That makes sense, but seeing that the SATA drives are faster than the regular drives, would doing it that way be slower than if the RAID drives were bootable? Don't know if I asked that correctly of not. As it stands now, the computer boots up faster using the installed SATA drive than it does using one of the 80GB drives. On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:18:23 +0100, "Sorin Srbu" <sorin.srbu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> took time to say the following: SS> I forgot to add that I usually don't run raid-0 on the boot partition (ie SS> c:). I always install the OS on a separate hd together with the apps I use, SS> and then raid only the secondary "data" partition (ie d:). I feel safer SS> doing this; if the raid should break, then the os is still bootable. SS> Something which I feel will help in picking up the pieces. SS> SS> On the secondary data partition I install games and similar and also keep SS> iso cd/dvd-images etc that I work with. This way I don't have to reinstall SS> anything really, if the software raid should break. SS> SS> I haven't so far had any software raid break, BTW, and I've been running SS> them for about three years or so. SS> SS> HTH SS> SS> SS> ***************************** SS> New Site from The Kenzig Group! SS> Windows Vista Links, list options SS> and info are available at: SS> http://www.VistaPop.com SS> ***************************** SS> To Unsubscribe, set digest or vacation SS> mode or view archives use the below link. SS> SS> http://thethin.net/win2000list.cfm For what is a man, what has he got? If not himself, then he has naught To say the things he truly feels and not the words of one who kneels ***************************** New Site from The Kenzig Group! Windows Vista Links, list options and info are available at: http://www.VistaPop.com ***************************** To Unsubscribe, set digest or vacation mode or view archives use the below link. http://thethin.net/win2000list.cfm