Computer help needed

[SMOKEU]

I just installed an SLI setup on my computer, and the only change I made in the BIOS was that I selected the "Dual video card" option. My computer now won't boot into Windows 7, it just comes up with a screen after the BIOS has loaded asking me if I want to boot into Ubuntu, Windows 7, or if I want to run Memtest 86.

When I select Windows 7, it says that the partition does not exist, but Ubuntu works fine. I tried restarting the computer and resetting the BIOS to the default settings, and all hard drives show up in the BIOS and are securely plugged in.

It was working perfectly fine before I added the second video card, and that screen asking me to select the OS never normally comes up before today.

[Bald Eagle]

When I select Windows 7,

There's your problem right there. :lol:

[SMOKEU]

There's your problem right there. :lol:

Taking the new card out and only having the old one in presents the same problem.

Looks like I'll have to reinstall Windows 7 yet again.

[Juzz976]

SLI has always been a PITA. a good single is better.

Sorry I cannot be more helpful, I can only offer my opinion from many years of building top end machines.

Some SLI cards do not allow multi monitor support while in SLI mode.
Heat traps in top card
second Card is usually running at half the primary speed
latency from having primary controlling the secondary. (communicate back n forth)
other compatibility issues as you are experiencing....

[Suntoucher]

Looks like you've lost the second partition with Windows 7. Boot Manager seems to be on the Linux partition so it still has the address, but no partition. Is it an SLI board? Could have confused it.

Boot into Linux and see if the address is still the same, both the drive letter and the files themselves.

[SMOKEU]

Looks like you've lost the second partition with Windows 7. Boot Manager seems to be on the Linux partition so it still has the address, but no partition. Is it an SLI board? Could have confused it.

Boot into Linux and see if the address is still the same, both the drive letter and the files themselves.

Definately is an SLI board. Linux still appears to be the same.
I attempted to reinstall Windows 7, but it won't install on any partition even after I have selected the 'format' option. I'll remove all the HDs, install Windows 7 on a spare drive, then connect the other drives, format them all (except for my external with all the backups), repartition them with Partition Magic, then disconnect the drive with the OS on it and start again by installing the OS on one of my freshly formatted and partitioned drives. When I have the time that is.

[Ronin]

Taking the new card out and only having the old one in presents the same problem.

Looks like I'll have to reinstall Windows 7 yet again.

Or you could use the windows 7 recovery disk you burned... You did burn one didn't you.

[Latte]

Find a copy of BartPE , run it up, and see if it can find your Windows installation.

[Forest]

Sorry I don't have time to help.

I'm too busy doing productive work on my Mac.

[SMOKEU]

Or you could use the windows 7 recovery disk you burned... You did burn one didn't you.

I sure didn't, and it refuses to repair the existing Windows installation.



I have a 2TB WD Green Power HD with 64MB cache, and a 500GB Seagate 7200RPM drive, now I've heard these new 'green drives' are a fair bit slower than the old 7200RPM drives, has anyone here noticed any difference in performance between them? I'm asking because I want to install the OS on the fastest drive.

[Suntoucher]

Doesn't Linux have root level partitioning software? Is it completely inaccessible?



Sorry I don't have time to help.

I'm too busy doing productive work on my Mac.


The tradeoff is you have to use a Mac, the cons far outweigh the pros.

[Ronin]

I sure didn't, and it refuses to repair the existing Windows installation.



I have a 2TB WD Green Power HD with 64MB cache, and a 500GB Seagate 7200RPM drive, now I've heard these new 'green drives' are a fair bit slower than the old 7200RPM drives, has anyone here noticed any difference in performance between them? I'm asking because I want to install the OS on the fastest drive.

I'm assuming you can see your NTFS from Ubuntu? You could try your Grub settings. The System reserved partition for win 7 can be a fickle beast. I do struggle to understand why installing the sli card has altered this and why when you remove it the system wont revert. Something else somewhere has changed without you realising it.

How did you dual boot before without the OS selector coming up? Remember. The boot loader is looking for the 100 meg reserved partition NOT the OS.

Boot off your windows disk. Does it at least find the windows install? If not you will have to run the btmgr utils.

[SMOKEU]

I'm assuming you can see your NTFS from Ubuntu? You could try your Grub settings. The System reserved partition for win 7 can be a fickle beast. I do struggle to understand why installing the sli card has altered this and why when you remove it the system wont revert. Something else somewhere has changed without you realising it.

How did you dual boot before without the OS selector coming up? Remember. The boot loader is looking for the 100 meg reserved partition NOT the OS.

Boot off your windows disk. Does it at least find the windows install? If not you will have to run the btmgr utils.

Yup, I can see the NTFS from Ubuntu. I have removed the installation of Ubuntu that I had several weeks ago as it wasn't working properly. It was installed from within Windows, but now it seems to still work (Ubuntu that is).

[Ronin]

Yup, I can see the NTFS from Ubuntu. I have removed the installation of Ubuntu that I had several weeks ago as it wasn't working properly. It was installed from within Windows, but now it seems to still work (Ubuntu that is).

Ahhhhhhhhhh

Then all is good. It will be a Grub/MBR issue most likely. Hope your good with CLI. You can boot VIA your Ubuntu DVD and edit your grub.conf file. You will have to google something like win 7 not booting from grub and follow the instructions. However, the windows repair disk should still do it to be honest. Unplug any extra drives and give it a go.

[p.dath]

Boot the the recovery console off the Windows 7 DVD, and try something like:

fixmbr

Sounds like the boot info is damaged. This will re-write it.

[Ronin]

Boot the the recovery console off the Windows 7 DVD, and try something like:

fixmbr

Sounds like the boot info is damaged. This will re-write it.

Your on the right track. Win 7 is a bit more complex than that though. fixmbr works a treat on grub errors in XP.

Also be aware... You may lose your linux boot.

Fun aye?

A Mac looking good yet? lol

[motor_mayhem]

Sorry I don't have time to help.

I'm too busy looking at my Mac.

Fixed - Everyone knows you don't buy a Mac to do work, they're just a nerd fashion accessory. :shutup:

[jonbuoy]

Sorry I don't have time to help.

I'm too busy doing productive work on my Mac.

Rendering 3D graphics with an SLI interface??

[Suntoucher]

Rendering 3D graphics with an SLI interface??

Sitting at Starbucks with it propped on the table pretending to type.

Next to his iPhone.

[Gremlin]

I have a 2TB WD Green Power HD with 64MB cache, and a 500GB Seagate 7200RPM drive, now I've heard these new 'green drives' are a fair bit slower than the old 7200RPM drives, has anyone here noticed any difference in performance between them?
WD doesn't say what the green drives performance are, but we all pretty much know they run at 5400rpm.

Since you have brought up Seagate, it depends on whether that 500GB drive is a (now) infamous seagate 11. On top of that, any new drive is going to perform better than an old one.

[SMOKEU]

WD doesn't say what the green drives performance are, but we all pretty much know they run at 5400rpm.

Since you have brought up Seagate, it depends on whether that 500GB drive is a (now) infamous seagate 11. On top of that, any new drive is going to perform better than an old one.

I've used the Ubuntu disk performance benchmark, and HDTach, and I have found that the WD drive is only slightly slower in the read/write department than the 500GB Seagate, but the seek time is around 20ms with the WD and around 13ms with the Seagate. My guess is that since the WD isn't always operating at its full speed, it's slow when it comes down to day to day running, but quick when reading or writing large amounts of data.

My 320GB SATA Seagate 7200RPM drive is very slow, it has a read rate of around 67MB/s, compared with around 92MB/s for the 500GB model. However, the write speed is around the same for both the Seagate drives. My guess is that the 320GB drive is on its last legs.

Has anyone here got a solid state SATA drive that they have benchmarked, just so I can see the performance difference between a SSD and a disk drive?

[bane]

Has anyone here got a solid state SATA drive that they have benchmarked, just so I can see the performance difference between a SSD and a disk drive?


This link seems to have a few benchmarks:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3734/seagates-momentus-xt-review-finally-a-good-hybrid-hdd/