Formatting on drive wiped out when testing another drive

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by docsavage20@yahoo.com, May 25, 2006.

  1. Guest

    "Rod Speed" <> wrote:

    |> wrote
    |>> Rod Speed <> wrote
    |>
    |>>>>> HD0: if you have CDEF and add HD1 with active partition
    |>>>>> you will then have CEF - HD1's first partition will take
    |>>>>> over D: and the rest of the partitions follow F (GH..)
    |>
    |>>>> Wrong with the NT/2K/XP family.
    |>
    |>>>> That only happens with the Win9x/ME family.
    |>
    |>>>>> LIke shown at the very bottom of http://www.aumha.org/a/parts.php
    |>
    |>>>> Pity about this bit right at the top
    |>>>> NOTE: I haven't yet comprehensively updated this article for
    |>>>> Windows 2000/XP.

    |>> Whatever, I've run into this with both NT and W2K,

    |>No you havent. You're just attempting to bullshit
    |>your way out of your predicament now.

    No predicament, nor my style.

    My second HD was always D due to this (old boot up drive) and I was
    triple booting at the time. Can't get any clear'r than that.



    --
    http://www.thekitchenoflove.com/kitchen/index.asp
     
    , May 26, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. John Doe Guest

    "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa gmail.com> wrote:

    > Pennywise DerryMaine.Gov wrote:


    >
    >> (of course you can change it in the diskmanager - but it will be
    >> D drive)

    >
    > Wrong again. The drive letters are much more persistent with the
    > NT/2K/XP family.


    Whatever you mean by "more persistent", you can in fact easily
    change drive letters in Windows XP.





    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Path: newssvr21.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
    > From: "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa gmail.com>
    > Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware,24hoursupport.helpdesk,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
    > Subject: Re: Formatting on drive wiped out when testing another drive
    > Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 07:29:02 +1000
    > Lines: 41
    > Message-ID: <4dmlt1F1alo4cU1 individual.net>
    > References: <1148537944.601035.122680 u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <3arb7290ght0cn61615rmgmgkpk3hc00fe 4ax.com> <4dmbroF1badrhU1 individual.net> <3s3c72p13ma72isucsub2qidn0q0kfr7i3 4ax.com>
    > X-Trace: individual.net Pl831tJ5NYQJ84ojQeoSXAZb7AI4jTxojUIYB7zC3woflSFTU=
    > X-Priority: 3
    > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670
    > X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
    > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670
    > Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:466398 microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support:663649 microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware:290606 24hoursupport.helpdesk:1378589 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage:372298
    >
     
    John Doe, May 26, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Rod Speed Guest

    wrote
    > Rod Speed <> wrote
    >>> wrote
    >>>> Rod Speed <> wrote


    >>>>>>> HD0: if you have CDEF and add HD1 with active partition
    >>>>>>> you will then have CEF - HD1's first partition will take
    >>>>>>> over D: and the rest of the partitions follow F (GH..)


    >>>>>> Wrong with the NT/2K/XP family.


    >>>>>> That only happens with the Win9x/ME family.


    >>>>>>> LIke shown at the very bottom of
    >>>>>>> http://www.aumha.org/a/parts.php


    >>>>>> Pity about this bit right at the top
    >>>>>> NOTE: I haven't yet comprehensively
    >>>>>> updated this article for Windows 2000/XP.


    >>>> Whatever, I've run into this with both NT and W2K,


    >>> No you havent. You're just attempting to bullshit
    >>> your way out of your predicament now.


    > No predicament,


    Bullshit.

    > nor my style.


    More bullshit.

    > My second HD was always D due to this (old boot up drive) and
    > I was triple booting at the time. Can't get any clear'r than that.


    Doesnt have the remotest relevance to your claim that NT/2K/XP
    family behaves the same way as the Win9x/ME family when a drive
    with an active partition is added to an existing config drive letter wise.

    http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=234048
     
    Rod Speed, May 26, 2006
    #23
  4. Rod Speed Guest

    John Doe <> wrote
    > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa gmail.com> wrote
    >> Pennywise DerryMaine.Gov wrote


    >>> (of course you can change it in the diskmanager - but it will be D drive)


    >> Wrong again. The drive letters are much
    >> more persistent with the NT/2K/XP family.


    > Whatever you mean by "more persistent",


    The drive letter doesnt change when you move drives
    around on the controllers or add extra drives as the OP did.

    > you can in fact easily change drive letters in Windows XP.


    Separate issue entirely.

    And it aint that easy to change the boot drive letter either.
     
    Rod Speed, May 26, 2006
    #24
  5. Guest

    Rod Speed wrote:

    > You can certainly get the partition table
    > corrupted that way, but not for that reason.


    Can the partition table be fixed without reformatting?
     
    , May 26, 2006
    #25
  6. Guest

    wrote:

    |>
    |>Rod Speed wrote:
    |>
    |>> You can certainly get the partition table
    |>> corrupted that way, but not for that reason.

    |>Can the partition table be fixed without reformatting?

    NTFS, yes but it's not easy, a second table can be used to restore the
    first. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q153973

    The article mentions using Disk Probe that can be download'd from
    http://jasmel90.com/TechNotes/QCS_Take_Home/NTRESKIT/ (DSKPROBE.*)

    This assumes you can boot into windows, use LiveCD if you can't and
    use tools provided on that cd http://www.knoppix.org/


    --
    http://www.thekitchenoflove.com/kitchen/index.asp
     
    , May 26, 2006
    #26
  7. "John Doe" <> wrote in message news:Xns97CEDE6E5F6390123456789@207.115.17.102
    > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > Pennywise DerryMaine.Gov wrote:

    >
    > >
    > > > (of course you can change it in the diskmanager - but it will be
    > > > D drive)

    > >
    > > Wrong again. The drive letters are much more persistent with the
    > > NT/2K/XP family.

    >
    > Whatever you mean by "more persistent",


    That those windozes keep a record ...

    > you can in fact easily change drive letters in Windows XP.


    .... and that you can change that record.

    That record wouldn't be of much use if it wasn't persistent (the changes ignored).

    >

    [garbage snipped]
     
    Folkert Rienstra, May 26, 2006
    #27
  8. "David Maynard" <> wrote in message news:
    > wrote:
    > > "Rod Speed" <> wrote:
    > > > > wrote:
    > > > > > wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > > > > Now, I find that the system is telling me my "D" drive that's on the
    > > > > > > > same cable as the one I was using to test these drives isn't
    > > > > > > > formatted (had been formatted as NTSF) and keeps asking me if I
    > > > > > > > want to format it. Apparently all the files on it are now inaccesible.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > I tried restoring the system to a previous day's configuration but
    > > > > > > > it's still giving me the same response.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > What could have caused this and do you see any way around
    > > > > > > > reformatting the drive? The files on it while not utterly crucial
    > > > > > > > will still be a huge pain to restore.

    > >
    > >
    > > > > > Not sure if this helps but, if the second HD has an active partition
    > > > > > it will show as D drive no matter how many partitions you have on the
    > > > > > first HD.

    > >
    > >
    > > > > Not with the NT/2K/XP family.

    > >
    > > Nothing special about those OS's

    >
    > That is simply wrong, if you mean they operate like the Win9x family. The
    > NT line scans for and assigns the drive letters differently (which is one
    > reason why people sometimes discover their system drive is 'E:', or 'F:' or
    > whatever, instead of 'C:'), handles partitions differently, and drive
    > letter assignments are persistent regardless of where the physical drive is
    > located, or 'moved' to.


    > I.E. If you have a partition labeled 'C:' on a drive strapped as master on
    > IDE0 it will still be 'C:' even if you move the drive to IDE1, or change it
    > to slave, and add another drive physically 'before' it.


    Nope.
    Only if you boot from floppy, or that both are bootable and the drive on
    IDE0 is booted in both situations.

    >
    > In Win9X, the old 'C:' would become 'D:' and the new, 'physically before
    > it' partition would be 'C:'


    Only if you boot from floppy, or that both are bootable and the drive on
    IDE0 is booted in both situations.

    > because Win9x scans for and assigns drive letters on every boot.


    Actually takes them from DOS. Hence is dependent of device enumeration
    in DOS which will claim C: as the bootpartition, independent of what IDE
    the drive resides on and is booted from, from BIOS.

    >
    > Take a simple 1 partition per drive, two drives, master and slave on IDE0
    > and say one is 200gig and the other 100gig, to distinguish them:
    >
    > Original configuration Physically swap master/slave


    > Drive 200gig 100gig 100gig 200gig
    > Master Slave Master Slave


    > Win9X C: D: C: D:


    Only if you boot from floppy or that both are bootable (identical) and
    the Master is (kept) booted.

    > WinXP C: D: D: C:


    It's more complicated than that when both are bootable and the
    drive on Master is kept booted and whether it is the first time that
    Windoze sees the drive or it is a next time after which Windoze made
    a note of it. Can also make a difference if the volume is dynamic.

    If you keep booting the bootable drive it doesn't matter on what
    IDE the other drive is on, unless there is yet another drive and
    then it depends where this drive is on the IDE controller.

    In other words, it depends on how the IDE devices are enumerated
    and/or wether Windows has seen the volume before or not.

    >
    > And that's 'something special' because if you decide to format 'drive D:'
    > you get dramatically different results.
    >
    > > - you stick a second drive in with an active partition and it's going to be D:

    > drive (of course you can change it in the diskmanager - but it will be D drive)
    >
    >
    > Not necessarily because, for one, the system partition might not be 'C:'.
     
    Folkert Rienstra, May 26, 2006
    #28
  9. Rod Speed Guest

    Folkert Rienstra <> wrote
    > David Maynard <> wrote
    >> wrote
    >>> Rod Speed <> wrote
    >>>>> wrote
    >>>>>> wrote


    >>>>>>>> Now, I find that the system is telling me my "D" drive that's
    >>>>>>>> on the same cable as the one I was using to test these drives
    >>>>>>>> isn't formatted (had been formatted as NTSF) and keeps asking
    >>>>>>>> me if I want to format it. Apparently all the files on it are now
    >>>>>>>> inaccesible.


    >>>>>>>> I tried restoring the system to a previous day's configuration
    >>>>>>>> but it's still giving me the same response.


    >>>>>>>> What could have caused this and do you see any way around
    >>>>>>>> reformatting the drive? The files on it while not utterly
    >>>>>>>> crucial will still be a huge pain to restore.


    >>>>>> Not sure if this helps but, if the second HD has an active
    >>>>>> partition it will show as D drive no matter how many partitions
    >>>>>> you have on the first HD.


    >>>>> Not with the NT/2K/XP family.


    >>> Nothing special about those OS's


    >> That is simply wrong, if you mean they operate like the Win9x family.
    >> The NT line scans for and assigns the drive letters differently (which
    >> is one reason why people sometimes discover their system drive is
    >> 'E:', or 'F:' or whatever, instead of 'C:'), handles partitions differently,
    >> and drive letter assignments are persistent regardless of where the
    >> physical drive is located, or 'moved' to.


    >> I.E. If you have a partition labeled 'C:' on a drive strapped as master
    >> on IDE0 it will still be 'C:' even if you move the drive to IDE1, or
    >> change it to slave, and add another drive physically 'before' it.


    > Nope.


    Yep.

    > Only if you boot from floppy,


    Wrong, that's the situation where the drive letters can
    change when a drive is moved to a different controller.

    Essentially because the database that is used to ensure that
    the drive letters persist isnt used when you boot from floppy.

    > or that both are bootable and the drive
    > on IDE0 is booted in both situations.


    Mangled again.

    >> In Win9X, the old 'C:' would become 'D:' and
    >> the new, 'physically before it' partition would be 'C:'


    > Only if you boot from floppy,


    Wrong, that happens if you boot from the hard drive too.

    > or that both are bootable and the drive
    > on IDE0 is booted in both situations.


    You're now claiming that the NT/2K/XP family behaves the
    same as the Win9x/ME family and that is just plain wrong
    as far as how the drive letters are allocated is concerned.

    >> because Win9x scans for and assigns drive letters on every boot.


    > Actually takes them from DOS.


    No it doesnt, most obviously when a drive isnt visible at
    the DOS level because it doesnt have a drive type entry
    in the cmos and Win enumerates that drive at boot time.

    > Hence is dependent of device enumeration in DOS


    Pity about the situation where DOS doesnt see a drive and Win does.

    > which will claim C: as the bootpartition, independent of what
    > IDE the drive resides on and is booted from, from BIOS.


    Yes, but that isnt true of the letter the non boot drives get, and that
    was what was being discussed, NOT the letter the boot drive gets.

    >> Take a simple 1 partition per drive, two drives, master and slave on
    >> IDE0 and say one is 200gig and the other 100gig, to distinguish them:


    >> Original configuration Physically swap master/slave


    >> Drive 200gig 100gig 100gig 200gig
    >> Master Slave Master Slave


    >> Win9X C: D: C: D:


    > Only if you boot from floppy or that both are bootable (identical)


    God knows what that 'identical' is supposed to mean.

    > and the Master is (kept) booted.


    And that in spades.

    And his example isnt the situation being discussed anyway.
    What was being discussed was what happens to the letters
    of the NON BOOT DRIVES, when you continue to boot of
    the same drive and have a drive with an active primary dos
    partition added to the list of drives but dont boot from it.

    >> WinXP C: D: D: C:


    > It's more complicated than that when both are bootable


    That wasnt the situation being discussed tho.

    > and the drive on Master is kept booted


    Presumably you mean you keep booting the master.

    > and whether it is the first time that Windoze sees the drive
    > or it is a next time after which Windoze made a note of it.


    Mangled again. Drive letters dont change on the second boot.

    > Can also make a difference if the volume is dynamic.


    Unnecessary complication.

    > If you keep booting the bootable drive it doesn't matter on what
    > IDE the other drive is on, unless there is yet another drive and
    > then it depends where this drive is on the IDE controller.


    Not with the NT/2K/XP family. You can keep booting the
    same drive, and rearrange the drives on the controllers
    as much as you like, and the drive letters remain the same,
    essentially because the NT/2K/XP family keeps track of
    what letters have been allocated to particular drives.

    And that is just as true of the situation where you add
    an extra drive as was actually being discussed too.

    > In other words, it depends on how the IDE devices are enumerated
    > and/or wether Windows has seen the volume before or not.


    Not as far as the letters drives which have already
    been enumerated retain. It just adds a new letter
    to a drive when its been seen for the first time
    when added to the set of existing drives.

    Unlike with the 9x/ME family which allocates letters all
    over again at boot time, no persistence of drive letters.

    >> And that's 'something special' because if you decide
    >> to format 'drive D:' you get dramatically different results.


    >>> - you stick a second drive in with an active partition
    >>> and it's going to be D: drive (of course you can
    >>> change it in the diskmanager - but it will be D drive)


    >> Not necessarily because, for one, the system partition might not be 'C:'.
     
    Rod Speed, May 26, 2006
    #29
  10. Rod Speed Guest

    wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote


    >> You can certainly get the partition table
    >> corrupted that way, but not for that reason.


    > Can the partition table be fixed without reformatting?


    Yes, most of the recovery apps can do that and its usually
    possible to do it manually too if you know the basics like
    where each partition resides on the drive tracks wise etc.
     
    Rod Speed, May 26, 2006
    #30
  11. Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    > "David Maynard" <> wrote in message news:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Rod Speed" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Now, I find that the system is telling me my "D" drive that's on the
    >>>>>>>>same cable as the one I was using to test these drives isn't
    >>>>>>>>formatted (had been formatted as NTSF) and keeps asking me if I
    >>>>>>>>want to format it. Apparently all the files on it are now inaccesible.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>I tried restoring the system to a previous day's configuration but
    >>>>>>>>it's still giving me the same response.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>What could have caused this and do you see any way around
    >>>>>>>>reformatting the drive? The files on it while not utterly crucial
    >>>>>>>>will still be a huge pain to restore.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>>Not sure if this helps but, if the second HD has an active partition
    >>>>>>it will show as D drive no matter how many partitions you have on the
    >>>>>>first HD.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>Not with the NT/2K/XP family.
    >>>
    >>>Nothing special about those OS's

    >>
    >>That is simply wrong, if you mean they operate like the Win9x family. The
    >>NT line scans for and assigns the drive letters differently (which is one
    >>reason why people sometimes discover their system drive is 'E:', or 'F:' or
    >>whatever, instead of 'C:'), handles partitions differently, and drive
    >>letter assignments are persistent regardless of where the physical drive is
    >>located, or 'moved' to.

    >
    >
    >>I.E. If you have a partition labeled 'C:' on a drive strapped as master on
    >>IDE0 it will still be 'C:' even if you move the drive to IDE1, or change it
    >>to slave, and add another drive physically 'before' it.

    >
    >
    > Nope.


    'Fraid so.

    > Only if you boot from floppy,


    Nope, and in no case are we discussing booting from floppy.

    > or that both are bootable and the drive on
    > IDE0 is booted in both situations.


    Nope, and in all cases we are obviously talking about booting the same
    system because it is how that system handles drive enumeration that is the
    topic, not how some 'other' system, be it 'another' XP, or 'another' Win9x,
    or Linux, or Beos, or DOS on floppy, handles it.


    >>In Win9X, the old 'C:' would become 'D:' and the new, 'physically before
    >>it' partition would be 'C:'

    >
    >
    > Only if you boot from floppy, or that both are bootable and the drive on
    > IDE0 is booted in both situations.


    Nope. Win9x reassigns drive letters on each boot.


    >>because Win9x scans for and assigns drive letters on every boot.

    >
    >
    > Actually takes them from DOS. Hence is dependent of device enumeration
    > in DOS which will claim C: as the bootpartition, independent of what IDE
    > the drive resides on and is booted from, from BIOS.


    Nope.


    >>Take a simple 1 partition per drive, two drives, master and slave on IDE0
    >>and say one is 200gig and the other 100gig, to distinguish them:
    >>
    >>Original configuration Physically swap master/slave

    >
    >
    >>Drive 200gig 100gig 100gig 200gig
    >> Master Slave Master Slave

    >
    >
    >>Win9X C: D: C: D:

    >
    >
    > Only if you boot from floppy or that both are bootable (identical) and
    > the Master is (kept) booted.


    Nope.

    >
    >
    >>WinXP C: D: D: C:

    >
    >
    > It's more complicated than that when both are bootable and the
    > drive on Master is kept booted and whether it is the first time that
    > Windoze sees the drive or it is a next time after which Windoze made
    > a note of it.


    All of which is irrelevant since booting a different system is not booting
    the same system.

    And try to stay on track. If the "Original configuration" is C:, D:, as
    clearly stated, then obviously the second drive has been seen and Windows
    "made note" of it (if it was XP, that is).

    > Can also make a difference if the volume is dynamic.


    A dynamic volume is not "Take a simple 1 partition per drive."


    > If you keep booting the bootable drive it doesn't matter on what
    > IDE the other drive is on, unless there is yet another drive and
    > then it depends where this drive is on the IDE controller.


    It doesn't matter with XP because the drive assignments persist but it does
    with Win9x. That's the point.


    > In other words, it depends on how the IDE devices are enumerated
    > and/or wether Windows has seen the volume before or not.


    With XP, yes, but not with Win9x as Win9x has no 'seen the drive before'
    memory of letter assignments like XP does.

    Persistence of drive assignments is also how people (often) get their
    'clone' of XP messed up when they add a new drive and 'move' the system to
    it. They (often) first add the drive in and boot the system, partition and
    format it, which causes XP to identify the drive/partition and assign a
    letter. Then they 'clone' the old drive to the new one, which copies the
    registry containing the drive assignments. Then, when they remove the old
    drive and attempt to boot from the 'new', exact copy, it blue screens
    because the 'new' drive is D:, as it was assigned when they made the
    formatted partition, and boot cannot find the system partition. It's worse
    yet if they simply swap drive positions, keeping both drives installed,
    because it will 'appear' to work but it's still operating off the old drive
    because is still labeled 'C:' regardless of having physically swapped the
    drives.

    None of that is a problem with Win9x because it reassigns drive letters
    upon boot so the 'new' drive become whatever it is from wherever you've
    placed it in the hardware chain and if that's IDE0 Master then, poof, it's
    C: regardless of where its been before because there's no 'memory' of it.

    Win9x has the 'reverse' problem. It will fail to boot (properly) if the
    system drive is physically moved to a different position because then it's
    no longer C: but XP will work just fine because it's still 'C:', regardless.

    >>And that's 'something special' because if you decide to format 'drive D:'
    >>you get dramatically different results.
    >>
    >>
    >>>- you stick a second drive in with an active partition and it's going to be D:

    >>
    >>drive (of course you can change it in the diskmanager - but it will be D drive)
    >>
    >>
    >>Not necessarily because, for one, the system partition might not be 'C:'.
     
    David Maynard, May 27, 2006
    #31
  12. Rod Speed Guest

    David Maynard <> wrote:
    > Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    >> "David Maynard" <> wrote in message
    >> news:
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Rod Speed" <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Now, I find that the system is telling me my "D" drive that's
    >>>>>>>>> on the same cable as the one I was using to test these drives
    >>>>>>>>> isn't formatted (had been formatted as NTSF) and keeps asking
    >>>>>>>>> me if I want to format it. Apparently all the files on it are now
    >>>>>>>>> inaccesible. I tried restoring the system to a previous day's
    >>>>>>>>> configuration but it's still giving me the same response.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> What could have caused this and do you see any way around
    >>>>>>>>> reformatting the drive? The files on it while not utterly
    >>>>>>>>> crucial will still be a huge pain to restore.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> Not sure if this helps but, if the second HD has an active
    >>>>>>> partition it will show as D drive no matter how many partitions
    >>>>>>> you have on the first HD.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Not with the NT/2K/XP family.
    >>>>
    >>>> Nothing special about those OS's
    >>>
    >>> That is simply wrong, if you mean they operate like the Win9x
    >>> family. The NT line scans for and assigns the drive letters differently (which
    >>> is one reason why people sometimes discover their system drive is
    >>> 'E:', or 'F:' or whatever, instead of 'C:'), handles partitions
    >>> differently, and drive letter assignments are persistent regardless of where the
    >>> physical
    >>> drive is located, or 'moved' to.

    >>
    >>
    >>> I.E. If you have a partition labeled 'C:' on a drive strapped as
    >>> master on IDE0 it will still be 'C:' even if you move the drive to
    >>> IDE1, or change it to slave, and add another drive physically 'before' it.

    >>
    >>
    >> Nope.

    >
    > 'Fraid so.
    >
    >> Only if you boot from floppy,

    >
    > Nope, and in no case are we discussing booting from floppy.
    >
    >> or that both are bootable and the drive on
    >> IDE0 is booted in both situations.

    >
    > Nope, and in all cases we are obviously talking about booting the same
    > system because it is how that system handles drive enumeration that
    > is the topic, not how some 'other' system, be it 'another' XP, or
    > 'another' Win9x, or Linux, or Beos, or DOS on floppy, handles it.
    >
    >
    >>> In Win9X, the old 'C:' would become 'D:' and the new, 'physically
    >>> before it' partition would be 'C:'

    >>
    >>
    >> Only if you boot from floppy, or that both are bootable and the
    >> drive on IDE0 is booted in both situations.

    >
    > Nope. Win9x reassigns drive letters on each boot.
    >
    >
    >>> because Win9x scans for and assigns drive letters on every boot.

    >>
    >>
    >> Actually takes them from DOS. Hence is dependent of device
    >> enumeration in DOS which will claim C: as the bootpartition, independent of what
    >> IDE the drive resides on and is booted from, from BIOS.

    >
    > Nope.
    >
    >
    >>> Take a simple 1 partition per drive, two drives, master and slave
    >>> on IDE0 and say one is 200gig and the other 100gig, to distinguish them:
    >>>
    >>> Original configuration Physically swap master/slave

    >>
    >>
    >>> Drive 200gig 100gig 100gig 200gig
    >>> Master Slave Master Slave

    >>
    >>
    >>> Win9X C: D: C: D:

    >>
    >>
    >> Only if you boot from floppy or that both are bootable (identical)
    >> and the Master is (kept) booted.

    >
    > Nope.
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>> WinXP C: D: D: C:

    >>
    >>
    >> It's more complicated than that when both are bootable and the
    >> drive on Master is kept booted and whether it is the first time that
    >> Windoze sees the drive or it is a next time after which Windoze made
    >> a note of it.

    >
    > All of which is irrelevant since booting a different system is not
    > booting the same system.
    >
    > And try to stay on track. If the "Original configuration" is C:, D:,
    > as clearly stated, then obviously the second drive has been seen and
    > Windows "made note" of it (if it was XP, that is).
    >
    >> Can also make a difference if the volume is dynamic.

    >
    > A dynamic volume is not "Take a simple 1 partition per drive."
    >
    >
    >> If you keep booting the bootable drive it doesn't matter on what
    >> IDE the other drive is on, unless there is yet another drive and
    >> then it depends where this drive is on the IDE controller.

    >
    > It doesn't matter with XP because the drive assignments persist but
    > it does with Win9x. That's the point.
    >
    >
    >> In other words, it depends on how the IDE devices are enumerated
    >> and/or wether Windows has seen the volume before or not.

    >
    > With XP, yes, but not with Win9x as Win9x has no 'seen the drive
    > before' memory of letter assignments like XP does.


    > Persistence of drive assignments is also how people (often) get their 'clone' of XP
    > messed up when they add a new drive and 'move' the system to it.


    Nope, it aint persistence thats the problem with cloning.

    > They (often) first add the drive in and boot the system, partition and format it, which
    > causes XP to identify the
    > drive/partition and assign a letter. Then they 'clone' the old drive to the new one,
    > which copies the registry containing the drive assignments. Then, when they remove the
    > old drive and attempt to boot
    > from the 'new', exact copy, it blue screens


    No it doesnt. If the original drive is
    unplugged, it boots off the clone fine.

    If both drives are visible to XP on the first boot of the clone,
    it will still boot fine. The problem is that when the original
    drive is formatted or removed, the boot of the clone will
    fail, because the boot involves files off both drives.

    And it doesnt blue screen, it just fails to boot with an error message.

    > because the 'new' drive is D:, as it was assigned when they made the formatted
    > partition,


    That wont survive the clone if the clone op copys the MBR.

    > and boot cannot find the system partition.


    Thats just plain wrong too. You can boot a D drive fine.

    > It's worse yet if they simply swap drive positions, keeping both drives installed,
    > because it will 'appear' to work but it's still operating off the old drive because is
    > still labeled 'C:' regardless of having physically swapped the drives.


    Its more complicated than that too, the boot isnt done by drive letter.

    > None of that is a problem with Win9x because it reassigns drive
    > letters upon boot so the 'new' drive become whatever it is from
    > wherever you've placed it in the hardware chain and if that's IDE0
    > Master then, poof, it's C: regardless of where its been before
    > because there's no 'memory' of it.


    Just as true with XP if you remove the original drive before
    booting the clone so the first boot off the clone never sees
    the original. XP will claim to have found new hardware, ask
    to be allowed to reboot, and then boot off the drive fine.

    > Win9x has the 'reverse' problem. It will fail to boot (properly) if the system drive is
    > physically moved to a different position because then it's no longer C:


    That varys too. If there is only one drive, you can certainly
    move it to the second controller and boot off that fine.

    > but XP will work just fine because it's still 'C:', regardless.


    And the persistent drive letters with XP means that you
    can add another drive with an active partition on it without
    affecting any of the drive letters that were set before the
    new drive is added. And thats the situation being discussed
    which is relevant to the OP.

    >>> And that's 'something special' because if you decide to format
    >>> 'drive D:' you get dramatically different results.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> - you stick a second drive in with an active partition and it's
    >>>> going to be D:
    >>>
    >>> drive (of course you can change it in the diskmanager - but it will
    >>> be D drive) Not necessarily because, for one, the system partition might not be
    >>> 'C:'.
     
    Rod Speed, May 27, 2006
    #32
  13. Rod Speed wrote:

    > David Maynard <> wrote:
    >
    >>Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    >>
    >>>"David Maynard" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:
    >>>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>"Rod Speed" <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>Now, I find that the system is telling me my "D" drive that's
    >>>>>>>>>>on the same cable as the one I was using to test these drives
    >>>>>>>>>>isn't formatted (had been formatted as NTSF) and keeps asking
    >>>>>>>>>>me if I want to format it. Apparently all the files on it are now
    >>>>>>>>>>inaccesible. I tried restoring the system to a previous day's
    >>>>>>>>>>configuration but it's still giving me the same response.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>What could have caused this and do you see any way around
    >>>>>>>>>>reformatting the drive? The files on it while not utterly
    >>>>>>>>>>crucial will still be a huge pain to restore.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Not sure if this helps but, if the second HD has an active
    >>>>>>>>partition it will show as D drive no matter how many partitions
    >>>>>>>>you have on the first HD.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>Not with the NT/2K/XP family.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Nothing special about those OS's
    >>>>
    >>>>That is simply wrong, if you mean they operate like the Win9x
    >>>>family. The NT line scans for and assigns the drive letters differently (which
    >>>>is one reason why people sometimes discover their system drive is
    >>>>'E:', or 'F:' or whatever, instead of 'C:'), handles partitions
    >>>>differently, and drive letter assignments are persistent regardless of where the
    >>>>physical
    >>>>drive is located, or 'moved' to.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I.E. If you have a partition labeled 'C:' on a drive strapped as
    >>>>master on IDE0 it will still be 'C:' even if you move the drive to
    >>>>IDE1, or change it to slave, and add another drive physically 'before' it.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Nope.

    >>
    >>'Fraid so.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Only if you boot from floppy,

    >>
    >>Nope, and in no case are we discussing booting from floppy.
    >>
    >>
    >>>or that both are bootable and the drive on
    >>>IDE0 is booted in both situations.

    >>
    >>Nope, and in all cases we are obviously talking about booting the same
    >>system because it is how that system handles drive enumeration that
    >>is the topic, not how some 'other' system, be it 'another' XP, or
    >>'another' Win9x, or Linux, or Beos, or DOS on floppy, handles it.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>>In Win9X, the old 'C:' would become 'D:' and the new, 'physically
    >>>>before it' partition would be 'C:'
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Only if you boot from floppy, or that both are bootable and the
    >>>drive on IDE0 is booted in both situations.

    >>
    >>Nope. Win9x reassigns drive letters on each boot.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>>because Win9x scans for and assigns drive letters on every boot.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Actually takes them from DOS. Hence is dependent of device
    >>>enumeration in DOS which will claim C: as the bootpartition, independent of what
    >>>IDE the drive resides on and is booted from, from BIOS.

    >>
    >>Nope.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>>Take a simple 1 partition per drive, two drives, master and slave
    >>>>on IDE0 and say one is 200gig and the other 100gig, to distinguish them:
    >>>>
    >>>>Original configuration Physically swap master/slave
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Drive 200gig 100gig 100gig 200gig
    >>>> Master Slave Master Slave
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Win9X C: D: C: D:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Only if you boot from floppy or that both are bootable (identical)
    >>>and the Master is (kept) booted.

    >>
    >>Nope.
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>>>WinXP C: D: D: C:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>It's more complicated than that when both are bootable and the
    >>>drive on Master is kept booted and whether it is the first time that
    >>>Windoze sees the drive or it is a next time after which Windoze made
    >>>a note of it.

    >>
    >>All of which is irrelevant since booting a different system is not
    >>booting the same system.
    >>
    >>And try to stay on track. If the "Original configuration" is C:, D:,
    >>as clearly stated, then obviously the second drive has been seen and
    >>Windows "made note" of it (if it was XP, that is).
    >>
    >>
    >>>Can also make a difference if the volume is dynamic.

    >>
    >>A dynamic volume is not "Take a simple 1 partition per drive."
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>If you keep booting the bootable drive it doesn't matter on what
    >>>IDE the other drive is on, unless there is yet another drive and
    >>>then it depends where this drive is on the IDE controller.

    >>
    >>It doesn't matter with XP because the drive assignments persist but
    >>it does with Win9x. That's the point.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>In other words, it depends on how the IDE devices are enumerated
    >>>and/or wether Windows has seen the volume before or not.

    >>
    >>With XP, yes, but not with Win9x as Win9x has no 'seen the drive
    >>before' memory of letter assignments like XP does.

    >
    >
    >>Persistence of drive assignments is also how people (often) get their 'clone' of XP
    >>messed up when they add a new drive and 'move' the system to it.

    >
    >
    > Nope, it aint persistence thats the problem with cloning.


    It most certainly is. Why do you suppose none of this was an issue prior to
    drive letter persistence?

    >>They (often) first add the drive in and boot the system, partition and format it, which
    >>causes XP to identify the
    >>drive/partition and assign a letter. Then they 'clone' the old drive to the new one,
    >>which copies the registry containing the drive assignments. Then, when they remove the
    >>old drive and attempt to boot
    >>from the 'new', exact copy, it blue screens

    >
    >
    > No it doesnt. If the original drive is
    > unplugged, it boots off the clone fine.


    No or, rather, 'maybe'. First, I said, 'often', not that it
    always does or that it 'must'. It depends on how the clone is made but the
    default for many, if not most, cloners preserves the drive and partition
    IDs so the new drive will be the originally assigned letter, whether the
    old drive is there or not, and boot will fail. In those cases simply
    removing the old drive will not 'fix' it or make it work.

    >
    > If both drives are visible to XP on the first boot of the clone,
    > it will still boot fine. The problem is that when the original
    > drive is formatted or removed, the boot of the clone will
    > fail, because the boot involves files off both drives.


    That's what I said.

    >
    > And it doesnt blue screen, it just fails to boot with an error message.


    Sorry for the 'wrong color', as if that matters.

    >>because the 'new' drive is D:, as it was assigned when they made the formatted
    >>partition,

    >
    >
    > That wont survive the clone if the clone op copys the MBR.


    Simply copying the MBR won't clear the IDs either, depending on the program
    and what command flags you set, because they know the MBR format and to
    either clear, or not, the IDs.


    >>and boot cannot find the system partition.

    >
    >
    > Thats just plain wrong too. You can boot a D drive fine.


    I didn't say one could not boot a D: drive and what I did say is correct if
    you actually read it.


    >>It's worse yet if they simply swap drive positions, keeping both drives installed,
    >>because it will 'appear' to work but it's still operating off the old drive because is
    >>still labeled 'C:' regardless of having physically swapped the drives.

    >
    >
    > Its more complicated than that too,


    Not in the scenario I presented it isn't.

    > the boot isnt done by drive letter.


    I didn't say it was.


    >>None of that is a problem with Win9x because it reassigns drive
    >>letters upon boot so the 'new' drive become whatever it is from
    >>wherever you've placed it in the hardware chain and if that's IDE0
    >>Master then, poof, it's C: regardless of where its been before
    >>because there's no 'memory' of it.

    >
    >
    > Just as true with XP if you remove the original drive before
    > booting the clone so the first boot off the clone never sees
    > the original. XP will claim to have found new hardware, ask
    > to be allowed to reboot, and then boot off the drive fine.


    That 'can' happen if the IDs are cleared but it is by no means assured and
    drive persistence is the reason many people find their cloned disk won't boot.


    >>Win9x has the 'reverse' problem. It will fail to boot (properly) if the system drive is
    >>physically moved to a different position because then it's no longer C:

    >
    >
    > That varys too.


    So do phases of the moon but that wasn't included in the stated scenario
    either.

    > If there is only one drive, you can certainly
    > move it to the second controller and boot off that fine.


    Irrelevant as the stated scenario was two drives.

    >>but XP will work just fine because it's still 'C:', regardless.

    >
    >
    > And the persistent drive letters with XP means that you
    > can add another drive with an active partition on it without
    > affecting any of the drive letters that were set before the
    > new drive is added. And thats the situation being discussed
    > which is relevant to the OP.


    The situation being discussed is whether he knew which drive was 'C' and
    'D' and that if he assumes they 'change' when their location does, ala
    Win9x, then he's been working on the wrong drive.


    >>>>And that's 'something special' because if you decide to format
    >>>>'drive D:' you get dramatically different results.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>- you stick a second drive in with an active partition and it's
    >>>>>going to be D:
    >>>>
    >>>>drive (of course you can change it in the diskmanager - but it will
    >>>>be D drive) Not necessarily because, for one, the system partition might not be
    >>>>'C:'.

    >
    >
    >
     
    David Maynard, May 27, 2006
    #33
  14. Rod Speed Guest

    David Maynard <> wrote:
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    >
    >> David Maynard <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "David Maynard" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:
    >>>>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "Rod Speed" <> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Now, I find that the system is telling me my "D" drive
    >>>>>>>>>>> that's on the same cable as the one I was using to test these
    >>>>>>>>>>> drives isn't formatted (had been formatted as NTSF) and
    >>>>>>>>>>> keeps asking me if I want to format it. Apparently all the files on it
    >>>>>>>>>>> are now inaccesible. I tried restoring the system to a
    >>>>>>>>>>> previous day's configuration but it's still giving me the
    >>>>>>>>>>> same response. What could have caused this and do you see any way around
    >>>>>>>>>>> reformatting the drive? The files on it while not utterly
    >>>>>>>>>>> crucial will still be a huge pain to restore.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Not sure if this helps but, if the second HD has an active
    >>>>>>>>> partition it will show as D drive no matter how many
    >>>>>>>>> partitions you have on the first HD.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Not with the NT/2K/XP family.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Nothing special about those OS's
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That is simply wrong, if you mean they operate like the Win9x
    >>>>> family. The NT line scans for and assigns the drive letters
    >>>>> differently (which is one reason why people sometimes discover
    >>>>> their system drive is 'E:', or 'F:' or whatever, instead of
    >>>>> 'C:'), handles partitions differently, and drive letter assignments are persistent
    >>>>> regardless of where the physical
    >>>>> drive is located, or 'moved' to.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> I.E. If you have a partition labeled 'C:' on a drive strapped as
    >>>>> master on IDE0 it will still be 'C:' even if you move the drive to
    >>>>> IDE1, or change it to slave, and add another drive physically
    >>>>> 'before' it.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Nope.
    >>>
    >>> 'Fraid so.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Only if you boot from floppy,
    >>>
    >>> Nope, and in no case are we discussing booting from floppy.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> or that both are bootable and the drive on
    >>>> IDE0 is booted in both situations.
    >>>
    >>> Nope, and in all cases we are obviously talking about booting the
    >>> same system because it is how that system handles drive enumeration that
    >>> is the topic, not how some 'other' system, be it 'another' XP, or
    >>> 'another' Win9x, or Linux, or Beos, or DOS on floppy, handles it.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> In Win9X, the old 'C:' would become 'D:' and the new, 'physically
    >>>>> before it' partition would be 'C:'
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Only if you boot from floppy, or that both are bootable and the
    >>>> drive on IDE0 is booted in both situations.
    >>>
    >>> Nope. Win9x reassigns drive letters on each boot.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> because Win9x scans for and assigns drive letters on every boot.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Actually takes them from DOS. Hence is dependent of device
    >>>> enumeration in DOS which will claim C: as the bootpartition,
    >>>> independent of what IDE the drive resides on and is booted from,
    >>>> from BIOS.
    >>>
    >>> Nope.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> Take a simple 1 partition per drive, two drives, master and slave
    >>>>> on IDE0 and say one is 200gig and the other 100gig, to
    >>>>> distinguish them: Original configuration Physically swap master/slave
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Drive 200gig 100gig 100gig 200gig
    >>>>> Master Slave Master Slave
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Win9X C: D: C: D:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Only if you boot from floppy or that both are bootable (identical)
    >>>> and the Master is (kept) booted.
    >>>
    >>> Nope.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> WinXP C: D: D: C:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> It's more complicated than that when both are bootable and the
    >>>> drive on Master is kept booted and whether it is the first time
    >>>> that Windoze sees the drive or it is a next time after which Windoze
    >>>> made a note of it.
    >>>
    >>> All of which is irrelevant since booting a different system is not
    >>> booting the same system.
    >>>
    >>> And try to stay on track. If the "Original configuration" is C:, D:,
    >>> as clearly stated, then obviously the second drive has been seen and
    >>> Windows "made note" of it (if it was XP, that is).
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Can also make a difference if the volume is dynamic.
    >>>
    >>> A dynamic volume is not "Take a simple 1 partition per drive."
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> If you keep booting the bootable drive it doesn't matter on what
    >>>> IDE the other drive is on, unless there is yet another drive and
    >>>> then it depends where this drive is on the IDE controller.
    >>>
    >>> It doesn't matter with XP because the drive assignments persist but
    >>> it does with Win9x. That's the point.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> In other words, it depends on how the IDE devices are enumerated
    >>>> and/or wether Windows has seen the volume before or not.
    >>>
    >>> With XP, yes, but not with Win9x as Win9x has no 'seen the drive
    >>> before' memory of letter assignments like XP does.


    >>> Persistence of drive assignments is also how people (often) get
    >>> their 'clone' of XP messed up when they add a new drive and 'move'
    >>> the system to it.


    >> Nope, it aint persistence thats the problem with cloning.


    > It most certainly is.


    Nope.

    > Why do you suppose none of this was an issue prior to drive letter persistence?


    Its a coincidence. Its actually due to the way ntldr
    works, nothing to do with drive letter pesistence.

    It cant be due to drive letter persistence if being careful
    to ensure that XP cant see the original drive on the first
    boot of the clone ensures that the clone boots fine.

    >>> They (often) first add the drive in and boot the system, partition and format it,
    >>> which causes XP to identify the
    >>> drive/partition and assign a letter. Then they 'clone' the old
    >>> drive to the new one, which copies the registry containing the
    >>> drive assignments. Then, when they remove the old drive and attempt to boot from the
    >>> 'new', exact copy, it blue screens


    >> No it doesnt. If the original drive is
    >> unplugged, it boots off the clone fine.


    > No


    Fraid so, I do that all the time when upgrading the boot drive.
    ALWAYS works fine as long as you dont allow XP to see the
    original drive on the first boot of the clone. You are welcome
    to plug the original drive back in again after you have booted
    the clone with the original not visible and it still boots fine both
    with and without the original drive connected.

    And I was just commenting on your BLUE SCREEN claim there.

    > or, rather, 'maybe'. First, I said, 'often', not that it always does or that it 'must'.
    > It depends on how the clone is made but the default for many, if not most, cloners
    > preserves the drive and partition IDs so the new drive will be the originally assigned
    > letter, whether the old drive is there or not, and boot will fail.


    Have fun explaining how the boot works
    fine if the original drive isnt connected.

    > In those cases simply removing the old drive will not 'fix' it or make it work.


    Removing the old drive FOR THE FIRST BOOT
    OF THE CLONE, sees the clone boot fine.

    >> If both drives are visible to XP on the first boot of the clone,
    >> it will still boot fine. The problem is that when the original
    >> drive is formatted or removed, the boot of the clone will
    >> fail, because the boot involves files off both drives.


    > That's what I said.


    No its not, you said it will BLUE SCREEN. It doesnt.

    It just whines about not being able to find
    some of the files needed for the boot.

    >> And it doesnt blue screen, it just fails to boot with an error message.


    > Sorry for the 'wrong color', as if that matters.


    Corse it matters.

    >>> because the 'new' drive is D:, as it was assigned when they made the formatted
    >>> partition,


    >> That wont survive the clone if the clone op copys the MBR.


    > Simply copying the MBR won't clear the IDs either,


    Different matter entirely. When the clone copys the entire
    contents of the hard drive, including the IDs, there is
    absolutely no way for the first boot of the clone to even
    realise that the drive has been cloned, so it can fail.

    The only thing that is different is the drive serial
    number thats put there at manufacturing time.

    > depending on the program and what command flags you set, because they know the MBR
    > format and to either clear, or not, the IDs.


    See above.

    >>> and boot cannot find the system partition.


    >> Thats just plain wrong too. You can boot a D drive fine.


    > I didn't say one could not boot a D: drive and what I did say is correct if you actually
    > read it.


    No it isnt. There is no problem finding
    the system partition, ntldr finds it fine.

    And the error message doesnt say that it cant find the system
    partition, it says that it cant find particular files instead.

    >>> It's worse yet if they simply swap drive positions, keeping both drives installed,
    >>> because it will 'appear' to work but it's still operating off the old drive because is
    >>> still labeled 'C:' regardless of having physically swapped the drives.


    >> Its more complicated than that too,


    > Not in the scenario I presented it isn't.


    Yes it is.

    >> the boot isnt done by drive letter.


    > I didn't say it was.


    Yes you did.

    >>> None of that is a problem with Win9x because it reassigns drive letters upon boot so
    >>> the 'new' drive become whatever it is from wherever you've placed it in the hardware
    >>> chain and if that's IDE0 Master then, poof, it's C: regardless of where its been
    >>> before because there's no 'memory' of it.


    >> Just as true with XP if you remove the original drive before
    >> booting the clone so the first boot off the clone never sees
    >> the original. XP will claim to have found new hardware, ask
    >> to be allowed to reboot, and then boot off the drive fine.


    > That 'can' happen if the IDs are cleared but it is by no means assured


    Have fun explaining how the boot off the clone ALWAYS
    works fine as long as you ensure that the first boot of

    > and drive persistence is the reason many people find their cloned disk won't boot.


    Nope, works fine as long as the first
    boot of the clone cant see the original.

    >>> Win9x has the 'reverse' problem. It will fail to boot (properly) if the system drive
    >>> is physically moved to a different position because then it's no longer C:


    >> That varys too.


    > So do phases of the moon but that wasn't included in the stated scenario either.


    Never could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

    >> If there is only one drive, you can certainly move it to the second controller and
    >> boot off that fine.


    > Irrelevant as the stated scenario was two drives.


    Nope, it'll still boot fine as long as only the
    boot drive has an active primary dos partition.

    >>> but XP will work just fine because it's still 'C:', regardless.


    >> And the persistent drive letters with XP means that you
    >> can add another drive with an active partition on it without
    >> affecting any of the drive letters that were set before the
    >> new drive is added. And thats the situation being discussed
    >> which is relevant to the OP.


    > The situation being discussed is whether he knew which drive was 'C' and 'D' and that if
    > he assumes they 'change' when their location
    > does, ala Win9x, then he's been working on the wrong drive.


    Wrong again. The OP assumed that the drives letters wouldnt
    have changed, and that assumption is correct with XP. So he
    cant have accidentally formatted the drive with his data on.

    >>>>> And that's 'something special' because if you decide to format
    >>>>> 'drive D:' you get dramatically different results.


    >>>>>> - you stick a second drive in with an active partition and it's
    >>>>>> going to be D:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> drive (of course you can change it in the diskmanager - but it
    >>>>> will be D drive) Not necessarily because, for one, the system
    >>>>> partition might not be 'C:'.
     
    Rod Speed, May 27, 2006
    #34
  15. Piggy-backed and inline as I don't have the original post....

    why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote
    news::

    > On 25 May 2006 09:07:00 -0700, docsavage wrote:


    > x-post trimmed to 24HSHD from alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,
    > microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support, microsoft.public.
    > windowsxp.hardware, comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage


    >>docsavage wrote:
    >>> I wanted to test some older small h/d's and (after powering down of
    >>> course) I detached one of my dvd drives and attached these drives
    >>> to the cable see what if anything was on them.
    >>>
    >>> Now, I find that the system is telling me my "D" drive that's on
    >>> the same cable as the one I was using to test these drives isn't
    >>> formatted (had been formatted as NTSF) and keeps asking me if I
    >>> want to format it. Apparently all the files on it are now
    >>> inaccesible.


    Mebbe a silly quesiton, but are you trying to read an NTFS volume with
    a FAT32 volume?

    >>Since posting this I discovered and tried the demo of Get Data Back
    >>and the files are still there but the system isn't letting me access
    >>them normally. I'm just wondering if there's a way around popping for
    >>the $80 so I can save the files to another drive.


    > Go fo it, if you buy the key and register it while in demo mode
    > viewing the files to recover it works right away. Just remember you
    > need enough space on another safe partition to recover to.
    >
    > There are several other similar apps mention in previous posts in
    > 24HSHD.
    >
    > http://groups.google.com/group/24hoursupport.helpdesk?
    >
    > One recent and IIRC free
    > http://www.pcinspector.de/


    >>Thanks for all input.


    > Me


    --
    @}-}--}------Rosee http://www.cangogh.net/pix.html
    www.givemeals.com www.freedonation.com www.hungersite.com
    "This (TINT) is whatever I want it to be you bigfooted
    belligerent bowlegged babblative babuina."~Zigi~
     
    @}-}-------Rosee, May 27, 2006
    #35
  16. "David Maynard" <> wrote in message news:
    > Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    > > "David Maynard" <> wrote in message news:
    > > > wrote:
    > > > > "Rod Speed" <> wrote:
    > > > > > > wrote:
    > > > > > > > wrote:
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > > Now, I find that the system is telling me my "D" drive that's on the
    > > > > > > > > > same cable as the one I was using to test these drives isn't
    > > > > > > > > > formatted (had been formatted as NTSF) and keeps asking me if I
    > > > > > > > > > want to format it. Apparently all the files on it are now inaccesible.
    > > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > > I tried restoring the system to a previous day's configuration but
    > > > > > > > > > it's still giving me the same response.
    > > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > > What could have caused this and do you see any way around
    > > > > > > > > > reformatting the drive? The files on it while not utterly crucial
    > > > > > > > > > will still be a huge pain to restore.
    > > > >
    > > > > > > > Not sure if this helps but, if the second HD has an active partition
    > > > > > > > it will show as D drive no matter how many partitions you have on the
    > > > > > > > first HD.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > > > Not with the NT/2K/XP family.
    > > > >
    > > > > Nothing special about those OS's
    > > >
    > > > That is simply wrong, if you mean they operate like the Win9x family. The
    > > > NT line scans for and assigns the drive letters differently (which is one
    > > > reason why people sometimes discover their system drive is 'E:', or 'F:' or
    > > > whatever, instead of 'C:'), handles partitions differently, and drive
    > > > letter assignments are persistent regardless of where the physical drive is
    > > > located, or 'moved' to.

    > >
    > > > I.E. If you have a partition labeled 'C:' on a drive strapped as master on
    > > > IDE0 it will still be 'C:' even if you move the drive to IDE1, or change it
    > > > to slave, and add another drive physically 'before' it.

    > >
    > > Nope.


    Not if you keep booting the drive on IDE0 and that drive is a (near enough)
    copy of the other drive. The drive letters are kept in the registry and if you
    boot the other drive -that was on IDE1 first- a new registry is in effect and
    it will know nothing of the registry of the system on the drive that was pre-
    viously on IDE0 and that is now on IDE1.

    However, if you boot the drive on IDE1 you are correct but then the same
    goes for Win9x as the boot drive is enumerated first and it doesn't matter
    on which IDE it is.

    >
    > 'Fraid so.


    Fraid not.

    >
    > > Only if you boot from floppy,

    >
    > Nope, and in no case are we discussing booting from floppy.
    >
    > > or that both are bootable and the drive on
    > > IDE0 is booted in both situations.


    > Nope, and in all cases we are obviously talking about booting the same


    > system


    Which is Windows in general, or a particular install of Windows, or just the
    same PC without change of bootorder, or what? System means so many things.

    > because it is how that system handles drive enumeration that is the
    > topic, not how some 'other' system, be it 'another' XP, or 'another' Win9x,
    > or Linux, or Beos, or DOS on floppy, handles it.


    I'm sorry, that is so rather ambiguous that I can't make heads or tails of it.

    >
    >
    > > > In Win9X, the old 'C:' would become 'D:' and the new, 'physically before
    > > > it' partition would be 'C:'

    > >
    > >
    > > Only if you boot from floppy, or that both are bootable and the drive on
    > > IDE0 is booted in both situations.


    > Nope.


    Fraid so.

    > Win9x reassigns drive letters on each boot.


    Another ambiguous comment. I never said it didn't.
    If IDE1 is booted the old 'C:' is still C: and the old D: is still D:

    >
    > > > because Win9x scans for and assigns drive letters on every boot.

    > >
    > > Actually takes them from DOS. Hence is dependent of device enumeration
    > > in DOS which will claim C: as the bootpartition, independent of what IDE
    > > the drive resides on and is booted from, from BIOS.

    >
    > Nope.


    Fraid so.

    >
    > > > Take a simple 1 partition per drive, two drives, master and slave on IDE0
    > > > and say one is 200gig and the other 100gig, to distinguish them:
    > > >
    > > > Original configuration Physically swap master/slave

    > >
    > > > Drive 200gig 100gig 100gig 200gig
    > > > Master Slave Master Slave

    > >
    > > > Win9X C: D: C: D:

    > >
    > > Only if you boot from floppy or that both are bootable (identical) and
    > > the Master is (kept) booted.


    > Nope.


    Fraid so.
    If Slave is booted the old 'C:' is again C: and the old D: is still D: even
    though it is on Master now, because the slave connection is enumerated
    first by the bootorder change and the master gets next device number,
    then the master on IDE1, then the slave on IDE1.

    >
    > >
    > > > Drive 200gig 100gig 100gig 200gig
    > > > Master Slave Master Slave


    > > > WinXP C: D: D: C:

    > >
    > > It's more complicated than that when both are bootable and the
    > > drive on Master is kept booted and whether it is the first time that
    > > Windoze sees the drive or it is a next time after which Windoze made
    > > a note of it.

    >
    > All of which is irrelevant since booting a different system is not booting
    > the same system.


    Nope.
    On NT flavors it makes a difference whether the configuration is seen
    first or whether the situation has existed before and is now in conflict
    with the new situation.

    >
    > And try to stay on track.


    PKB.

    > If the "Original configuration" is C:, D:, as clearly stated, then obviously
    > the second drive has been seen and Windows "made note" of it (if it was XP,
    > that is).


    Nope.
    If the D: drive was never booted before with a second disk present then it
    will have no prior knowledge of that in its registry.
    However, if you switch the drives and boot the same drive -now on slave-
    that system knows of the drive that is now on master.

    Fortunately, since the bootdrive is still enumerated as C: there is no conflict.
    Things change when the volume is dynamic because Windows then saves the
    driveletter (say D:) on the volume and when that volume is booted that drive
    letter is used and a conflict arises because it's registry says it should be C:

    >
    > > Can also make a difference if the volume is dynamic.

    >
    > A dynamic volume is not "Take a simple 1 partition per drive."
    >
    >
    > > If you keep booting the bootable drive it doesn't matter on what
    > > IDE the other drive is on, unless there is yet another drive and
    > > then it depends where this drive is on the IDE controller.


    > It doesn't matter with XP because the drive assignments persist but it does
    > with Win9x. That's the point.


    Sorry, that's completely incomprehensible.

    >
    > > In other words, it depends on how the IDE devices are enumerated
    > > and/or wether Windows has seen the volume before or not.

    >
    > With XP, yes, but not with Win9x as Win9x has no 'seen the drive before'
    > memory of letter assignments like XP does.
    >
    > Persistence of drive assignments is also how people (often) get their 'clone'
    > of XP messed up when they add a new drive and 'move' the system to it.
    > They (often) first add the drive in and boot the system, partition and
    > format it, which causes XP to identify the drive/partition and assign a
    > letter. Then they 'clone' the old drive to the new one, which copies the
    > registry containing the drive assignments. Then, when they remove the old
    > drive and attempt to boot from the 'new', exact copy, it blue screens
    > because the 'new' drive is D:, as it was assigned when they made the
    > formatted partition, and boot cannot find the system partition. It's worse
    > yet if they simply swap drive positions, keeping both drives installed,
    > because it will 'appear' to work but it's still operating off the old drive
    > because is still labeled 'C:' regardless of having physically swapped the
    > drives.


    > None of that is a problem with Win9x because it reassigns drive letters
    > upon boot so the 'new' drive become whatever it is from wherever you've
    > placed it in the hardware chain and if that's IDE0 Master then, poof, it's
    > C: regardless of where its been before because there's no 'memory' of it.


    > Win9x has the 'reverse' problem. It will fail to boot (properly) if the
    > system drive is physically moved to a different position because then it's
    > no longer C:


    Nonsense.
    The boot drive is always C: (unless it is a floppy disk in which case it is A:)

    > but XP will work just fine because it's still 'C:', regardless.


    Unless it is a dynamic volume and was seen by another system that then
    renamed it as D:

    And your rant above about clones says different too.

    >
    > > > And that's 'something special' because if you decide to format 'drive D:'
    > > > you get dramatically different results.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > > - you stick a second drive in with an active partition and it's going to be D:
    > > >
    > > > drive (of course you can change it in the diskmanager - but it will be D drive)
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Not necessarily because, for one, the system partition might not be 'C:'.
     
    Folkert Rienstra, May 27, 2006
    #36
  17. "David Maynard" <> wrote in message news:
    > Rod Speed wrote:
    > > David Maynard <> wrote:
    > > > Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    > > > > "David Maynard" > wrote in message news:
    > > > > > wrote:
    > > > > > > "Rod Speed" <> wrote:
    > > > > > > > > wrote:
    > > > > > > > > > wrote:


    [huge snip]

    > > > Win9x has the 'reverse' problem. It will fail to boot (properly) if the system drive is
    > > > physically moved to a different position because then it's no longer C:


    > > That varys too.


    Nope, it's just plain wrong. Bootdrive is always C: with Win9x.

    And it only 'varys' if both have primary partitions *and* secondaries and Windows is
    on the secondary.

    >
    > So do phases of the moon but that wasn't included in the stated scenario either.
    >
    > > If there is only one drive, you can certainly
    > > move it to the second controller and boot off that fine.


    > Irrelevant as the stated scenario was two drives.


    Wrong. Doesn't matter with 'only' primaries.
    The booted drive is C:, the other is D: nomatter where they are connected.

    [snip]
     
    Folkert Rienstra, May 27, 2006
    #37
  18. Rod Speed Guest

    Folkert Rienstra <> wrote
    > David Maynard <> wrote
    >> Rod Speed wrote
    >>> David Maynard <> wrote
    >>>> Folkert Rienstra wrote
    >>>>> David Maynard > wrote
    >>>>>> wrote
    >>>>>>> Rod Speed <> wrote
    >>>>>>>>> wrote
    >>>>>>>>>> wrote


    >>>> Win9x has the 'reverse' problem. It will fail to boot (properly)
    >>>> if the system drive is physically moved to a different position
    >>>> because then it's no longer C:


    >>> That varys too.


    > Nope, it's just plain wrong.


    We'll see...

    > Bootdrive is always C: with Win9x.


    I was commenting on the 'it will fail to boot
    (properly), not on the drive letter claim.

    It'll boot fine when there is just one active primary dos
    partition and the drive that is on is physically moved to
    a different position. Yes, it will certainly have the C letter.

    > And it only 'varys' if both have primary partitions
    > *and* secondaries and Windows is on the secondary.


    Even that doesnt necessarily stop it booting properly,
    all that does is affect the letters particular partions get.

    >>> If there is only one drive, you can certainly
    >>> move it to the second controller and boot off that fine.


    >> Irrelevant as the stated scenario was two drives.


    > Wrong. Doesn't matter with 'only' primaries.
    > The booted drive is C:, the other is D: no
    > matter where they are connected.


    Correct, for once.
     
    Rod Speed, May 28, 2006
    #38
  19. <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >
    > HD0: if you have CDEF and add HD1 with active partition you will then
    > have CEF - HD1's first partition will take over D: and the rest of the
    > partitions follow F (GH..)
    >


    You've not had much real life experience with the NT class OSes,
    especially XP.

    Because, as anyone who works with it knows, It Does Not Work Like
    That.

    Well, it can - if a) all the logical drives were formatted first
    with FAT32, and b) nobody's EVERY run Disk Management to handle anything.

    But if EITHER is wrong (i.e., the partitioning and formatting was
    done by XP, OR Disk Manager was ever run to remap, say, an optical drive),
    then it gets a persistent drive letter written in the PARTITION'S BOOT
    BLOCK.

    As is WELL documented by Microsoft and others.

    Keep this up, and you'll look like ever more and anon someone who
    doesn't have any idea what they're talking about.

    Otherwise, please explain why so many XP machines get first logical
    partition C, first optical D, and the added HD's primary partition as E ...

    Or why removing the USB card readers doesn't automagically make an
    E: or F: boot partition C: ...

    RwP

    RwP
     
    Ralph Wade Phillips, May 28, 2006
    #39
  20. Howdy!

    "Rod Speed" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > wrote


    > > Whatever, I've run into this with both NT and W2K,

    >
    > No you havent. You're just attempting to bullshit
    > your way out of your predicament now.


    With NT 4, most likely - it didn't just default to writing the
    persistent drive letter to the partition boot blocks unless you reallocated
    the drive letter.

    2K - Might have had the NT4 handling.

    But he OBIOUSLY hasn't had much experience with XP - which writes
    that damn persistent drive letter out ANYTIME Disk Manglement fucks over ...
    err, touches a logical partition.

    RwP
     
    Ralph Wade Phillips, May 28, 2006
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Promajority

    Thunderbird Mail Wiped Out

    Promajority, Jan 30, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    3,608
    Promajority
    Jan 31, 2005
  2. Keep getting my server wiped out.

    , Jan 26, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    495
    zenner
    Jan 27, 2004
  3. BIOS wiped out - is it a virus?

    , Jul 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,927
    John Vogel
    Jul 21, 2004
  4. Skippyboy
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    456
    Skippyboy
    May 15, 2007
  5. E. Scrooge
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    664
    E. Scrooge
    May 19, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page