Windows Vista Ultimate and Dynamic Disk

Discussion in 'MCSE' started by =?Utf-8?B?T1RITUFO?=, Feb 8, 2007.

  1. My PC's hard disk is fu$kdup after I upgrade to Windows Vista Ultimate. The
    initial setup of my PC involved two hard drives, the master drive was basic
    disk and the slave drive was dynamic disk. After upgrading from WinXP Pro
    SP2 to Vista, I noticed this error in disk management under the dynamic disk
    saying (Healthy "at riskâ€) In Disk Management, right-click the disk and then
    click Reactivate Disk. This message appears each time I restart my PC, could
    you please provide me with a solution to this problem. For more information
    on this issue please see this link.

    http://www.microsoft.com/resources/.../proddocs/en-us/sag_disktrouble.mspx?mfr=true

    --
    OT-MAN
    =?Utf-8?B?T1RITUFO?=, Feb 8, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?Utf-8?B?T1RITUFO?=

    kpg Guest

    kpg, Feb 8, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. =?Utf-8?B?T1RITUFO?=, Feb 8, 2007
    #3
  4. =?Utf-8?B?T1RITUFO?=

    kpg Guest

    =?Utf-8?B?T1RITUFO?= <> wrote in
    news::

    >> Here is the solution:
    >>
    >> http://tinyurl.com/orjx

    >
    >
    > The movie is about Vista not Linux


    The movie gets two thumbs down.

    I'm in the middle of porting my iis5 stuff to iis6. Funny,
    I installed win2k3r2 and I'm living that apple commercial
    with the security guy saying - "allow or deny" to everything.

    I love those commercials.

    OK. I finally got my asp.net 1.1 and 2.0 to play nice together
    (different app pools) and the ssl issues resolved. I had to
    reset the anonymous account password so I could access text
    files, oh btw - did you know you can't run asp.net on the 64
    bit version of 2k3? Neither did I until I got EVERYTHING SET
    UP But I'm ok now, everything is running fine, and I do like 2k3
    better. I wish ms didn't feel the need to re-invent everything
    every three years. Vista, no, I'm not that brave. Longhorn?
    kpg, Feb 8, 2007
    #4
  5. =?Utf-8?B?T1RITUFO?=

    Kline Sphere Guest

    >I'm not that brave. Longhorn?

    wait for vienna, you it makes sense.

    Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
    Kline Sphere, Feb 8, 2007
    #5
  6. > wait for vienna, you it makes sense.

    Current release estimate of anytime between 2010 and 2012.
    =?Utf-8?B?T1RITUFO?=, Feb 8, 2007
    #6
  7. =?Utf-8?B?T1RITUFO?=

    Kline Sphere Guest

    Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
    Kline Sphere, Feb 8, 2007
    #7
  8. kpg wrote:
    > files, oh btw - did you know you can't run asp.net on the 64
    > bit version of 2k3? Neither did I until I got EVERYTHING SET
    > UP But I'm ok now, everything is running fine, and I do like 2k3
    > better. I wish ms didn't feel the need to re-invent everything
    > every three years. Vista, no, I'm not that brave. Longhorn?



    What did you do to overcome the asp.net on x64 problem? Are you running
    32-bit on 64-bit hardware? Just curious..
    Jonathan Roberts, Feb 9, 2007
    #8
  9. =?Utf-8?B?T1RITUFO?=

    kpg Guest

    Jonathan Roberts <> wrote in news:ezZ4Eq#SHHA.2188
    @TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

    > kpg wrote:
    >> files, oh btw - did you know you can't run asp.net on the 64
    >> bit version of 2k3? Neither did I until I got EVERYTHING SET
    >> UP But I'm ok now, everything is running fine, and I do like 2k3
    >> better. I wish ms didn't feel the need to re-invent everything
    >> every three years. Vista, no, I'm not that brave. Longhorn?

    >
    >
    > What did you do to overcome the asp.net on x64 problem? Are you running
    > 32-bit on 64-bit hardware? Just curious..


    Here's the deal;

    asp.net 1.1 can run only in 32 bit mode

    asp.net 2.0 can run in 32 or 64 bit mode

    iis6 can support 32 bit and 64 bit mode, but not both
    at the same time, and of course 64 bit mode is only
    available when the os is 64 bit,

    so the possibilities are:

    run os, and everything on it in 32 bit mode

    run os in 64 bit mode, but iis in 32 bit mode

    run os in 64 bit mode and run only asp.net 2.0 (in 64 bit mode)


    I went with the os in 32 bit mode just becuase. I may change this
    before I deploy, however. This was for the web server, on the
    file server (identical box) I'll go 64 from the start.


    asp.net 2.0 seems to run my 1.1 code fine, so if the backward
    compatability holds up I may go all asp.net 2.0

    another consideration (for me) is that the 2k3 x64 does not support
    a 16 bit dos subsystem - no biggy you say? well I have a legacy
    app running in 16 bit mode on the production server now - I can't
    get rid of this code - but I could move it off onto a seperate box.
    kpg, Feb 9, 2007
    #9
  10. =?Utf-8?B?T1RITUFO?=

    Kline Sphere Guest

    >I went with the os in 32 bit mode just becuase. I may change this
    >before I deploy, however. This was for the web server, on the
    >file server (identical box) I'll go 64 from the start.


    to me it makes no sense to build, then run, thirty-two bit server
    applications on any windows 64 bit os.

    just my $0.02

    Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
    Kline Sphere, Feb 9, 2007
    #10
  11. =?Utf-8?B?T1RITUFO?=

    kpg Guest

    Kline Sphere <.@> wrote in news::

    >>I went with the os in 32 bit mode just becuase. I may change this
    >>before I deploy, however. This was for the web server, on the
    >>file server (identical box) I'll go 64 from the start.

    >
    > to me it makes no sense to build, then run, thirty-two bit server
    > applications on any windows 64 bit os.


    If what you're saying is that so long as iis is running in 32 bit then
    there is no advantage to running the os in 64, then I'm not sure that's
    right (but then, I'm not sure it's wrong either).

    64 bit mode is supposed to give the os better memory management
    capabilities and some other benefits as well, so why not give it
    full advantage of all x64 has to offer and let iis deal with the
    32 bit limitations. Unless there is a 64 to 32 bit version of
    thunking that needs to occur that causes overhead, I can't see
    that it's better to run a 32 bit os on a 64 bit cpu.

    please elucidate
    kpg, Feb 9, 2007
    #11
  12. =?Utf-8?B?T1RITUFO?=

    Kline Sphere Guest

    >If what you're saying is that so long as iis is running in 32 bit then
    >there is no advantage to running the os in 64, then I'm not sure that's
    >right (but then, I'm not sure it's wrong either).


    no, what I'm saying is don't mix and match on the same server. Run 32
    bit server applications on a 32 bit server os. Quite simply it avoids
    headaches and simplifies the (32 > 64 bit) migration process. In any
    case we should all be building are assemblies/standard win dlls/com
    components with portability in mind. This way, parts of the system can
    be ported in isolation of other parts with less impact/disruption to
    the system (and clients) as a whole.

    If systems are designed and built with portability in mind, splitting
    systems across architectural boundaries, when the situation arises,
    becomes almost a no brainer.

    >64 bit mode is supposed to give the os better memory management
    >capabilities and some other benefits as well, so why not give it
    >full advantage of all x64 has to offer and let iis deal with the
    >32 bit limitations.


    I guess at the lower level it's way too complicated/problematic an
    issue to deal with. iis is not like, for example, sql server where
    serval instances can run happily together on the some box, so it's
    either 32bit or 64 bit.

    >Unless there is a 64 to 32 bit version of
    >thunking that needs to occur that causes overhead, I can't see
    >that it's better to run a 32 bit os on a 64 bit cpu.


    you've lost me here.

    running a 32 bit os on a x64/ia64 just switches the processor into a
    sort of dumb down mode. As far as I'm ware there is no way a 64bit
    process can run on a windows 32 bit os. So thunking is not applicable

    Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
    Kline Sphere, Feb 9, 2007
    #12
  13. =?Utf-8?B?T1RITUFO?=

    kpg Guest

    Kline Sphere <.@> wrote in news::

    >>If what you're saying is that so long as iis is running in 32 bit then
    >>there is no advantage to running the os in 64, then I'm not sure that's
    >>right (but then, I'm not sure it's wrong either).

    >
    > no, what I'm saying is don't mix and match on the same server. Run 32
    > bit server applications on a 32 bit server os. Quite simply it avoids
    > headaches and simplifies the (32 > 64 bit) migration process. In any
    > case we should all be building are assemblies/standard win dlls/com
    > components with portability in mind. This way, parts of the system can
    > be ported in isolation of other parts with less impact/disruption to
    > the system (and clients) as a whole.
    >
    > If systems are designed and built with portability in mind, splitting
    > systems across architectural boundaries, when the situation arises,
    > becomes almost a no brainer.
    >
    >>64 bit mode is supposed to give the os better memory management
    >>capabilities and some other benefits as well, so why not give it
    >>full advantage of all x64 has to offer and let iis deal with the
    >>32 bit limitations.

    >
    > I guess at the lower level it's way too complicated/problematic an
    > issue to deal with. iis is not like, for example, sql server where
    > serval instances can run happily together on the some box, so it's
    > either 32bit or 64 bit.
    >
    >>Unless there is a 64 to 32 bit version of
    >>thunking that needs to occur that causes overhead, I can't see
    >>that it's better to run a 32 bit os on a 64 bit cpu.

    >
    > you've lost me here.
    >
    > running a 32 bit os on a x64/ia64 just switches the processor into a
    > sort of dumb down mode. As far as I'm ware there is no way a 64bit
    > process can run on a windows 32 bit os. So thunking is not applicable
    >
    > Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3


    I'm sorry, what was the question again?
    kpg, Feb 9, 2007
    #13
  14. =?Utf-8?B?T1RITUFO?=

    Kline Sphere Guest

    >I'm sorry, what was the question again?

    the answer is 42 ;-)

    Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
    Kline Sphere, Feb 9, 2007
    #14
    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. c
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    810
  2. Hans-Peter Walter
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,143
    Joe Bloggs
    Jan 21, 2004
  3. Doug MacLean
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,009
    Doug MacLean
    Sep 10, 2004
  4. =?Utf-8?B?c2xzaGVw?=

    Vista Ultimate 64-Bit Disk

    =?Utf-8?B?c2xzaGVw?=, Oct 9, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    400
    Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
    Oct 10, 2007
  5. Diego Balgera
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    7,748
    Johann Lo
    Feb 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page