scsi and sata conflict

gineric : why are you saying the serial ata card is not for servers

it is not a crap card imho

I agree with garycase put the boot card ie scsi nearer to the cpu and the sata card further away as the pci priority is usually right to left or cpu away is lowering the priority but you manual for the server should confirm this

does the sata card have a bios if so can you disable it with a jumper or throught the sata card bios itself and then disable boot

Found it

you have to press f3 when the server starts up and press f2 this will remove the sata card boot device allowing you scsi card to boot

There may be nothing wrong with this particular SATA controller or the technology as such, but the big Q is why mix different disk controller types in a machine that has SCSI? The easiest and most functional approach would be to add another SCSI disk to the chain. Period.
/RID

I told you SATA was junk.

It's a serial device, that's going back to about 1950, isn't it?

Windows has a hard time with SCSI, USB, and SATA because they are all emulated through the scsi driver and because they are all trying to use one wire, the Plug and Play IRQ cascade 9/2 and a twisted pair for communication and data transfer.

Intel doesn't like these serial devices either, they are making their 64-bits highly parallel machines look bad, performancewise and otherwise.

Serial stuff is the third party computer sellers trying to make extra bucks by cutting out quality and costs; obviously, parallel [64-120 wires, lands, pins, IC legs, connectors] cost more than your basic telephone company twisted pair of wires.

I think Western Digital has the Parallel ATA drives; I don't know why Maxtor is trying to go serial.

But also keeping the PCI buss, as the new 64-bit PCI buss, is part and parcel of true 64-bit architecture; SATA is not, nor is USB.

SCSI, PATA, and 64-bit PCI and 64-bit IDE are the state of the art.

SATA, like USB, is one of those 50-year old technologies brought back from the dead to pick the pockets of the unknowing.

Yes, it will work for a while, but not as well as the others.  Your SATA replacement can be expected within two years.  They don't spend money, not on product, not on research, not on parts, and not on quality.

The parallel people do.

That is for your future knowledge, or, if you can get a better replacement for this new drive from where you got it.

As for the problem of making it work, if you had XP, F8 would take you to Administrator startup where you could copy the old Operating System to a new hard drive, or, copy the Operating System from an old hard drive.  I don't know if Windows 2000 has this feature.

Add the letter "N" to the end of SATA and you'll get an idea of how I feel about such serial technologies in the age of the highly parallel 64-bit microprocessor.

I'll digest these and try the suggestions this Friday.  

Hi, I tried this today and here is what happened.  I had already tried the computer bios and knew there was not an option for which card.  I had also tried the sata card bios but wasn't sure so looked at that again -- no luck.

I had forgotten about the slot order so did that.  Turns out this machine looks at the cards starting with the farthest away from the cpu so I put the sata card closest.

I haven't split points in awhile so have the wrong accepted and assisted answer.  The points I put in reflect garycase as the accepted answer.  I did give gineric points for an assisted answer because I haven't been paying attention at that level so appreciated the education.  If I could do it again, I'd go his way -- new SCSI drive.

FWIW though, this server is going to be retired within a year (it is about 6 years old) so we are just keeping costs down.