Upgrading to 200G HD on Win2K multiboot system

  • Thread starter Thread starter ! Kalbo
  • Start date Start date
K

! Kalbo

I have a win2K sp4 system, with multiple drives and have added a 200 Gig
Maxtor slave drive, used Maxtor's big drive enabler to make the ORIGINAL W2k
system recognize the 200 Gig, partitioned and formatted it. I then
transferred all the current data onto and want to make the 200 gig the
master boot drive.

The weird thing is the 200 gig drive (3 partitions) all came up as dynamic
while all the other drives are all basic.

When I boot the system with only the 200 gig drive, the system sees it as an
unformatted drive. I assume that whatever Maxtor's big Drive enabler has
done was transferred to the 200 gig

What do I need to do to save the data on the 200 gig, make the 200 bootable
and be able to access the other 2 dynamic partitions on the 200 Gig.

Regards,

Farley
 
As far as I'm aware the Big Drive Enabler only runs a script that updates
the registry to enable LargeDisk support. Since you have Win2k SP4 this
should allready have been implimented.(Since SP3)
So I'm unsure why you should think it would alter the origonal win2k sys.

How did you 'transfer all current data' and what do you mean by this. ie
data only?
 
Cary Shultz said:
I would also suggest that you make a post to two or three news groups at a
time! You did very well, however, in multiposting. A lot of people
crosspost, which is a bad thing.

Not sure how this is an Active Directory question.....
Click to expand...

I think the words got a little crossed here. "Crossposting" refers
to a post that has multiple newsgroups in the address field. It is
what the OP did. There is nothing wrong with crossposting
when done in moderation. Whether the OP's extensive
crosspost was moderate is another question . . .

"Multiposting" refers to an item that is posted separately in
different newsgroups, with no links between the posts. I do
not think that the OP engaged in multiposting. Multiposting
is very much frowned upon, because it causes duplication
of effort: Respondents in one group cannot see the replies
posted by respondents in other groups.

See also here:
http://www.aspfaq.com/5003
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
 
True but let me give you an example how cross-posting can also be a pain in the butt. In this case multi-posting would be better. Time goes by and most of the posts in a cross-posting have disappeared from the new-server. Except those in newsgroups that are not visted often. Someone replies to it in there. But due to cross posting the reply will occur in the popular neewsgroups and the original message is gone. Depending on the form of the reply (my lips are sealed here) this can be a major pain in the butt.
 
Back
Top