This one is really odd!!! I installed a new HDD on a P-
III 500MHz system and loaded all programs and apps. I
put the old drive in as a slave to pull the data off and
to wipe it clean. I did so and removed the slave drive
and booted only to get a stop error message
stating "Inaccessable Boot Device" and to
run "CHKDSK /F. CHKDSK /F did not work as it said "drive
could not be unlocked" and that another process was
running. I then decided to put the slave drive back in,
and the system would boot up. Without the slave drive
installed, POST would take about 2 min to see the master
HDD and then halfway thru Win2k load up, I get the stop
error. With both drives installed, no problem. All
jumper setting were set correctly for each set up.
Before someone says "leave the slave drive installed",
both drives were given to me and the owner wants the old
drive back (long story). The old drive was making noises
consistant of an eventual crash.

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

TIA

Charlie

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 07:51:44 -0700, Charlie wrote:

>This one is really odd!!! I installed a new HDD on a P-
>III 500MHz system and loaded all programs and apps. I
>put the old drive in as a slave to pull the data off and
>to wipe it clean. I did so and removed the slave drive
>and booted only to get a stop error message
>stating "Inaccessable Boot Device" and to
>run "CHKDSK /F. CHKDSK /F did not work as it said "drive
>could not be unlocked" and that another process was
>running. I then decided to put the slave drive back in,
>and the system would boot up. Without the slave drive
>installed, POST would take about 2 min to see the master
>HDD and then halfway thru Win2k load up, I get the stop
>error. With both drives installed, no problem.

....snip...

W. the slave installed, you are actually booting from the slave. which means
it has the original installation of W2K, right?

You have moved W2K to new hardware, which is a problem. (And yes, it is
"odd," -- but that's how MS built this OS.)

The following should help.
....................................................................

From: "Bruce Chambers" <(E-Mail Removed)>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win2000.hardware
Subject: Re: New Computer, but W2K refuses to run
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 18:43:17 -0600

Greetings --

Normally, unless the new motherboard is virtually identical to the old one
(same chipset, IDE controllers, etc), you'll most likely need to perform a
repair (a.k.a. in-place upgrade) installation, at the very least (and don't
forget to reinstall any service packs and subsequent hot fixes):

How to Perform an In-Place Upgrade of Windows 2000
http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;Q292175

What an In-Place Win2K Upgrade Changes and What It Doesn't
http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;Q306952

If that fails:

How to Move a Windows 2000 Installation to Different
Hardware
http://support.microsoft.com/default...ID=KB;EN-US;Q2
49694

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
----
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH


"David" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:08fc01c336dc$d7eb1a40$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I just built a new computer - Athlon2.6 Ghz. When I tried
> to swap my current, and not old, hard drive into my new
> machine it won't run. I reinstall back into my old
> computer, Duron 1 Ghz, and the operating system works
> fine. A reinstall into the new machine still causes
> problems and I cannot even go into safe-mode without a
> crash. Any ideas to assist this migration without
> reformatting?
>
> Thank you,
>
> David




--
Best Wishes,
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON
"Not that brains are everything --
you'll also need a skull to put them in." (Nancy Franklin, 1997)

"Wolf Kirchmeir" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
|
| W. the slave installed, you are actually booting from the slave. which means
| it has the original installation of W2K, right?
|
Of course not. Did you even read his message?

| You have moved W2K to new hardware, which is a problem. (And yes, it is
| "odd," -- but that's how MS built this OS.)
|
Of course not. He did a clean install.

| The following should help.

No it won't.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:26:14 -0700, Eric Gisin wrote:

>"Wolf Kirchmeir" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>|
>| W. the slave installed, you are actually booting from the slave. which means
>| it has the original installation of W2K, right?
>|
>Of course not. Did you even read his message?

Yes, and it was ambiguous, which is why I wrote a question. You obviously
have trouble understanding the significance of the question mark - not
surprising, since you seem to be incapable of doubting your own opinions.

>| You have moved W2K to new hardware, which is a problem. (And yes, it is
>| "odd," -- but that's how MS built this OS.)
>|
>Of course not. He did a clean install.

He never said so -- he said he installed a HDD, and copied all the programs
etc from the old drive.

>| The following should help.
>
>No it won't.

Maybe not. The original poster will know. My suggestion was merely a
suggestion -- and if my reading of his post was correct, it should help. If
my reading was incorrect, so what? The original poster will either give us a
more complete story, or will simply ignore my post as beside the point --
which won't bother me at all.

In any case, he has two installations of W2K, and the boot behaviour
indicates they are interfering with each other. If the new install is a clean
install, AFAIK that should not happen. Hence my suspicion that he "moved" W2K
from one disk to another.

In the meantime, what's your helpful hint? And if he did a clean install, why
isn't the box booting without the slave?



--
Best Wishes,
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON
"Not that brains are everything --
you'll also need a skull to put them in." (Nancy Franklin, 1997)

Wolf - I wouldn't pay too much attention to Gisin - he's a classic
backroom toad, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, never uncertain,
usually too terse to really help anybody. Lots of them floating around
mumbling to themselves in back rooms where, with luck, their keepers
confine them away from the public. Not many of them in these NGs,
fortunately, where a decent question deserves - and usually gets - a
decent answer.

Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:26:14 -0700, Eric Gisin wrote:
>
>
>>"Wolf Kirchmeir" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>|
>>| W. the slave installed, you are actually booting from the slave. which means
>>| it has the original installation of W2K, right?
>>|
>>Of course not. Did you even read his message?
>
>
> Yes, and it was ambiguous, which is why I wrote a question. You obviously
> have trouble understanding the significance of the question mark - not
> surprising, since you seem to be incapable of doubting your own opinions.
>
>
>>| You have moved W2K to new hardware, which is a problem. (And yes, it is
>>| "odd," -- but that's how MS built this OS.)
>>|
>>Of course not. He did a clean install.
>
>
> He never said so -- he said he installed a HDD, and copied all the programs
> etc from the old drive.
>
>
>>| The following should help.
>>
>>No it won't.
>
>
> Maybe not. The original poster will know. My suggestion was merely a
> suggestion -- and if my reading of his post was correct, it should help. If
> my reading was incorrect, so what? The original poster will either give us a
> more complete story, or will simply ignore my post as beside the point --
> which won't bother me at all.
>
> In any case, he has two installations of W2K, and the boot behaviour
> indicates they are interfering with each other. If the new install is a clean
> install, AFAIK that should not happen. Hence my suspicion that he "moved" W2K
> from one disk to another.
>
> In the meantime, what's your helpful hint? And if he did a clean install, why
> isn't the box booting without the slave?
>
>
>