Booting with two hard drives in primary channel fails

[Ray K]

I had a problem that I solved by successfully installing W2K on a NEW (not
reformatted) c: drive jumpered (not Cable Select) as the Primary Master,
with the Slave position empty.

I then connected the old c: drive (now rejumpered as Slave) on the same IDE
cable. Upon rebooting, I can't get past the POST. The BIOS correctly reports
the sizes and positions of both these Primary Channel drives.

I moved the old c: drive to Slave position on the Secondary channel, so the
configuration was just one drive on the Primary channel and a DVD burner and
hard drive on the Secondary channel. It booted normally.

I then reconnected the old Primary Slave (still jumpered as Slave) back
again to its original Primary Slave position. Again, I could not get past
POST. This time, however, the BIOS doesn't recognize the Primary Slave drive
at all. (Says something like 'none installed'.)

Questions:
1. Why can't I get past POST with either drive in the Primary Slave
position? (One clue may be that the new 500GB Primary Master has one 137GB
partition and a tiny 7.81MB partition, both created by W2K during
installation; the rest of the drive isn't partitioned or formatted yet.)

2. Regarding the Primary Slave position, why does the BIOS recognize what
had been the old Primary Master but not what had been the old Primary Slave?

Thanks,

Ray

To answer your comments so far:

Sid: I reseated the connectors and swapped power supply connections. No
joy.

Conor and Philo: The Primary IDE cable is color coded; all three connectors
on the Secondary IDE cable are black. The new drive is jumpered as Master
with Slave and connected to a black connector.

Paul: I tried resetting the CMOS and loading the defaults. No joy.

My old c: drive was only 80GB, partitioned with c:=20GB and the other
two set at 30GB. This was the one I tried as the Primary Slave when I first
observed the no-boot problem. It's temporarily my Secondary Slave.

It may well be a mobo problem. It's five years old; only has 24-bit LBA
addressing. A new one shipped today. So I just wait until the new system
is built and see what happens.

Thanks, everyone.

Ray

 

[Ray K]

I had a problem that I solved by successfully installing W2K on a NEW (not
reformatted) c: drive jumpered (not Cable Select) as the Primary Master,
with the Slave position empty.

I then connected the old c: drive (now rejumpered as Slave) on the same IDE
cable. Upon rebooting, I can't get past the POST. The BIOS correctly reports
the sizes and positions of both these Primary Channel drives.

I moved the old c: drive to Slave position on the Secondary channel, so the
configuration was just one drive on the Primary channel and a DVD burner and
hard drive on the Secondary channel. It booted normally.

I then reconnected the old Primary Slave (still jumpered as Slave) back
again to its original Primary Slave position. Again, I could not get past
POST. This time, however, the BIOS doesn't recognize the Primary Slave drive
at all. (Says something like 'none installed'.)

Questions:
1. Why can't I get past POST with either drive in the Primary Slave
position? (One clue may be that the new 500GB Primary Master has one 137GB
partition and a tiny 7.81MB partition, both created by W2K during
installation; the rest of the drive isn't partitioned or formatted yet.)

2. Regarding the Primary Slave position, why does the BIOS recognize what
had been the old Primary Master but not what had been the old Primary Slave?

Thanks,

Ray

 

[Sid Elbow]

Questions:
1. Why can't I get past POST with either drive in the Primary Slave
position? (One clue may be that the new 500GB Primary Master has one 137GB
partition and a tiny 7.81MB partition, both created by W2K during
installation; the rest of the drive isn't partitioned or formatted yet.)

2. Regarding the Primary Slave position, why does the BIOS recognize what
had been the old Primary Master but not what had been the old Primary Slave?

Offhand, I would try a new drive data cable and also try to use
alternative power connectors if you have some free.

And/or make sure the data cables are properly plugged into the drives
and the motherboard. I know it's motherhood but it is very easy to
dislodge cables when doing a lot of work on the inside of your computer.

 

[Conor]

I had a problem that I solved by successfully installing W2K on a NEW (not
reformatted) c: drive jumpered (not Cable Select) as the Primary Master,
with the Slave position empty.

I then connected the old c: drive (now rejumpered as Slave) on the same IDE
cable. Upon rebooting, I can't get past the POST. The BIOS correctly reports
the sizes and positions of both these Primary Channel drives.

I moved the old c: drive to Slave position on the Secondary channel, so the
configuration was just one drive on the Primary channel and a DVD burner and
hard drive on the Secondary channel. It booted normally.

I then reconnected the old Primary Slave (still jumpered as Slave) back
again to its original Primary Slave position. Again, I could not get past
POST. This time, however, the BIOS doesn't recognize the Primary Slave drive
at all. (Says something like 'none installed'.)

Questions:
1. Why can't I get past POST with either drive in the Primary Slave
position? (One clue may be that the new 500GB Primary Master has one 137GB
partition and a tiny 7.81MB partition, both created by W2K during
installation; the rest of the drive isn't partitioned or formatted yet.)

2. Regarding the Primary Slave position, why does the BIOS recognize what
had been the old Primary Master but not what had been the old Primary Slave?

Some IDE ribbon cables are notched for CS. Make sure you have blue
connector going to the motherboard, black to the master and grey to the
slave.

It could also just be that the drives aren't compatible with each other
on the same IDE channel. It used to be a common problem years ago.

 

[philo]

I had a problem that I solved by successfully installing W2K on a NEW (not
reformatted) c: drive jumpered (not Cable Select) as the Primary Master,
with the Slave position empty.

I then connected the old c: drive (now rejumpered as Slave) on the same IDE
cable. Upon rebooting, I can't get past the POST. The BIOS correctly reports
the sizes and positions of both these Primary Channel drives.

I moved the old c: drive to Slave position on the Secondary channel, so the
configuration was just one drive on the Primary channel and a DVD burner and
hard drive on the Secondary channel. It booted normally.

I then reconnected the old Primary Slave (still jumpered as Slave) back
again to its original Primary Slave position. Again, I could not get past
POST. This time, however, the BIOS doesn't recognize the Primary Slave drive
at all. (Says something like 'none installed'.)

Questions:
1. Why can't I get past POST with either drive in the Primary Slave
position? (One clue may be that the new 500GB Primary Master has one 137GB
partition and a tiny 7.81MB partition, both created by W2K during
installation; the rest of the drive isn't partitioned or formatted yet.)

2. Regarding the Primary Slave position, why does the BIOS recognize what
had been the old Primary Master but not what had been the old Primary Slave?

Thanks,

Ray

have a look at the documentation for your new drive

some drives have different jumper positions for:


master with no slave present

master with slave present

 

[Paul]

I had a problem that I solved by successfully installing W2K on a NEW (not
reformatted) c: drive jumpered (not Cable Select) as the Primary Master,
with the Slave position empty.

I then connected the old c: drive (now rejumpered as Slave) on the same IDE
cable. Upon rebooting, I can't get past the POST. The BIOS correctly reports
the sizes and positions of both these Primary Channel drives.

I moved the old c: drive to Slave position on the Secondary channel, so the
configuration was just one drive on the Primary channel and a DVD burner and
hard drive on the Secondary channel. It booted normally.

I then reconnected the old Primary Slave (still jumpered as Slave) back
again to its original Primary Slave position. Again, I could not get past
POST. This time, however, the BIOS doesn't recognize the Primary Slave drive
at all. (Says something like 'none installed'.)

Questions:
1. Why can't I get past POST with either drive in the Primary Slave
position? (One clue may be that the new 500GB Primary Master has one 137GB
partition and a tiny 7.81MB partition, both created by W2K during
installation; the rest of the drive isn't partitioned or formatted yet.)

2. Regarding the Primary Slave position, why does the BIOS recognize what
had been the old Primary Master but not what had been the old Primary Slave?

Thanks,

Ray

Do you have any other IDE drives you can test with ?

For example, try two IDE hard drives, of less than 137GB
capacity each. Say 120GB, 80GB, or smaller. Try the two of
them and see if they're detected properly.

If no combination of small drives is working out, you've
double checked the jumpers, the cable is good, all IDE
positions in the BIOS are enabled, then it could be a problem
with the motherboard. Maybe a later BIOS version works better.

You could also try a "Load Setup Defaults" in the BIOS, Save
and Exit, then enter the BIOS again, and restore any custom
settings. The purpose of that, would be to refresh the
CMOS RAM contents, on the theory that there is a problem with
what is stored in CMOS. Clearing the CMOS will do something
similar -- just make sure to unplug the computer before
attempting to use the Clear CMOS jumper. Using a digital
camera, to record each BIOS screen, is the easiest way to
make an archive of any custom settings you've used. It may be
faster than a pencil and paper.

HTH,
Paul

 

[VanguardLH]

I had a problem that I solved by successfully installing W2K on a NEW (not
reformatted) c: drive jumpered (not Cable Select) as the Primary Master,
with the Slave position empty.

I then connected the old c: drive (now rejumpered as Slave) on the same IDE
cable. Upon rebooting, I can't get past the POST. The BIOS correctly reports
the sizes and positions of both these Primary Channel drives.

I moved the old c: drive to Slave position on the Secondary channel, so the
configuration was just one drive on the Primary channel and a DVD burner and
hard drive on the Secondary channel. It booted normally.

I then reconnected the old Primary Slave (still jumpered as Slave) back
again to its original Primary Slave position. Again, I could not get past
POST. This time, however, the BIOS doesn't recognize the Primary Slave drive
at all. (Says something like 'none installed'.)

Questions:
1. Why can't I get past POST with either drive in the Primary Slave
position? (One clue may be that the new 500GB Primary Master has one 137GB
partition and a tiny 7.81MB partition, both created by W2K during
installation; the rest of the drive isn't partitioned or formatted yet.)

2. Regarding the Primary Slave position, why does the BIOS recognize what
had been the old Primary Master but not what had been the old Primary Slave?

A drive jumpered to be master doesn't necessarily stay jumpered that way
after a slave drive is added to the same controller (i.e., on the same
IDE cable). Some drives are jumpered as Master-only which means there
is no slave drive; that is, they are jumpered as a solo drive (which
happens to make them the master device). However, once a slave is
added, you might have to change the jumper to another position from
Master-solo to Master-with-slave, or you leave the Master jumper where
it is and add another jumper to announce the presence of an added slave
drive. Some drives with auto-detect the presence of the added slave
drive so you don't need to change their jumper (i.e., it was at Master
and remains at Master so no jumper changes are needed). The Master
drive controls when signals are to be recognized by the slave.

I remember some Western Digital drives where you jumpered it one way for
Master-solo but a different way for Master-with-slave. It was still the
master device but it had to be told there was a slave (i.e., it didn't
auto-detect the slave's presence). Check what the drive's manual or
look at the connection chart stickered onto the drive to see what it
says regarding where to place the jumpers. Sometimes the drive vendors
also have jumper charts available at their web site. Being the Master
did not mean the jumper never changed even when it remained the Master.

I also ran into drives that automatically detected the presence of an
another drive but that drive wouldn't work when the added drive was one
of those where you had to manually switch from Master-solo
Master-with-slave (even after configuring it as the slave). That is,
those drives just didn't play well with each other. That is, you
couldn't mix an auto-detect drive with a manual-detect drive. You had
to play around to find out if there was a jumper setting on both that
got them working together. Sometimes an auto-detect drive won't play
well with a manual-detect drive, especially if the manual-detect drive
is the master and the auto-detect drive is the slave. If you couldn't
come up with a mix of jumper settings on both drives that got them
working together, you resorted to seeing if cable select on both would
get them to work, if both had that option.

Although the cable has 40 signal wires, there are only 39 pins used in
the connectors. Pin 20 is not used. In some keyed female connectors,
pin 20 is plugged (it's solid, no opening in which a pin can slide
into). Although the connector body might itself have a key node to
polarize it when inserted into the shround around the male pin header,
There are some shrouds that have the slot on both sides which defeats
this polarizing key on the cable connector. You could take a polarized
cable and still insert it right or wrong way onto the header. You might
as well as pull off the shroud since it is depolarized. The assumption
is that the polarized connector won't just have a key node on the
connector but also plugs pin 20 which means it cannot be inserted upside
down (the header has pin 20 missing so the plugged hole doesn't find an
interfering pin but it will if inserted upside down). Yet some
connectors with the polarizing node on the connector do NOT plug pin 20.
So you have a connector that is polarized only by its connector body and
not with a plugged pin 20 that goes into a depolarized shroud for the
header. The result is the polarization both defeated and incompletedly
implemented. With the old 40-wire, 40-pin IDE cables, and when they
were [effectively] depolarized, they could be attached upside down as
long as each connector was upside down; that is, you only needed to
ensure pin 1 of the drive at the end along the ribbon cable went to pin
1 of the middle drive along the ribbon cable to pin 1 of the mobo
header. Pin 1 of the ribbon cable might be colored (i.e., striped) but
the cable could be used upside down (so pin 40 is indicated by the
stripe). 80-wire, 40-pin IDE cables have a 1/4" cutout in the pin 20
signal wire. If the connections were [effectively] depolarized, it
doesn't much matter if it was installed upside down as pin 19 would be
the one disconnected but it is a ground signal line and there 6 other
ground signal lines (see http://www.bbdsoft.com/ide.html). The problem
occurs when a depolarized shroud is used around the male header and the
user jams the polarized connector upside down (since the shround with
slots on both sides permits the upside-down insertion). The plugged
hole for pin 20 in the connector would squash down pin 19 (pin 20 is
missing in the drive's header, not pin 19 for ground) and possibly short
it against an adjacent header pin.

Do these drives (or the controller on the motherboard) support ATA-66 or
later? If so, you might be required to use an 80-wire, 40-signal IDE
cable. The normal (or old IDE) cables only had 40 wires, one for each
signal (which included multiple grounds but they were still "signal"
lines). To reduce crosstalk across the non-twisted single signal wires
at the higher transfer rates at and above ATA-66, the 80-wire cable adds
a ground wire between each signal wire. There are still only 40 signal
wires but there are 40 additional ground wires for reducing noise. Some
controllers or drives will detect if you use an 80-wire, 40-signal IDE
cable but some don't. Because of the noise that can be induced on a
"tail" in wiring (acting like an antenna) or an echo due to bounce from
the end, you should always connect a drive on the end of the IDE cable.
If you have only 1 drive, it goes on the end connector. The 2nd drive,
if present, goes on the middle connector. Regardless that the IDE
controller supports ATA-66, or higher, transfer rates, you can still use
a 40-wire, 40-pin IDE cable if you attach under-ATA-66 drives to that
cable. If you use ATA-66 drives, or higher, then you need to use an
80-wire, 40-pin IDE cable. The connectors look the same to you from the
outside but the teeth inside them to pierce through the ribbon cable are
smaller and more tightly arrange for the 80-wire cable.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/imageview.php?image=586
Shows 80-wire, 40-pin IDE cable on left. 40-wire, 40-pin on right.
http://www.storagereview.com/guideImages/z_000524wires4080.jpg
Closer image of ribbon cables. 80-wire is smaller guage and smoother.

For Windows 2000, you sure its install doesn't only allow a maximum
partition size of 4GB? During the install, NTFS is not yet available so
FAT16 is used. Both copies (main and spare) of the FAT16 table are
used. The maximum partition size under FAT16 is 2GB (see;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#Final_FAT16 and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/138364/). Using both tables during the
install lets them create a 4GB initial partition. Later, if you chose,
you can elect to use the NTFS file system that supports larger
partitions but the OS partition remains at its initial size of 4GB.
NTFS will support larger partitions but it wasn't available during the
install itself. After the install completes, you can use 3rd party
utilities (e.g., PartitionMagic, Easus Partition Manager, etc.) to
enlarge the 4GB NTFS partition. Perhaps the drive came pre-configured
with a 137GB partition so the Windows 2000 didn't have to create it thus
it could install using the NTFS master table already present. That is,
maybe the drive came pre-formatted with a 137GB partition (which you can
enlarge using 3rd party utilities). If you're actually hitting the
137GB limit in your hardware (i.e., the utilities won't make it bigger),
you might have a BIOS limitation which means you need to update the
BIOS, if an update is available, or there is 28-bit addressing limit in
the hardware for your motherboard which means you need a new mobo that
includes 48-bit LBA mode (or you're stuck running an overlay manager,
like Ontrack's Dynamic Drive Overlay, in the MBR's bootstrap area to
compensate for shortcomings in the BIOS to get past the 137GB barrier);
see http://www.48bitlba.com. My guess is if you see a 137GB partition
on the drive then it was already there when you received the hard disk
since Windows 2000 itself cannot create one larger than 4GB during its
installation.

 

[Peter]

I had a problem that I solved by successfully installing W2K on a NEW (not
reformatted) c: drive jumpered (not Cable Select) as the Primary Master,
with the Slave position empty.

I then connected the old c: drive (now rejumpered as Slave) on the same IDE
cable. Upon rebooting, I can't get past the POST. The BIOS correctly reports
the sizes and positions of both these Primary Channel drives.

Are both those drives bootable? (Have an active partition in each). Is
it possible to boot from 2 drives on same cable, both with primary,
active partitions? I'm not 100% sure.

 

[John Doe]

I had a problem that I solved by successfully installing W2K on
a NEW (not reformatted) c: drive

What is the difference between installing on a new drive or on a
reformatted drive?

jumpered (not Cable Select) as the Primary Master, with the
Slave position empty.

I then connected the old c: drive (now rejumpered as Slave) on
the same IDE cable.

You are leaving out critical information, like whether you have an
operating system on the other hard drive (like Peter and maybe
others suggested).

Upon rebooting, I can't get past the POST. The BIOS correctly
reports the sizes and positions of both these Primary Channel
drives.

What do you mean by "I can't get past the POST"? I have a feeling
that you are getting past the POST but not far enough to see the
Windows start up logo screen.

What is the error message?

...Says something like 'none installed'

Right... If/since you do not a clue about troubleshooting, forget
trying to boot with two Windows installations (and if that is the
case, your new motherboard will not help). There are some nasty
problems that arise when messing with multiple Windows
installations.

 

[Ray K]

Are both those drives bootable? (Have an active partition in each). Is
it possible to boot from 2 drives on same cable, both with primary,
active partitions? I'm not 100% sure.

One of the drives I'm trying in the Primary Slave position had been the old,
bootable c: drive. In its present Secondary Slave position, My
Computer/Manage/Computer Management/Storage/Disc Management shows it as
"Healthy (Active)".

The other drive I'm trying as the Primary Slave had always been in that
position and never had a active primary partition.

Thanks,

Ray

 

[Rarius]

One of the drives I'm trying in the Primary Slave position had been the old,

bootable c: drive. In its present Secondary Slave position, My
Computer/Manage/Computer Management/Storage/Disc Management shows it as
"Healthy (Active)".

The other drive I'm trying as the Primary Slave had always been in that
position and never had a active primary partition.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand your problem,
1) your old drive boots as primary master on its own
2) your new drive boots as primary master on its own
3) your two drives won't work together as master/slave on the same
controller.
4) your old drive works as secondary slave (I assume with a CD drive etc
as master)

I'll bet that your two drives are by different manufacturers... I
wouldn't be surprised if one of them is a WD.

I've had this problem before where two drives won't coexist on the same
controller no matter what jumper settings I applied. In the end I
figured out it was a WD drive that was the problem.

What are you trying to achieve? Are you lookign to dual-boot or just be
able to access the old C: drive to copy files acroos to the new one? If
the latter, I'd just live with it on the secondary controller until you
have copied all the files.

Rarius

 

[Ray K]

Hi Vanguard,

Thanks for the comprehensive, educational comments.

You raised five points. Except for point 2, the others I already discussed
in my 11:30 post of August 5.

1. Drive jumpering. The new WD drive was jumpered as Master with Slave at
all times (during W2K installation, when no other Primary Slave was
connected, and after installation when I plugged a second drive into the
Primary Slave position and ran into the booting problem.

2. Cable orientation. The primary channel cable is 80 pins, with color-coded
connectors (blue, gray, black). Regarding the possibility of orienting the
connectors backwards (upside down), it just can't happen in my case because
the cable connectors do have the polarizing key you mentioned (at pin 19).
None of my three drives have dual slots that could mesh with the cable key
the wrong way. So it doesn't matter the status of pin 20; the polarizing key
guarantees the connectors fit just one way.

3. Hard drive position on the cable. The new drive is connected to the end
black connector. Slaves would go into the middle gray connector.

4. 137 GB Windows limit. The drive did not come prepartitioned or formatted.
During W2K installation, there was a very lenghty interval that the
formatting occurred. The result was the 137GB c: partition and a second
(unwanted) 7.8 MB partition that I deleted using My Computer/Manage/Computer
Management/Storage/Disc Management.

5. Mobo limit. The 28-bit issue definitely describes my old mobo. But I
don't understand why that limitation would come into play only when
something is connected to the Primary Slave connector. Anyway, my new mobo
is in transit. In a few days I'll have a new system and we'll hope for the
best. I'll post the results.

Ray

A drive jumpered to be master doesn't necessarily stay jumpered that way
after a slave drive is added to the same controller (i.e., on the same
IDE cable). Some drives are jumpered as Master-only which means there
is no slave drive; that is, they are jumpered as a solo drive (which
happens to make them the master device). However, once a slave is
added, you might have to change the jumper to another position from
Master-solo to Master-with-slave, or you leave the Master jumper where
it is and add another jumper to announce the presence of an added slave
drive. Some drives with auto-detect the presence of the added slave
drive so you don't need to change their jumper (i.e., it was at Master
and remains at Master so no jumper changes are needed). The Master
drive controls when signals are to be recognized by the slave.
..

I remember some Western Digital drives where you jumpered it one way for
Master-solo but a different way for Master-with-slave. It was still the
master device but it had to be told there was a slave (i.e., it didn't
auto-detect the slave's presence). Check what the drive's manual or
look at the connection chart stickered onto the drive to see what it
says regarding where to place the jumpers. Sometimes the drive vendors
also have jumper charts available at their web site. Being the Master
did not mean the jumper never changed even when it remained the Master.

I also ran into drives that automatically detected the presence of an
another drive but that drive wouldn't work when the added drive was one
of those where you had to manually switch from Master-solo
Master-with-slave (even after configuring it as the slave). That is,
those drives just didn't play well with each other. That is, you
couldn't mix an auto-detect drive with a manual-detect drive. You had
to play around to find out if there was a jumper setting on both that
got them working together. Sometimes an auto-detect drive won't play
well with a manual-detect drive, especially if the manual-detect drive
is the master and the auto-detect drive is the slave. If you couldn't
come up with a mix of jumper settings on both drives that got them
working together, you resorted to seeing if cable select on both would
get them to work, if both had that option.

Although the cable has 40 signal wires, there are only 39 pins used in
the connectors. Pin 20 is not used. In some keyed female connectors,
pin 20 is plugged (it's solid, no opening in which a pin can slide
into). Although the connector body might itself have a key node to
polarize it when inserted into the shround around the male pin header,
There are some shrouds that have the slot on both sides which defeats
this polarizing key on the cable connector. You could take a polarized
cable and still insert it right or wrong way onto the header. You might
as well as pull off the shroud since it is depolarized. The assumption
is that the polarized connector won't just have a key node on the
connector but also plugs pin 20 which means it cannot be inserted upside
down (the header has pin 20 missing so the plugged hole doesn't find an
interfering pin but it will if inserted upside down). Yet some
connectors with the polarizing node on the connector do NOT plug pin 20.
So you have a connector that is polarized only by its connector body and
not with a plugged pin 20 that goes into a depolarized shroud for the
header. The result is the polarization both defeated and incompletedly
implemented. With the old 40-wire, 40-pin IDE cables, and when they
were [effectively] depolarized, they could be attached upside down as
long as each connector was upside down; that is, you only needed to
ensure pin 1 of the drive at the end along the ribbon cable went to pin
1 of the middle drive along the ribbon cable to pin 1 of the mobo
header. Pin 1 of the ribbon cable might be colored (i.e., striped) but
the cable could be used upside down (so pin 40 is indicated by the
stripe). 80-wire, 40-pin IDE cables have a 1/4" cutout in the pin 20
signal wire. If the connections were [effectively] depolarized, it
doesn't much matter if it was installed upside down as pin 19 would be
the one disconnected but it is a ground signal line and there 6 other
ground signal lines (see http://www.bbdsoft.com/ide.html). The problem
occurs when a depolarized shroud is used around the male header and the
user jams the polarized connector upside down (since the shround with
slots on both sides permits the upside-down insertion). The plugged
hole for pin 20 in the connector would squash down pin 19 (pin 20 is
missing in the drive's header, not pin 19 for ground) and possibly short
it against an adjacent header pin.

Do these drives (or the controller on the motherboard) support ATA-66 or
later? If so, you might be required to use an 80-wire, 40-signal IDE
cable. The normal (or old IDE) cables only had 40 wires, one for each
signal (which included multiple grounds but they were still "signal"
lines). To reduce crosstalk across the non-twisted single signal wires
at the higher transfer rates at and above ATA-66, the 80-wire cable adds
a ground wire between each signal wire. There are still only 40 signal
wires but there are 40 additional ground wires for reducing noise. Some
controllers or drives will detect if you use an 80-wire, 40-signal IDE
cable but some don't. Because of the noise that can be induced on a
"tail" in wiring (acting like an antenna) or an echo due to bounce from
the end, you should always connect a drive on the end of the IDE cable.
If you have only 1 drive, it goes on the end connector. The 2nd drive,
if present, goes on the middle connector. Regardless that the IDE
controller supports ATA-66, or higher, transfer rates, you can still use
a 40-wire, 40-pin IDE cable if you attach under-ATA-66 drives to that
cable. If you use ATA-66 drives, or higher, then you need to use an
80-wire, 40-pin IDE cable. The connectors look the same to you from the
outside but the teeth inside them to pierce through the ribbon cable are
smaller and more tightly arrange for the 80-wire cable.

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/imageview.php?image=586
Shows 80-wire, 40-pin IDE cable on left. 40-wire, 40-pin on right.
http://www.storagereview.com/guideImages/z_000524wires4080.jpg
Closer image of ribbon cables. 80-wire is smaller guage and smoother.

For Windows 2000, you sure its install doesn't only allow a maximum
partition size of 4GB? During the install, NTFS is not yet available so
FAT16 is used. Both copies (main and spare) of the FAT16 table are
used. The maximum partition size under FAT16 is 2GB (see;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#Final_FAT16 and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/138364/). Using both tables during the
install lets them create a 4GB initial partition. Later, if you chose,
you can elect to use the NTFS file system that supports larger
partitions but the OS partition remains at its initial size of 4GB.
NTFS will support larger partitions but it wasn't available during the
install itself. After the install completes, you can use 3rd party
utilities (e.g., PartitionMagic, Easus Partition Manager, etc.) to
enlarge the 4GB NTFS partition. Perhaps the drive came pre-configured
with a 137GB partition so the Windows 2000 didn't have to create it thus
it could install using the NTFS master table already present. That is,
maybe the drive came pre-formatted with a 137GB partition (which you can
enlarge using 3rd party utilities). If you're actually hitting the
137GB limit in your hardware (i.e., the utilities won't make it bigger),
you might have a BIOS limitation which means you need to update the
BIOS, if an update is available, or there is 28-bit addressing limit in
the hardware for your motherboard which means you need a new mobo that
includes 48-bit LBA mode (or you're stuck running an overlay manager,
like Ontrack's Dynamic Drive Overlay, in the MBR's bootstrap area to
compensate for shortcomings in the BIOS to get past the 137GB barrier);
see http://www.48bitlba.com. My guess is if you see a 137GB partition
on the drive then it was already there when you received the hard disk
since Windows 2000 itself cannot create one larger than 4GB during its
installation.

 

[Ray K]

(not reformatted) c: drive

What is the difference between installing on a new drive or on a

reformatted drive?

None. I was being redundant for emphasis.

You are leaving out critical information, like whether you have an

operating system on the other hard drive (like Peter and maybe others
suggested).

One of the two drives I had been trying as the Primary Slave was my old c:
drive, so it does have a W2K installation on it. Should that matter if it's
moved to the Slave position? The other drive I tried as the Primary Slave
was the same drive that had been the Primary Slave (i.e., no OS on it).
the sizes and positions of both these Primary Channel drives.

What do you mean by "I can't get past the POST"? I have a feeling that

you are getting past the POST but not far enough to see the Windows start up
logo screen.

That might well be the case, but all I see in bold letters is the name of
the mobo. The monitor does not go black or display the opening Windows
screen. Interesting new observation: while apparently frozen in POST, the
hard drive activity light stays on continuously.

What is the error message?

There is none. Just the name of the mobo.

Right... If/since you do not a clue about troubleshooting, forget trying
to boot with two Windows installations (and if that is the case, your new
motherboard will not help). There are some nasty problems that arise when
messing with multiple Windows installations.

Interesting point that even if an old W2K installation is present on the
drive in the Slave position, it could prevent a startup. Could I delete the
old W2K installation simply by deleting the WINNT folder to eliminate this
as a possible cause of the problem?

How would this explain that the other drive I'm trying as the Primary Slave
also causes the booting problem. It always been in that position and doesn't
have any part of any OS on it?

I tried something new: plugging a CD burner into the Primary Slave
connector. Again, I couldn't boot.

To to summarize: I tried three devices as a Primary Slave.
1. The drive that had been my old c: drive, with the W2K still on it. The
BIOS correctly identifies the brand and total capacity.
2. The drive that had been the slave all along. The BIOS says [None] next to
Primary Slave.
3. The CD burner. The BIOS says [None] next to Primary Slave.

So anything connected to the Slave position, regardless of whether it has a
Windows installation on it or not, prevents booting.

Thanks,

Ray

 

[Ray K]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rarius" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win2000.general,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: Booting with two hard drives in primary channel fails

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand your problem,
1) your old drive boots as primary master on its own

True up to two days ago, when problems prevented booting. That's why I
bought a new c: drive. (Plus, the old one was three years old.)

2) your new drive boots as primary master on its own
Yes.

3) your two drives won't work together as master/slave on the same controller.

True.

4) your old drive works as secondary slave (I assume with a CD drive etc

as master)

True.

I'll bet that your two drives are by different manufacturers... I
wouldn't be surprised if one of them is a WD.

They both are WD. I can't see the label as to which brand the other hard
drive I tried as Slave is.

I've had this problem before where two drives won't coexist on the same
controller no matter what jumper settings I applied. In the end I
figured out it was a WD drive that was the problem.

What are you trying to achieve? Are you lookign to dual-boot or just be
able to access the old C: drive to copy files acroos to the new one? If
the latter, I'd just live with it on the secondary controller until you
have copied all the files.

No dual boot. Once I copy the files from the old c: drive, it will be
discarded or reformatted and saved for emergencies.

To to summarize my efforts (including a new test this morning of trying an
old working Teac CD burner) :

I tried three devices as a Primary Slave.
1. The drive that had been my old c: drive, with the W2K still on it. The
BIOS correctly identifies the brand and total capacity.
2. The drive that had been the slave all along. The BIOS says [None] next to
Primary Slave.
3. The CD burner. The BIOS says [None] next to Primary Slave.

So everything I connected in the Slave position prevents booting.

Thanks,

Ray

 

[Sid Elbow]

have a look at the documentation for your new drive
some drives have different jumper positions for:
master with no slave present
master with slave present

Good point! I'd forgotten that one and it's caught me out on a number of
occasions.

 

[Sid Elbow]

To to summarize: I tried three devices as a Primary Slave.
1. The drive that had been my old c: drive, with the W2K still on it. The
BIOS correctly identifies the brand and total capacity.
2. The drive that had been the slave all along. The BIOS says [None] next to
Primary Slave.
3. The CD burner. The BIOS says [None] next to Primary Slave.

So anything connected to the Slave position, regardless of whether it has a
Windows installation on it or not, prevents booting.

You know, Ray, this really does look like that situation where the drive
you are using as the Master has two master jumper position:

- one if the drive is used on its own
- the other if a slave is present

Perhaps you could publish the drive model number here?

 

[VanguardLH]

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314470

The system partition was the 7.8GB (8GB) partition that got created by
the installation program. It contains the bootstrap loader for the OS.
You can tell the install program to locate the boot partition (where is
the rest of the oS) in another partition and that'll let you make a
larger partition. But the system partition is still needed. You
deleted the system partition which would explain why the OS wouldn't
boot thereafter.

Most users install using the same partition for both the system and boot
partitions. However, some want the boot partition in a larger sized
partition than the install program can create or to keep the system
partition small for some reason they choose. For example, they may want
to use the dual-boot mechanism to have a small system partition where
the NT loader resides to decide which OS in different boot partitions to
load.

Another source of your problems is that you were changing the physical
enumeration of the drive when moving it around. Look in the boot.ini
file (this is in the system partition since the NT loader has to read
it). Notice how the boot partition is defined. rdisk is the physical
numbering of the drive. When you changed the drive from master to slave
(i.e., moved it to a different physical location on the cable and
jumpered it as slave), that informs the IDE controller to access it as a
different physically enumerated drive. You would need to change the
rdisk parameter in boot.ini to match whatever is the physical number for
the boot partition's drive.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/102873
http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000492.htm

When moving drives around which changes their physical enumeration (and
how they are identified in boot.ini), you may need to edit the boot.ini
file to update it to match the new drive enumeration. However, you
can't boot the OS to do the edit. Somewhere I have a utility that lets
me boot from the floppy, retrieve the boot.ini from the NTFS partition,
lets me edit it locally (under the OS booted by the floppy), and lets me
replace that updated copy back in the NTFS partition for the boot
partition of Windows. There is also a utility on that same floppy that
lists the drive enumerations so I can figure out what rdisk value to use
in boot.ini. It would be much easier if I had formatted the boot
partition using FAT16/32 but I prefer using NTFS (and fortunately I've
only had to do this boot.ini recovery a couple times because I forgot to
plan for the drive enumeration change). An IDE controller has two
devices, 0 and 1. Changing from master to slave (on the first IDE
controller) changes the device from rdisk(0) to rdisk(1). Also, if I
use a 3rd party utility to resize the first partition to make room
before it for another partition then partition 0 changed to partition 1
(where is the OS) and partition 0 got created, so likewise I would have
to edit boot.ini to reflect the change in the partition enumeration for
where the loader is to find the boot partition for the OS. Unallocated
space isn't a partition so it doesn't get an enumeration. If you had a
7.8GB partition (partition 0) followed by a 137GB partition (partition
1) and then you deleted the 7.8GB partition, you eliminated partition 0
and now partition 1 becomes partition 0 (because it is the first defined
partition on that drive).

Right now my boot.ini contains:

[boot loader]
timeout=7
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP
Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect

The default and menu select options are the same since I only have one
OS boot partition defined in boot.ini (because I'm only using the one
instance of Windows on my host and not doing any dual/multi-booting
anymore). If I moved this drive to a different device on the same
controller or move it to a different controller, the drive's enumeration
changes and I have to make sure that boot.ini matches (i.e., I have to
edit it before rebooting so it matches the changed setup when I boot up
after the drive move). The rdisk value in boot.ini has to match to
wherever I move the drive. Similarly, if I change partitions (by adding
or deleting some before the OS's boot partition), I'd have to change the
partition enumeration in boot.ini. When physically moving drives
around, you have to ensure the physical disk and partition enumerations
within boot.ini will match.

Vista uses a different boot scheme:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_startup_process
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc709667.aspx

But you're using Windows 2000 which does use the old boot scheme:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/3131/ntserver/nt_core18.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT_Startup_Process

 

[Ray K]

To to summarize: I tried three devices as a Primary Slave.
1. The drive that had been my old c: drive, with the W2K still on it. The
BIOS correctly identifies the brand and total capacity.
2. The drive that had been the slave all along. The BIOS says [None] next to
Primary Slave.
3. The CD burner. The BIOS says [None] next to Primary Slave.

So anything connected to the Slave position, regardless of whether it has a
Windows installation on it or not, prevents booting.

You know, Ray, this really does look like that situation where the drive
you are using as the Master has two master jumper position:

- one if the drive is used on its own
- the other if a slave is present

Perhaps you could publish the drive model number here?

It's a WD 50000JBRTL.There are four possible jumper positions: the two you
mention, one for cable
select and one for the drive as a single device on the cable.

The one thing I hadn't tried is the cable select positions. As a result of
swapping so many things into the slave cable position, that connector
failed. So one of the Geek Squad guys at Best Buy gave me a extra cable that
way laying around in his drawer of misc stuff. But even with the new cable,
and all three hard drives jumpered for cable select, I still can't boot to
Windows.

One odd thing about the new cable: one of the wires near the blue connector,
about 14 or 15 wires in from the non-striped edge, has a small gap in it. It
looks like it was factory made that way, not the result of careless
handling.

Ray

 

[Ray K]

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314470

The system partition was the 7.8GB (8GB) partition that got created by
the installation program. It contains the bootstrap loader for the OS.
You can tell the install program to locate the boot partition (where is
the rest of the oS) in another partition and that'll let you make a
larger partition. But the system partition is still needed. You
deleted the system partition which would explain why the OS wouldn't
boot thereafter.

That partition was only 7.8 MB, not GB. Maybe I shouldn't have deleted it
without knowing what it was for, but I hated to waste a drive letter on it.
And never before have I encounterd one, perhaps because I never had such a
large drive in the Primary Master position. But even without it, I can still
boot okay as long as nothing is connected to the Primary Slave.

When I replace my mobo in a couple of days, I may have to reinstall W2000 to
ensure that the new dual core processor is recognized. This time, if that
tiny partition is generated, I'll leave it alone. See my further responses
below.

Most users install using the same partition for both the system and boot
partitions. However, some want the boot partition in a larger sized
partition than the install program can create or to keep the system
partition small for some reason they choose. For example, they may want
to use the dual-boot mechanism to have a small system partition where
the NT loader resides to decide which OS in different boot partitions to
load.

Another source of your problems is that you were changing the physical
enumeration of the drive when moving it around. Look in the boot.ini
file (this is in the system partition since the NT loader has to read
it). Notice how the boot partition is defined. rdisk is the physical
numbering of the drive. When you changed the drive from master to slave
(i.e., moved it to a different physical location on the cable and
jumpered it as slave), that informs the IDE controller to access it as a
different physically enumerated drive. You would need to change the
rdisk parameter in boot.ini to match whatever is the physical number for
the boot partition's drive.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/102873
http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000492.htm

When moving drives around which changes their physical enumeration (and
how they are identified in boot.ini), you may need to edit the boot.ini
file to update it to match the new drive enumeration. However, you
can't boot the OS to do the edit. Somewhere I have a utility that lets
me boot from the floppy, retrieve the boot.ini from the NTFS partition,
lets me edit it locally (under the OS booted by the floppy), and lets me
replace that updated copy back in the NTFS partition for the boot
partition of Windows. There is also a utility on that same floppy that
lists the drive enumerations so I can figure out what rdisk value to use
in boot.ini. It would be much easier if I had formatted the boot
partition using FAT16/32 but I prefer using NTFS (and fortunately I've
only had to do this boot.ini recovery a couple times because I forgot to
plan for the drive enumeration change). An IDE controller has two
devices, 0 and 1. Changing from master to slave (on the first IDE
controller) changes the device from rdisk(0) to rdisk(1). Also, if I
use a 3rd party utility to resize the first partition to make room
before it for another partition then partition 0 changed to partition 1
(where is the OS) and partition 0 got created, so likewise I would have
to edit boot.ini to reflect the change in the partition enumeration for
where the loader is to find the boot partition for the OS. Unallocated
space isn't a partition so it doesn't get an enumeration. If you had a
7.8GB partition (partition 0) followed by a 137GB partition (partition
1) and then you deleted the 7.8GB partition, you eliminated partition 0
and now partition 1 becomes partition 0 (because it is the first defined
partition on that drive).

Remember that I never moved the new 500GB drive from the Primary Master
position. I just tried two other hard drives and a CD burner in the Primary
Slave position. And for the first time an hour ago, I tried something
different. I used a new cable and jumpered all three drives for cable
select, with the 500GB at the end (black) connector. Same booting problem.

I distinctly remember that when I went to My Computer/Manage/Computer
Management/Storage/Disk Management, Disk 0 had c: as the primary partition,
about 137 GB, and e: as a separate tiny partition shown to the right of c:.
(D: was assigned to the DVD burner in the secondary master position.)

Right now my boot.ini contains:

[boot loader]
timeout=7
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP
Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect

Mine isn't much different:

[boot loader]
timeout=30
default=multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT
[operating systems]
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)\WINNT="Microsoft Windows 2000
Professional" /fastdetect

The default and menu select options are the same since I only have one
OS boot partition defined in boot.ini (because I'm only using the one
instance of Windows on my host and not doing any dual/multi-booting
anymore). If I moved this drive to a different device on the same
controller or move it to a different controller,

I don't understand what it means to move a drive to a different device. What
kind of device?

the drive's enumeration changes and I have to make sure that boot.ini matches (i.e., I have to
edit it before rebooting so it matches the changed setup when I boot up
after the drive move).

<snip>

It's interesting that when I bought the new drive, I paid $80 to PC
Warehouse for an 80GB WD OEM drive, still in its factory sealed plastic bag.
On the way home, I stopped in a Staples and bought the 500GB WD drive, in a
retail box, for $10 dollars less. I bought it and returned the 80GB drive,
delighted with the bargain. Maybe I should have stuck with the 80GB drive
and avoided all this grief.

I'm putting a lot of faith in that new mobo solving my problem.

Ray

 

[Sid Elbow]

It's a WD 50000JBRTL.There are four possible jumper positions: the two you
mention, one for cable select and one for the drive as a single device on the cable.

That last one is actually one of the ones I mentioned.
In any event, the jumpering is shown here:

http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1542&p_created=#jumper

To run this drive as master with your other drive on the same IDE
cable/channel, the WD5000JBRTL needs to be jumpered as "Dual Master"
with the other drive jumped as "Slave" or "Dual Slave" (whatever they
call it) per its own jumper specification.

The one thing I hadn't tried is the cable select positions. As a result of
swapping so many things into the slave cable position, that connector
failed. So one of the Geek Squad guys at Best Buy gave me a extra cable that
way laying around in his drawer of misc stuff. But even with the new cable,
and all three hard drives jumpered for cable select, I still can't boot to
Windows.

One odd thing about the new cable: one of the wires near the blue connector,
about 14 or 15 wires in from the non-striped edge, has a small gap in it. It
looks like it was factory made that way, not the result of careless
handling.

The "small gap" does sound like a cable-select cable but I would be very
wary of anything from someone's "junk" drawer when you are already
having problems. If you were originally running a master/slave system, I
would buy a new, regular cable at a computer store (rather than Best Buy
etc) - it should only cost a nominal sum. Then set up the jumpers correctly.

If you do want to pursue cable select, it might need a change in the
BIOS setup .... some systems can do it without, simply by using the
appropriate cable; some need to set it in the BIOS as well I think.