Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > XP and boot drive requirements.

Reply
Thread Tools

XP and boot drive requirements.

 
 
Crash
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-25-2005
Greetings all,

I have installed XP onto an elderly machine with two IDE drives installed. The
two drives are 4 gigs and 80 gigs with the 4 gig drive being about 8 years old,
the 80 gig drive being about 4 years old.

In a previous thread Enkidu suggested installing XP on the 80 gig drive as it
was likely to be much faster than the older drive. However setup refused to do
this (I selected the unallocated space and pressed enter when asked where XP was
to be installed to). However I had to install to a partition on the old drive
to get the install to run,

I am wondering why this is. I vaguely recall setting master/slave switches on
the new drive when installing it years ago - does windows require the boot
partition to be on a master disk? If so, is it just a case of swapping
master/sale settings on the drives or is there more to it than this?

Seasons greetings to all,

Crash.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dogboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-25-2005
Crash wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> I have installed XP onto an elderly machine with two IDE drives
> installed. The two drives are 4 gigs and 80 gigs with the 4 gig drive
> being about 8 years old, the 80 gig drive being about 4 years old.
>
> In a previous thread Enkidu suggested installing XP on the 80 gig drive
> as it was likely to be much faster than the older drive. However setup
> refused to do this (I selected the unallocated space and pressed enter
> when asked where XP was to be installed to). However I had to install
> to a partition on the old drive to get the install to run,
>
> I am wondering why this is. I vaguely recall setting master/slave
> switches on the new drive when installing it years ago - does windows
> require the boot partition to be on a master disk? If so, is it just a
> case of swapping master/sale settings on the drives or is there more to
> it than this?
>
> Seasons greetings to all,
>
> Crash.


Swapping the master/slave order would probably work, but for the best
performance I would move the old 4 gig drive to the secondary IDE
Channel. Giving the 80 gig its own IDE channel would be best for speed.

Usually there is a CD-ROM on the secondary channel as well so you will
have to setup the master/slave arrangement on the secondary IDE channel.

--
Dogboy




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
~misfit~
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-25-2005
Dogboy wrote:
> Crash wrote:
>> Greetings all,
>>
>> I have installed XP onto an elderly machine with two IDE drives
>> installed. The two drives are 4 gigs and 80 gigs with the 4 gig
>> drive being about 8 years old, the 80 gig drive being about 4 years
>> old. In a previous thread Enkidu suggested installing XP on the 80 gig
>> drive as it was likely to be much faster than the older drive. However
>> setup refused to do this (I selected the unallocated space
>> and pressed enter when asked where XP was to be installed to). However I
>> had to install to a partition on the old drive to get the
>> install to run, I am wondering why this is. I vaguely recall setting
>> master/slave
>> switches on the new drive when installing it years ago - does windows
>> require the boot partition to be on a master disk? If so, is it
>> just a case of swapping master/sale settings on the drives or is
>> there more to it than this?
>>
>> Seasons greetings to all,
>>
>> Crash.

>
> Swapping the master/slave order would probably work, but for the best
> performance I would move the old 4 gig drive to the secondary IDE
> Channel. Giving the 80 gig its own IDE channel would be best for
> speed.
> Usually there is a CD-ROM on the secondary channel as well so you will
> have to setup the master/slave arrangement on the secondary IDE
> channel.


Or at least set the 80 as master and leave the 4 out until after
installation. It doesn't matter where you put the 4, whether you slave it on
the primary or secondary. The only time it could conceivably cause the 80 to
slow down is if they're both on the same channel and being accessed at the
same time.

BTW, I agree whole-heartedly about using the 80 as the boot drive. I'd
allocate a 5GB partition for Windows, a 2GB for swapfile (formatted FAT32
for speed), a 10GB for programs and the rest for data. In that order. Only
the pagefile partition formatted FAT32, the rest NTFS. The beauty of having
a 5GB partition for Windows and a seperate partition for programs is that
you can periodically back up the C: drive to a single DVD-R (if/when you
have the drive and software. e.g. Norton Ghost, the only Symantec product I
use, only because I have it and can't afford Acornis True Image). You could
even back it up periodically to the 4GB. Having an image of the drive saves
reinstalls quite often if you play a bit.

Cheers,
--
~misfit~


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OPERATING SYSTEM NOT FOUND. after 80gb boot drive replaced with300gb boot drive jc Computer Information 1 05-27-2008 12:56 PM
making a new drive the boot drive in a 2 hard drive system hi2u Computer Support 3 07-30-2007 08:45 PM
boot of "cisco2-C1600" using boot helper "eprom:c1600-boot-r.111-10.AA" failed Pete.Rudolph@gmail.com Cisco 2 06-14-2007 03:41 AM
Dual boot can't load x64 w/o CD in boot drive. aimbie Windows 64bit 27 07-15-2005 05:08 PM
Change Master/Boot Hard Drive to Slave/Non boot Hard Drive & Visa Versa Steve808us@yahoo.com Computer Information 0 01-18-2005 01:57 PM



Advertisments