Primary Partition Theory revisited.

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Tony Sperling, Nov 1, 2006.

  1. Hi, all!

    First, the anecdotal bit:

    I finally managed to wring the new machine from the dealer's. Thanks goes to
    Charlie for being openhearted with his ideas of what pieces of equipment to
    invest in if you want it to reflect 'mucho' sensibility.

    So when I ordered it, I started with a Antec P180 kabinette and a Seasonic
    M12 600W PSU - O.K. it wasn't cheap, but it wasn't really expensive either,
    and it will survive many, many upgrades, I'm sure - that probably makes it
    more economical than any serious alternatives.

    CPU ended up being a FX-62 in a ASUS M2N32 SLI deluxe.
    I waited for 800Mhz memory to become affordable in a reasonable performance
    potential, I don't think I will do any serious overclocking, but the
    Corsairs has been pushed to almost 1200 Mhz which should leave ample
    head-room for my puny fiddlings.

    I stopped at a single Geforce 7900GTX with 512 MB. Price will fall before I
    buy the next one for a SLI configuration.

    3 250 GB SATA II Barracuda's to top off the most interesting part of the
    story. And the part that leads to the subject -

    Initially, I had started setting up the system on the RAID5 that I had in
    mind from the begining. Now, I've dumped the RAID and started installing on
    the naked SATA drives, it wasn't uneventfull. Although I had meticulously
    deleted the RAID - what the installer saw (this is Win2K) was a hodge-podge
    of small partitions of which the two on the first drive couldn't be deleted.
    When booting the system, the system drive had become 'F:'

    This is actually brilliant! I don't expect much actual work to be performed
    on the Win2K system, it's for the things that I cannot get to work anywhere
    else. A few games and InCD and the TV Tuner mostly. So it would be daft
    having that on the C: drive.

    My question then, is: When I install XP x64 - probably tonight, is there any
    large probability that it will be assigned the C: drive letter? What I
    really want to know is, I don't know how this happened, but this could
    potentially be usefull and I do not really know that I won't be going back
    to the RAID later, so is there a way to duplicate this strange behavior?
    (i.e. that installing Win2K on the first partition on the first drive has it
    be assigned a drive letter other than C:)

    O.K. - this is OT, but with the objective to put XP x64 on the C: partition
    after first having installed something else


    Tony. . .
    Tony Sperling, Nov 1, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tony Sperling

    John Barnes Guest

    Here is an article I use when setting up new o/s to determine drive letter
    assignments. If I care about the drive letterring, I connect or disconnect
    drives using the enumernation in this article to get the drive letters I
    need. Usually, the only time I care is when I am moving an operating system
    from one drive to another. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/234048/en-us


    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:%23520jtf$...
    > Hi, all!
    >
    > First, the anecdotal bit:
    >
    > I finally managed to wring the new machine from the dealer's. Thanks goes
    > to
    > Charlie for being openhearted with his ideas of what pieces of equipment
    > to
    > invest in if you want it to reflect 'mucho' sensibility.
    >
    > So when I ordered it, I started with a Antec P180 kabinette and a Seasonic
    > M12 600W PSU - O.K. it wasn't cheap, but it wasn't really expensive
    > either,
    > and it will survive many, many upgrades, I'm sure - that probably makes it
    > more economical than any serious alternatives.
    >
    > CPU ended up being a FX-62 in a ASUS M2N32 SLI deluxe.
    > I waited for 800Mhz memory to become affordable in a reasonable
    > performance
    > potential, I don't think I will do any serious overclocking, but the
    > Corsairs has been pushed to almost 1200 Mhz which should leave ample
    > head-room for my puny fiddlings.
    >
    > I stopped at a single Geforce 7900GTX with 512 MB. Price will fall before
    > I
    > buy the next one for a SLI configuration.
    >
    > 3 250 GB SATA II Barracuda's to top off the most interesting part of the
    > story. And the part that leads to the subject -
    >
    > Initially, I had started setting up the system on the RAID5 that I had in
    > mind from the begining. Now, I've dumped the RAID and started installing
    > on
    > the naked SATA drives, it wasn't uneventfull. Although I had meticulously
    > deleted the RAID - what the installer saw (this is Win2K) was a
    > hodge-podge
    > of small partitions of which the two on the first drive couldn't be
    > deleted.
    > When booting the system, the system drive had become 'F:'
    >
    > This is actually brilliant! I don't expect much actual work to be
    > performed
    > on the Win2K system, it's for the things that I cannot get to work
    > anywhere
    > else. A few games and InCD and the TV Tuner mostly. So it would be daft
    > having that on the C: drive.
    >
    > My question then, is: When I install XP x64 - probably tonight, is there
    > any
    > large probability that it will be assigned the C: drive letter? What I
    > really want to know is, I don't know how this happened, but this could
    > potentially be usefull and I do not really know that I won't be going back
    > to the RAID later, so is there a way to duplicate this strange behavior?
    > (i.e. that installing Win2K on the first partition on the first drive has
    > it
    > be assigned a drive letter other than C:)
    >
    > O.K. - this is OT, but with the objective to put XP x64 on the C:
    > partition
    > after first having installed something else
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    John Barnes, Nov 2, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Hello Tony,
    Trying to answer this question:
    <My question then, is: When I install XP x64 - probably tonight, is there
    any
    <large probability that it will be assigned the C: drive letter? What I
    <really want to know is, I don't know how this happened, but this could
    <potentially be usefull and I do not really know that I won't be going back
    <to the RAID later, so is there a way to duplicate this strange behavior?
    <(i.e. that installing Win2K on the first partition on the first drive has
    it
    <be assigned a drive letter other than C:)
    If during setup, you delete the first partition on the first drive, then
    recreate that partition, it will get the next available drive letter that
    has not already been allocated during that boot into setup. So be default
    it would get the C drive letter if I understand the configuration properly.
    By deleting and recreating it during setup it gets the next letter not
    already thought to be in use. So this would be the drive letter after the
    any existing drives are already enumerated including CD\DVD drives.


    Thanks,
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT]

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
    --------------------
    <From: "Tony Sperling" <>
    <Subject: Primary Partition Theory revisited.
    <Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:17:28 +0100
    <Lines: 52
    <X-Priority: 3
    <X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    <X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
    <X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807
    <X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0644-4, 31-10-2006), Outbound message
    <X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
    <Message-ID: <#520jtf$>
    <Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    <NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.143.202.27
    <Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl
    <Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:41951
    <X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    <
    <Hi, all!
    <
    <First, the anecdotal bit:
    <
    <I finally managed to wring the new machine from the dealer's. Thanks goes
    to
    <Charlie for being openhearted with his ideas of what pieces of equipment to
    <invest in if you want it to reflect 'mucho' sensibility.
    <
    <So when I ordered it, I started with a Antec P180 kabinette and a Seasonic
    <M12 600W PSU - O.K. it wasn't cheap, but it wasn't really expensive either,
    <and it will survive many, many upgrades, I'm sure - that probably makes it
    <more economical than any serious alternatives.
    <
    <CPU ended up being a FX-62 in a ASUS M2N32 SLI deluxe.
    <I waited for 800Mhz memory to become affordable in a reasonable performance
    <potential, I don't think I will do any serious overclocking, but the
    <Corsairs has been pushed to almost 1200 Mhz which should leave ample
    <head-room for my puny fiddlings.
    <
    <I stopped at a single Geforce 7900GTX with 512 MB. Price will fall before I
    <buy the next one for a SLI configuration.
    <
    <3 250 GB SATA II Barracuda's to top off the most interesting part of the
    <story. And the part that leads to the subject -
    <
    <Initially, I had started setting up the system on the RAID5 that I had in
    <mind from the begining. Now, I've dumped the RAID and started installing on
    <the naked SATA drives, it wasn't uneventfull. Although I had meticulously
    <deleted the RAID - what the installer saw (this is Win2K) was a hodge-podge
    <of small partitions of which the two on the first drive couldn't be
    deleted.
    <When booting the system, the system drive had become 'F:'
    <
    <This is actually brilliant! I don't expect much actual work to be performed
    <on the Win2K system, it's for the things that I cannot get to work anywhere
    <else. A few games and InCD and the TV Tuner mostly. So it would be daft
    <having that on the C: drive.
    <
    <My question then, is: When I install XP x64 - probably tonight, is there
    any
    <large probability that it will be assigned the C: drive letter? What I
    <really want to know is, I don't know how this happened, but this could
    <potentially be usefull and I do not really know that I won't be going back
    <to the RAID later, so is there a way to duplicate this strange behavior?
    <(i.e. that installing Win2K on the first partition on the first drive has
    it
    <be assigned a drive letter other than C:)
    <
    <O.K. - this is OT, but with the objective to put XP x64 on the C: partition
    <after first having installed something else
    <
    <
    <Tony. . .
    <
    <
    <
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT], Nov 2, 2006
    #3
  4. I was thinking about disconnecting drives as I went about installing.

    In the mean-time, I have intervened and looked at the partitions on those
    three drives in 'gparted' (Partition Manager in Linux!) I resized the F:
    partition to fill the entire volume of the first drive, and all the rest is
    'unallocated', but if I understand you, since that 'F:' is now firmly set to
    the first partition on the first drive, disregarding how that happened, then
    leaving the drive and that partition alone in the assurance that it is the
    only assigned letter, then installing XP x64 CAN be relied upon to have it
    being assigned to the C: drive? And anything else will follow the standard
    recipy. Since the 'F:' is currently the only allocated partition.

    For those wondering about Win2K and the incompatibility of nVidia RAID5, I
    guess the reason for this is that it will require the availabillity of SP4,
    but does this not mean that I could install (if I wanted to) to a
    non-bootabe RAID set (documentation assures this can be done!) and then
    install SP4 and have the nVidia RAID Manager set it to be boot'able later?

    Sorry, I guess that is a question for Asus Support?


    Thanks-a-lot for this, I've never had so many disks in a new machine before,
    guess luxury has it's own difficulties.


    Tony. . .




    ""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" <> wrote in message
    news:FQnPowi$...
    > Hello Tony,
    > Trying to answer this question:
    > <My question then, is: When I install XP x64 - probably tonight, is there
    > any
    > <large probability that it will be assigned the C: drive letter? What I
    > <really want to know is, I don't know how this happened, but this could
    > <potentially be usefull and I do not really know that I won't be going

    back
    > <to the RAID later, so is there a way to duplicate this strange behavior?
    > <(i.e. that installing Win2K on the first partition on the first drive has
    > it
    > <be assigned a drive letter other than C:)
    > If during setup, you delete the first partition on the first drive, then
    > recreate that partition, it will get the next available drive letter that
    > has not already been allocated during that boot into setup. So be default
    > it would get the C drive letter if I understand the configuration

    properly.
    > By deleting and recreating it during setup it gets the next letter not
    > already thought to be in use. So this would be the drive letter after the
    > any existing drives are already enumerated including CD\DVD drives.
    >
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    >
    > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
    > --------------------
    > <From: "Tony Sperling" <>
    > <Subject: Primary Partition Theory revisited.
    > <Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:17:28 +0100
    > <Lines: 52
    > <X-Priority: 3
    > <X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    > <X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
    > <X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807
    > <X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0644-4, 31-10-2006), Outbound message
    > <X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
    > <Message-ID: <#520jtf$>
    > <Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    > <NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.143.202.27
    > <Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl
    > <Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:41951
    > <X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    > <
    > <Hi, all!
    > <
    > <First, the anecdotal bit:
    > <
    > <I finally managed to wring the new machine from the dealer's. Thanks goes
    > to
    > <Charlie for being openhearted with his ideas of what pieces of equipment

    to
    > <invest in if you want it to reflect 'mucho' sensibility.
    > <
    > <So when I ordered it, I started with a Antec P180 kabinette and a

    Seasonic
    > <M12 600W PSU - O.K. it wasn't cheap, but it wasn't really expensive

    either,
    > <and it will survive many, many upgrades, I'm sure - that probably makes

    it
    > <more economical than any serious alternatives.
    > <
    > <CPU ended up being a FX-62 in a ASUS M2N32 SLI deluxe.
    > <I waited for 800Mhz memory to become affordable in a reasonable

    performance
    > <potential, I don't think I will do any serious overclocking, but the
    > <Corsairs has been pushed to almost 1200 Mhz which should leave ample
    > <head-room for my puny fiddlings.
    > <
    > <I stopped at a single Geforce 7900GTX with 512 MB. Price will fall before

    I
    > <buy the next one for a SLI configuration.
    > <
    > <3 250 GB SATA II Barracuda's to top off the most interesting part of the
    > <story. And the part that leads to the subject -
    > <
    > <Initially, I had started setting up the system on the RAID5 that I had in
    > <mind from the begining. Now, I've dumped the RAID and started installing

    on
    > <the naked SATA drives, it wasn't uneventfull. Although I had meticulously
    > <deleted the RAID - what the installer saw (this is Win2K) was a

    hodge-podge
    > <of small partitions of which the two on the first drive couldn't be
    > deleted.
    > <When booting the system, the system drive had become 'F:'
    > <
    > <This is actually brilliant! I don't expect much actual work to be

    performed
    > <on the Win2K system, it's for the things that I cannot get to work

    anywhere
    > <else. A few games and InCD and the TV Tuner mostly. So it would be daft
    > <having that on the C: drive.
    > <
    > <My question then, is: When I install XP x64 - probably tonight, is there
    > any
    > <large probability that it will be assigned the C: drive letter? What I
    > <really want to know is, I don't know how this happened, but this could
    > <potentially be usefull and I do not really know that I won't be going

    back
    > <to the RAID later, so is there a way to duplicate this strange behavior?
    > <(i.e. that installing Win2K on the first partition on the first drive has
    > it
    > <be assigned a drive letter other than C:)
    > <
    > <O.K. - this is OT, but with the objective to put XP x64 on the C:

    partition
    > <after first having installed something else
    > <
    > <
    > <Tony. . .
    > <
    > <
    > <
    >
    Tony Sperling, Nov 2, 2006
    #4
  5. Thanks, John. This is certainly usefull to have tucked away for 'a rainy
    day'.


    Tony. . .


    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:udsnUlh$...
    > Here is an article I use when setting up new o/s to determine drive letter
    > assignments. If I care about the drive letterring, I connect or

    disconnect
    > drives using the enumernation in this article to get the drive letters I
    > need. Usually, the only time I care is when I am moving an operating

    system
    > from one drive to another. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/234048/en-us
    >
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > news:%23520jtf$...
    > > Hi, all!
    > >
    > > First, the anecdotal bit:
    > >
    > > I finally managed to wring the new machine from the dealer's. Thanks

    goes
    > > to
    > > Charlie for being openhearted with his ideas of what pieces of equipment
    > > to
    > > invest in if you want it to reflect 'mucho' sensibility.
    > >
    > > So when I ordered it, I started with a Antec P180 kabinette and a

    Seasonic
    > > M12 600W PSU - O.K. it wasn't cheap, but it wasn't really expensive
    > > either,
    > > and it will survive many, many upgrades, I'm sure - that probably makes

    it
    > > more economical than any serious alternatives.
    > >
    > > CPU ended up being a FX-62 in a ASUS M2N32 SLI deluxe.
    > > I waited for 800Mhz memory to become affordable in a reasonable
    > > performance
    > > potential, I don't think I will do any serious overclocking, but the
    > > Corsairs has been pushed to almost 1200 Mhz which should leave ample
    > > head-room for my puny fiddlings.
    > >
    > > I stopped at a single Geforce 7900GTX with 512 MB. Price will fall

    before
    > > I
    > > buy the next one for a SLI configuration.
    > >
    > > 3 250 GB SATA II Barracuda's to top off the most interesting part of the
    > > story. And the part that leads to the subject -
    > >
    > > Initially, I had started setting up the system on the RAID5 that I had

    in
    > > mind from the begining. Now, I've dumped the RAID and started installing
    > > on
    > > the naked SATA drives, it wasn't uneventfull. Although I had

    meticulously
    > > deleted the RAID - what the installer saw (this is Win2K) was a
    > > hodge-podge
    > > of small partitions of which the two on the first drive couldn't be
    > > deleted.
    > > When booting the system, the system drive had become 'F:'
    > >
    > > This is actually brilliant! I don't expect much actual work to be
    > > performed
    > > on the Win2K system, it's for the things that I cannot get to work
    > > anywhere
    > > else. A few games and InCD and the TV Tuner mostly. So it would be daft
    > > having that on the C: drive.
    > >
    > > My question then, is: When I install XP x64 - probably tonight, is there
    > > any
    > > large probability that it will be assigned the C: drive letter? What I
    > > really want to know is, I don't know how this happened, but this could
    > > potentially be usefull and I do not really know that I won't be going

    back
    > > to the RAID later, so is there a way to duplicate this strange behavior?
    > > (i.e. that installing Win2K on the first partition on the first drive

    has
    > > it
    > > be assigned a drive letter other than C:)
    > >
    > > O.K. - this is OT, but with the objective to put XP x64 on the C:
    > > partition
    > > after first having installed something else
    > >
    > >
    > > Tony. . .
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    Tony Sperling, Nov 2, 2006
    #5
  6. Simple. (Nice case and PS, by the way. I think they are very wise choices.)

    Since we're starting from scratch, do the following:
    Put the Win2k CD in the drive and boot from it.
    Delete ALL the partitions it sees.
    Create a new partition that is big enough to be your XP x64 Partition.
    Create a second partition - I prefer to keep this on the same physical
    drive, FWIW, but I don't think it matters.
    Move the cursor over the second partition (it should show it as D: now...)
    Tell Setup to install Win2k there. You _should_ end up with that as D: and
    the C: drive formatted.

    But if you're in doubt, boot from the XP CD and go into the recovery
    console. Use diskpart to create the partitions and assign the labels. I
    could easily write a simple little script to do it, if you want. (I'm not
    sure if diskpart is on the Win2k CD, which is why I said the XP CD. I'm
    pretty sure it's there)

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64


    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:%23520jtf$...
    > Hi, all!
    >
    > First, the anecdotal bit:
    >
    > I finally managed to wring the new machine from the dealer's. Thanks goes
    > to
    > Charlie for being openhearted with his ideas of what pieces of equipment
    > to
    > invest in if you want it to reflect 'mucho' sensibility.
    >
    > So when I ordered it, I started with a Antec P180 kabinette and a Seasonic
    > M12 600W PSU - O.K. it wasn't cheap, but it wasn't really expensive
    > either,
    > and it will survive many, many upgrades, I'm sure - that probably makes it
    > more economical than any serious alternatives.
    >
    > CPU ended up being a FX-62 in a ASUS M2N32 SLI deluxe.
    > I waited for 800Mhz memory to become affordable in a reasonable
    > performance
    > potential, I don't think I will do any serious overclocking, but the
    > Corsairs has been pushed to almost 1200 Mhz which should leave ample
    > head-room for my puny fiddlings.
    >
    > I stopped at a single Geforce 7900GTX with 512 MB. Price will fall before
    > I
    > buy the next one for a SLI configuration.
    >
    > 3 250 GB SATA II Barracuda's to top off the most interesting part of the
    > story. And the part that leads to the subject -
    >
    > Initially, I had started setting up the system on the RAID5 that I had in
    > mind from the begining. Now, I've dumped the RAID and started installing
    > on
    > the naked SATA drives, it wasn't uneventfull. Although I had meticulously
    > deleted the RAID - what the installer saw (this is Win2K) was a
    > hodge-podge
    > of small partitions of which the two on the first drive couldn't be
    > deleted.
    > When booting the system, the system drive had become 'F:'
    >
    > This is actually brilliant! I don't expect much actual work to be
    > performed
    > on the Win2K system, it's for the things that I cannot get to work
    > anywhere
    > else. A few games and InCD and the TV Tuner mostly. So it would be daft
    > having that on the C: drive.
    >
    > My question then, is: When I install XP x64 - probably tonight, is there
    > any
    > large probability that it will be assigned the C: drive letter? What I
    > really want to know is, I don't know how this happened, but this could
    > potentially be usefull and I do not really know that I won't be going back
    > to the RAID later, so is there a way to duplicate this strange behavior?
    > (i.e. that installing Win2K on the first partition on the first drive has
    > it
    > be assigned a drive letter other than C:)
    >
    > O.K. - this is OT, but with the objective to put XP x64 on the C:
    > partition
    > after first having installed something else
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Nov 2, 2006
    #6
  7. All you need for Win2k and the RAID is the appropriate F6 driver for it.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64


    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:u%23DX0zm$...
    >I was thinking about disconnecting drives as I went about installing.
    >
    > In the mean-time, I have intervened and looked at the partitions on those
    > three drives in 'gparted' (Partition Manager in Linux!) I resized the F:
    > partition to fill the entire volume of the first drive, and all the rest
    > is
    > 'unallocated', but if I understand you, since that 'F:' is now firmly set
    > to
    > the first partition on the first drive, disregarding how that happened,
    > then
    > leaving the drive and that partition alone in the assurance that it is the
    > only assigned letter, then installing XP x64 CAN be relied upon to have it
    > being assigned to the C: drive? And anything else will follow the standard
    > recipy. Since the 'F:' is currently the only allocated partition.
    >
    > For those wondering about Win2K and the incompatibility of nVidia RAID5, I
    > guess the reason for this is that it will require the availabillity of
    > SP4,
    > but does this not mean that I could install (if I wanted to) to a
    > non-bootabe RAID set (documentation assures this can be done!) and then
    > install SP4 and have the nVidia RAID Manager set it to be boot'able later?
    >
    > Sorry, I guess that is a question for Asus Support?
    >
    >
    > Thanks-a-lot for this, I've never had so many disks in a new machine
    > before,
    > guess luxury has it's own difficulties.
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" <> wrote in message
    > news:FQnPowi$...
    >> Hello Tony,
    >> Trying to answer this question:
    >> <My question then, is: When I install XP x64 - probably tonight, is there
    >> any
    >> <large probability that it will be assigned the C: drive letter? What I
    >> <really want to know is, I don't know how this happened, but this could
    >> <potentially be usefull and I do not really know that I won't be going

    > back
    >> <to the RAID later, so is there a way to duplicate this strange behavior?
    >> <(i.e. that installing Win2K on the first partition on the first drive
    >> has
    >> it
    >> <be assigned a drive letter other than C:)
    >> If during setup, you delete the first partition on the first drive, then
    >> recreate that partition, it will get the next available drive letter that
    >> has not already been allocated during that boot into setup. So be
    >> default
    >> it would get the C drive letter if I understand the configuration

    > properly.
    >> By deleting and recreating it during setup it gets the next letter not
    >> already thought to be in use. So this would be the drive letter after
    >> the
    >> any existing drives are already enumerated including CD\DVD drives.
    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >> Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    >>
    >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    >> rights
    >> --------------------
    >> <From: "Tony Sperling" <>
    >> <Subject: Primary Partition Theory revisited.
    >> <Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:17:28 +0100
    >> <Lines: 52
    >> <X-Priority: 3
    >> <X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    >> <X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
    >> <X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807
    >> <X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0644-4, 31-10-2006), Outbound message
    >> <X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
    >> <Message-ID: <#520jtf$>
    >> <Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    >> <NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.143.202.27
    >> <Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl
    >> <Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:41951
    >> <X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    >> <
    >> <Hi, all!
    >> <
    >> <First, the anecdotal bit:
    >> <
    >> <I finally managed to wring the new machine from the dealer's. Thanks
    >> goes
    >> to
    >> <Charlie for being openhearted with his ideas of what pieces of equipment

    > to
    >> <invest in if you want it to reflect 'mucho' sensibility.
    >> <
    >> <So when I ordered it, I started with a Antec P180 kabinette and a

    > Seasonic
    >> <M12 600W PSU - O.K. it wasn't cheap, but it wasn't really expensive

    > either,
    >> <and it will survive many, many upgrades, I'm sure - that probably makes

    > it
    >> <more economical than any serious alternatives.
    >> <
    >> <CPU ended up being a FX-62 in a ASUS M2N32 SLI deluxe.
    >> <I waited for 800Mhz memory to become affordable in a reasonable

    > performance
    >> <potential, I don't think I will do any serious overclocking, but the
    >> <Corsairs has been pushed to almost 1200 Mhz which should leave ample
    >> <head-room for my puny fiddlings.
    >> <
    >> <I stopped at a single Geforce 7900GTX with 512 MB. Price will fall
    >> before

    > I
    >> <buy the next one for a SLI configuration.
    >> <
    >> <3 250 GB SATA II Barracuda's to top off the most interesting part of the
    >> <story. And the part that leads to the subject -
    >> <
    >> <Initially, I had started setting up the system on the RAID5 that I had
    >> in
    >> <mind from the begining. Now, I've dumped the RAID and started installing

    > on
    >> <the naked SATA drives, it wasn't uneventfull. Although I had
    >> meticulously
    >> <deleted the RAID - what the installer saw (this is Win2K) was a

    > hodge-podge
    >> <of small partitions of which the two on the first drive couldn't be
    >> deleted.
    >> <When booting the system, the system drive had become 'F:'
    >> <
    >> <This is actually brilliant! I don't expect much actual work to be

    > performed
    >> <on the Win2K system, it's for the things that I cannot get to work

    > anywhere
    >> <else. A few games and InCD and the TV Tuner mostly. So it would be daft
    >> <having that on the C: drive.
    >> <
    >> <My question then, is: When I install XP x64 - probably tonight, is there
    >> any
    >> <large probability that it will be assigned the C: drive letter? What I
    >> <really want to know is, I don't know how this happened, but this could
    >> <potentially be usefull and I do not really know that I won't be going

    > back
    >> <to the RAID later, so is there a way to duplicate this strange behavior?
    >> <(i.e. that installing Win2K on the first partition on the first drive
    >> has
    >> it
    >> <be assigned a drive letter other than C:)
    >> <
    >> <O.K. - this is OT, but with the objective to put XP x64 on the C:

    > partition
    >> <after first having installed something else
    >> <
    >> <
    >> <Tony. . .
    >> <
    >> <
    >> <
    >>

    >
    >
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Nov 2, 2006
    #7
  8. Hello Tony,
    Drive letters are assigned per OS, they are not assigned or written
    anywhere in the hardware so what you get in one OS has no bearing of what
    happens in another OS if you boot the CD\DVD to begin setup. If you start
    setup from within another OS, the drive letters for that OS are available
    so they are retained for the setup for that OS. Even though that drive is
    F in the current OS, it is the first drive and volume in the system. So
    when you boot into setup, you enumerate the drives and assign drive letters
    once again. The article that John pointed out is the best available
    information on how that happens. To get the X64 install to be the C Drive
    letter, you have to hide or remove the other volumes so setup doesn't see
    them.
    Thanks,
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT]

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
    --------------------
    <From: "Tony Sperling" <>
    <References: <#520jtf$>
    <FQnPowi$>
    <Subject: Re: Primary Partition Theory revisited.
    <Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 11:50:22 +0100
    <Lines: 148
    <X-Priority: 3
    <X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    <X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
    <X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807
    <X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0645-0, 01-11-2006), Outbound message
    <X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
    <Message-ID: <u#DX0zm$>
    <Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    <NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.143.202.27
    <Path:
    TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGXA02.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP0
    4.phx.gbl
    <Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:41972
    <X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    <
    <I was thinking about disconnecting drives as I went about installing.
    <
    <In the mean-time, I have intervened and looked at the partitions on those
    <three drives in 'gparted' (Partition Manager in Linux!) I resized the F:
    <partition to fill the entire volume of the first drive, and all the rest is
    <'unallocated', but if I understand you, since that 'F:' is now firmly set
    to
    <the first partition on the first drive, disregarding how that happened,
    then
    <leaving the drive and that partition alone in the assurance that it is the
    <only assigned letter, then installing XP x64 CAN be relied upon to have it
    <being assigned to the C: drive? And anything else will follow the standard
    <recipy. Since the 'F:' is currently the only allocated partition.
    <
    <For those wondering about Win2K and the incompatibility of nVidia RAID5, I
    <guess the reason for this is that it will require the availabillity of SP4,
    <but does this not mean that I could install (if I wanted to) to a
    <non-bootabe RAID set (documentation assures this can be done!) and then
    <install SP4 and have the nVidia RAID Manager set it to be boot'able later?
    <
    <Sorry, I guess that is a question for Asus Support?
    <
    <
    <Thanks-a-lot for this, I've never had so many disks in a new machine
    before,
    <guess luxury has it's own difficulties.
    <
    <
    <Tony. . .
    <
    <
    <
    <
    <""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" <> wrote in message
    <news:FQnPowi$...
    <> Hello Tony,
    <> Trying to answer this question:
    <> <My question then, is: When I install XP x64 - probably tonight, is there
    <> any
    <> <large probability that it will be assigned the C: drive letter? What I
    <> <really want to know is, I don't know how this happened, but this could
    <> <potentially be usefull and I do not really know that I won't be going
    <back
    <> <to the RAID later, so is there a way to duplicate this strange behavior?
    <> <(i.e. that installing Win2K on the first partition on the first drive
    has
    <> it
    <> <be assigned a drive letter other than C:)
    <> If during setup, you delete the first partition on the first drive, then
    <> recreate that partition, it will get the next available drive letter that
    <> has not already been allocated during that boot into setup. So be
    default
    <> it would get the C drive letter if I understand the configuration
    <properly.
    <> By deleting and recreating it during setup it gets the next letter not
    <> already thought to be in use. So this would be the drive letter after
    the
    <> any existing drives are already enumerated including CD\DVD drives.
    <>
    <>
    <> Thanks,
    <> Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    <>
    <> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    rights
    <> --------------------
    <> <From: "Tony Sperling" <>
    <> <Subject: Primary Partition Theory revisited.
    <> <Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:17:28 +0100
    <> <Lines: 52
    <> <X-Priority: 3
    <> <X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    <> <X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
    <> <X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807
    <> <X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0644-4, 31-10-2006), Outbound message
    <> <X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
    <> <Message-ID: <#520jtf$>
    <> <Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    <> <NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.143.202.27
    <> <Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl
    <> <Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:41951
    <> <X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    <> <
    <> <Hi, all!
    <> <
    <> <First, the anecdotal bit:
    <> <
    <> <I finally managed to wring the new machine from the dealer's. Thanks
    goes
    <> to
    <> <Charlie for being openhearted with his ideas of what pieces of equipment
    <to
    <> <invest in if you want it to reflect 'mucho' sensibility.
    <> <
    <> <So when I ordered it, I started with a Antec P180 kabinette and a
    <Seasonic
    <> <M12 600W PSU - O.K. it wasn't cheap, but it wasn't really expensive
    <either,
    <> <and it will survive many, many upgrades, I'm sure - that probably makes
    <it
    <> <more economical than any serious alternatives.
    <> <
    <> <CPU ended up being a FX-62 in a ASUS M2N32 SLI deluxe.
    <> <I waited for 800Mhz memory to become affordable in a reasonable
    <performance
    <> <potential, I don't think I will do any serious overclocking, but the
    <> <Corsairs has been pushed to almost 1200 Mhz which should leave ample
    <> <head-room for my puny fiddlings.
    <> <
    <> <I stopped at a single Geforce 7900GTX with 512 MB. Price will fall
    before
    <I
    <> <buy the next one for a SLI configuration.
    <> <
    <> <3 250 GB SATA II Barracuda's to top off the most interesting part of the
    <> <story. And the part that leads to the subject -
    <> <
    <> <Initially, I had started setting up the system on the RAID5 that I had
    in
    <> <mind from the begining. Now, I've dumped the RAID and started installing
    <on
    <> <the naked SATA drives, it wasn't uneventfull. Although I had
    meticulously
    <> <deleted the RAID - what the installer saw (this is Win2K) was a
    <hodge-podge
    <> <of small partitions of which the two on the first drive couldn't be
    <> deleted.
    <> <When booting the system, the system drive had become 'F:'
    <> <
    <> <This is actually brilliant! I don't expect much actual work to be
    <performed
    <> <on the Win2K system, it's for the things that I cannot get to work
    <anywhere
    <> <else. A few games and InCD and the TV Tuner mostly. So it would be daft
    <> <having that on the C: drive.
    <> <
    <> <My question then, is: When I install XP x64 - probably tonight, is there
    <> any
    <> <large probability that it will be assigned the C: drive letter? What I
    <> <really want to know is, I don't know how this happened, but this could
    <> <potentially be usefull and I do not really know that I won't be going
    <back
    <> <to the RAID later, so is there a way to duplicate this strange behavior?
    <> <(i.e. that installing Win2K on the first partition on the first drive
    has
    <> it
    <> <be assigned a drive letter other than C:)
    <> <
    <> <O.K. - this is OT, but with the objective to put XP x64 on the C:
    <partition
    <> <after first having installed something else
    <> <
    <> <
    <> <Tony. . .
    <> <
    <> <
    <> <
    <>
    <
    <
    <
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT], Nov 2, 2006
    #8
  9. Hello Charlie,
    <
    <Since we're starting from scratch, do the following:
    <Put the Win2k CD in the drive and boot from it.
    <Delete ALL the partitions it sees.
    All these partition are assigned drive letters when you boot into setup.

    <Create a new partition that is big enough to be your XP x64 Partition.
    <Create a second partition - I prefer to keep this on the same physical
    <drive, FWIW, but I don't think it matters.
    <Move the cursor over the second partition (it should show it as D: now...)
    the drive letters previously assigned at the beginning of setup are not
    reallocated when you repartition in the same session so you need to reboot
    and restart setup
    <Tell Setup to install Win2k there. You _should_ end up with that as D: and
    <the C: drive formatted.
    Miminally these would be G and F. depending on the prior drive
    configuration, plus the drive letter for the DVD drive. You have to reboot
    to get these to be C and D.

    Generating the partitions in Recovery console will work just fine, since
    you are not in setup. When you boot setup, the volumes are enumerated
    properly

    Thanks,
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT]

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
    --------------------
    <From: "Charlie Russel - MVP" <>
    <References: <#520jtf$>
    <In-Reply-To: <#520jtf$>
    <Subject: Re: Primary Partition Theory revisited.
    <Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 07:24:03 -0800
    <Lines: 91
    <Message-ID: <>
    <MIME-Version: 1.0
    <Content-Type: text/plain;
    < format=flowed;
    < charset="iso-8859-1";
    < reply-type=original
    <Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    <X-Priority: 3
    <X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    <X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.5744.16384
    <X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.5744.16384
    <X-MS-CommunityGroup-PostID: {6B40E000-B2AB-4837-A121-757C3211582D}
    <X-MS-CommunityGroup-ThreadID: DC93424D-7013-4351-8103-88AB07A055D2
    <X-MS-CommunityGroup-ParentID: DC93424D-7013-4351-8103-88AB07A055D2
    <Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    <Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl
    <Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:41988
    <NNTP-Posting-Host: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl 127.0.0.1
    <X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    <
    <Simple. (Nice case and PS, by the way. I think they are very wise choices.)
    <
    <Since we're starting from scratch, do the following:
    <Put the Win2k CD in the drive and boot from it.
    <Delete ALL the partitions it sees.
    <Create a new partition that is big enough to be your XP x64 Partition.
    <Create a second partition - I prefer to keep this on the same physical
    <drive, FWIW, but I don't think it matters.
    <Move the cursor over the second partition (it should show it as D: now...)
    <Tell Setup to install Win2k there. You _should_ end up with that as D: and
    <the C: drive formatted.
    <
    <But if you're in doubt, boot from the XP CD and go into the recovery
    <console. Use diskpart to create the partitions and assign the labels. I
    <could easily write a simple little script to do it, if you want. (I'm not
    <sure if diskpart is on the Win2k CD, which is why I said the XP CD. I'm
    <pretty sure it's there)
    <
    <--
    <Charlie.
    <http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    <
    <
    <"Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    <news:%23520jtf$...
    <> Hi, all!
    <>
    <> First, the anecdotal bit:
    <>
    <> I finally managed to wring the new machine from the dealer's. Thanks
    goes
    <> to
    <> Charlie for being openhearted with his ideas of what pieces of equipment
    <> to
    <> invest in if you want it to reflect 'mucho' sensibility.
    <>
    <> So when I ordered it, I started with a Antec P180 kabinette and a
    Seasonic
    <> M12 600W PSU - O.K. it wasn't cheap, but it wasn't really expensive
    <> either,
    <> and it will survive many, many upgrades, I'm sure - that probably makes
    it
    <> more economical than any serious alternatives.
    <>
    <> CPU ended up being a FX-62 in a ASUS M2N32 SLI deluxe.
    <> I waited for 800Mhz memory to become affordable in a reasonable
    <> performance
    <> potential, I don't think I will do any serious overclocking, but the
    <> Corsairs has been pushed to almost 1200 Mhz which should leave ample
    <> head-room for my puny fiddlings.
    <>
    <> I stopped at a single Geforce 7900GTX with 512 MB. Price will fall
    before
    <> I
    <> buy the next one for a SLI configuration.
    <>
    <> 3 250 GB SATA II Barracuda's to top off the most interesting part of the
    <> story. And the part that leads to the subject -
    <>
    <> Initially, I had started setting up the system on the RAID5 that I had in
    <> mind from the begining. Now, I've dumped the RAID and started installing
    <> on
    <> the naked SATA drives, it wasn't uneventfull. Although I had meticulously
    <> deleted the RAID - what the installer saw (this is Win2K) was a
    <> hodge-podge
    <> of small partitions of which the two on the first drive couldn't be
    <> deleted.
    <> When booting the system, the system drive had become 'F:'
    <>
    <> This is actually brilliant! I don't expect much actual work to be
    <> performed
    <> on the Win2K system, it's for the things that I cannot get to work
    <> anywhere
    <> else. A few games and InCD and the TV Tuner mostly. So it would be daft
    <> having that on the C: drive.
    <>
    <> My question then, is: When I install XP x64 - probably tonight, is there
    <> any
    <> large probability that it will be assigned the C: drive letter? What I
    <> really want to know is, I don't know how this happened, but this could
    <> potentially be usefull and I do not really know that I won't be going
    back
    <> to the RAID later, so is there a way to duplicate this strange behavior?
    <> (i.e. that installing Win2K on the first partition on the first drive
    has
    <> it
    <> be assigned a drive letter other than C:)
    <>
    <> O.K. - this is OT, but with the objective to put XP x64 on the C:
    <> partition
    <> after first having installed something else
    <>
    <>
    <> Tony. . .
    <>
    <>
    <
    <
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT], Nov 2, 2006
    #9
  10. Charlie, Darrell. . .

    Sorry, for taking my time with this. Here are some of what has emerged so
    far:


    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Simple. (Nice case and PS, by the way. I think they are very wise

    choices.)
    >
    > Since we're starting from scratch, do the following:
    > Put the Win2k CD in the drive and boot from it.
    > Delete ALL the partitions it sees.


    Yes, this worked fine.

    > Create a new partition that is big enough to be your XP x64 Partition.
    > Create a second partition - I prefer to keep this on the same physical
    > drive, FWIW, but I don't think it matters.


    Here, I have to note that Win2K has a bit of a problem with large volumes,
    it only see's 128GB (some 131.000 MB). It's no real problem, of course,
    since after installation, and installing SP4 (I don't remember which actual
    SP that requires, but I need '4' later anyhow) the full size of the volume
    can be accessed.

    Following on like this, I re-booted into Setup, but Win2K failed to complete
    the format, it did complete to 100% and then reported failure! So, I put in
    the XP CD and set it all up there, and I formated both partitions from the
    command-line, this was well enough, as it seemed to do it quite a bit faster
    than Setup.

    > Move the cursor over the second partition (it should show it as D: now...)
    > Tell Setup to install Win2k there. You _should_ end up with that as D: and
    > the C: drive formatted.
    >
    > But if you're in doubt, boot from the XP CD and go into the recovery
    > console. Use diskpart to create the partitions and assign the labels. I
    > could easily write a simple little script to do it, if you want. (I'm not
    > sure if diskpart is on the Win2k CD, which is why I said the XP CD. I'm
    > pretty sure it's there)
    >


    Back to 2K and everything went smooth, it installed onto 'D:' as expected -
    only, the installation put something on to the 'C:' partition as well.
    Perhaps I shouldn't have made that format - I am wondering now, if having
    this stuff around will inflict on the XP installation later? (Or indeed, the
    Win2K installation? If something it needs gets overwritten?)

    Sadly, though, from there on it didn't all go quite as well. I had the
    Graphics Driver ready and installed that before the chipset drivers, I
    usually do it the other way around. Then looking for the infamous firewall
    being mentioned, and pleased to see that it was not, I installed all of
    them. Internet connection was allright, but IE kept closing down. Updated to
    IE6.0; installed Java but that didn't change it, I went about looking for
    something to un-install and the Network Access Manager was the only option I
    could find with a 'hint' to it. Un-installing that one worked, so I guess
    that is the FIREWALL. Then, the C&Q didn't seem to work, I un-installed the
    Asus monitor and the AMD driver and re-installed them, and I have been
    working with this all the rest of the night, but to no avail.

    I have come to the conclusion that I should make a 'repair' install to clean
    out the early chipset driver installlation- but this machine is fast, and
    doing a complete installation all over wouldn't be much of a hazzle - just
    tedious. Any comments? Better things to care about?

    But I am wondering too - is it imprtant to fix '2K' before installing XP
    x64? Will it disturb XP if I go back and tamper with '2K' later?

    And, Charlie - the reason, I think, that Win2K cannot be installed on the
    nVidia RAID5 is that it would require SP4 and you can't do that from the
    original CD, the answer would be to clone the running system but I don't
    know what that would take? An alternative would be to install onto an
    non-bootable RAID5, install SP4, and then via the RAID manager make the RAID
    bootable. But again, I do not know if that is do-able?

    But the system is up and running (if a bit hot at the moment) and the drive
    letters have been beaten into submission - thanks to all for all the help!

    As a last attempt, I have decided to un-install the Graphics Driver, C&Q and
    everything of the sort that has a name to it, and re-boot into VGA and then
    re-install the chipset drivers and the rest, all in their proper order.

    (I'll be back!)


    Tony. . .


    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >
    Tony Sperling, Nov 4, 2006
    #10
  11. Tony - Let's make this easier. Forget installing Windows 2000. Just run it
    in a VM when you need it. It's just a much cleaner solution allround.

    Set up your partitions, install x64, and then install your choice of the
    beta of VPC2007 or the beta of Virtual Server 2k5 R2 or VMWare. Install
    Windows 2000 as a virtual machine. If you need it to be fairly fast, then
    give it plenty of memory, and pre-expand the HD. Now, when you need it, fire
    off the VM. The rest of the time? Leave it shut down.

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64


    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > Charlie, Darrell. . .
    >
    > Sorry, for taking my time with this. Here are some of what has emerged so
    > far:
    >
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Simple. (Nice case and PS, by the way. I think they are very wise

    > choices.)
    >>
    >> Since we're starting from scratch, do the following:
    >> Put the Win2k CD in the drive and boot from it.
    >> Delete ALL the partitions it sees.

    >
    > Yes, this worked fine.
    >
    >> Create a new partition that is big enough to be your XP x64 Partition.
    >> Create a second partition - I prefer to keep this on the same physical
    >> drive, FWIW, but I don't think it matters.

    >
    > Here, I have to note that Win2K has a bit of a problem with large volumes,
    > it only see's 128GB (some 131.000 MB). It's no real problem, of course,
    > since after installation, and installing SP4 (I don't remember which
    > actual
    > SP that requires, but I need '4' later anyhow) the full size of the volume
    > can be accessed.
    >
    > Following on like this, I re-booted into Setup, but Win2K failed to
    > complete
    > the format, it did complete to 100% and then reported failure! So, I put
    > in
    > the XP CD and set it all up there, and I formated both partitions from the
    > command-line, this was well enough, as it seemed to do it quite a bit
    > faster
    > than Setup.
    >
    >> Move the cursor over the second partition (it should show it as D:
    >> now...)
    >> Tell Setup to install Win2k there. You _should_ end up with that as D:
    >> and
    >> the C: drive formatted.
    >>
    >> But if you're in doubt, boot from the XP CD and go into the recovery
    >> console. Use diskpart to create the partitions and assign the labels. I
    >> could easily write a simple little script to do it, if you want. (I'm not
    >> sure if diskpart is on the Win2k CD, which is why I said the XP CD. I'm
    >> pretty sure it's there)
    >>

    >
    > Back to 2K and everything went smooth, it installed onto 'D:' as
    > expected -
    > only, the installation put something on to the 'C:' partition as well.
    > Perhaps I shouldn't have made that format - I am wondering now, if having
    > this stuff around will inflict on the XP installation later? (Or indeed,
    > the
    > Win2K installation? If something it needs gets overwritten?)
    >
    > Sadly, though, from there on it didn't all go quite as well. I had the
    > Graphics Driver ready and installed that before the chipset drivers, I
    > usually do it the other way around. Then looking for the infamous firewall
    > being mentioned, and pleased to see that it was not, I installed all of
    > them. Internet connection was allright, but IE kept closing down. Updated
    > to
    > IE6.0; installed Java but that didn't change it, I went about looking for
    > something to un-install and the Network Access Manager was the only option
    > I
    > could find with a 'hint' to it. Un-installing that one worked, so I guess
    > that is the FIREWALL. Then, the C&Q didn't seem to work, I un-installed
    > the
    > Asus monitor and the AMD driver and re-installed them, and I have been
    > working with this all the rest of the night, but to no avail.
    >
    > I have come to the conclusion that I should make a 'repair' install to
    > clean
    > out the early chipset driver installlation- but this machine is fast, and
    > doing a complete installation all over wouldn't be much of a hazzle - just
    > tedious. Any comments? Better things to care about?
    >
    > But I am wondering too - is it imprtant to fix '2K' before installing XP
    > x64? Will it disturb XP if I go back and tamper with '2K' later?
    >
    > And, Charlie - the reason, I think, that Win2K cannot be installed on the
    > nVidia RAID5 is that it would require SP4 and you can't do that from the
    > original CD, the answer would be to clone the running system but I don't
    > know what that would take? An alternative would be to install onto an
    > non-bootable RAID5, install SP4, and then via the RAID manager make the
    > RAID
    > bootable. But again, I do not know if that is do-able?
    >
    > But the system is up and running (if a bit hot at the moment) and the
    > drive
    > letters have been beaten into submission - thanks to all for all the help!
    >
    > As a last attempt, I have decided to un-install the Graphics Driver, C&Q
    > and
    > everything of the sort that has a name to it, and re-boot into VGA and
    > then
    > re-install the chipset drivers and the rest, all in their proper order.
    >
    > (I'll be back!)
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >>

    >
    >
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Nov 4, 2006
    #11
  12. Thanks, yes - I'm sure you are right. It's just that I need something to run
    a couple of graphics intensive games/sim's and I had expected the processor
    supported VM to be able to handle that - at least to some extent but it
    doesn't look as though the software is there yet to have that sort of thing
    implemented, if it ever will be?

    The only trouble I have now is the Cool&Quiet thing, it was working
    perfectly the other day - but I listen, and I'll have a peek at the spec's.

    Tony. . .


    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Tony - Let's make this easier. Forget installing Windows 2000. Just run it
    > in a VM when you need it. It's just a much cleaner solution allround.
    >
    > Set up your partitions, install x64, and then install your choice of the
    > beta of VPC2007 or the beta of Virtual Server 2k5 R2 or VMWare. Install
    > Windows 2000 as a virtual machine. If you need it to be fairly fast, then
    > give it plenty of memory, and pre-expand the HD. Now, when you need it,

    fire
    > off the VM. The rest of the time? Leave it shut down.
    >
    > --
    Tony Sperling, Nov 4, 2006
    #12
    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. Maurice Matassa

    no primary partition

    Maurice Matassa, Aug 31, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    586
    Robert de Brus
    Sep 1, 2003
  2. Bowman
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    20,893
    sam500016
    Oct 18, 2009
  3. =?UTF-8?B?UGFsaW5kcuKYu21l?=

    "Ubdoing" an "accidental" Fdisk primary partition delete

    =?UTF-8?B?UGFsaW5kcuKYu21l?=, Aug 10, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,503
    =?UTF-8?B?UGFsaW5kcuKYu21l?=
    Aug 15, 2004
  4. David MacKay
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    700
    David MacKay
    Nov 5, 2003
  5. Dale

    string theory, M-theory etc.

    Dale, Nov 7, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    127
    Martin Leese
    Nov 7, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page