BIOS and Boot squence reset option

Could you please explain this,,I did not get this quite well

 

I will do some (refresher) research to use the correct terminology.

Do you remember how or what you used to partition the HDDs (unless I have missed it)?

Matt

 

For the First Hard Disk (Master) I have used (I am not sure) either System Commander V9.0 (Hiren Boot CD) or Windows XP CD.
For the Second Hard Disk (Slave) I used Knoppix CD.

 

I have only (briefly) used Win XP out of those you mention. Rechecking quickly, I cannot see if you can boot to Win XP, if you can, check the drive information (see Help and Support, I am in Win 98). If you can't get into Windows, boot to a Win 98 startup disk and use fdisk to check the partition information (System Commander may do it). Check if the first partition of the second HDD is listed as Primary or Logical/Extended. It needs to be set as a primary partition if you plan to change the HDD configuration.

Here is some background information:
http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/structPartitions-c.html
http://www.ntfs.com/logdrives.htm
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/linux/sag-0.5/node37.html
If they don't mention it, you can partition a second HDD as a logical/extended partition of the first HDD. As I said, if this is the case and you change the configuration, the partition information can get scrammbled (the computer will be looking for an active primary partition as C: ).

How badly scrammbled it is, I could not say. If both drives are fresh and you have not put a lot of data on them that is necessary, I would repartition both drives and as I said, partition each separately so both have a primary partition at the begining of the drive.

Matt

 

I can access XP and 2003 as well.


This is how I had partitioned my hard diks before I posted my threda to the forum,,,,befroe I posted my thread here I repartitioned every thing form scratch

A- First HD (master or hda) is divided into :
1/A- 15 GB NTFS for XP.
2/A- 5 GB FAT32 for Storage.
3/A- 20 GB NTFS for win2003.

I had already installed both windows (XP and 2003).


B- Second HD (slave or hdb) is divided into :
1/B- 20 GB Solaris (hdb1,,,to be installed later).
2/B- 5 GB NTFS for Storage (hdb2).
3/B- 500 MB Linux swap (hdb3).
4/B- 14.5 GB ext3 Linux (hdb4).

A- Do you have any comment about this scheme of partitioning ?
B- Partition number 1 Solaris under second HD is free space,,,do you thing this is the source for my problem ?

Related to B above.

 

A partitioned drive is not free-space. Free-space is unpartitioned disk space.

You will need a utility to see how the first partition on the second HDD is partitioned...whether it is a primary partition or logical/extended partition of the first HDD.

MMMM....I might suggest you put all the OSs (XP, 2003, Linux) on the first HDD (only one can be loaded at a time) and use the second as an access drive. That way both drives can run at maximum speed.

Matt

 

It is primary

 

I have got bunch of these utilities

 

Blows the extended partition theory out of the water .

I have not seen the case where different utilities will see the drive as drive 0 and others see it as drive 1. I know you have probably reseated the data cable at the drive, also reseat it at the motherboard (a different cable been tried?).

Strange happenings like those will be from an error in the boot sector. Check the drive with Seatools. I think you are going to end up having to repartiton it and I suggest using Seagate Diskwizard with the other drive disconnected. You may even need to consider doing a low-level format if that does not repair the boot sector information.

I thought about it being a problem with boot loader information, but you would probably get error messages if that were the case. If you had all three OSs on the one HDD it would make it easier for the boot loader, but then you may have to consider the space factor.

If I get some time I will reread the thread and see if something hits me, but not knowing how those different utilities operate is the big factor.

I like to partition using the HDD manufacturer's tools, they "identify" the drive correctly, others may set the wrong parameters.

Matt

 

Some time that are not powerful utility to create different types of partitions.

By the way I have got many PCs at work with same characteristic to mine, I will try on of them and see what will happen and I will let you know.

 

For me that is fine as long as the Master drive starts with lower number (may be 0 or may be 1) and the Slave drive starts with the second higher number (may be 1 or 2).

But unfortunatly this is not with me.

 

Thanks for your encouragement. I did a test with another PC with same characteristic to mine,,,I did exactly what I did on my PC with partitioning scheme,,,and I succeeded to install 3 OS. And the most important thing that the Master is Drive 0, and the Slave is Drive 1 .

 

Thanks for that. I believe with hardware.