Can't get Windows 2000 Pro to install *only* on SCSI drive, not IDE

[shadowmonkx]

Hiya,

I have two hard drives; an SCSI (Seagate ST336704LWV) and an IDE (Western-Digital Expert 7200/10.2GB).

The problem is that I'd like to install Windows 2000 onto my new SCSI drive, and ONLY that drive. I have a Supermicro PIIIDM3 Main/motherboard that has integrated Ultra160 SCSI, and connected to it is my IDE drive on the primary controller.

Any time I attempt to install Windows 2000 Pro, and the IDE drive is connected, Windows 2000 setup tells me that I must "first" install some
startup files onto my IDE drive before it installs the OS onto the SCSI drive.

Obviously, I want Windows 2000 to install ONLY onto the SCSI drive, and not have startup files on my "secondary" IDE drive.

When the IDE drive is disconnected or the Primary IDE controller disabled, Windows 2000 setup tells me that it must first install startup files onto
"Unknown Drive (the IDE drive, which, at that point, is NON-EXISTANT).

I've tried everything I can think of, and I still can't get Windows 2000 Pro to install onto the SCSI drive, without having to put "startup" files onto the IDE drive first *ugh*....

I've come to some conclusions as to why this may be happening:

1.) SCSI drive is bad.
2.) SCSI drive needs to be low-level formatted (A tech support person at Seagate suggested this,
although I've heard it's not a great idea. The drives are supposedly low-level formatted in the factory, and doing a low-level format via the SCSI controller is only for use with OLD SCSI drives... I hear that modern ones can be damaged by doing a low-level format. What's your take on that?)
3.) Motherboard is bad.
4.) Certain settings are wrong in the PIIIDM3 BIOS
5.) Certain settings are wrong in the Adaptec SCSI controller options.
6.) Windows 2000 Pro installation has errors or shortcomings in dealing with
SCSI drives.

Sorry if this message is not any more clear, I'll clarify anything that needs to be... just let me know! :-)

Well, please let me know what you think... I'm goin crazaay here! :-(

Thanks,

-shadowmonkx
*************
UPDATE
*************
I got it to install, but new problems... replies to original post still appreciated, as this is still a "new" and unsolved problem
*************
I FINALLY managed to get Windows 2000 onto the SCSI drive alone, after which I "added" the IDE drive.

However, the IDE drive ended up being drive "G," and I couldn't change it to drive "D," (drive C [SCSI] and then drive D [IDE], then DVD, CD-RW and then Zip100).

I didn't need to boot from the IDE in the BIOS or do anything abnormal to get it working. :-)

In fact, I didn't even have to MENTION the IDE drive in the BIOS' Boot Sequence; only Floppy, SCSI, Disabled.

Of course, there are other, specific, settings I had to have in order to make it work perfectly... I won't mention them unless requested to do so (to save space and time for you).
********************
METHOD TWO:
********************
Now, when I install Windows 2000 onto the SCSI drive as it WANTS to (first formatting and installing "startup" files onto the IDE drive), it first formats the IDE drive into FAT32 (not even NTFS!).

Then, it installs the startup files onto the IDE drive.

Finally, it installs the OS itself onto the SCSI drive.

In order for the computer to boot into Windows 2000, I had to make my boot sequence the following: Floppy, SCSI, 1st IDE-Drive.

Otherwise, the computer won't boot up! :-(

To verify this, I noted that there ARE files on the IDE drive that are needed to make the computer boot properly into Windows 2000 (what's on the IDE drive after a Windows 2000 installation and a conversion from FAT32 to NTFS):

System Volume Information (folder)
arcldr.exe
arcsetup.exe
boot.ini
NTBOOTDD.sys
NTDETECT.exe
ntldr.sys (not sure if .sys or otherwise)

If the drive is this way, the IDE drive (D) is the "System" drive, whereas the SCSI drive (C) is the "boot" drive... Computer Management-->Logical Disk Manager.

I don't see how this is possible if I can't get into Windows 2000 without having the IDE drive listed as a boot device!
********************
Six Questions:

1.) Why do I need to boot from the IDE drive in a "normal" installation of Windows 2000?

2.) So, what can I do if I want to install Windows 2000 onto *only* my SCSI drive, making it both boot and system drive -- totally forgoing the IDE drive? As I said, I did this before... but I want to do it accurately so that I can have my IDE drive be "D," not some other letter!

3.) Does having "boot/startup" files that are needed to start Windows 2000 slow down my computer during startup or normal use? When are those files used... only during startup/boot?

4.) Why does Windows 2000 format the IDE drive into FAT32 during a default installation, instead of NTFS? Again, I converted it to NTFS after Win2K was installed...

5.) If use the first method of installing Windows 2000 (no files on the IDE drive), the IDE drive ends up all weird. For example, the IDE drive is really only 10.2GB, but after such an installation, it shows:

58GB Used (or something similar)
9.96GB Free

What's up with stuff like that??

6.) Any other comments, thoughts or ideas?

Please let me know...

Thanks,

-shadowmonkx

[Charles Kozierok]

I don't know enough about Win2k to comment intelligently on most of what you wrote, shadowmonkx. Just a couple of tidbits:
1. "LLF your drive" is 90% of the time a crutch used by a hard drive technician when he has not clue one what your problem is. You are right to be skeptical.
2. Have you tried changing drive letters using Disk Administrator? Also, have you tried booting up with just the hard drives and seeing what it does to the drive letters?
Good luck, wish I could be more helpful...

------------------
Charles M. Kozierok ( ixlubb@PCGuide.com )
Webslave, The PC Guide (http://www.PCGuide.com)
Comprehensive PC Reference, Troubleshooting, Optimization and Buyer's Guides...

[Paul Reid]

> I hear that modern ones can be damaged by doing a low-level format. What's your take on that?

Has not been true since the days of 100 meg IDE drives. ATA specs suggest that a drive "accept" a LLF command but ignore it, except that it should wipe the first sector to all-zero (killing the partition table and boot code).

Any IDE drive made this decade should not be harmed by LLF attempts. It just wipes the first sector clean and says "OK" on all the other sectors without doing anything. Certainly it should not wipe the servo tracks.

The rumor got started because one of the early 50 meg IDE drives -did- manage to wipe the servo marks when LLF-ed. The maker quickly saw the mistake (stacks of "dead" drives at their doorstep) and told the drive's brain to ignore the LLF command. I don't think anybody has repeated that mistake since.

To get to your point: I have a bad feeling that W2K really wants to leave its mark on what it thinks is your BIOS-boot drive. When I put NT4 on a second partition, it has to put its boot-loader on the first partition. That does not trouble me: it seems to hide in unused space and does not clutter C:.

-PRR

[Charles Kozierok]

You know, now that you mention it, I do remember that NT has a problem with not recognizing floppy disk swaps at boot time; maybe it doesn't pay attention to boot order BIOS settings either?

------------------
Charles M. Kozierok ( ixlubb@PCGuide.com )
Webslave, The PC Guide (http://www.PCGuide.com)
Comprehensive PC Reference, Troubleshooting, Optimization and Buyer's Guides...

[shadowmonkx]

Hey guys,

When I was talkin about LLF, I was referring to doing so with my Seagate ST336704LWV Drive (SCSI), *not* an IDE drive.

I wonder if what you said still applies...

As for the boot stuff, I e-mailled M$ with the exact text of my problem, and we'll see what they have to say... hopefully something beneficial!

Thanks,

-Shadowmonkx

[Paul Reid]

Originally posted by shadowmonkx:
LLF.... my Seagate ST336704LWV Drive (SCSI), *not* an IDE drive. I wonder if what you said still applies...

{Assuming we don't mean an antique 10-meg SCSI drive} LLF on SCSI should be utterly safe to the hardware (of course all data and formatting will be lost).

Charles> that NT has a problem with not recognizing floppy disk swaps at boot time; maybe it doesn't pay attention to boot order BIOS settings either? <

Once that ntldr (boot loader) code gets control, the BIOS's notion of how things should be doesn't count.

Process is: BIOS finds the "first" Active partition (where "first" is a variable in modern BIOSes), reads the first sector, and runs it. If you will ever boot NT on the machine, that sector has to have code to point to ntldr, which gets loaded and gives you the boot-menu.

It does sound like NT5 is confused, the way it sees a missing drive. But it is MS. Anyway, things can't be too smart at this level of boot. Moving drives around may break all the pointers.

Shadow- I don't know how this site feels about outside plugs: I suggest you post on the Windows NT forum on Compuserve, http://go.compuserve.com/WindowsNT?LOC=US You can register free with an Instant Massager account. Some of those geeks are very good.

-PRR

[shadowmonkx]

Senor Reid,

I'm not affiliated with this site, but I'm sure that outside links are thought to be tacky... but so long as it's not an advertisement and only in the name of assisting someone, I'm sure it's cool.

However, I'm sure it would also be appreciated if this site maintains its "business" by keeping the help within the confines of this forum.

...that's just my take on it all http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/wink.gif

As for my situation with SCSI/IDE and Win2K, can you be of any specific help in suggesting a solution or remedy to the problem?

You seem to know the underlying principles of NTFS, et-al much more well than do most techs and `puter savvy folks.

Danke and t'care,

-shadowmonkx http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Charles Kozierok]

Originally posted by Paul Reid:
Once that ntldr (boot loader) code gets control, the BIOS's notion of how things should be doesn't count.

Kinda what I thought. Thanks.


I don't know how this site feels about outside plugs

This site prefers inside plugs. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/smile.gif But if you can't find what you need here and an on-topic link to another site will help someone solve their problem, feel free to provide it. Thanks.


------------------
Charles M. Kozierok ( ixlubb@PCGuide.com )
Webslave, The PC Guide (http://www.PCGuide.com)
Comprehensive PC Reference, Troubleshooting, Optimization and Buyer's Guides...

[Paul Mohney]

General rule is that the IDE HDD Boots first, if there is a choice involved, I don't remember exactly why but I believe it had to do with the Slave/master ID versus SCSI ID's.
Any how , you can try a couple of things. First change the boot sequence in the BIOS to where the IDE is the first boot and see what happens. You can do a Win98 X install and upgrade to Win2K. You can make the partition on the IDE the Active partition, and force the issue. See where I'm going here? I believe your are laced into having the IDE boot first.But you can make Win2k install where you want it.
Let me knmow how it goes.
Paul

[mjc]

Paul, this thread is almost 2 yrs old, there is no need to be dragging up something that old....:D . The original poster has most likely forgotten all about it, or fixed the problem long ago.