Spoke too soon

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by John Barnes, Aug 28, 2005.

  1. John Barnes

    John Barnes Guest

    I spoke too soon, thinking that ASUS or Nvidia actually solved my SATA II
    problems. Here is the rest of the story, and I hope some techie can make
    sense of the situation.



    I installed the latest BIOS and then attempted to install x64, since nothing
    would install or run on a SATA II drive since the 1008 BIOS.



    I have two partitions on the drive. The first I was using for backups,
    since no OS would install or copy to this drive and boot.

    I decided to install on the second partition, and during the install, I
    opted to delete the partition and create a new partition and do a full NTFS
    format.

    The process went as expected, but I was not offered any options as to what
    type of partition I wanted to create.

    The copy succeeded and the system rebooted to the GUI part of the install,
    which also ran perfectly and when I rebooted into the system I proceeded to
    do some settings I like. I also installed a couple of programs with no
    problems. Wrote this newsgroup that everything seemed to have been fixed,
    finally.



    This weekend I decided that I would like to make the SATA II drive my master
    drive and to add my x86 system. I copied it from the drive that it is on to
    the first partition on the SATA II drive. I fixed the boot.ini and tried to
    boot to it. No luck. ntoskernl missing.



    I used PartitionMagic to see what was on the drive and noticed that the
    partition that was created in the x64 install, and which worked was a
    logical drive, within an extended partition. The copy of my x86 system was
    a primary partition as it is on the system drive, and Ghost copy gives no
    option to change it.



    I then tried to install the x64 system on the first partition, again
    deleting the primary partition and allowing the install program to partition
    and format, NTFS. The copy finished, but the boot to GUI failed with no
    system disk error. I ran recovery console, did a fixboot with no success.
    On running PartitionMagic again, this time the installation program had
    created a primary partition.



    I was still able to boot to the x64 on the original partition, which after
    the second install was now labeled the first partition as the install
    changed the numbers.



    I then used PartitionMagic to delete the primary partition and create
    another logical drive.



    I then tried an install of x64 on the new logical drive. This also would
    not boot to GUI with the same problem.



    I deleted all the partitions except the new x64 install on the logical drive
    and can now access it

    again along with my April SATA I install.



    One of my SATA I drives died concurrently with the BIOS update, though I
    assume this is a coincidence. Since SATA I drives are becoming hard to find
    and since my system WILL NOT handle SATA II dives properly, I am beginning
    to become concerned.



    Anyone with ideas on what happened and how to resolve it? All installs were
    done with no F6 drivers as Nvidia has no non RAID drivers. Previously I
    have tried all the suggestions here, such as install half the RAID drivers
    and unplug all USB, etc.
    John Barnes, Aug 28, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Hi, John.

    With the risk of not having gotten all of this lined up correctly, I would
    like to fill you in with some of my findings. It's not that I understand it,
    it's just a personal view on this seen in one single perspective, perhaps.

    Now, I cannot remember any windows installation, since '3.xx' that was able
    to make several primary partitions - even if you wanted that. Windows
    installations allways make extended partitions. If at this point you abort
    the installation, that is what you have: an extended partition. (No logical
    drive) Of course, if you do install something it needs to have a drive
    letter to assign and therefor automatically sets up a logical drive to your
    specifications.

    Then you have the peculiarities: I seem to be rather alone amongst the
    people here to experience this behavior, at least nobody agrees to having
    been helped by my suggestions on this, but several seem to have seen
    behavior similar to mine, as I see it. I have an Asrock board and if I want
    to install a 'dual boot' instance, I have to install to the first
    drive/partition - AND this is not the boot-order that I am referring to, it
    is the IDE channels. Some BIOS'es seem not to have a setting for this, but
    many others can reverse the channels, and that then can reflect back on the
    boot-order, but the channels are of primary concern here.

    You could try that. If your BIOS cannot swap the IDE channels, swap the
    connectors on the board, such that the one you are about to install to
    becomes nr. one. (Sits on the first IDE channel) (or SATA channel as
    appropriate).

    After you finish the installation neither Windows, BIOS, or your precious
    self will ever care again about what sits where - until you need to install
    something again. As I said, I don't understand it, but it's worth trying.

    I also really do not think that SATA 1 or 2 has any impact as long as the
    drivers are present. In all likelihood SATA is not your problem at all -
    it's where you are installing to.

    Hope you can make any sense of this. There seems to be a certain amount of
    mental convolution whenever we approach BIOS.

    Tony. . .


    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    >I spoke too soon, thinking that ASUS or Nvidia actually solved my SATA II
    >problems. Here is the rest of the story, and I hope some techie can make
    >sense of the situation.
    >
    >
    >
    > I installed the latest BIOS and then attempted to install x64, since
    > nothing would install or run on a SATA II drive since the 1008 BIOS.
    >
    >
    >
    > I have two partitions on the drive. The first I was using for backups,
    > since no OS would install or copy to this drive and boot.
    >
    > I decided to install on the second partition, and during the install, I
    > opted to delete the partition and create a new partition and do a full
    > NTFS format.
    >
    > The process went as expected, but I was not offered any options as to what
    > type of partition I wanted to create.
    >
    > The copy succeeded and the system rebooted to the GUI part of the install,
    > which also ran perfectly and when I rebooted into the system I proceeded
    > to do some settings I like. I also installed a couple of programs with no
    > problems. Wrote this newsgroup that everything seemed to have been fixed,
    > finally.
    >
    >
    >
    > This weekend I decided that I would like to make the SATA II drive my
    > master drive and to add my x86 system. I copied it from the drive that it
    > is on to the first partition on the SATA II drive. I fixed the boot.ini
    > and tried to boot to it. No luck. ntoskernl missing.
    >
    >
    >
    > I used PartitionMagic to see what was on the drive and noticed that the
    > partition that was created in the x64 install, and which worked was a
    > logical drive, within an extended partition. The copy of my x86 system
    > was a primary partition as it is on the system drive, and Ghost copy gives
    > no option to change it.
    >
    >
    >
    > I then tried to install the x64 system on the first partition, again
    > deleting the primary partition and allowing the install program to
    > partition and format, NTFS. The copy finished, but the boot to GUI failed
    > with no system disk error. I ran recovery console, did a fixboot with no
    > success. On running PartitionMagic again, this time the installation
    > program had created a primary partition.
    >
    >
    >
    > I was still able to boot to the x64 on the original partition, which after
    > the second install was now labeled the first partition as the install
    > changed the numbers.
    >
    >
    >
    > I then used PartitionMagic to delete the primary partition and create
    > another logical drive.
    >
    >
    >
    > I then tried an install of x64 on the new logical drive. This also would
    > not boot to GUI with the same problem.
    >
    >
    >
    > I deleted all the partitions except the new x64 install on the logical
    > drive and can now access it
    >
    > again along with my April SATA I install.
    >
    >
    >
    > One of my SATA I drives died concurrently with the BIOS update, though I
    > assume this is a coincidence. Since SATA I drives are becoming hard to
    > find and since my system WILL NOT handle SATA II dives properly, I am
    > beginning to become concerned.
    >
    >
    >
    > Anyone with ideas on what happened and how to resolve it? All installs
    > were done with no F6 drivers as Nvidia has no non RAID drivers.
    > Previously I have tried all the suggestions here, such as install half the
    > RAID drivers and unplug all USB, etc.
    >
    >
    Tony Sperling, Aug 28, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John Barnes

    John Barnes Guest

    Thanks Tony, but it is totally a SATA II problem. There is no problem
    installing exactly the same on a SATA I drive. I have (had) one set up
    exactly as I am trying with SATA II since January with beta and April with
    X64 (RTM). Same plugs on motherboard, multiple and only drive connected.
    With and without SATA II features enabled.
    Prior to BIOS 1008 I could ghost copy both systems to the drive and only
    could boot x86. Yes, I had the x64 ntldr and ntdetect.com from x64 on the
    system drive. I could not install either and get past the TEXT phase. From
    1008 to 1011 + 1013-002 (beta), nothing would install, or boot from a copy.
    1013 (final) now accommodates the install of x64, on an extended partition,
    and it works. The primary partition won't install or copy.
    When the new BIOS was installed, 1 SATA drive stopped showing up in Windows
    Explorer, Windows Drive Manager always tried to make it a dynamic disk, a
    disk test program didn't recognise it and finally it stopped showing up in
    the BIOS.


    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:uvC$...
    > Hi, John.
    >
    > With the risk of not having gotten all of this lined up correctly, I would
    > like to fill you in with some of my findings. It's not that I understand
    > it, it's just a personal view on this seen in one single perspective,
    > perhaps.
    >
    > Now, I cannot remember any windows installation, since '3.xx' that was
    > able to make several primary partitions - even if you wanted that. Windows
    > installations allways make extended partitions. If at this point you abort
    > the installation, that is what you have: an extended partition. (No
    > logical drive) Of course, if you do install something it needs to have a
    > drive letter to assign and therefor automatically sets up a logical drive
    > to your specifications.
    >
    > Then you have the peculiarities: I seem to be rather alone amongst the
    > people here to experience this behavior, at least nobody agrees to having
    > been helped by my suggestions on this, but several seem to have seen
    > behavior similar to mine, as I see it. I have an Asrock board and if I
    > want to install a 'dual boot' instance, I have to install to the first
    > drive/partition - AND this is not the boot-order that I am referring to,
    > it is the IDE channels. Some BIOS'es seem not to have a setting for this,
    > but many others can reverse the channels, and that then can reflect back
    > on the boot-order, but the channels are of primary concern here.
    >
    > You could try that. If your BIOS cannot swap the IDE channels, swap the
    > connectors on the board, such that the one you are about to install to
    > becomes nr. one. (Sits on the first IDE channel) (or SATA channel as
    > appropriate).
    >
    > After you finish the installation neither Windows, BIOS, or your precious
    > self will ever care again about what sits where - until you need to
    > install something again. As I said, I don't understand it, but it's worth
    > trying.
    >
    > I also really do not think that SATA 1 or 2 has any impact as long as the
    > drivers are present. In all likelihood SATA is not your problem at all -
    > it's where you are installing to.
    >
    > Hope you can make any sense of this. There seems to be a certain amount of
    > mental convolution whenever we approach BIOS.
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >>I spoke too soon, thinking that ASUS or Nvidia actually solved my SATA II
    >>problems. Here is the rest of the story, and I hope some techie can make
    >>sense of the situation.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I installed the latest BIOS and then attempted to install x64, since
    >> nothing would install or run on a SATA II drive since the 1008 BIOS.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I have two partitions on the drive. The first I was using for backups,
    >> since no OS would install or copy to this drive and boot.
    >>
    >> I decided to install on the second partition, and during the install, I
    >> opted to delete the partition and create a new partition and do a full
    >> NTFS format.
    >>
    >> The process went as expected, but I was not offered any options as to
    >> what type of partition I wanted to create.
    >>
    >> The copy succeeded and the system rebooted to the GUI part of the
    >> install, which also ran perfectly and when I rebooted into the system I
    >> proceeded to do some settings I like. I also installed a couple of
    >> programs with no problems. Wrote this newsgroup that everything seemed
    >> to have been fixed, finally.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> This weekend I decided that I would like to make the SATA II drive my
    >> master drive and to add my x86 system. I copied it from the drive that
    >> it is on to the first partition on the SATA II drive. I fixed the
    >> boot.ini and tried to boot to it. No luck. ntoskernl missing.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I used PartitionMagic to see what was on the drive and noticed that the
    >> partition that was created in the x64 install, and which worked was a
    >> logical drive, within an extended partition. The copy of my x86 system
    >> was a primary partition as it is on the system drive, and Ghost copy
    >> gives no option to change it.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I then tried to install the x64 system on the first partition, again
    >> deleting the primary partition and allowing the install program to
    >> partition and format, NTFS. The copy finished, but the boot to GUI
    >> failed with no system disk error. I ran recovery console, did a fixboot
    >> with no success. On running PartitionMagic again, this time the
    >> installation program had created a primary partition.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I was still able to boot to the x64 on the original partition, which
    >> after the second install was now labeled the first partition as the
    >> install changed the numbers.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I then used PartitionMagic to delete the primary partition and create
    >> another logical drive.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I then tried an install of x64 on the new logical drive. This also would
    >> not boot to GUI with the same problem.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I deleted all the partitions except the new x64 install on the logical
    >> drive and can now access it
    >>
    >> again along with my April SATA I install.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> One of my SATA I drives died concurrently with the BIOS update, though I
    >> assume this is a coincidence. Since SATA I drives are becoming hard to
    >> find and since my system WILL NOT handle SATA II dives properly, I am
    >> beginning to become concerned.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Anyone with ideas on what happened and how to resolve it? All installs
    >> were done with no F6 drivers as Nvidia has no non RAID drivers.
    >> Previously I have tried all the suggestions here, such as install half
    >> the RAID drivers and unplug all USB, etc.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    John Barnes, Aug 28, 2005
    #3
  4. That must really be depressing. What does the MB Support people have to say?
    I think I will go over the specifics of your post again, to see if I missed
    out on something.

    But, tell me, how many discs do you have access to? Sounds like your
    experiments have left you with some several surplus???

    Tony. . .
    Tony Sperling, Aug 28, 2005
    #4
  5. John Barnes

    John Barnes Guest

    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > That must really be depressing. What does the MB Support people have to
    > say? I think I will go over the specifics of your post again, to see if I
    > missed out on something.


    Response from ASUS is keep looking for BIOS updates
    Can't tell if it is an Nvidia Nforce4 problem or Award BIOS problem. Seems
    BIOS.

    >
    > But, tell me, how many discs do you have access to? Sounds like your
    > experiments have left you with some several surplus???
    >

    I have 3 disks at the moment. A WD SATA I 80g x86 system drive.
    A Samsung SATA ! 120g
    x64 (partition 1 - 75g) (data partition 2 - 38g)
    The SATA II drive
    which is great as a data drive and now can install x64 in x-partition
    nothing bootable in primary partition.
    Dead drive Samsung
    SATA I 160g half beta x64 half copy of x86
    No surplus 1 x86 1 x64 1 problem SATA II Now 1 dead

    Thanks

    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    >
    John Barnes, Aug 28, 2005
    #5
  6. O.K. - then, this probably means that you will soon be looking to replace
    that dead one, right? So how would you feel about getting a twin for the
    SATA 2 drive and set up a RAID - (I know the options are nearly endless).
    Wether or not you want to do RAID right now, you might do it in the future
    and be pleased then to have it. What I am really driving at is the off
    chance that your problem has to do with some sort of bug, and by introducing
    the RAID there could be - at least some chance that the bug was bypassed. If
    not, you could dissable the on-board SATA stuff and get an Adaptec SATA 2
    RAID card (should have its own BIOS, I assume) or something of the order.
    The extra expence is with the new drive anyhow. The rest is peanuts.

    Then again, this whole thing might start to make you so sick that you would
    rather not have that extra expence at the moment. You then could get a
    expansion SATA 2 card (might as well go RAID too) for the same reason and
    simply hook your single drive into that and hope.

    As I said, the options are endless, and there could be innumerable good
    resons not to do it that way at all. On the other hand, it could be a quick
    route to recovery and trading head-aches for pleasure.


    Tony. . .


    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:%23MChjN%...
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> That must really be depressing. What does the MB Support people have to
    >> say? I think I will go over the specifics of your post again, to see if I
    >> missed out on something.

    >
    > Response from ASUS is keep looking for BIOS updates
    > Can't tell if it is an Nvidia Nforce4 problem or Award BIOS problem.
    > Seems BIOS.
    >
    >>
    >> But, tell me, how many discs do you have access to? Sounds like your
    >> experiments have left you with some several surplus???
    >>

    > I have 3 disks at the moment. A WD SATA I 80g x86 system drive.
    > A Samsung SATA !
    > 120g x64 (partition 1 - 75g) (data partition 2 - 38g)
    > The SATA II drive
    > which is great as a data drive and now can install x64 in x-partition
    > nothing bootable in primary partition.
    > Dead drive Samsung
    > SATA I 160g half beta x64 half copy of x86
    > No surplus 1 x86 1 x64 1 problem SATA II Now 1 dead
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    >> Tony. . .
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    Tony Sperling, Aug 28, 2005
    #6
  7. John Barnes

    Dennis Pack Guest

    John:

    I know that my system is different than the one you have, I have
    an A8N-E motherboard with only Nvidia raid. This is the first board that I've
    setup with SATA drives. First I setup a dual boot configuration on SATA1,
    then setup a raid configuration on SATA3 and SATA4. When booting to SATA1
    first in the bios I could only open the original dual boot drives, booting
    into raid in the bios the only way the system would start is with the
    operating system disk in a drive and then only open raid operating systems.
    To cure this I unplugged SATA1 hard drive, installed the operating systems.
    Before I unplugged the SATA1 drive I edited the boot.ini to only have the
    SATA1 systems showing. I then installed the operating systems on the raid
    drives and the boot.ini only shows the raid drive operating systems. Now if
    I boot off the SATA1 hard drive the boot.ini only shows SATA1 operating
    systems and if I boot off the raid hard drive only the raid operating
    systems appear in the boot.ini. On your system the SATA II hard drive may
    need the updated SATA drivers included in the Nvidia 6.66 update. Installing
    the raid and SATA drivers from a floppy may cure the concerns with the SATA
    II hard drive and then be able to be accessed using drive boot order in the
    bios, tedious but it may work. I found that the boot.ini isn't compatible
    between SATA and raid, it may also be true between EIDE, SATA and SATA II.





    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    >I spoke too soon, thinking that ASUS or Nvidia actually solved my SATA II
    >problems. Here is the rest of the story, and I hope some techie can make
    >sense of the situation.
    >
    >
    >
    > I installed the latest BIOS and then attempted to install x64, since
    > nothing would install or run on a SATA II drive since the 1008 BIOS.
    >
    >
    >
    > I have two partitions on the drive. The first I was using for backups,
    > since no OS would install or copy to this drive and boot.
    >
    > I decided to install on the second partition, and during the install, I
    > opted to delete the partition and create a new partition and do a full
    > NTFS format.
    >
    > The process went as expected, but I was not offered any options as to what
    > type of partition I wanted to create.
    >
    > The copy succeeded and the system rebooted to the GUI part of the install,
    > which also ran perfectly and when I rebooted into the system I proceeded
    > to do some settings I like. I also installed a couple of programs with no
    > problems. Wrote this newsgroup that everything seemed to have been fixed,
    > finally.
    >
    >
    >
    > This weekend I decided that I would like to make the SATA II drive my
    > master drive and to add my x86 system. I copied it from the drive that it
    > is on to the first partition on the SATA II drive. I fixed the boot.ini
    > and tried to boot to it. No luck. ntoskernl missing.
    >
    >
    >
    > I used PartitionMagic to see what was on the drive and noticed that the
    > partition that was created in the x64 install, and which worked was a
    > logical drive, within an extended partition. The copy of my x86 system
    > was a primary partition as it is on the system drive, and Ghost copy gives
    > no option to change it.
    >
    >
    >
    > I then tried to install the x64 system on the first partition, again
    > deleting the primary partition and allowing the install program to
    > partition and format, NTFS. The copy finished, but the boot to GUI failed
    > with no system disk error. I ran recovery console, did a fixboot with no
    > success. On running PartitionMagic again, this time the installation
    > program had created a primary partition.
    >
    >
    >
    > I was still able to boot to the x64 on the original partition, which after
    > the second install was now labeled the first partition as the install
    > changed the numbers.
    >
    >
    >
    > I then used PartitionMagic to delete the primary partition and create
    > another logical drive.
    >
    >
    >
    > I then tried an install of x64 on the new logical drive. This also would
    > not boot to GUI with the same problem.
    >
    >
    >
    > I deleted all the partitions except the new x64 install on the logical
    > drive and can now access it
    >
    > again along with my April SATA I install.
    >
    >
    >
    > One of my SATA I drives died concurrently with the BIOS update, though I
    > assume this is a coincidence. Since SATA I drives are becoming hard to
    > find and since my system WILL NOT handle SATA II dives properly, I am
    > beginning to become concerned.
    >
    >
    >
    > Anyone with ideas on what happened and how to resolve it? All installs
    > were done with no F6 drivers as Nvidia has no non RAID drivers.
    > Previously I have tried all the suggestions here, such as install half the
    > RAID drivers and unplug all USB, etc.
    >
    >
    Dennis Pack, Aug 28, 2005
    #7
  8. John Barnes

    Randy Guest

    Have you tried installing x64 to a SATA I drive (or even to a PATA drive),
    then ghosting it to the SATA II drive? Not as an image, but as a cloned
    copy? Sounds to me like they just haven't yet produced the right driver for
    SATA II yet.

    I'm not thrilled to read of your problems with this setup, since I've been
    thinking about getting a Gigabyte mobo with SATA II, dual PCI-Express, FW,
    etc. onboard... but if x64 won't install on it, what's the purpose for the
    advanced capabilities?

    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > I spoke too soon, thinking that ASUS or Nvidia actually solved my SATA II
    > problems. Here is the rest of the story, and I hope some techie can make
    > sense of the situation.
    >
    >
    >
    > I installed the latest BIOS and then attempted to install x64, since

    nothing
    > would install or run on a SATA II drive since the 1008 BIOS.
    >
    >
    >
    > I have two partitions on the drive. The first I was using for backups,
    > since no OS would install or copy to this drive and boot.
    >
    > I decided to install on the second partition, and during the install, I
    > opted to delete the partition and create a new partition and do a full

    NTFS
    > format.
    >
    > The process went as expected, but I was not offered any options as to what
    > type of partition I wanted to create.
    >
    > The copy succeeded and the system rebooted to the GUI part of the install,
    > which also ran perfectly and when I rebooted into the system I proceeded

    to
    > do some settings I like. I also installed a couple of programs with no
    > problems. Wrote this newsgroup that everything seemed to have been fixed,
    > finally.
    >
    >
    >
    > This weekend I decided that I would like to make the SATA II drive my

    master
    > drive and to add my x86 system. I copied it from the drive that it is on

    to
    > the first partition on the SATA II drive. I fixed the boot.ini and tried

    to
    > boot to it. No luck. ntoskernl missing.
    >
    >
    >
    > I used PartitionMagic to see what was on the drive and noticed that the
    > partition that was created in the x64 install, and which worked was a
    > logical drive, within an extended partition. The copy of my x86 system

    was
    > a primary partition as it is on the system drive, and Ghost copy gives no
    > option to change it.
    >
    >
    >
    > I then tried to install the x64 system on the first partition, again
    > deleting the primary partition and allowing the install program to

    partition
    > and format, NTFS. The copy finished, but the boot to GUI failed with no
    > system disk error. I ran recovery console, did a fixboot with no success.
    > On running PartitionMagic again, this time the installation program had
    > created a primary partition.
    >
    >
    >
    > I was still able to boot to the x64 on the original partition, which after
    > the second install was now labeled the first partition as the install
    > changed the numbers.
    >
    >
    >
    > I then used PartitionMagic to delete the primary partition and create
    > another logical drive.
    >
    >
    >
    > I then tried an install of x64 on the new logical drive. This also would
    > not boot to GUI with the same problem.
    >
    >
    >
    > I deleted all the partitions except the new x64 install on the logical

    drive
    > and can now access it
    >
    > again along with my April SATA I install.
    >
    >
    >
    > One of my SATA I drives died concurrently with the BIOS update, though I
    > assume this is a coincidence. Since SATA I drives are becoming hard to

    find
    > and since my system WILL NOT handle SATA II dives properly, I am beginning
    > to become concerned.
    >
    >
    >
    > Anyone with ideas on what happened and how to resolve it? All installs

    were
    > done with no F6 drivers as Nvidia has no non RAID drivers. Previously I
    > have tried all the suggestions here, such as install half the RAID drivers
    > and unplug all USB, etc.
    >
    >
    Randy, Aug 29, 2005
    #8
  9. John Barnes

    John Barnes Guest

    Thanks for the ideas. Having a SATA II card with its own BIOS could be the
    way to go, since with my experience so far, it definitely points to being an
    AWARD BIOS problem.


    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > O.K. - then, this probably means that you will soon be looking to replace
    > that dead one, right? So how would you feel about getting a twin for the
    > SATA 2 drive and set up a RAID - (I know the options are nearly endless).
    > Wether or not you want to do RAID right now, you might do it in the future
    > and be pleased then to have it. What I am really driving at is the off
    > chance that your problem has to do with some sort of bug, and by
    > introducing the RAID there could be - at least some chance that the bug
    > was bypassed. If not, you could dissable the on-board SATA stuff and get
    > an Adaptec SATA 2 RAID card (should have its own BIOS, I assume) or
    > something of the order. The extra expence is with the new drive anyhow.
    > The rest is peanuts.
    >
    > Then again, this whole thing might start to make you so sick that you
    > would rather not have that extra expence at the moment. You then could get
    > a expansion SATA 2 card (might as well go RAID too) for the same reason
    > and simply hook your single drive into that and hope.
    >
    > As I said, the options are endless, and there could be innumerable good
    > resons not to do it that way at all. On the other hand, it could be a
    > quick route to recovery and trading head-aches for pleasure.
    >
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > news:%23MChjN%...
    >>
    >> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%...
    >>> That must really be depressing. What does the MB Support people have to
    >>> say? I think I will go over the specifics of your post again, to see if
    >>> I missed out on something.

    >>
    >> Response from ASUS is keep looking for BIOS updates
    >> Can't tell if it is an Nvidia Nforce4 problem or Award BIOS problem.
    >> Seems BIOS.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> But, tell me, how many discs do you have access to? Sounds like your
    >>> experiments have left you with some several surplus???
    >>>

    >> I have 3 disks at the moment. A WD SATA I 80g x86 system drive.
    >> A Samsung SATA !
    >> 120g x64 (partition 1 - 75g) (data partition 2 - 38g)
    >> The SATA II drive
    >> which is great as a data drive and now can install x64 in x-partition
    >> nothing bootable in primary partition.
    >> Dead drive Samsung
    >> SATA I 160g half beta x64 half copy of x86
    >> No surplus 1 x86 1 x64 1 problem SATA II Now 1 dead
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >>
    >>> Tony. . .
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    John Barnes, Aug 29, 2005
    #9
  10. John Barnes

    John Barnes Guest

    Strangely, X64 installs on the extended partition and runs well using the
    1013 BIOS. The primary partition won't either install or run EITHER system.
    With 2 logical drives in the extended partition, the x64 won't run either.

    "Randy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Have you tried installing x64 to a SATA I drive (or even to a PATA drive),
    > then ghosting it to the SATA II drive? Not as an image, but as a cloned
    > copy? Sounds to me like they just haven't yet produced the right driver
    > for
    > SATA II yet.
    >
    > I'm not thrilled to read of your problems with this setup, since I've been
    > thinking about getting a Gigabyte mobo with SATA II, dual PCI-Express, FW,
    > etc. onboard... but if x64 won't install on it, what's the purpose for the
    > advanced capabilities?
    >
    > "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >> I spoke too soon, thinking that ASUS or Nvidia actually solved my SATA II
    >> problems. Here is the rest of the story, and I hope some techie can make
    >> sense of the situation.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I installed the latest BIOS and then attempted to install x64, since

    > nothing
    >> would install or run on a SATA II drive since the 1008 BIOS.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I have two partitions on the drive. The first I was using for backups,
    >> since no OS would install or copy to this drive and boot.
    >>
    >> I decided to install on the second partition, and during the install, I
    >> opted to delete the partition and create a new partition and do a full

    > NTFS
    >> format.
    >>
    >> The process went as expected, but I was not offered any options as to
    >> what
    >> type of partition I wanted to create.
    >>
    >> The copy succeeded and the system rebooted to the GUI part of the
    >> install,
    >> which also ran perfectly and when I rebooted into the system I proceeded

    > to
    >> do some settings I like. I also installed a couple of programs with no
    >> problems. Wrote this newsgroup that everything seemed to have been
    >> fixed,
    >> finally.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> This weekend I decided that I would like to make the SATA II drive my

    > master
    >> drive and to add my x86 system. I copied it from the drive that it is on

    > to
    >> the first partition on the SATA II drive. I fixed the boot.ini and tried

    > to
    >> boot to it. No luck. ntoskernl missing.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I used PartitionMagic to see what was on the drive and noticed that the
    >> partition that was created in the x64 install, and which worked was a
    >> logical drive, within an extended partition. The copy of my x86 system

    > was
    >> a primary partition as it is on the system drive, and Ghost copy gives no
    >> option to change it.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I then tried to install the x64 system on the first partition, again
    >> deleting the primary partition and allowing the install program to

    > partition
    >> and format, NTFS. The copy finished, but the boot to GUI failed with no
    >> system disk error. I ran recovery console, did a fixboot with no
    >> success.
    >> On running PartitionMagic again, this time the installation program had
    >> created a primary partition.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I was still able to boot to the x64 on the original partition, which
    >> after
    >> the second install was now labeled the first partition as the install
    >> changed the numbers.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I then used PartitionMagic to delete the primary partition and create
    >> another logical drive.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I then tried an install of x64 on the new logical drive. This also would
    >> not boot to GUI with the same problem.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I deleted all the partitions except the new x64 install on the logical

    > drive
    >> and can now access it
    >>
    >> again along with my April SATA I install.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> One of my SATA I drives died concurrently with the BIOS update, though I
    >> assume this is a coincidence. Since SATA I drives are becoming hard to

    > find
    >> and since my system WILL NOT handle SATA II dives properly, I am
    >> beginning
    >> to become concerned.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Anyone with ideas on what happened and how to resolve it? All installs

    > were
    >> done with no F6 drivers as Nvidia has no non RAID drivers. Previously I
    >> have tried all the suggestions here, such as install half the RAID
    >> drivers
    >> and unplug all USB, etc.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    John Barnes, Aug 29, 2005
    #10
  11. John Barnes

    John Barnes Guest

    Unfortunately, the least expensive SATA II controller card I can find on
    vendors I use is $429.99. Guess for now I will do with what I have or buy
    another MOBO if these morons can't get it right before SATA I drives become
    unavailable.


    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Thanks for the ideas. Having a SATA II card with its own BIOS could be
    > the way to go, since with my experience so far, it definitely points to
    > being an AWARD BIOS problem.
    >
    >
    > "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> O.K. - then, this probably means that you will soon be looking to replace
    >> that dead one, right? So how would you feel about getting a twin for the
    >> SATA 2 drive and set up a RAID - (I know the options are nearly endless).
    >> Wether or not you want to do RAID right now, you might do it in the
    >> future and be pleased then to have it. What I am really driving at is the
    >> off chance that your problem has to do with some sort of bug, and by
    >> introducing the RAID there could be - at least some chance that the bug
    >> was bypassed. If not, you could dissable the on-board SATA stuff and get
    >> an Adaptec SATA 2 RAID card (should have its own BIOS, I assume) or
    >> something of the order. The extra expence is with the new drive anyhow.
    >> The rest is peanuts.
    >>
    >> Then again, this whole thing might start to make you so sick that you
    >> would rather not have that extra expence at the moment. You then could
    >> get a expansion SATA 2 card (might as well go RAID too) for the same
    >> reason and simply hook your single drive into that and hope.
    >>
    >> As I said, the options are endless, and there could be innumerable good
    >> resons not to do it that way at all. On the other hand, it could be a
    >> quick route to recovery and trading head-aches for pleasure.
    >>
    >>
    >> Tony. . .
    >>
    >>
    >> "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%23MChjN%...
    >>>
    >>> "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:%...
    >>>> That must really be depressing. What does the MB Support people have to
    >>>> say? I think I will go over the specifics of your post again, to see if
    >>>> I missed out on something.
    >>>
    >>> Response from ASUS is keep looking for BIOS updates
    >>> Can't tell if it is an Nvidia Nforce4 problem or Award BIOS problem.
    >>> Seems BIOS.
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> But, tell me, how many discs do you have access to? Sounds like your
    >>>> experiments have left you with some several surplus???
    >>>>
    >>> I have 3 disks at the moment. A WD SATA I 80g x86 system drive.
    >>> A Samsung SATA !
    >>> 120g x64 (partition 1 - 75g) (data partition 2 - 38g)
    >>> The SATA II drive
    >>> which is great as a data drive and now can install x64 in x-partition
    >>> nothing bootable in primary partition.
    >>> Dead drive Samsung
    >>> SATA I 160g half beta x64 half copy of x86
    >>> No surplus 1 x86 1 x64 1 problem SATA II Now 1 dead
    >>>
    >>> Thanks
    >>>
    >>>> Tony. . .
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    John Barnes, Aug 29, 2005
    #11
  12. Hello John,
    I have some questions and or comments.
    <I decided to install on the second partition, and during the install, I
    <opted to delete the partition and create a new partition and do a full
    NTFS
    <format.
    <The process went as expected, but I was not offered any options as to what
    <type of partition I wanted to create.
    <The copy succeeded and the system rebooted to the GUI part of the install,
    <which also ran perfectly and when I rebooted into the system I proceeded
    to
    <do some settings I like. I also installed a couple of programs with no
    <problems. Wrote this newsgroup that everything seemed to have been fixed,
    <finally.
    <This weekend I decided that I would like to make the SATA II drive my
    master
    <drive and to add my x86 system. I copied it from the drive that it is on
    to
    <the first partition on the SATA II drive. I fixed the boot.ini and tried
    to
    <boot to it. No luck. ntoskernl missing.

    When you made this change, how did you copy the OS? ( what was used to copy
    the OS)
    Did you remove the other drive? ( What is in the bios as the boot device
    device may or may not be the same as is presented for drive enumeration so
    the boot.ini may not be what is expected.)
    Did you set the active partition? ( This has to be set to be able to boot
    from)
    Did you change the mounteddevices key as well?( You aren't getting that
    far, however they are wrong so booting would still be an issue)

    <I used PartitionMagic to see what was on the drive and noticed that the
    <partition that was created in the x64 install, and which worked was a
    <logical drive, within an extended partition. The copy of my x86 system
    was
    <a primary partition as it is on the system drive, and Ghost copy gives no
    <option to change it.

    So when we find a primary patition, the next created partition in setup is
    an extended partition from which logical drives are created in. If when
    you create the partition, you do no use the full disk space, the next time
    setup is run and anew partition is created it will be primary again.

    <I then tried to install the x64 system on the first partition, again
    <deleting the primary partition and allowing the install program to
    partition
    <and format, NTFS. The copy finished, but the boot to GUI failed with no
    <system disk error. I ran recovery console, did a fixboot with no success.
    <On running PartitionMagic again, this time the installation program had
    <created a primary partition.

    Was the active partition set on the first partition and was the first drive
    with the existing active partition removed from the system? This goes back
    to ( What is in the bios as the boot device device may or may not be the
    same as is presented for drive enumeration so the boot.ini may not be what
    is expected.) so we may be trying to write to something that is not the
    redirected boot device.


    <I was still able to boot to the x64 on the original partition, which after
    <the second install was now labeled the first partition as the install
    <changed the numbers.

    Labeled the first partition where and how? Where are we getting that
    information.

    <I then used PartitionMagic to delete the primary partition and create
    <another logical drive.

    Was there an existing Primary partition left on the system at this point
    and was it set to active? There has to be a Primary Active partition to
    boot from.

    <I then tried an install of x64 on the new logical drive. This also would
    <not boot to GUI with the same problem.

    Which problem, you have mentioned several?



    Thanks,
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT]

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
    <done with no F6 drivers as Nvidia has no non RAID drivers. Previously I
    <have tried all the suggestions here, such as install half the RAID drivers
    <and unplug all USB, etc.
    <
    <
    <
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT], Aug 30, 2005
    #12
  13. Hello Tony,

    A comment on this portion. Windows NT based operating systems will
    generate multiple primary partitions. This includes Windows XP and Windows
    Server 2003. Windows 9X and Windows ME would only create one primary and
    one extended partition, however Windows NT always allowed for creating
    multiple primary ones.
    Disk Manager will allow you the option to create either primary or extended.
    As long as a primary exists, setup will then create an extended partition
    where logical drives are created. If both a primary and extended
    partitions exist and free space outside those partitions exists, then setup
    will create additional primary partitions during the partitioning process.
    <Now, I cannot remember any windows installation, since '3.xx' that was
    able
    <to make several primary partitions - even if you wanted that. Windows
    <installations allways make extended partitions. If at this point you abort
    <the installation, that is what you have: an extended partition. (No
    logical
    <drive) Of course, if you do install something it needs to have a drive
    <letter to assign and therefor automatically sets up a logical drive to
    your
    <specifications.
    Thanks,
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT]

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT], Aug 30, 2005
    #13
  14. O.K. Thanks, Darell. The fact that you could leave suitable space behind,
    for the next installation is ONE thing I wasn't aware of. This might be
    awfully helpful, since this is quite an elegant way (if not the only) to
    solve the problem with partitions changing designation in a dual-boot
    situation.

    Other than that, I was being careless with my language when I said 'windows
    cannot make several primary partitions'. I was assuming my thoughts was
    readable. I was thinking about the install routine.

    But, you are right any old way, except MS really has removed the option to
    interact with the partitioning routine during install.

    Thanks, again.

    Tony. . .


    ""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello Tony,
    >
    > A comment on this portion. Windows NT based operating systems will
    > generate multiple primary partitions. This includes Windows XP and
    > Windows
    > Server 2003. Windows 9X and Windows ME would only create one primary and
    > one extended partition, however Windows NT always allowed for creating
    > multiple primary ones.
    > Disk Manager will allow you the option to create either primary or
    > extended.
    > As long as a primary exists, setup will then create an extended partition
    > where logical drives are created. If both a primary and extended
    > partitions exist and free space outside those partitions exists, then
    > setup
    > will create additional primary partitions during the partitioning process.
    > <Now, I cannot remember any windows installation, since '3.xx' that was
    > able
    > <to make several primary partitions - even if you wanted that. Windows
    > <installations allways make extended partitions. If at this point you
    > abort
    > <the installation, that is what you have: an extended partition. (No
    > logical
    > <drive) Of course, if you do install something it needs to have a drive
    > <letter to assign and therefor automatically sets up a logical drive to
    > your
    > <specifications.
    > Thanks,
    > Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    >
    > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
    >
    >
    Tony Sperling, Aug 30, 2005
    #14
  15. John Barnes

    John Barnes Guest

    I agree, the only options during the install routine are whether to
    partition and the size. Another frustration is drive number. It would make
    it nicer if you could look at the drive numbering in Disk Management and use
    those numbers in boot.ini and have the system boot properly. The drive
    numbers rarely agree. The only way I have ever found to get the correct
    boot.ini numbering is to use Recovery Console.

    "Tony Sperling" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > O.K. Thanks, Darell. The fact that you could leave suitable space behind,
    > for the next installation is ONE thing I wasn't aware of. This might be
    > awfully helpful, since this is quite an elegant way (if not the only) to
    > solve the problem with partitions changing designation in a dual-boot
    > situation.
    >
    > Other than that, I was being careless with my language when I said
    > 'windows cannot make several primary partitions'. I was assuming my
    > thoughts was readable. I was thinking about the install routine.
    >
    > But, you are right any old way, except MS really has removed the option to
    > interact with the partitioning routine during install.
    >
    > Thanks, again.
    >
    > Tony. . .
    >
    >
    > ""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Hello Tony,
    >>
    >> A comment on this portion. Windows NT based operating systems will
    >> generate multiple primary partitions. This includes Windows XP and
    >> Windows
    >> Server 2003. Windows 9X and Windows ME would only create one primary
    >> and
    >> one extended partition, however Windows NT always allowed for creating
    >> multiple primary ones.
    >> Disk Manager will allow you the option to create either primary or
    >> extended.
    >> As long as a primary exists, setup will then create an extended partition
    >> where logical drives are created. If both a primary and extended
    >> partitions exist and free space outside those partitions exists, then
    >> setup
    >> will create additional primary partitions during the partitioning
    >> process.
    >> <Now, I cannot remember any windows installation, since '3.xx' that was
    >> able
    >> <to make several primary partitions - even if you wanted that. Windows
    >> <installations allways make extended partitions. If at this point you
    >> abort
    >> <the installation, that is what you have: an extended partition. (No
    >> logical
    >> <drive) Of course, if you do install something it needs to have a drive
    >> <letter to assign and therefor automatically sets up a logical drive to
    >> your
    >> <specifications.
    >> Thanks,
    >> Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    >>
    >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    >> rights
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    John Barnes, Aug 30, 2005
    #15
  16. Yes, I've found it usefull to remember that The OS enumerates differently
    than does BIOS. The OS counts Primary Partitions per disk, so if you have
    more disks they will not agree to what number to assign them. Naturaly, if
    you want to dual-boot, it would be nice to have each on it's own primary
    partition, and being able to predict what drive letter you would end up wih.
    Now, we just learned that if you can predict your future situation when you
    install the first OS, you also can predict how the machine/OS will be
    managing the stuff you feed it. That - in itself, is great. A more
    intelligent and forgiving installation we can hope for.

    Tony. . .


    "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I agree, the only options during the install routine are whether to
    >partition and the size. Another frustration is drive number. It would
    >make it nicer if you could look at the drive numbering in Disk Management
    >and use those numbers in boot.ini and have the system boot properly. The
    >drive numbers rarely agree. The only way I have ever found to get the
    >correct boot.ini numbering is to use Recovery Console.
    >
    Tony Sperling, Aug 30, 2005
    #16
  17. John Barnes

    John Barnes Guest

    I have answered you questions below, but I am trying to understand how to do
    a successful copy of my X86 system to the Primary partition of the new
    drive.
    If I understand your questions and comments, it should work, if I
    Ghost copy the current x86 os to the Primary partition on the new drive
    setting it active. It would then be set up as follows
    Partition 1 copy of current system drive x86 OS Primary active
    Partition 2 is xtended logical drive with x64
    I should then remove the current drive, and make the new drive the primary
    boot drive. (it has the x64 ntldr and ntdetect.com on it now)
    Create a new boot.ini using recovery console.

    When this is done, I don't even get to the boot.ini. The system goes thru
    POST and the final message is ERROR LOADING OPERATION SYSTEM.

    So far, trying to install either x86 or x64 to the primary partition of the
    new drive I always fail on return from TEXT. I haven't checked to see if it
    is set active, but since there is no option for that in the install when it
    creates the partition, since it is necessary for the system to boot into it,
    I would hope that it would set it active.

    ""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" <> wrote in message
    news:8%...
    > Hello John,
    > I have some questions and or comments.
    > <I decided to install on the second partition, and during the install, I
    > <opted to delete the partition and create a new partition and do a full
    > NTFS
    > <format.
    > <The process went as expected, but I was not offered any options as to
    > what
    > <type of partition I wanted to create.
    > <The copy succeeded and the system rebooted to the GUI part of the
    > install,
    > <which also ran perfectly and when I rebooted into the system I proceeded
    > to
    > <do some settings I like. I also installed a couple of programs with no
    > <problems. Wrote this newsgroup that everything seemed to have been
    > fixed,
    > <finally.
    > <This weekend I decided that I would like to make the SATA II drive my
    > master
    > <drive and to add my x86 system. I copied it from the drive that it is on
    > to
    > <the first partition on the SATA II drive. I fixed the boot.ini and tried
    > to
    > <boot to it. No luck. ntoskernl missing.
    >
    > When you made this change, how did you copy the OS? ( what was used to
    > copy
    > the OS)


    I did a drive copy using Ghost

    > Did you remove the other drive? ( What is in the bios as the boot device
    > device may or may not be the same as is presented for drive enumeration so
    > the boot.ini may not be what is expected.)


    I did not remove the other drive
    At this point I had left the original x86 drive as the primary boot drive.
    I duplicated the line from the boot.ini successful install of x64 on the
    extended logical partition (still 2-2) and made the duplicate line and
    changed it to 2-1

    > Did you set the active partition? ( This has to be set to be able to boot
    > from)

    Yes

    > Did you change the mounteddevices key as well?( You aren't getting that
    > far, however they are wrong so booting would still be an issue)


    I did not change the mounted devices key , don't know what it is and don't
    see one in the boot.ini
    >
    > <I used PartitionMagic to see what was on the drive and noticed that the
    > <partition that was created in the x64 install, and which worked was a
    > <logical drive, within an extended partition. The copy of my x86 system
    > was
    > <a primary partition as it is on the system drive, and Ghost copy gives no
    > <option to change it.
    >
    > So when we find a primary partition, the next created partition in setup
    > is
    > an extended partition from which logical drives are created in. If when
    > you create the partition, you do no use the full disk space, the next time
    > setup is run and anew partition is created it will be primary again.


    I used the full available space, which became the logical drive within the
    extended partition.
    >
    > <I then tried to install the x64 system on the first partition, again
    > <deleting the primary partition and allowing the install program to
    > partition
    > <and format, NTFS. The copy finished, but the boot to GUI failed with no
    > <system disk error. I ran recovery console, did a fixboot with no
    > success.
    > <On running PartitionMagic again, this time the installation program had
    > <created a primary partition.
    >
    > Was the active partition set on the first partition and was the first
    > drive
    > with the existing active partition removed from the system? This goes back
    > to ( What is in the bios as the boot device device may or may not be the
    > same as is presented for drive enumeration so the boot.ini may not be what
    > is expected.) so we may be trying to write to something that is not the
    > redirected boot device.


    The first partition was set active. The original first drive (X86 system)
    was left in place once, and moved down in the boot priority with the drive I
    am trying to have as the system drive being the priority in the hard drive
    sequence on a subsequent attempt.
    boot priority try 1 1. System x86 drive
    2. New drive partition 1 active primary
    x64 install (text) partition 2 logical drive x64 successful install
    boot priority try 2 1. New drive partition 1 active primary x64 install
    (text) partition 2 logical drive x64 successful install
    2. System x86 drive
    >
    >
    > <I was still able to boot to the x64 on the original partition, which
    > after
    > <the second install was now labeled the first partition as the install
    > <changed the numbers.
    >
    > Labeled the first partition where and how? Where are we getting that
    > information.


    In recovery console, using MAP command the successful install on the logical
    partition was now labeled partition 1 and the primary partition was labeled
    partition 2


    >
    > <I then used PartitionMagic to delete the primary partition and create
    > <another logical drive.
    >
    > Was there an existing Primary partition left on the system at this point
    > and was it set to active? There has to be a Primary Active partition to
    > boot from.


    No. There was no Primary partition and that explains why nothing would
    boot.
    >
    > <I then tried an install of x64 on the new logical drive. This also would
    > <not boot to GUI with the same problem.
    >
    > Which problem, you have mentioned several?


    Don't remember at this point.
    >
    >
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    >
    > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
    > <done with no F6 drivers as Nvidia has no non RAID drivers. Previously I
    > <have tried all the suggestions here, such as install half the RAID
    > drivers
    > <and unplug all USB, etc.
    > <
    > <
    > <
    >
    John Barnes, Aug 30, 2005
    #17
  18. Hello John,
    Let's see if I can come up with some more questions.
    <If I understand your questions and comments, it should work, if I
    <Ghost copy the current x86 os to the Primary partition on the new drive
    <setting it active. It would then be set up as follows
    Partition 1 copy of current system drive x86 OS Primary active
    <Partition 2 is xtended logical drive with x64
    <I should then remove the current drive, and make the new drive the primary
    <boot drive. (it has the x64 ntldr and ntdetect.com on it now)
    <Create a new boot.ini using recovery console.
    <When this is done, I don't even get to the boot.ini. The system goes thru
    <POST and the final message is ERROR LOADING OPERATION SYSTEM.

    So what this means is that we are not getting to the OS to even start the
    boot process.
    Did you boot to recovery console and run fixboot and fixmbr to fix the
    bootsector and the master boot record?
    We are failing to locate the bootsector so it doesn't know the location for
    NTLDR, so the OS is pointing to the boot device and the boot device is not
    pointing to NTLDR or the boot device has other issues outside of the OS
    like it's own configuration in the bios.( for example it doesn't like the
    head, cylinders, sectors per track configuration that it's in)

    <So far, trying to install either x86 or x64 to the primary partition of the
    <new drive I always fail on return from TEXT. I haven't checked to see if
    it
    <is set active, but since there is no option for that in the install when it
    <creates the partition, since it is necessary for the system to boot into
    it,
    <I would hope that it would set it active.
    Normally setup would set the primary partition active if it was created
    during setup. If the partition exists prior to the setup and is not
    active, it may not set it up as active.

    Thanks,
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT]

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
    --------------------
    <From: "John Barnes" <>
    <References: <#>
    <8#>
    <Subject: Re: Spoke too soon
    <Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:55:26 -0700
    <Lines: 167
    <X-Priority: 3
    <X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    <X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670
    <X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670
    <X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
    <Message-ID: <#>
    <Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    <NNTP-Posting-Host: 0-1pool142-126.nas6.spokane1.wa.us.da.qwest.net
    67.0.142.126
    <Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    <Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:16245
    <X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    <
    <I have answered you questions below, but I am trying to understand how to
    do
    <a successful copy of my X86 system to the Primary partition of the new
    <drive.
    <If I understand your questions and comments, it should work, if I
    <Ghost copy the current x86 os to the Primary partition on the new drive
    <setting it active. It would then be set up as follows
    < Partition 1 copy of current system drive x86 OS Primary active
    <Partition 2 is xtended logical drive with x64
    <I should then remove the current drive, and make the new drive the primary
    <boot drive. (it has the x64 ntldr and ntdetect.com on it now)
    <Create a new boot.ini using recovery console.
    <
    <When this is done, I don't even get to the boot.ini. The system goes thru
    <POST and the final message is ERROR LOADING OPERATION SYSTEM.
    <
    <So far, trying to install either x86 or x64 to the primary partition of the
    <new drive I always fail on return from TEXT. I haven't checked to see if
    it
    <is set active, but since there is no option for that in the install when it
    <creates the partition, since it is necessary for the system to boot into
    it,
    <I would hope that it would set it active.
    <
    <""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" <> wrote in message
    <news:8%...
    <> Hello John,
    <> I have some questions and or comments.
    <> <I decided to install on the second partition, and during the install, I
    <> <opted to delete the partition and create a new partition and do a full
    <> NTFS
    <> <format.
    <> <The process went as expected, but I was not offered any options as to
    <> what
    <> <type of partition I wanted to create.
    <> <The copy succeeded and the system rebooted to the GUI part of the
    <> install,
    <> <which also ran perfectly and when I rebooted into the system I proceeded
    <> to
    <> <do some settings I like. I also installed a couple of programs with no
    <> <problems. Wrote this newsgroup that everything seemed to have been
    <> fixed,
    <> <finally.
    <> <This weekend I decided that I would like to make the SATA II drive my
    <> master
    <> <drive and to add my x86 system. I copied it from the drive that it is
    on
    <> to
    <> <the first partition on the SATA II drive. I fixed the boot.ini and
    tried
    <> to
    <> <boot to it. No luck. ntoskernl missing.
    <>
    <> When you made this change, how did you copy the OS? ( what was used to
    <> copy
    <> the OS)
    <
    <I did a drive copy using Ghost
    <
    <> Did you remove the other drive? ( What is in the bios as the boot device
    <> device may or may not be the same as is presented for drive enumeration
    so
    <> the boot.ini may not be what is expected.)
    <
    <I did not remove the other drive
    <At this point I had left the original x86 drive as the primary boot drive.
    <I duplicated the line from the boot.ini successful install of x64 on the
    <extended logical partition (still 2-2) and made the duplicate line and
    <changed it to 2-1
    <
    <> Did you set the active partition? ( This has to be set to be able to
    boot
    <> from)
    <Yes
    <
    <> Did you change the mounteddevices key as well?( You aren't getting that
    <> far, however they are wrong so booting would still be an issue)
    <
    <I did not change the mounted devices key , don't know what it is and don't
    <see one in the boot.ini
    <>
    <> <I used PartitionMagic to see what was on the drive and noticed that the
    <> <partition that was created in the x64 install, and which worked was a
    <> <logical drive, within an extended partition. The copy of my x86 system
    <> was
    <> <a primary partition as it is on the system drive, and Ghost copy gives
    no
    <> <option to change it.
    <>
    <> So when we find a primary partition, the next created partition in setup
    <> is
    <> an extended partition from which logical drives are created in. If when
    <> you create the partition, you do no use the full disk space, the next
    time
    <> setup is run and anew partition is created it will be primary again.
    <
    <I used the full available space, which became the logical drive within the
    <extended partition.
    <>
    <> <I then tried to install the x64 system on the first partition, again
    <> <deleting the primary partition and allowing the install program to
    <> partition
    <> <and format, NTFS. The copy finished, but the boot to GUI failed with no
    <> <system disk error. I ran recovery console, did a fixboot with no
    <> success.
    <> <On running PartitionMagic again, this time the installation program had
    <> <created a primary partition.
    <>
    <> Was the active partition set on the first partition and was the first
    <> drive
    <> with the existing active partition removed from the system? This goes
    back
    <> to ( What is in the bios as the boot device device may or may not be the
    <> same as is presented for drive enumeration so the boot.ini may not be
    what
    <> is expected.) so we may be trying to write to something that is not the
    <> redirected boot device.
    <
    <The first partition was set active. The original first drive (X86 system)
    <was left in place once, and moved down in the boot priority with the drive
    I
    <am trying to have as the system drive being the priority in the hard drive
    <sequence on a subsequent attempt.
    <boot priority try 1 1. System x86 drive
    < 2. New drive partition 1 active primary
    <x64 install (text) partition 2 logical drive x64 successful install
    <boot priority try 2 1. New drive partition 1 active primary x64
    install
    <(text) partition 2 logical drive x64 successful install
    < 2. System x86 drive
    <>
    <>
    <> <I was still able to boot to the x64 on the original partition, which
    <> after
    <> <the second install was now labeled the first partition as the install
    <> <changed the numbers.
    <>
    <> Labeled the first partition where and how? Where are we getting that
    <> information.
    <
    <In recovery console, using MAP command the successful install on the
    logical
    <partition was now labeled partition 1 and the primary partition was labeled
    <partition 2
    <
    <
    <>
    <> <I then used PartitionMagic to delete the primary partition and create
    <> <another logical drive.
    <>
    <> Was there an existing Primary partition left on the system at this point
    <> and was it set to active? There has to be a Primary Active partition to
    <> boot from.
    <
    <No. There was no Primary partition and that explains why nothing would
    <boot.
    <>
    <> <I then tried an install of x64 on the new logical drive. This also
    would
    <> <not boot to GUI with the same problem.
    <>
    <> Which problem, you have mentioned several?
    <
    <Don't remember at this point.
    <>
    <>
    <>
    <> Thanks,
    <> Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    <>
    <> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    rights
    <> <done with no F6 drivers as Nvidia has no non RAID drivers. Previously I
    <> <have tried all the suggestions here, such as install half the RAID
    <> drivers
    <> <and unplug all USB, etc.
    <> <
    <> <
    <> <
    <>
    <
    <
    <
    <
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT], Aug 31, 2005
    #18
  19. John Barnes

    John Barnes Guest

    Thanks for your help Darryl. Can we take this one item at a time?
    Boot sequence

    Drive 1 SATA I X86
    Drive 2 SATA II Primary partition + Install x64 create and format during
    install

    Result: X64 installs perfectly on Extended partition logical drive
    creation. I can boot to the x86 and x64 systems.

    Swap boot order

    Drive 1 SATA II Ghost a copy of x86 to primary partition set active +
    X64 (installed above)
    Drive 2 SATA I X86


    Process: Use recovery console and do a fixboot for Ghost copy and fixmbr
    for the SATA II drive.

    Result: Error loading operating system

    Drive 1 SATA II Install x86 or x64 deleting and creating an ntfs primary
    partition. Comes back ntoskrnl missing.

    Anomaly: In spite of placing the SATA II drive in the first boot position,
    the install program places the install ntldr ntdetect.com and updates the
    boot.ini file on the second drive in boot order, while installing in the
    correct partition.

    ""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" <> wrote in message
    news:9TJdI$...
    > Hello John,
    > Let's see if I can come up with some more questions.
    > <If I understand your questions and comments, it should work, if I
    > <Ghost copy the current x86 os to the Primary partition on the new drive
    > <setting it active. It would then be set up as follows
    > Partition 1 copy of current system drive x86 OS Primary active
    > <Partition 2 is xtended logical drive with x64
    > <I should then remove the current drive, and make the new drive the
    > primary
    > <boot drive. (it has the x64 ntldr and ntdetect.com on it now)
    > <Create a new boot.ini using recovery console.
    > <When this is done, I don't even get to the boot.ini. The system goes
    > thru
    > <POST and the final message is ERROR LOADING OPERATION SYSTEM.
    >
    > So what this means is that we are not getting to the OS to even start the
    > boot process.
    > Did you boot to recovery console and run fixboot and fixmbr to fix the
    > bootsector and the master boot record?
    > We are failing to locate the bootsector so it doesn't know the location
    > for
    > NTLDR, so the OS is pointing to the boot device and the boot device is not
    > pointing to NTLDR or the boot device has other issues outside of the OS
    > like it's own configuration in the bios.( for example it doesn't like the
    > head, cylinders, sectors per track configuration that it's in)
    >
    > <So far, trying to install either x86 or x64 to the primary partition of
    > the
    > <new drive I always fail on return from TEXT. I haven't checked to see if
    > it
    > <is set active, but since there is no option for that in the install when
    > it
    > <creates the partition, since it is necessary for the system to boot into
    > it,
    > <I would hope that it would set it active.
    > Normally setup would set the primary partition active if it was created
    > during setup. If the partition exists prior to the setup and is not
    > active, it may not set it up as active.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    >
    > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
    > --------------------
    > <From: "John Barnes" <>
    > <References: <#>
    > <8#>
    > <Subject: Re: Spoke too soon
    > <Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:55:26 -0700
    > <Lines: 167
    > <X-Priority: 3
    > <X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    > <X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670
    > <X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670
    > <X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
    > <Message-ID: <#>
    > <Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    > <NNTP-Posting-Host: 0-1pool142-126.nas6.spokane1.wa.us.da.qwest.net
    > 67.0.142.126
    > <Path: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP08.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl
    > <Xref: TK2MSFTNGXA01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:16245
    > <X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
    > <
    > <I have answered you questions below, but I am trying to understand how to
    > do
    > <a successful copy of my X86 system to the Primary partition of the new
    > <drive.
    > <If I understand your questions and comments, it should work, if I
    > <Ghost copy the current x86 os to the Primary partition on the new drive
    > <setting it active. It would then be set up as follows
    > < Partition 1 copy of current system drive x86 OS Primary
    > active
    > <Partition 2 is xtended logical drive with x64
    > <I should then remove the current drive, and make the new drive the
    > primary
    > <boot drive. (it has the x64 ntldr and ntdetect.com on it now)
    > <Create a new boot.ini using recovery console.
    > <
    > <When this is done, I don't even get to the boot.ini. The system goes
    > thru
    > <POST and the final message is ERROR LOADING OPERATION SYSTEM.
    > <
    > <So far, trying to install either x86 or x64 to the primary partition of
    > the
    > <new drive I always fail on return from TEXT. I haven't checked to see if
    > it
    > <is set active, but since there is no option for that in the install when
    > it
    > <creates the partition, since it is necessary for the system to boot into
    > it,
    > <I would hope that it would set it active.
    > <
    > <""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" <> wrote in message
    > <news:8%...
    > <> Hello John,
    > <> I have some questions and or comments.
    > <> <I decided to install on the second partition, and during the install,
    > I
    > <> <opted to delete the partition and create a new partition and do a full
    > <> NTFS
    > <> <format.
    > <> <The process went as expected, but I was not offered any options as to
    > <> what
    > <> <type of partition I wanted to create.
    > <> <The copy succeeded and the system rebooted to the GUI part of the
    > <> install,
    > <> <which also ran perfectly and when I rebooted into the system I
    > proceeded
    > <> to
    > <> <do some settings I like. I also installed a couple of programs with
    > no
    > <> <problems. Wrote this newsgroup that everything seemed to have been
    > <> fixed,
    > <> <finally.
    > <> <This weekend I decided that I would like to make the SATA II drive my
    > <> master
    > <> <drive and to add my x86 system. I copied it from the drive that it is
    > on
    > <> to
    > <> <the first partition on the SATA II drive. I fixed the boot.ini and
    > tried
    > <> to
    > <> <boot to it. No luck. ntoskernl missing.
    > <>
    > <> When you made this change, how did you copy the OS? ( what was used to
    > <> copy
    > <> the OS)
    > <
    > <I did a drive copy using Ghost
    > <
    > <> Did you remove the other drive? ( What is in the bios as the boot
    > device
    > <> device may or may not be the same as is presented for drive enumeration
    > so
    > <> the boot.ini may not be what is expected.)
    > <
    > <I did not remove the other drive
    > <At this point I had left the original x86 drive as the primary boot
    > drive.
    > <I duplicated the line from the boot.ini successful install of x64 on the
    > <extended logical partition (still 2-2) and made the duplicate line and
    > <changed it to 2-1
    > <
    > <> Did you set the active partition? ( This has to be set to be able to
    > boot
    > <> from)
    > <Yes
    > <
    > <> Did you change the mounteddevices key as well?( You aren't getting that
    > <> far, however they are wrong so booting would still be an issue)
    > <
    > <I did not change the mounted devices key , don't know what it is and
    > don't
    > <see one in the boot.ini
    > <>
    > <> <I used PartitionMagic to see what was on the drive and noticed that
    > the
    > <> <partition that was created in the x64 install, and which worked was a
    > <> <logical drive, within an extended partition. The copy of my x86
    > system
    > <> was
    > <> <a primary partition as it is on the system drive, and Ghost copy gives
    > no
    > <> <option to change it.
    > <>
    > <> So when we find a primary partition, the next created partition in
    > setup
    > <> is
    > <> an extended partition from which logical drives are created in. If
    > when
    > <> you create the partition, you do no use the full disk space, the next
    > time
    > <> setup is run and anew partition is created it will be primary again.
    > <
    > <I used the full available space, which became the logical drive within
    > the
    > <extended partition.
    > <>
    > <> <I then tried to install the x64 system on the first partition, again
    > <> <deleting the primary partition and allowing the install program to
    > <> partition
    > <> <and format, NTFS. The copy finished, but the boot to GUI failed with
    > no
    > <> <system disk error. I ran recovery console, did a fixboot with no
    > <> success.
    > <> <On running PartitionMagic again, this time the installation program
    > had
    > <> <created a primary partition.
    > <>
    > <> Was the active partition set on the first partition and was the first
    > <> drive
    > <> with the existing active partition removed from the system? This goes
    > back
    > <> to ( What is in the bios as the boot device device may or may not be
    > the
    > <> same as is presented for drive enumeration so the boot.ini may not be
    > what
    > <> is expected.) so we may be trying to write to something that is not the
    > <> redirected boot device.
    > <
    > <The first partition was set active. The original first drive (X86
    > system)
    > <was left in place once, and moved down in the boot priority with the
    > drive
    > I
    > <am trying to have as the system drive being the priority in the hard
    > drive
    > <sequence on a subsequent attempt.
    > <boot priority try 1 1. System x86 drive
    > < 2. New drive partition 1 active
    > primary
    > <x64 install (text) partition 2 logical drive x64 successful install
    > <boot priority try 2 1. New drive partition 1 active primary x64
    > install
    > <(text) partition 2 logical drive x64 successful install
    > < 2. System x86 drive
    > <>
    > <>
    > <> <I was still able to boot to the x64 on the original partition, which
    > <> after
    > <> <the second install was now labeled the first partition as the install
    > <> <changed the numbers.
    > <>
    > <> Labeled the first partition where and how? Where are we getting that
    > <> information.
    > <
    > <In recovery console, using MAP command the successful install on the
    > logical
    > <partition was now labeled partition 1 and the primary partition was
    > labeled
    > <partition 2
    > <
    > <
    > <>
    > <> <I then used PartitionMagic to delete the primary partition and create
    > <> <another logical drive.
    > <>
    > <> Was there an existing Primary partition left on the system at this
    > point
    > <> and was it set to active? There has to be a Primary Active partition
    > to
    > <> boot from.
    > <
    > <No. There was no Primary partition and that explains why nothing would
    > <boot.
    > <>
    > <> <I then tried an install of x64 on the new logical drive. This also
    > would
    > <> <not boot to GUI with the same problem.
    > <>
    > <> Which problem, you have mentioned several?
    > <
    > <Don't remember at this point.
    > <>
    > <>
    > <>
    > <> Thanks,
    > <> Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    > <>
    > <> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    > rights
    > <> <done with no F6 drivers as Nvidia has no non RAID drivers. Previously
    > I
    > <> <have tried all the suggestions here, such as install half the RAID
    > <> drivers
    > <> <and unplug all USB, etc.
    > <> <
    > <> <
    > <> <
    > <>
    > <
    > <
    > <
    > <
    >
    John Barnes, Sep 3, 2005
    #19
  20. Hello John,
    Removed most of the message except the last post.
    <Thanks for your help Darryl. Can we take this one item at a time?
    <Boot sequence
    <Drive 1 SATA I X86
    <Drive 2 SATA II Primary partition + Install x64 create and format
    during
    <install
    <Result: X64 installs perfectly on Extended partition logical drive
    <creation. I can boot to the x86 and x64 systems.
    <Swap boot order
    <Drive 1 SATA II Ghost a copy of x86 to primary partition set active +
    <X64 (installed above)
    <Drive 2 SATA I X86
    <Process: Use recovery console and do a fixboot for Ghost copy and fixmbr
    <for the SATA II drive.
    Everything to this point sounds correct for the boot process to work, the
    only thing here that is questionable and this goes to the last statement.
    If we think the boot device is the SATA 1 drive, fixboot and fixmbr may be
    writing to that disk. Can we remove that disk?

    <Result: Error loading operating system
    We aren't getting past the boot process. We are not making it to NTLDR in
    this case.
    Does the system have a floppy drive? Copy NTLDR and NTDetect.com and the
    boot.ini to the floppy disk, make it the bootable device.
    Now try booting, if this works everything is in place except for the drive
    boot code.
    So this is speculation, it's hard to tell.
    This could be a partitioning issue, Something strange is partitioning that
    was never cleaned properly for some reasons. Is there any partitioning
    boot code installed on this drive?
    It could be the drive translation in the bios. Is it autoconfigured? Do
    you have any other translation options? I have seen some autoconfig options
    cause problems like this with some drives.

    <Drive 1 SATA II Install x86 or x64 deleting and creating an ntfs primary
    <partition. Comes back ntoskrnl missing.
    So this is clean install, now we are booting, NTLDR is loading, and looking
    at the boot.ini. The boot.ini is not pointing to the correct location or
    what NTLDR thinks is the correct location. For this I would create
    multiple boot,ini entries and try to boot to them to see what the OS thinks
    is the correct location.
    Changing disk(0) and partitioning(1) numbering, maybe even multi(0)
    numbering, just to see if it makes a difference.
    What is in the boot.ini with both drives and with only the SATA drive.

    <Anomaly: In spite of placing the SATA II drive in the first boot
    position,
    <the install program places the install ntldr ntdetect.com and updates the
    <boot.ini file on the second drive in boot order, while installing in the
    <correct partition.
    So this is telling me the OS is mapping the boot device differently than
    expected or how the bios is mapping the drives. Installation is getting
    the boot information from a bios call( I think it's still an int13 call)
    where we still think that the SATA 1 disk is the boot device or the SATA 1
    is reported as the boot device. I suspect we are getting confused by how
    the bios is presenting the boot devices or the way the boot devices are
    presented is not correct.

    Thanks,
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT], Sep 3, 2005
    #20
    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. Dave

    IOS 7 Spoke to Spoke VPN

    Dave, Jul 19, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,428
  2. Rick Payne
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    946
    Rick Payne
    Oct 10, 2005
  3. Gualtier Malde

    Firefox gives up too soon

    Gualtier Malde, Apr 12, 2006, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    811
    Miller
    Apr 18, 2006
  4. T-Mak
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,886
    T-Mak
    Oct 27, 2006
  5. rm
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    657
    Smarty
    Mar 1, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page