Trying to install Win 2000 on a SATA Disk.

[pinso]

I tried installing Win 2000 in my PC but during the setup it would show failure to show all the four partition and would look like this. In the past i tried deleting the unformated or damaged partition from the boot win 2000 disc, which deleted all my partiton and the data and i had start from the scratch.

Even after creating a new partition by Win 2000 Disc , it would copy from the disc and on next restart it would show another error like failure to copy from the Disc something like that and it would reboot , from their i proceeded to install Win xp. So, is their a better way of installing Win 2000 in my new system,
My motherboard is ECS(EliteGrooup) G31T-M7 , my hard disk is 320 WesternDigital Serial ATA.

Any other way of installing Win 2000 in first partition , second would be Win xp....




I know from my other post in other post that Win 2000 didn't support SATA Drivers, a user needed controller driver or something.

Can someone here tell how do i go about doing that for my motherboard.

Any help , suggestion welcomed, i would remain utterly greatful towards you.

 

[PhilFrisbie]

Back up a little. . .

Yes, the Win2K install CD does not support SATA drives; you must load a driver when prompted. However, the fact that you CAN see the drive means it must be set to emulate an IDE drive in your BIOS.

Next, why not just run Win2K in a virtual machine under XP? I do it using VirtualBox, and it works great!

 

[Pointertovoid]

W2k works perfectly with Sata disks, mine does. As a matter of age, it brings fewer disk host drivers than Xp, V or 7 do, so you must give the driver by yourself - just as you give Raid or Ahci drivers to Xp, with an F6 diskette.

Next, some recent disk hosts have no official driver for W2k, for instance the ich10, the P67... But alternative drivers exist, for instance BlackWingCat has a perfect W2k driver for ich10r and many more.

The last subtlety, probably what happens to your installation, is that the Bios has several modes to access the disks, for instance Legacy, Ahci and Raid, and the driver must match this mode or you get nonsense like what you describe.

That is, in Legacy mode, the Sata host (improperly called disk controller) and will understand all standard Ide commands issued by W2k and its built-in standard drivers and give the full disk throughput (including >133MB/s) BUT you won't use the decisive improvements brought by Ahci, especially the reordered multiple access requests (Ncq). This improvement, shown by IOMeter and also Atto but few others, gains over a factor of 2 on the boot time of W2k and the applications so it should really be used.

-----

You won't switch the Bios between W2k and Xp, so both shall use the same type of drivers: Legacy or Ahci. Also, though Ahci and Raid use the very same driver file on Intel hosts, you must give exactly the right option at installation, consistent with the Bios.

W2k and Xp bring different versions (5.0 5.1) of Ntldr and Ntdetect and overwrite them on the boot volume (the "active volume", it can differ from the Windows volume) at each reinstallation or repair, so I suggest to have copies of both and some access means to Ntfs, like a live Cd of Ubuntu. Xp can't boot with W2k's version, and W2k boots more than perfectly from Xp's version... Until the registry has grown past 16MB, very annoying.

That's why prudent people have a third-party boot scheme if both W2k and Xp are on one disk. Very sad, and Microsoft should have improved that, but didn't.

An other option, which I haven't tested, would use two different disks on one computer, and let the Bios' boot menu choose which disk and OS shall boot - many Bios have even a shortcut for the boot menu. Then each Bios can keep its own Ntldr and Ntdetect, and will be able to access both disks. Just switch the boot order before installing each OS - or rather, disconnect one disk when installing the OS on the other. You know, software is like explosives: the more you know it, the more you distrust it.