I recently installed a second HD (WD 40gig - 8mg cache) in my system and created a dual boot Win2k to Win2k setup (both HD's are on same IDE channel). Everything works fine (I even edited the boot.ini to rename each OS install for easier selection)

I want to switch boot order on these in an effort to improve performance (right now the new drive is slaved to a 3 year old master that has a very small cache and lower RPM which I believe is impacting my preformance). How can I do this without reformating/losing data and installed applications?

I have tried the simple stuff (i.e., swiching jumpers to the new master/slave config, tried cable select on both, and even tried each combination of jumper settings with drives physically switched on the ribbon - master on end, slave in middle) and can't get it to work. It will not boot, and the bios screen shows each drive details correctly, but still no boot. I assume I have to change the master boot somewhere but am unsure if I can change this without losing any/all data on either disk.

Any thoughts?!?!

Thanks

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:31:10 -0800, MikeG wrote:

>I recently installed a second HD (WD 40gig - 8mg cache) in my system and created a dual boot Win2k to Win2k setup (both HD's are on same IDE channel). Everything works fine (I even edited the boot.ini to rename each OS install for easier selection)
>
>I want to switch boot order on these in an effort to improve performance (right now the new drive is slaved to a 3 year old master that has a very small cache and lower RPM which I believe is impacting my preformance). How can I do this without reformating/losing data and installed applications?
>
>I have tried the simple stuff (i.e., swiching jumpers to the new master/slave config, tried cable select on both, and even tried each combination of jumper settings with drives physically switched on the ribbon - master on end, slave in middle) and can't get it to work. It will not boot, and the bios screen shows each drive details correctly, but still no boot. I assume I have to change the master boot somewhere but am unsure if I can change this without losing any/all data on either disk.
>
>Any thoughts?!?!
>
>Thanks

You are in effect Moving W2K to New Hardware. Search microsoft.suppot.com for
the article that describes how to do this - and bookmark that MS support
site, you will need it again.

HTH&GL

--
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences."
(Robert Ingersoll)

No...

I am keeping them in the same box..only switching the logical order.

If the second installation (on the new HDD) is on any other disk letter than
C:, you'd better reinstall it and format old drive when you switch the new
and old disks.
As Wolf suggested, bookmark support.microsoft.com.

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:16:07 -0800, MikeG wrote:

>No....
>
>I am keeping them in the same box..only switching the logical order.

Yeah, well that's the problem -- changing the order changes the hardware
relative to each drive. Hence "Moving to New Hardware" is probably relevant
IMO. HD0 becomes HD1, and vice versa. Your W2K installations may be confused,
since HD0 and HD1 won't have thee expected specs. (W2K is terribly finicky
about hardware - a major design flaw IMO, and one which causes major PITAs.)

You could try setting the dual boot to default to the faster drive. And why
not just move the apps and data off the old drive, wipe it clean, and use it
only as a data-backup drive? Unless told otherwise, BIOS will boot off the
first available bootable drive/partition, so you won't even have to worry
about which is master and slave.

I'm curious: why do you have two installations of W2K on your system?

One final thought: when you switch master/slave, you must also switch their
positions on the controller cable. If you haven't done this, that will
certainly contribute to the problem.

HTH&GL

--
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences."
(Robert Ingersoll)

Ok..thanks for the advice!

Actually, my system is setup like this because I am lazy. My older drive is now only used for applications and necessary apps (word, email, webcam, firewall, antivirus, etc.). My new drive is setup only for games and backup (i.e., no email, no antivirus, only games and a firewall)

I was too lazy to do proper backup and after having a unexplained error and having to wipe and reinstall, I thought I could use this setup to not only solve my problem, but improve perforance (video card/application loading/system processes wise)

With two "full" installs, I can choose which boot I want completely independant of each other (for example, change/update drivers, etc.)

My only thought now is that since both drives are on the same channel (with my newer/faster drive slaved to my older/slower drive), that I may be hindering some system performance (boot time/game load time, etc.)

To be honest, the "loading time" you would save over the next 5 years
with the drives switched wouldn't equal the time spent switching and
sorting the problems that resulted from Win2000 getting confused.

MikeG wrote:

> Actually, my system is setup like this because I am lazy. My older drive is now only used for applications and necessary apps (word, email, webcam, firewall, antivirus, etc.). My new drive is setup only for games and backup (i.e., no email, no antivirus, only games and a firewall).
>
> I was too lazy to do proper backup and after having a unexplained error and having to wipe and reinstall, I thought I could use this setup to not only solve my problem, but improve perforance (video card/application loading/system processes wise).
>
> With two "full" installs, I can choose which boot I want completely independant of each other (for example, change/update drivers, etc.).
>
> My only thought now is that since both drives are on the same channel (with my newer/faster drive slaved to my older/slower drive), that I may be hindering some system performance (boot time/game load time, etc.).
>
>

Bob I -

I kinda reached the same conclusion!

Why not be even lazier and create multiple profiles?

>-----Original Message-----
>To be honest, the "loading time" you would save over the
next 5 years
>with the drives switched wouldn't equal the time spent
switching and
>sorting the problems that resulted from Win2000 getting
confused.
>
>MikeG wrote:
>
>> Actually, my system is setup like this because I am
lazy. My older drive is now only used for applications
and necessary apps (word, email, webcam, firewall,
antivirus, etc.). My new drive is setup only for games
and backup (i.e., no email, no antivirus, only games and a
firewall).
>>
>> I was too lazy to do proper backup and after having a
unexplained error and having to wipe and reinstall, I
thought I could use this setup to not only solve my
problem, but improve perforance (video card/application
loading/system processes wise).
>>
>> With two "full" installs, I can choose which boot I
want completely independant of each other (for example,
change/update drivers, etc.).
>>
>> My only thought now is that since both drives are on
the same channel (with my newer/faster drive slaved to my
older/slower drive), that I may be hindering some system
performance (boot time/game load time, etc.).
>>
>>
>
>.
>