Partitions recognized with different drive letters - x32 vs x64?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?Sm9lNjQ=?=, Aug 24, 2005.

  1. 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?
     
    =?Utf-8?B?Sm9lNjQ=?=, Aug 24, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?Utf-8?B?Sm9lNjQ=?=

    John Barnes Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >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?
     
    John Barnes, Aug 24, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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=?=" <>
    <Subject: Partitions recognized with different drive letters - x32 vs x64?
    <Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:40:06 -0700
    <Lines: 19
    <Message-ID: <>
    <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!TK2MSFTNGXA03.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?
    <
     
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT], Aug 24, 2005
    #3
  4. =?Utf-8?B?Sm9lNjQ=?=

    R. C. White Guest

    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

    Microsoft Windows MVP

    ""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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=?=" <>
    > <
    > <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?
     
    R. C. White, Aug 25, 2005
    #4
  5. 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" <>
    <References: <>
    <>
    <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: <>
    <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!TK2MSFTNGP14.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
    <
    <Microsoft Windows MVP
    <
    <""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" <> wrote in message
    <news:...
    <> 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=?=" <>
    <> <
    <> <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?
    <
    <
    <
     
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT], Aug 25, 2005
    #5
  6. =?Utf-8?B?Sm9lNjQ=?=

    andy Guest

    On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:40:06 -0700, "Joe64"
    <> 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?
     
    andy, Aug 25, 2005
    #6
    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. Andrew
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    581
    ┬░Mike┬░
    Nov 13, 2003
  2. Andrew
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    466
    Andrew
    Nov 13, 2003
  3. Chi Man

    x64 and x32 different

    Chi Man, Apr 9, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    514
    Andre Da Costa [Extended64]
    Apr 9, 2006
  4. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    535
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Aug 25, 2009
  5. The Stone Crusher

    Drive Letters & Partitions

    The Stone Crusher, Jun 4, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    972
    chuckcar
    Jun 9, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page