Installing 2k in place of XP; warning messages

[videobruce]

I want to install 2k in place of XP Pro on the 1st partition of a HDD. When doing so, I get warning messages regarding the disk being new, erased or a incompatable O/S already there.

I didn't go further since the 2nd partition has valuable data on it and I didn't want to take a chance. I'm doing this to troubleshoot a serial port issue with XP and have already imaged the 1st partition. The 2nd partition is very large and I don't have a place to put it.
I have run Chk. Disc with no errors on both partitions.

I also have a 2nd HDD, but I disconnected that durning this process. Could that have some effect?

Ideas?

[rwest]

I doubt that just disconnecting your hdd would have anything to do with the serial port not funtioning. If you nicked the moherboard, when doing so - maybe - but that's really not likely.
What's on your second hdd? You could change your boot order and load 2K to it. Both 2k and xp are based on the same file system and you could still accesss your other drive. Although that doesn't really need to happen if your just trying to see if there's a physical problem with the serial port. Can you see the serial port in device manager?

[videobruce]

I doubt that just disconnecting your hdd would have anything to do with the serial port not funtioning.

That wasn't why I disconnected it. It was to prevent data corruption of the other bootable HDD.

Both 2k and xp are based on the same file system

I'm told elsewhere the file systems are different forms of NTFS.

[EzyStvy]

Windows will always spit out the protect you from yourself warning about downgrading to an older version.

Just format the C drive and install Win2k....ANd if you're real paraniod, spent 40 bucks on a new drive.

[EzyStvy]

NTFS is the standard file system of Windows NT, including its later versions Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Vista.[4]

NTFS supersedes the FAT file system as the preferred file system for Microsoft’s “Windows”-branded operating systems. NTFS has several improvements over FAT and HPFS (High Performance File System) such as improved support for metadata and the use of advanced data structures to improve performance, reliability, and disk space utilization, plus additional extensions such as security access control lists (ACL) and file system journaling. The file system specification is a trade secret,[5][6][7] although it can be licensed commercially from Microsoft through their Intellectual Property licensing program.[8][9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS

[videobruce]

EzyStvy; Do you spend much time over at techimo forums?

[rwest]

Originally Posted by videobruce That wasn't why I disconnected it. It was to prevent data corruption of the other bootable HDD.I'm told elsewhere the file systems are different forms of NTFS.

Well that makes sense. Anyway; as Ezy said, 2000 and XP are based on the same file system (NTFS), beit slightly different or not. One can see the other. And I'm pretty sure XP is really just 2000 with alot of eye candy, tweaks, and maybe a few new apps just to make microsoft feel better about selling thier next OS.

[videobruce]

On a wiped 320GB drive, the 2k install disc (w/sp4) reports 131GB and XP Pro (w/sp2) reports 305GB.

[rwest]

2000 does not natively suupport 48 bit mode.



http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=305098

[videobruce]

Then why did M$ claim that was resolved w/ sp3?

More lies from the leader.

[EzyStvy]

From the link rwest posted:

SYMPTOMS
Windows 2000 Service Pack 2 (SP2) and earlier versions of Windows 2000 do not support 48-bit Logical Block Addressing (LBA) as defined in the ATA/ATAPI 6.0 specification.
Back to the top

RESOLUTION
To resolve this problem, obtain the latest service pack for Windows 2000.

[videobruce]

Don't bother responding to any of my posts due to your rude comments in that other forum.
Hiding behind other user names doesn't cut it either.

As I stated, I have the latest sp.

[EzyStvy]

Hmmm. So, one would wonder why you thought “the leader” was lying…

Anyway, I’ve asked the moderators to step in and explain to you that members are free to chose user names within the limits of the AUP….And that user names on one site have nothing to do with a user names on another.

And then there’s the part of my user profile that’s been there since 1999:
About EzyStvy
Biography
Known in the real world as Steve R Jones

Me no hide nuttin

[videobruce]

And that user names on one site have nothing to do with a user names on another.

....and that posts one one site have nothing to do with posts on another site.

[EzyStvy]

Keeping the context of Your thread in mind, you asked:

Originally Posted by videobruce Is there something different with XP's version of NTFS vs 2k?

The answer is No. There is no difference that would interfere with what you’re doing.

So the answer would be the same regardless of how many times or where you ask the question wouldn’t it?

[videobruce]

Sorry, but others reported XP uses V3.1 of NTFS and 2k uses V3.

That's where the 2nd opinion comes in that you seem to be against.

[EzyStvy]

I'm not against anything.....And I also certain that the different you mentioned doesn't cause any issues...

Otherwise, dual booting Win2k and XP on the same drive and or sharing files between the two OS's on a network would have issues.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by EzyStvy From the link rwest posted: SYMPTOMS Windows 2000 Service Pack 2 (SP2) and earlier versions of Windows 2000 do not support 48-bit Logical Block Addressing (LBA) as defined in the ATA/ATAPI 6.0 specification. Back to the top RESOLUTION To resolve this problem, obtain the latest service pack for Windows 2000.

But More so:

STATUS
Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products that are listed at the beginning of this article. This problem was first corrected in Windows 2000 Service Pack 3. Important Although support for 48-bit LBA is included in Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 (SP3) and later, it is still necessary to create the registry change that is described in the "Resolution" section of this article.

BTW, How's that serial port problem comimg along?

[videobruce]

This problem was first corrected in Windows 2000 Service Pack 3.

But............
Typical M$ fix.

BTW, How's that serial port problem comimg along?

Fine. You have something worth while to say? If not, here is the door............

[shadowpr]

No need for all the hostility.

You guys could take that to the pm's.

[videobruce]

No need for all the hostility.

Except when sarcastic, unnecessary comments as this are made out of the blue;

BTW, How's that serial port problem comimg along?

[rwest]

Actuallly, that would be my bad. I reallly didn't mean for my comment to come across as badly as that. I was just trying to point out that we weren't solving the computer problems by bickering over if the two versions of the NT file system are or are not compatable.

Honestly, after I read your reaction to my commment, I realized I hadn't responed any better. My apologies to you Videobruce. My intentions were to point out the misdirection, with a little bit of guilt added in. Of course there's no better teacher than humility. Insulting you or anybody else was the farthest from my mind. I guess I got a little of my own medicine this time around.

Anyway; one had to read the entire article to find the answer as to why 2000 wouldn't see the hdd correctly, even though it was upgraded with the latest service pack. That info really should have come much sooner. What I really don't understand is how they say the problem was corrected with SP3, but you still had to make the changes to the registry! How is this correcting the problem with sp3? Especially if that was the fix for SP2 and earlier?

I am curious though; Did you ever get to a point where you could do any trouuble shooting the serial port?

[videobruce]

Sorry if I took it the wrong way. There are a few problem posters here and elsewhere that I'm fed up with and that comment came at the wrong time.

Regarding 2k vs XP's NTFS, there do use different versions that aren't backwards compatable (with no easy to find warning).
M$'s own KB article is a waste as you said. It's misleading and just false. How can something be fixed, if you then have to do a registry change in the uninstalled program (which I never heard of doing)?
More BS from M$ that causes me more unecessary work. All they care about is adding more bells & whistles to sell a newer O/S and dump the last one. Of course most of these program suppliers seem to do the ame thing.

As far as the serial port; One issue with another program appears to be "Terminal Services" running that causes the program to freeze 5 seconds after I try to conect to the device. That's as far as I got with that (after spending an hour stopping services from loading using MS Config. (one of their better ideas, too bad they hide it).
For the reason of this thread, I ordered a couple of serial port cards and will try those. Someone suggested reassigning a different port to the serial port which I will try.

[rwest]

You're Human?!

The OS manufacture's want to sell thier thier product before it's fully developed?!
There sure really are some silver tounged devils amongst the best and worst of 'em all.

Good luck with the cards. BTW not real sure, but the problem your describing kinda' sounds like a resources sharing conflict. The OS is supposed to handle this. You should be able to disable the paralell port in bios-if you're not using it. You know...free up some other resourses for the OS to work with when its trying to assign 'em.

[videobruce]

Parallel port has been disabled.

[glc]

Originally Posted by videobruce On a wiped 320GB drive, the 2k install disc (w/sp4) reports 131GB and XP Pro (w/sp2) reports 305GB.

I have gotten around this in the following way, with a WD drive:

Download WD's Data Lifeguard for DOS hard drive setup software and create the bootable media. (If you have a Seagate drive, Seagate's Disk Wizard should allow you to do the same thing). Set up the drive, telling it that you are prepping it for XP with SP2. It can create a single 305gb partition and it will quick format it. Then install 2K, telling it to leave the file system intact. Even though the INITIAL indication in 2K's setup will tell you it's 131gb, it WILL install on 305gb.

Admin note - you MUST keep cross-forum squabbling OUT of these forums.

[videobruce]

Regarding your suggestion, isn't that a 'drive overlay'?

Admin note - you MUST keep cross-forum squabbling OUT of these forums.

Be sure you tell that to the one that started it, not to me. I only defend an attack, I wasn't the 'whinner'.