Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dual Boot for transition to new drive

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 1:46:09 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

I've read through many dual boot posts and still wonder about one thing. I
have a new HD (WD Raptor 740) and I want to install WinXP Pro on it. I'd
rather not suffer the hours of software reinstallation in one sitting and I
want to be able to return to my old WinXP Pro installation on the original
drive to continue work as necessary. It makes sense to me to install the new
drive, then install a dual boot version of Windows XP Pro on it. In time, as
I complete application installations I'll work exclusively on the new
drive/WinXP installation. However, i'll have the safety blanket of the old
WinXP Pro available. I have multiple legit copies of WinXP Pro, so licenses
are not an issue.

So, is there something I'm missing here? Is there a downside or risk to
dual-booting two copies of WinXP Pro on two drives as a transition method?
Alternatively, I've thought of simply disconnecting the unused WinXP Pro
drive, but then of course the contents of that drive are not available to
access when it's off line. Perhaps a way to avoids any complications/issues
with dual boot.

Appreciate your insights.

Best regards,

John
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 10:55:54 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Does your Bios allow selecting which drive to boot?
If not ,then the new install will have to be to D: (or not to C:)  and will
have to remain installed to that drive.
The boot files will be on C: and will have to remain there.
Or you could use a boot manager.
--
Ron Sommer

"JohnWRS" <JohnWRS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6253A237-8397-4719-8023-7EB4366ACAED@microsoft.com...
> I've read through many dual boot posts and still wonder about one thing.
> I
> have a new HD (WD Raptor 740) and I want to install WinXP Pro on it. I'd
> rather not suffer the hours of software reinstallation in one sitting and
> I
> want to be able to return to my old WinXP Pro installation on the original
> drive to continue work as necessary. It makes sense to me to install the
> new
> drive, then install a dual boot version of Windows XP Pro on it. In time,
> as
> I complete application installations I'll work exclusively on the new
> drive/WinXP installation. However, i'll have the safety blanket of the
> old
> WinXP Pro available. I have multiple legit copies of WinXP Pro, so
> licenses
> are not an issue.
>
> So, is there something I'm missing here? Is there a downside or risk to
> dual-booting two copies of WinXP Pro on two drives as a transition method?
> Alternatively, I've thought of simply disconnecting the unused WinXP Pro
> drive, but then of course the contents of that drive are not available to
> access when it's off line. Perhaps a way to avoids any
> complications/issues
> with dual boot.
>
> Appreciate your insights.
>
> Best regards,
>
> John
August 29, 2005 12:53:25 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Your WD may have been supplied with cloning software, if not I believe its
available on WD site
However I personnally believe now might be a good time to start afresh.
I know the reinstallation hassle, I've done it several times - takes several
days :( 

"JohnWRS" <JohnWRS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6253A237-8397-4719-8023-7EB4366ACAED@microsoft.com...
> I've read through many dual boot posts and still wonder about one thing.
I
> have a new HD (WD Raptor 740) and I want to install WinXP Pro on it. I'd
> rather not suffer the hours of software reinstallation in one sitting and
I
> want to be able to return to my old WinXP Pro installation on the original
> drive to continue work as necessary. It makes sense to me to install the
new
> drive, then install a dual boot version of Windows XP Pro on it. In time,
as
> I complete application installations I'll work exclusively on the new
> drive/WinXP installation. However, i'll have the safety blanket of the
old
> WinXP Pro available. I have multiple legit copies of WinXP Pro, so
licenses
> are not an issue.
>
> So, is there something I'm missing here? Is there a downside or risk to
> dual-booting two copies of WinXP Pro on two drives as a transition method?
> Alternatively, I've thought of simply disconnecting the unused WinXP Pro
> drive, but then of course the contents of that drive are not available to
> access when it's off line. Perhaps a way to avoids any
complications/issues
> with dual boot.
>
> Appreciate your insights.
>
> Best regards,
>
> John
Related resources
August 29, 2005 3:01:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"JohnWRS" <JohnWRS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6253A237-8397-4719-8023-7EB4366ACAED@microsoft.com...
> I've read through many dual boot posts and still wonder about one thing.
> I have a new HD (WD Raptor 740) and I want to install WinXP Pro on it.
> I'd rather not suffer the hours of software reinstallation in one sitting
> and I want to be able to return to my old WinXP Pro installation on the
> original drive to continue work as necessary. It makes sense to me to
> install the new drive, then install a dual boot version of Windows XP Pro
> on it. In time, as I complete application installations I'll work
> exclusively on the new drive/WinXP installation. However, i'll have the
> safety blanket of the old WinXP Pro available. I have multiple legit
> copies of WinXP Pro, so licenses are not an issue.
>
> So, is there something I'm missing here? Is there a downside or risk to
> dual-booting two copies of WinXP Pro on two drives as a transition method?
> Alternatively, I've thought of simply disconnecting the unused WinXP Pro
> drive, but then of course the contents of that drive are not available to
> access when it's off line. Perhaps a way to avoids any
> complications/issues with dual boot.
>
> Appreciate your insights.
>
> Best regards,
>
> John


John:
In addition to the recommendations from others who have responded to your
query, you may want to consider equipping your desktop computer with two
removable mobile racks to house your Raptor and whatever other drive you'll
be using as a backup.

The beauty of this arrangement is that you can boot to either one of the
drives by a simple turn of the keylock switch on the mobile rack. No need to
access the BIOS; no need to use a "boot manager" or other software
application; no need to make any physical cable changes. And each drive is
isolated from each other, except when *you* decide to have both connected
during bootup.

Using a disk imaging program such as Symantec's Norton Ghost or Acronis True
Image, you can clone the contents of one drive to another drive. It's an
ideal backup system for many, if not most, users.

The hardware arrangement I speak of is designed for desktop computers, not
laptop/notebooks. So if you're using the latter, read no further.

You will need two available 5 1/4" bays on your computer case to house the
mobile racks. (Actually, you can work with only a single mobile rack and use
another internal HD, but the flexibility you gain from having two removable
drives is most advantageous).

If you, or others are interested in this hardware configuration, please so
indicate and I'll provide further details re installation, costs involved,
etc.
Anna
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 3:01:35 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Thanks, Anna. I presume you mean that either disk may be engaged as the C:
drive, but both disks could not be engaged at the same time. If I wanted to
transfer files, they could be moved to a non-system, data disk that is
engaged continually. Sort of "dual-booting" by brute force.

Could you supply some details about the hardware and costs? Along with
Pegasus, I am concerned about data integrity/drive reliability, and I'm a
little concerned about putting an additional connector in the circuit.

For what it's worth, both the old C: drive and the Raptor are SATA.

Best regards,

John


"Anna" wrote:

>
> "JohnWRS" <JohnWRS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6253A237-8397-4719-8023-7EB4366ACAED@microsoft.com...
> > I've read through many dual boot posts and still wonder about one thing.
> > I have a new HD (WD Raptor 740) and I want to install WinXP Pro on it.
> > I'd rather not suffer the hours of software reinstallation in one sitting
> > and I want to be able to return to my old WinXP Pro installation on the
> > original drive to continue work as necessary. It makes sense to me to
> > install the new drive, then install a dual boot version of Windows XP Pro
> > on it. In time, as I complete application installations I'll work
> > exclusively on the new drive/WinXP installation. However, i'll have the
> > safety blanket of the old WinXP Pro available. I have multiple legit
> > copies of WinXP Pro, so licenses are not an issue.
> >
> > So, is there something I'm missing here? Is there a downside or risk to
> > dual-booting two copies of WinXP Pro on two drives as a transition method?
> > Alternatively, I've thought of simply disconnecting the unused WinXP Pro
> > drive, but then of course the contents of that drive are not available to
> > access when it's off line. Perhaps a way to avoids any
> > complications/issues with dual boot.
> >
> > Appreciate your insights.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > John
>
>
> John:
> In addition to the recommendations from others who have responded to your
> query, you may want to consider equipping your desktop computer with two
> removable mobile racks to house your Raptor and whatever other drive you'll
> be using as a backup.
>
> The beauty of this arrangement is that you can boot to either one of the
> drives by a simple turn of the keylock switch on the mobile rack. No need to
> access the BIOS; no need to use a "boot manager" or other software
> application; no need to make any physical cable changes. And each drive is
> isolated from each other, except when *you* decide to have both connected
> during bootup.
>
> Using a disk imaging program such as Symantec's Norton Ghost or Acronis True
> Image, you can clone the contents of one drive to another drive. It's an
> ideal backup system for many, if not most, users.
>
> The hardware arrangement I speak of is designed for desktop computers, not
> laptop/notebooks. So if you're using the latter, read no further.
>
> You will need two available 5 1/4" bays on your computer case to house the
> mobile racks. (Actually, you can work with only a single mobile rack and use
> another internal HD, but the flexibility you gain from having two removable
> drives is most advantageous).
>
> If you, or others are interested in this hardware configuration, please so
> indicate and I'll provide further details re installation, costs involved,
> etc.
> Anna
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 3:26:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"JohnWRS" wrote:
> Could you supply some details about the hardware and costs? Along
> with Pegasus, I am concerned about data integrity/drive reliability,
> and I'm a little concerned about putting an additional connector in the
> circuit.
>
> For what it's worth, both the old C: drive and the Raptor are SATA.


Take a look at the SATA Kingwin mobile racks and extra trays at
http://www.kingwin.com/pdut_Cat.asp?CateID=47 and
http://www.kingwin.com/pdut_Cat.asp?CateID=44

For prices, take their model nos. and put them into the
search windows at www.Nextag.com and www.PriceWatch.com .
We're talking about $15-$16 for the rack/tray pair.

I've been using a Kingwin mobile rack for PATA drives for two
years with no problems. To avoid having an open middle
connector on the IDE cable, I use single-device cables
(i.e. only connectors at the 2 ends). These *can* be found for
80-conductor ribbon cable, but I prefer round cables for ease
of routing and for better air flow through the case. For PATA,
these are available in various lengths and with braided shielding
from http://www.svc.com/cables-ata-100-133-round-cables.html ,
and for SATA from http://www.svc.com/sata.html .

*TimDaniels*
August 29, 2005 9:14:13 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

>> "JohnWRS" <JohnWRS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:6253A237-8397-4719-8023-7EB4366ACAED@microsoft.com...
>> > I've read through many dual boot posts and still wonder about one
>> > thing.
>> > I have a new HD (WD Raptor 740) and I want to install WinXP Pro on it.
>> > I'd rather not suffer the hours of software reinstallation in one
>> > sitting
>> > and I want to be able to return to my old WinXP Pro installation on the
>> > original drive to continue work as necessary. It makes sense to me to
>> > install the new drive, then install a dual boot version of Windows XP
>> > Pro
>> > on it. In time, as I complete application installations I'll work
>> > exclusively on the new drive/WinXP installation. However, i'll have
>> > the
>> > safety blanket of the old WinXP Pro available. I have multiple legit
>> > copies of WinXP Pro, so licenses are not an issue.
>> >
>> > So, is there something I'm missing here? Is there a downside or risk
>> > to
>> > dual-booting two copies of WinXP Pro on two drives as a transition
>> > method?
>> > Alternatively, I've thought of simply disconnecting the unused WinXP
>> > Pro
>> > drive, but then of course the contents of that drive are not available
>> > to
>> > access when it's off line. Perhaps a way to avoids any
>> > complications/issues with dual boot.
>> >
>> > Appreciate your insights.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > John


> "Anna" wrote:
>> John:
>> In addition to the recommendations from others who have responded to your
>> query, you may want to consider equipping your desktop computer with two
>> removable mobile racks to house your Raptor and whatever other drive
>> you'll be using as a backup.
>>
>> The beauty of this arrangement is that you can boot to either one of the
>> drives by a simple turn of the keylock switch on the mobile rack. No need
>> to access the BIOS; no need to use a "boot manager" or other software
>> application; no need to make any physical cable changes. And each drive
>> is isolated from each other, except when *you* decide to have both
>> connected during bootup.
>>
>> Using a disk imaging program such as Symantec's Norton Ghost or Acronis
>> True Image, you can clone the contents of one drive to another drive.
>> It's an ideal backup system for many, if not most, users.
>>
>> The hardware arrangement I speak of is designed for desktop computers,
>> not laptop/notebooks. So if you're using the latter, read no further.
>>
>> You will need two available 5 1/4" bays on your computer case to house
>> the mobile racks. (Actually, you can work with only a single mobile rack
>> and use another internal HD, but the flexibility you gain from having two
>> removable drives is most advantageous).
>>
>> If you, or others are interested in this hardware configuration, please
>> so indicate and I'll provide further details re installation, costs
>> involved,
>> etc.
>> Anna


"JohnWRS" <JohnWRS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C166E2B3-79C3-4D2A-83E8-4CEEDB7E6CEE@microsoft.com...
> Thanks, Anna. I presume you mean that either disk may be engaged as the
> C: drive, but both disks could not be engaged at the same time. If I
> wanted to transfer files, they could be moved to a non-system, data disk
> that is engaged continually. Sort of "dual-booting" by brute force.
>
> Could you supply some details about the hardware and costs? Along with
> Pegasus, I am concerned about data integrity/drive reliability, and I'm a
> little concerned about putting an additional connector in the circuit.
>
> For what it's worth, both the old C: drive and the Raptor are SATA.
>
> Best regards,
>
> John


John:
First of all (and let me first respond to those users with PATA drives),
both hard drives in their mobile racks *can* be connected simultaneously
with no problem whatsoever. In the case of PATA drives, the system will boot
to the drive connected as Primary Master, which of course, will be the usual
position of one's day-to-day working HD. So there's no conflict. The second
HD in its mobile rack will ordinarily be connected as Secondary Master, but
in most cases can also be connected as a Slave on either IDE channel should
the user prefer that alternate configuration for one reason or another.

Assuming the second drive is being used primarily or exclusively as a backup
device, that second drive will be simultaneously connected (remember, just a
simple turn of the rack's keylock) when the user employs a disk imaging
program such as the ones I previously mentioned to clone the contents of
his/her working drive to the second drive. Or, if the user simply wants to
copy/move files from one drive to another, then both drives will be
connected. Again, there's no conflict that arises in this situation. And
again, I want to emphasize that when we speak of a mobile rack's
"connectivity", we're speaking about a simple turn of its keylock.

In the case of the SATA drives, such as the ones you're using, you simply
originally establish the boot order in your BIOS the first time after the
drives and the mobile racks have been installed. A one-shot deal. So your
Raptor will be first in order of boot priority and your other SATA drive
will be second (assuming that's your choice). So when you want to boot to
the second drive, you simply turn off the keylock on the mobile rack
containing your Raptor. If you want to boot to your Raptor and still have
the second drive connected, then both your racks are turned to the "On"
position. It's that simple.

Please don't be concerned about installing an "additional connector in the
circuit". There's absolutely no problem here, regardless of whether you're
working with PATA or SATA drives.

If you (or others) still want me to provide some further details re the
installation, operation, and costs involved in this hardware configuration,
I'll be glad to do so. But before doing so, first tell me if I've answered
your questions to date to your satisfaction and you feel reasonably
comfortable pursuing this subject.
Anna
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 2:03:01 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"JohnWRS" <JohnWRS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6253A237-8397-4719-8023-7EB4366ACAED@microsoft.com...
> I've read through many dual boot posts and still wonder about one thing.
I
> have a new HD (WD Raptor 740) and I want to install WinXP Pro on it. I'd
> rather not suffer the hours of software reinstallation in one sitting and
I
> want to be able to return to my old WinXP Pro installation on the original
> drive to continue work as necessary. It makes sense to me to install the
new
> drive, then install a dual boot version of Windows XP Pro on it. In time,
as
> I complete application installations I'll work exclusively on the new
> drive/WinXP installation. However, i'll have the safety blanket of the
old
> WinXP Pro available. I have multiple legit copies of WinXP Pro, so
licenses
> are not an issue.
>
> So, is there something I'm missing here? Is there a downside or risk to
> dual-booting two copies of WinXP Pro on two drives as a transition method?
> Alternatively, I've thought of simply disconnecting the unused WinXP Pro
> drive, but then of course the contents of that drive are not available to
> access when it's off line. Perhaps a way to avoids any
complications/issues
> with dual boot.
>
> Appreciate your insights.
>
> Best regards,
>
> John

You have overlooked one little detail. If you install your second copy
of WinXP on your new drive in a dual-boot configuration then it will
be visible on drive D: (or perhaps on drive E:, depending on your other
partitions). This is so because the WinXP boot manager is about as
basic as they come. Later on, when you're retiring your old disk, you're
stuck: The new copy of WinXP will cease to run the moment you remove
the old disk, because the drive letters change. This is a frequent query
in this newsgroup.

Here is my tried and proven recipe:
1. Install the new disk as a slave disk, then boot into WinXP.
2. Create an NTFS partition on the new disk. Its size should be 10 MBytes
less than the capacity of the disk. Label it "WinXP New".
3. Label the existing WinXP partition "WinXP Old".
4. Create a 10 MByte (not GByte!) FAT partition at the far end of the new
disk.
Label it XOSL.
5. Get a copy of the XOSL boot manager. It's free.
6. Remove the old disk, then install the new disk as the primary master.
7. Load WinXP onto the new disk, leaving the small XOS partition intact.
8. Boot the machine with a Win98 boot disk (www.bootdisk.com), then
install XOSL in its own partition.
9. Reboot from the hard disk, then add WinXP to the XOSL menu.
10. Install the old disk as a slave disk.
11. Reboot, then add the old WinXP installation to the XOSL menu.
Important: Hide the partition where the new WinXP installation resides!

You will now have this setup:
- When booting into the new WinXP installation then you will see the
old disk as drive D:. WinXP will be visible on drive C:.
- When booting into the old WinXP installation then WinXP will be
visible on its own drive C:. The new WinXP installation will be invisible
and inaccessible.

If you wish to boot from the old disk only, remove the new disk and
make the old disk the primary master.

If you wish to boot from the new disk only, without XOSL, restore
its Master Boot Record. This is a two-minute affair.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 2:03:02 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Thanks for the clear explanation & details. I don't want to mirror my old OS
as DL observed. I don't want to be hog-tied to an old C:D rive, so XOSL sound
great.

Best regards,

John


"Pegasus (MVP)" wrote:

>
> "JohnWRS" <JohnWRS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6253A237-8397-4719-8023-7EB4366ACAED@microsoft.com...
> > I've read through many dual boot posts and still wonder about one thing.
> I
> > have a new HD (WD Raptor 740) and I want to install WinXP Pro on it. I'd
> > rather not suffer the hours of software reinstallation in one sitting and
> I
> > want to be able to return to my old WinXP Pro installation on the original
> > drive to continue work as necessary. It makes sense to me to install the
> new
> > drive, then install a dual boot version of Windows XP Pro on it. In time,
> as
> > I complete application installations I'll work exclusively on the new
> > drive/WinXP installation. However, i'll have the safety blanket of the
> old
> > WinXP Pro available. I have multiple legit copies of WinXP Pro, so
> licenses
> > are not an issue.
> >
> > So, is there something I'm missing here? Is there a downside or risk to
> > dual-booting two copies of WinXP Pro on two drives as a transition method?
> > Alternatively, I've thought of simply disconnecting the unused WinXP Pro
> > drive, but then of course the contents of that drive are not available to
> > access when it's off line. Perhaps a way to avoids any
> complications/issues
> > with dual boot.
> >
> > Appreciate your insights.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > John
>
> You have overlooked one little detail. If you install your second copy
> of WinXP on your new drive in a dual-boot configuration then it will
> be visible on drive D: (or perhaps on drive E:, depending on your other
> partitions). This is so because the WinXP boot manager is about as
> basic as they come. Later on, when you're retiring your old disk, you're
> stuck: The new copy of WinXP will cease to run the moment you remove
> the old disk, because the drive letters change. This is a frequent query
> in this newsgroup.
>
> Here is my tried and proven recipe:
> 1. Install the new disk as a slave disk, then boot into WinXP.
> 2. Create an NTFS partition on the new disk. Its size should be 10 MBytes
> less than the capacity of the disk. Label it "WinXP New".
> 3. Label the existing WinXP partition "WinXP Old".
> 4. Create a 10 MByte (not GByte!) FAT partition at the far end of the new
> disk.
> Label it XOSL.
> 5. Get a copy of the XOSL boot manager. It's free.
> 6. Remove the old disk, then install the new disk as the primary master.
> 7. Load WinXP onto the new disk, leaving the small XOS partition intact.
> 8. Boot the machine with a Win98 boot disk (www.bootdisk.com), then
> install XOSL in its own partition.
> 9. Reboot from the hard disk, then add WinXP to the XOSL menu.
> 10. Install the old disk as a slave disk.
> 11. Reboot, then add the old WinXP installation to the XOSL menu.
> Important: Hide the partition where the new WinXP installation resides!
>
> You will now have this setup:
> - When booting into the new WinXP installation then you will see the
> old disk as drive D:. WinXP will be visible on drive C:.
> - When booting into the old WinXP installation then WinXP will be
> visible on its own drive C:. The new WinXP installation will be invisible
> and inaccessible.
>
> If you wish to boot from the old disk only, remove the new disk and
> make the old disk the primary master.
>
> If you wish to boot from the new disk only, without XOSL, restore
> its Master Boot Record. This is a two-minute affair.
>
>
>
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 5:11:51 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
news:%23TQvOqKrFHA.2592@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
> "JohnWRS" <JohnWRS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6253A237-8397-4719-8023-7EB4366ACAED@microsoft.com...
> > I've read through many dual boot posts and still wonder about one thing.
> > I have a new HD (WD Raptor 740) and I want to install WinXP Pro on it.
> > I'd rather not suffer the hours of software reinstallation in one
sitting
> > and I want to be able to return to my old WinXP Pro installation on the
> > original drive to continue work as necessary. It makes sense to me to
> > install the new drive, then install a dual boot version of Windows XP
Pro
> > on it. In time, as I complete application installations I'll work
> > exclusively on the new drive/WinXP installation. However, i'll have the
> > safety blanket of the old WinXP Pro available. I have multiple legit
> > copies of WinXP Pro, so licenses are not an issue.
> >
> > So, is there something I'm missing here? Is there a downside or risk to
> > dual-booting two copies of WinXP Pro on two drives as a transition
method?
> > Alternatively, I've thought of simply disconnecting the unused WinXP Pro
> > drive, but then of course the contents of that drive are not available
to
> > access when it's off line. Perhaps a way to avoids any
> > complications/issues with dual boot.
> >
> > Appreciate your insights.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > John
>
>
> John:
> In addition to the recommendations from others who have responded to your
> query, you may want to consider equipping your desktop computer with two
> removable mobile racks to house your Raptor and whatever other drive
you'll
> be using as a backup.
>
> The beauty of this arrangement is that you can boot to either one of the
> drives by a simple turn of the keylock switch on the mobile rack. No need
to
> access the BIOS; no need to use a "boot manager" or other software
> application; no need to make any physical cable changes. And each drive is
> isolated from each other, except when *you* decide to have both connected
> during bootup.

I'm a little puzzled about this particular aspect. If the OP wishes to boot
from either of the Mobile Rack disks then each must be a primary master.
Now if he enables both at the same time then he will have two primary
masters.
Hmm. There will be an interesting fight for supremacy . . .

My own experince with Mobile Rack disks has been mixed. Some worked
very well, others intermittently, others not at all. The extra ribbon cable
connector appears to introduce some ringing that some disk controllers
cannot cope with.

<snip>
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 5:11:52 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Pegasus (MVP)" wrote
> "Anna" wrote:
>> John:
>> In addition to the recommendations from others who have responded
>> to your query, you may want to consider equipping your desktop
>> computer with two removable mobile racks to house your Raptor
>> and whatever other drive you'll be using as a backup.
>>
>> The beauty of this arrangement is that you can boot to either one of
>> the drives by a simple turn of the keylock switch on the mobile rack.
>> No need to access the BIOS; no need to use a "boot manager" or
>> other software application; no need to make any physical cable
>> changes. And each drive is isolated from each other, except when
>> *you* decide to have both connected during bootup.
>
> I'm a little puzzled about this particular aspect. If the OP wishes to boot
> from either of the Mobile Rack disks then each must be a primary master.
> Now if he enables both at the same time then he will have two primary
> masters.
> Hmm. There will be an interesting fight for supremacy . . .


You can have both jumpered as Master if they are on different
IDE channels. The Master on channel 0 will default to the head
of the BIOS's boot order. Next will be the Slave on channel 0,
then the Master on channel 1, then Slave on channel 1, etc. If you
have a non-HD on channel 0 as Slave, it *may* be bypassed for
booting because it doesn't have an MBR.

Otherwise, if just one or the other HD will be in the mobile rack
at any one time, both can be Master and the rack can be
connected to channel 0. With two racks, one could be on channel 0
and the other on channel 1. By swapping racks, the OS in the
channel 0 HD would always boot AND the file structure on the
channel 1 HD would always be visible and accessible to the
booted OS.

Of course, the best way is not to rely on the default boot order
but to control it explicitly by setting the BIOS's boot order
manually whenever the configuration changes.

*TimDaniels*
August 30, 2005 5:11:52 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

>> "JohnWRS" <JohnWRS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:6253A237-8397-4719-8023-7EB4366ACAED@microsoft.com...
>> > I've read through many dual boot posts and still wonder about one
>> > thing.
>> > I have a new HD (WD Raptor 740) and I want to install WinXP Pro on it.
>> > I'd rather not suffer the hours of software reinstallation in one
> sitting
>> > and I want to be able to return to my old WinXP Pro installation on the
>> > original drive to continue work as necessary. It makes sense to me to
>> > install the new drive, then install a dual boot version of Windows XP
> Pro
>> > on it. In time, as I complete application installations I'll work
>> > exclusively on the new drive/WinXP installation. However, i'll have
>> > the
>> > safety blanket of the old WinXP Pro available. I have multiple legit
>> > copies of WinXP Pro, so licenses are not an issue.
>> >
>> > So, is there something I'm missing here? Is there a downside or risk
>> > to
>> > dual-booting two copies of WinXP Pro on two drives as a transition
> method?
>> > Alternatively, I've thought of simply disconnecting the unused WinXP
>> > Pro
>> > drive, but then of course the contents of that drive are not available
> to
>> > access when it's off line. Perhaps a way to avoids any
>> > complications/issues with dual boot.
>> >
>> > Appreciate your insights.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > John


>> John:
>> In addition to the recommendations from others who have responded to your
>> query, you may want to consider equipping your desktop computer with two
>> removable mobile racks to house your Raptor and whatever other drive
>> you'll be using as a backup.
>>
>> The beauty of this arrangement is that you can boot to either one of the
>> drives by a simple turn of the keylock switch on the mobile rack. No need
>> to access the BIOS; no need to use a "boot manager" or other software
>> application; no need to make any physical cable changes. And each drive
>> is
>> isolated from each other, except when *you* decide to have both connected
>> during bootup.


"Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com> wrote in message
news:%236gc$vKrFHA.3596@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I'm a little puzzled about this particular aspect. If the OP wishes to
> boot
> from either of the Mobile Rack disks then each must be a primary master.
> Now if he enables both at the same time then he will have two primary
> masters.
> Hmm. There will be an interesting fight for supremacy . . .

> My own experince with Mobile Rack disks has been mixed. Some worked
> very well, others intermittently, others not at all. The extra ribbon
> cable
> connector appears to introduce some ringing that some disk controllers
> cannot cope with.


Pegasus:
First of all, there will be no "interesting fight for supremacy".
Ordinarily, (and here we're obviously speaking of PATA drives), one mobile
rack will be connected as Primary Master (presumably the user's day-to-day
working drive), while the other rack will be connected as Secondary Master.
(In most cases, the 2nd mobile rack can alternatively be connected as
Primary or Secondary Slave and it *will* be bootable when the Primary Master
is disconnected - remember - by a simple turn of the rack's keylock. There
are, however, some few motherboards that will refuse to boot to a bootable
device on the Slave position).

As far as your comment concerning problems with mobile racks. Over the five
or so years I've worked with them, I've encountered extremely few problems
resulting from defective racks. I've worked with at least a score of mobile
racks, from the very inexpensive (about $15) all-plastic models to the more
expensive all-aluminum ones and in most cases they've performed flawlessly.
I have no idea of what you're talking about in reference to your comment
about a "ringing" problem with (IDE) controllers because of an "extra ribbon
cable connector".
Anna
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 5:11:53 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Anna" wrote:
> I have no idea of what you're talking about in reference to your
> comment about a "ringing" problem with (IDE) controllers
> because of an "extra ribbon cable connector".


I believe Pegasus is referring to the connector-to-
connector interface between the rack and the tray.
The IDE specs very tightly describe an IDE cable,
and that is the cable we see everywhere that is 18"
long with 40-pin connectors at each end and a 3rd
connector 6" from one end. This design was meant
to minimize the effects of signal reflections (at each
connector) on the devices and the channel controller,
and the introduction of another connector-connector
interface at the mobile tray upsets that scheme.
These reflections, sometime called "ringing" if they
bounce back and forth, seem not to be a disrupting
factor in modern IDE circuits, though. My setup
violates the official IDE specs in several ways by
including a rack/tray and "round" cables that are
longer than 18". Yet, the system works - even works
"fine", as far as I can tell. Many other users also
experience trouble-free operation with IDE sub-systems
that violate the official IDE spec, and unless the IDE
sub-system is marginal already, I'd say go ahead and
use the aftermarket devices that are available -
removable HD trays, round cables, and cables of
convenient lengths.

*TimDaniels*
August 30, 2005 5:11:54 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

(My response to Pegasus who, with reference to the installation of mobile
racks housing removable hard drives, raised a possible performance issue
(because) "The extra ribbon cable connector appears to introduce some
ringing that some disk controllers cannot cope with.")
> "Anna" wrote:
>> I have no idea of what you're talking about in reference to your
>> comment about a "ringing" problem with (IDE) controllers
>> because of an "extra ribbon cable connector".
>
>
> I believe Pegasus is referring to the connector-to-
> connector interface between the rack and the tray.
> The IDE specs very tightly describe an IDE cable,
> and that is the cable we see everywhere that is 18"
> long with 40-pin connectors at each end and a 3rd
> connector 6" from one end. This design was meant
> to minimize the effects of signal reflections (at each
> connector) on the devices and the channel controller,
> and the introduction of another connector-connector
> interface at the mobile tray upsets that scheme.
> These reflections, sometime called "ringing" if they
> bounce back and forth, seem not to be a disrupting
> factor in modern IDE circuits, though. My setup
> violates the official IDE specs in several ways by
> including a rack/tray and "round" cables that are
> longer than 18". Yet, the system works - even works
> "fine", as far as I can tell. Many other users also
> experience trouble-free operation with IDE sub-systems
> that violate the official IDE spec, and unless the IDE
> sub-system is marginal already, I'd say go ahead and
> use the aftermarket devices that are available -
> removable HD trays, round cables, and cables of
> convenient lengths.
>
> *TimDaniels*


Tim:
The observations you made concerning the specifications of the IDE ribbon
cable are correct as they apply to the maximum 18" length mandated by the
Small Form Factor Committee (SFFC) and the orientation of the three
connectors (where the cable was designed to connect two-devices).

To my knowledge, the standard never addressed any issue involving the
connector interface (between the removable tray/caddy and the rack itself)
within a device such as a mobile rack. The specification was chiefly, if not
exclusively, concerned with cable length. Simply stated, the standard
discouraged the use of IDE cables longer than 18".

But be that as it may, some years ago when the computer facility I was
associated with had just about decided that we were going to recommend the
installation of these removable hard drives (mobile racks) to many of our
clients, we did undertake some rather extensive tests to determine if there
were any negative performance issues affecting these devices. We found none.
So we went ahead with our recommendations and never regretted the decision.
And neither did our clients may I add. Incidentally, we always tried to
adhere to specifications and use IDE cables no longer than 18" but
occasionally we had no choice but to use 24" ones. (Rarely did we use the
36" ones). AFAIK there were no problems - performance or otherwise -
affecting the longer cables.
Anna
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 5:11:55 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Anna" wrote:
> The observations you made concerning the specifications
> of the IDE ribbon cable are correct as they apply to the
> maximum 18" length mandated by the Small Form Factor
> Committee (SFFC) and the orientation of the three connectors
> (where the cable was designed to connect two-devices).
>
> To my knowledge, the standard never addressed any issue
> involving the connector interface (between the removable
> tray/caddy and the rack itself) within a device such as a mobile
> rack. The specification was chiefly, if not exclusively, concerned
> with cable length. Simply stated, the standard discouraged
> the use of IDE cables longer than 18".


Perhaps you thought I meant an *electrical* "interface".
My comments pertained to whatever is *physically*
located between the cable connector and the connector
on the IDE device. The IDE specs assume that the
last connector is part of the device. With a removable
tray, there is another connector, a short (~2") length of ribbon
cable, and another connector between the cable connector
and the connector on the HD circuit card. It is that extra
"stuff" - the 2 connectors and the 2" length of cable - that
interface between the removable HD and the IDE cable.
That extra "stuff" is not defined, or allowed by, the IDE specs.
Rather, it is seemingly at odds with the purpose of the
careful specification of the IDE connection.
That it appears not to matter is our good fortune.



> But be that as it may, some years ago when the computer facility
> I was associated with had just about decided that we were going
> to recommend the installation of these removable hard drives
> (mobile racks) to many of our clients, we did undertake some
> rather extensive tests to determine if there were any negative
> performance issues affecting these devices. We found none.
> So we went ahead with our recommendations and never regretted
> the decision. And neither did our clients may I add. Incidentally,
> we always tried to adhere to specifications and use IDE cables
> no longer than 18" but occasionally we had no choice but to use
> 24" ones. (Rarely did we use the 36" ones). AFAIK there were
> no problems - performance or otherwise - affecting the longer
> cables.


Thanks for sharing your findings! There's nothing so valuable
as Real World experience.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 1:52:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
news:umwdCmNrFHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
> >> "JohnWRS" <JohnWRS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:6253A237-8397-4719-8023-7EB4366ACAED@microsoft.com...
> >> > I've read through many dual boot posts and still wonder about one
> >> > thing.
> >> > I have a new HD (WD Raptor 740) and I want to install WinXP Pro on
it.
> >> > I'd rather not suffer the hours of software reinstallation in one
> > sitting
> >> > and I want to be able to return to my old WinXP Pro installation on
the
> >> > original drive to continue work as necessary. It makes sense to me
to
> >> > install the new drive, then install a dual boot version of Windows XP
> > Pro
> >> > on it. In time, as I complete application installations I'll work
> >> > exclusively on the new drive/WinXP installation. However, i'll have
> >> > the
> >> > safety blanket of the old WinXP Pro available. I have multiple legit
> >> > copies of WinXP Pro, so licenses are not an issue.
> >> >
> >> > So, is there something I'm missing here? Is there a downside or risk
> >> > to
> >> > dual-booting two copies of WinXP Pro on two drives as a transition
> > method?
> >> > Alternatively, I've thought of simply disconnecting the unused WinXP
> >> > Pro
> >> > drive, but then of course the contents of that drive are not
available
> > to
> >> > access when it's off line. Perhaps a way to avoids any
> >> > complications/issues with dual boot.
> >> >
> >> > Appreciate your insights.
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> >
> >> > John
>
>
> >> John:
> >> In addition to the recommendations from others who have responded to
your
> >> query, you may want to consider equipping your desktop computer with
two
> >> removable mobile racks to house your Raptor and whatever other drive
> >> you'll be using as a backup.
> >>
> >> The beauty of this arrangement is that you can boot to either one of
the
> >> drives by a simple turn of the keylock switch on the mobile rack. No
need
> >> to access the BIOS; no need to use a "boot manager" or other software
> >> application; no need to make any physical cable changes. And each drive
> >> is
> >> isolated from each other, except when *you* decide to have both
connected
> >> during bootup.
>
>
> "Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com> wrote in message
> news:%236gc$vKrFHA.3596@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> > I'm a little puzzled about this particular aspect. If the OP wishes to
> > boot
> > from either of the Mobile Rack disks then each must be a primary master.
> > Now if he enables both at the same time then he will have two primary
> > masters.
> > Hmm. There will be an interesting fight for supremacy . . .
>
> > My own experince with Mobile Rack disks has been mixed. Some worked
> > very well, others intermittently, others not at all. The extra ribbon
> > cable
> > connector appears to introduce some ringing that some disk controllers
> > cannot cope with.
>
>
> Pegasus:
> First of all, there will be no "interesting fight for supremacy".
> Ordinarily, (and here we're obviously speaking of PATA drives), one mobile
> rack will be connected as Primary Master (presumably the user's day-to-day
> working drive), while the other rack will be connected as Secondary
Master.
> (In most cases, the 2nd mobile rack can alternatively be connected as
> Primary or Secondary Slave and it *will* be bootable when the Primary
Master
> is disconnected - remember - by a simple turn of the rack's keylock. There
> are, however, some few motherboards that will refuse to boot to a bootable
> device on the Slave position).
>
> As far as your comment concerning problems with mobile racks. Over the
five
> or so years I've worked with them, I've encountered extremely few problems
> resulting from defective racks. I've worked with at least a score of
mobile
> racks, from the very inexpensive (about $15) all-plastic models to the
more
> expensive all-aluminum ones and in most cases they've performed
flawlessly.
> I have no idea of what you're talking about in reference to your comment
> about a "ringing" problem with (IDE) controllers because of an "extra
ribbon
> cable connector".
> Anna

I always thought that a machine can only boot from the master
disk connected to the primary IDE controller, not the secondary
controller. It seems I was wrong - either will work.
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 1:52:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Pegasus (MVP)" wrote:
> I always thought that a machine can only boot from the master
> disk connected to the primary IDE controller, not the secondary
> controller. It seems I was wrong - either will work.


It can get more bizzare than that.
A machine (at least my Dell with my Phoenix BIOS) will boot
from *any* HD - be it Master or Slave, channel 0 or channel 1.
All that is necessary is that the HD be at the head of the BIOS's
HD boot order, that the HD have a working MBR, that the
partition containing the OS be marked "active", that the
partition have a working boot sector, and that the boot.ini,
ntldr, and ntdetect.com files are located just beneath the root
of the file system.

This implies that a HD jumpered as Slave on the *end connector*
of the channel 1 IDE cable can contain the booting OS. If it is at
the head of the BIOS's HD boot order by manual setting or
by default as a result of being the only HD in the system, it will
boot if it contains the above listed features. If it is NOT the only
HD in the system, but it has been manually put at the head of the
BIOS's HD boot order, it can *still* cause the booting of any OS
in the system that is pointed to by the boot.ini file on that Slave
HD - be the OS in a partition on the same HD or a different HD.

This because (for most BIOSes), "Master" and "Slave" have no
meaning other than to put a Master HD ahead of a Slave HD on
the same IDE channel for the *default* BIOS HD boot order - which
can be manually changed in the BIOS by the user.

And "Master" and "Slave" have no meaning to the IDE controller
other than to differentiate the HDs which may be on the same IDE
channel. For the IDE controller, "Master" and "Slave" could just
have well been named "epsilon" and "gamma", without the
implications of management or leadership.

In short, there is a LOT more flexibility in which HD is selected
and which partition is used for its boot manager and from which
HD (and which partition on that HD) the OS is loaded from. But
it can get confusing to a newbie, and confusion is the bane of
technology adoption, so most authors and teachers stick to the
default case, and the Common Knowledge soon raises the default
case to the status of The Only Case.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 1:58:05 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Anna,
Thanks for the added clarification. I am interested in pursuing this
two-rack-soulution. I've looked at the racks on the Kingwin.com site. I
think I'd prefer the alumninun enclosure.
- Do you recommend Kingwin or another supplier?
- The only difference I see (other than the face colors) is the number of
cooling fans. I'm inclined toward one fan... my office alreay has plenty of
fan noises... since I don't think the drives have a very heavy (heat
producing) demand. Does this make sense to you or do you recommend two or
three fans?
- I expect to pay about $20 per drive kit.

As I envision it, the disk that serves as the boot disk is always treated as
the C: drive. So, when both drives are engaged the Raptor is C: (and
designated in the BIOS as the boot drive) and the old OS disk is treated as a
mere data disk and assigned a different drive letter. When the Raptor is
off-line, the old OS disk resumes it role as C: and the boot disk. Does that
sound right? I'm attracted to this as a way to revert to my old drive to
install and evaluate software without placing my primary (Raptor) drive and
OS at risk.

I am more comfortable with this hardware solution instead of dual boot
software, though there's more than one way to skin a cat.

Best regards,

John


"Anna" wrote:

>
> >> "JohnWRS" <JohnWRS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:6253A237-8397-4719-8023-7EB4366ACAED@microsoft.com...
> >> > I've read through many dual boot posts and still wonder about one
> >> > thing.
> >> > I have a new HD (WD Raptor 740) and I want to install WinXP Pro on it.
> >> > I'd rather not suffer the hours of software reinstallation in one
> >> > sitting
> >> > and I want to be able to return to my old WinXP Pro installation on the
> >> > original drive to continue work as necessary. It makes sense to me to
> >> > install the new drive, then install a dual boot version of Windows XP
> >> > Pro
> >> > on it. In time, as I complete application installations I'll work
> >> > exclusively on the new drive/WinXP installation. However, i'll have
> >> > the
> >> > safety blanket of the old WinXP Pro available. I have multiple legit
> >> > copies of WinXP Pro, so licenses are not an issue.
> >> >
> >> > So, is there something I'm missing here? Is there a downside or risk
> >> > to
> >> > dual-booting two copies of WinXP Pro on two drives as a transition
> >> > method?
> >> > Alternatively, I've thought of simply disconnecting the unused WinXP
> >> > Pro
> >> > drive, but then of course the contents of that drive are not available
> >> > to
> >> > access when it's off line. Perhaps a way to avoids any
> >> > complications/issues with dual boot.
> >> >
> >> > Appreciate your insights.
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> >
> >> > John
>
>
> > "Anna" wrote:
> >> John:
> >> In addition to the recommendations from others who have responded to your
> >> query, you may want to consider equipping your desktop computer with two
> >> removable mobile racks to house your Raptor and whatever other drive
> >> you'll be using as a backup.
> >>
> >> The beauty of this arrangement is that you can boot to either one of the
> >> drives by a simple turn of the keylock switch on the mobile rack. No need
> >> to access the BIOS; no need to use a "boot manager" or other software
> >> application; no need to make any physical cable changes. And each drive
> >> is isolated from each other, except when *you* decide to have both
> >> connected during bootup.
> >>
> >> Using a disk imaging program such as Symantec's Norton Ghost or Acronis
> >> True Image, you can clone the contents of one drive to another drive.
> >> It's an ideal backup system for many, if not most, users.
> >>
> >> The hardware arrangement I speak of is designed for desktop computers,
> >> not laptop/notebooks. So if you're using the latter, read no further.
> >>
> >> You will need two available 5 1/4" bays on your computer case to house
> >> the mobile racks. (Actually, you can work with only a single mobile rack
> >> and use another internal HD, but the flexibility you gain from having two
> >> removable drives is most advantageous).
> >>
> >> If you, or others are interested in this hardware configuration, please
> >> so indicate and I'll provide further details re installation, costs
> >> involved,
> >> etc.
> >> Anna
>
>
> "JohnWRS" <JohnWRS@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C166E2B3-79C3-4D2A-83E8-4CEEDB7E6CEE@microsoft.com...
> > Thanks, Anna. I presume you mean that either disk may be engaged as the
> > C: drive, but both disks could not be engaged at the same time. If I
> > wanted to transfer files, they could be moved to a non-system, data disk
> > that is engaged continually. Sort of "dual-booting" by brute force.
> >
> > Could you supply some details about the hardware and costs? Along with
> > Pegasus, I am concerned about data integrity/drive reliability, and I'm a
> > little concerned about putting an additional connector in the circuit.
> >
> > For what it's worth, both the old C: drive and the Raptor are SATA.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > John
>
>
> John:
> First of all (and let me first respond to those users with PATA drives),
> both hard drives in their mobile racks *can* be connected simultaneously
> with no problem whatsoever. In the case of PATA drives, the system will boot
> to the drive connected as Primary Master, which of course, will be the usual
> position of one's day-to-day working HD. So there's no conflict. The second
> HD in its mobile rack will ordinarily be connected as Secondary Master, but
> in most cases can also be connected as a Slave on either IDE channel should
> the user prefer that alternate configuration for one reason or another.
>
> Assuming the second drive is being used primarily or exclusively as a backup
> device, that second drive will be simultaneously connected (remember, just a
> simple turn of the rack's keylock) when the user employs a disk imaging
> program such as the ones I previously mentioned to clone the contents of
> his/her working drive to the second drive. Or, if the user simply wants to
> copy/move files from one drive to another, then both drives will be
> connected. Again, there's no conflict that arises in this situation. And
> again, I want to emphasize that when we speak of a mobile rack's
> "connectivity", we're speaking about a simple turn of its keylock.
>
> In the case of the SATA drives, such as the ones you're using, you simply
> originally establish the boot order in your BIOS the first time after the
> drives and the mobile racks have been installed. A one-shot deal. So your
> Raptor will be first in order of boot priority and your other SATA drive
> will be second (assuming that's your choice). So when you want to boot to
> the second drive, you simply turn off the keylock on the mobile rack
> containing your Raptor. If you want to boot to your Raptor and still have
> the second drive connected, then both your racks are turned to the "On"
> position. It's that simple.
>
> Please don't be concerned about installing an "additional connector in the
> circuit". There's absolutely no problem here, regardless of whether you're
> working with PATA or SATA drives.
>
> If you (or others) still want me to provide some further details re the
> installation, operation, and costs involved in this hardware configuration,
> I'll be glad to do so. But before doing so, first tell me if I've answered
> your questions to date to your satisfaction and you feel reasonably
> comfortable pursuing this subject.
> Anna
>
>
>
!