to a difference in the platforms.
> The drive letter differences are due to how the drives are viewed and
> configured at setup time if the same driver set is available for each
> controller on the system.
> This is simply disk and volume enumeration, how and what happened during
> setup determines this.
> The drive lettering is not the cause of the disk corruption issues that
> you
> are seeing, that is a separate issue.
> There is no problem with a partition being seen as separate drive letters
> in different Operating Systems
> Thanks,
> Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
>
> <From: "=?Utf-8?B?Sm9lNjQ=?=" <Joe64@discussions.microsoft.com>
> <
> <I recently installed x64 trial in a dual boot configuration which used
> RAID 1
> <on a Silicon Image SATARAID controller. My x32 configuration continued
> to
> <work without issue. I had partitioned my 160GB hard drive such that X32
> had
> <40% and x64 had 60%. My partitions showed as "C" and "D" in My Computer.
> <
> <My x64 configuration worked until I installed some application software
> in
> <that region. A subsequent reboot failed: it simply rebooted each time I
> <attempted to start x64.
> <
> <I booted into x32 and was greeted by a long CHKDSK that fixed a ton of
> <indices and orphaned files in the x64 partition. The RAID went into a
> <rebuild mode automatically when Windows XP32 started.
> <
> <When I retraced my steps, I realized that x64 had recognized the x32
> <partition as "C" and the x64 partition as "E", obviously in conflict with
> the
> <x32 view of the drive.
> <
> <Is this an architectural difference in x64? Or should I look to the
> driver
> <provider (ATI) for a solution?

Re: Partitions recognized with different drive letters - x32 vs x64?
 

Thanks R.C.
I agree that it's confusing.
It's not always easy to figure out how or why drive letters are assigned
the way that they are.
This is a pretty good article on how it works:
234048 How Windows 2000 Assigns, Reserves, and Stores Drive Letters
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=234048

Now some of this is dependant on the drivers that in the OS as well as how
the bios represents the boot drives and how the controllers are enumerated.
Thanks,
Darrell Gorter[MSFT]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
--------------------
<From: "R. C. White" <rc@corridor.net>
<References: <A661DE85-37FC-4121-AF70-F90406776358@microsoft.com>
<xfZtwyNqFHA.3148@TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl>
<Subject: Re: Partitions recognized with different drive letters - x32 vs
x64?
<Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:48:41 -0500
<Lines: 76
<Organization: R. C. White
<X-Priority: 3
<X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
<X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.1830
<X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.1830
<X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
<Message-ID: <eUJDdBTqFHA.3424@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>
<Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
<NNTP-Posting-Host: b-35.dlsrtr.corridor.net 65.111.109.35
<Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFT NGP14.phx.gbl
<Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:15836
<X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
<
<Hi, Darrell.
<
<> There is no problem with a partition being seen as separate drive letters
<> in different Operating Systems
<
<No problem for the computer. But the human gets awfully confused!
<
<I'm still trying to rationalize the shifting letter assignments as I
<quad-boot the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of WinXP and Vista beta 1. It
<doesn't help, of course, that I have a single IDE HD and a pair of SATA
HDs
<(no RAID). It seems that the BIOS, Boot.ini and Disk Management never can
<agree on whether rdisk(0) is also Disk 0 or HDD-0. :>( Sure makes it
hard
<to configure Boot.ini, especially if there is a Boot.ini on each of the 3
<HDs, allowing booting from any of them by switching BIOS settings. And
the
<new startup files (the C:\boot folder and \Windows\System32\winload.exe)
<simply add to my confusion.
<
<Your tip in an earlier NG thread - about booting into WinXP, then
accessing
<the DVD drive and installing Vista from inside WinXP - helped a lot. As
you
<said, this causes Vista Setup to respect the letters I've already
assigned,
<letting me choose which letter will be assigned to my new Boot Volume for
<Vista. Thanks for that tip!
<
<RC
<--
<R. C. White, CPA
<San Marcos, TX
<rc@corridor.net
<Microsoft Windows MVP
<
<""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" <Darrellg@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
<news:xfZtwyNqFHA.3148@TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl...
<> Hello Joe,
<> The drive letter changes are not due to a difference in the platforms.
<> The drive letter differences are due to how the drives are viewed and
<> configured at setup time if the same driver set is available for each
<> controller on the system.
<> This is simply disk and volume enumeration, how and what happened during
<> setup determines this.
<> The drive lettering is not the cause of the disk corruption issues that
<> you
<> are seeing, that is a separate issue.
<> There is no problem with a partition being seen as separate drive letters
<> in different Operating Systems
<> Thanks,
<> Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
<>
<> <From: "=?Utf-8?B?Sm9lNjQ=?=" <Joe64@discussions.microsoft.com>
<> <
<> <I recently installed x64 trial in a dual boot configuration which used
<> RAID 1
<> <on a Silicon Image SATARAID controller. My x32 configuration continued
<> to
<> <work without issue. I had partitioned my 160GB hard drive such that X32
<> had
<> <40% and x64 had 60%. My partitions showed as "C" and "D" in My
Computer.
<> <
<> <My x64 configuration worked until I installed some application software
<> in
<> <that region. A subsequent reboot failed: it simply rebooted each time
I
<> <attempted to start x64.
<> <
<> <I booted into x32 and was greeted by a long CHKDSK that fixed a ton of
<> <indices and orphaned files in the x64 partition. The RAID went into a
<> <rebuild mode automatically when Windows XP32 started.
<> <
<> <When I retraced my steps, I realized that x64 had recognized the x32
<> <partition as "C" and the x64 partition as "E", obviously in conflict
with
<> the
<> <x32 view of the drive.
<> <
<> <Is this an architectural difference in x64? Or should I look to the
<> driver
<> <provider (ATI) for a solution?
<
<
<

Re: Partitions recognized with different drive letters - x32 vs x64?
 

On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:40:06 -0700, "Joe64"
<Joe64@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I recently installed x64 trial in a dual boot configuration which used RAID 1
>on a Silicon Image SATARAID controller. My x32 configuration continued to
>work without issue. I had partitioned my 160GB hard drive such that X32 had
>40% and x64 had 60%. My partitions showed as "C" and "D" in My Computer.
>
>My x64 configuration worked until I installed some application software in
>that region. A subsequent reboot failed: it simply rebooted each time I
>attempted to start x64.
>
>I booted into x32 and was greeted by a long CHKDSK that fixed a ton of
>indices and orphaned files in the x64 partition. The RAID went into a
>rebuild mode automatically when Windows XP32 started.
>
>When I retraced my steps, I realized that x64 had recognized the x32
>partition as "C" and the x64 partition as "E", obviously in conflict with the
>x32 view of the drive.

How this typically happens is when you boot from the XP64 CD, setup
assigns C: to the first partition (active primary) and D: to the
optical drive. Then when you create a partition for XP64, E: is
assigned to the partition. If you proceed to install to the E:
partition, that's what you'll end up with.
To prevent this, abort the installation using F3-F3, and reboot from
the XP64 CD. Now setup will assign C: to the first partition and D: to
the now existing second partition, and E: to the optical drive.

>
>Is this an architectural difference in x64? Or should I look to the driver
>provider (ATI) for a solution?