Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1.    #1  
    Hi guys,

    It's been more then 5 years since I got my Dell and I think it is a good time to upgrade my C drive. So I got a 200 GB HD and asked one of the techs at work to copy it to the new drive. He used ghost and we both thought it was all fine, but it didn't work, the PC won't boot up. According to him it was because I had a FAT32 drive and bla bla bla. Though according to a coworker and something I read on the Internet it is because I'm running WinXP with ServPack 2. Wha happens is that WinXP knows it is running from a different drive. That is lame... Now, what the tech told me is that he is going to try PartitionMagic. Do you guys think that will work? Any ideas on that? I'm pretty sure some one has done this before, right?

    Thanks,

    Al
  2. #2  
    Here's a good resource:

    http://forums.techguy.org/

    Check out the operating systems and/or the hardware sections. I've seen this discussed there. Friendly group, helpful, a handful of know-it-alls, and a touch of attitude here and there. But not bad.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  3. #3  
    Reinstall a fresh copy of Windows. Trust me.
  4. #4  
    The best way to do this is to "partition ya hard drive"

    C: OS ONLY
    D: Page File & temp Files
    E: Programs
    F: Data

    Ya can have F-> whatever for different types of data (Graphics, Music, etc). So then when ya in your position, you can install a fresh copy of the OS onto C without messing anything else up. Of course you have install ya programs over themselves top get the correct registry settings.

    The computer will also be a lot more manageable. Easier to allow specific network access....want to share music over network, share Music partition.

    It will be faster by keeping page file and temp files on outer portion of disk.

    Backups are piece of cake....no need to backup E partition if you haven't installed a program or upgrade in 3 months.

    Defrags are cake...no waiting for 200 Gigs to finish.

    I even leave unformatted space between C and D for the "next OS" or "copy of the OS". That was say if I wanna try Vista I can put it on there and "hide it" from the OS already installed. When you dual boot this way, nothing under the 1st boot can harm the 2nd boot and visa versa. I primarily use the 2nd OS install as a "repair OS" ... so if windows gets fudged, I can immediately boot to the 2nd install and do what needs to be done.
  5. #5  
    Opps forgot the last part. Your partition may be too big fpr the cluster size on ya first disk....Ghost (actuall PowerQuest's Drive Image with Symantec's badge on it) is a sector by sector copy so it will result in same cluster sizes. Use PM to make a partition the exact same size as your original one and then try ghosting it. Then resize, add partitions or whatever via PM or Windows Disk tool.

    If it doesn't take use the windows CD to do a "manual" repair....instructions are in the MSKB.

    Oh yeah...turn off system restore, firewall and all other stuff like that and then defrag and run chkdsk before ghosting.
  6. #6  
    Windows XP does care what motherboard it is installed on. It is because of the Activation process.

    It is always best to install XP on the drive that it is installed on the PC you plan on using.
  7. #7  
    partitioning your hard drive will make it slower
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Reinstall a fresh copy of Windows. Trust me.
    I would follow this suggestion. If you try the upgrade route, all the accumulated junk is not worth the hassle.
  9. #9  
    Instead of replacing your C drive, you could just install the other drive as a slave drive. Any time you move files from one drive to another, there's a good chancge you'll get a little bit of corruption/compatability issues. It doesn't always happen, but there is a chance. This can be a better solution in many cases.

    And now:
    My 700P will be better than your 700p!

    Signed,
    The n00b!

    P.s. Bow before me!

    Don't just see the n00b, be the n00b! Wait, no...
  10. #10  
    (this has been already stated several times -- but not in simple terms)

    Install XP (maybe a system restore CD ???) on your new 200gb

    update windows etc, install virus stuff etc, then progams

    take your old C: drive and change the cabling so that the new drive is connected to where the old was (or if it was jumpered as master, make it a slave), or in the bios change which drive is the boot drive. (the old drive will probably become E, or F)

    The old drives documents, music, data will be there -- and eventually you can delete windows, programs etc. to get more room on it...
    Last edited by BARYE; 05/12/2006 at 09:27 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    (this has been already stated several times -- but not in simple terms)

    Install XP (maybe a system restore CD ???) on your new 200gb

    update windows etc, install virus stuff etc, then progams

    take or your old C: drive and change the cabling so that the new drive is connected to where the old was (or if it was jumpered as master, make it a slave), or in the bios change which drive is the boot drive. (the old drive will probably become E, or F)

    The old drives documents, music, data will be there -- and eventually you can delete windows, programs etc. to get more room on it...
    what he said
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    partitioning your hard drive will make it slower
    you gonna have to show me that published somewhere...all the data I have seen...and bench tests done on workstations here show otherwise. Major software documentation such as AutoCAD specifically recommends partitioning to improve speed. We typically spend about $500-800 per 15k hard drive on our CAD boxes so we take HD speed seriously. None has ever benchmarked slower whan not partitioned....we have seen 20% speed increases on benchmarks just by creating a static swap partition and reformatting the dedicated swap file partitions from NTFS to FAT32

    From a common sense point of view....

    1. Forcing the swap file to the outer portion of the disk where it's twice as fast as the inner portion doubles your most frequent disk activity speed. Our current build has transfer rate of 125 Mb/sec at outer edge....68 at inner edge....where do I want most of my disk access staking place....closer to the 125 MB/sec end no ?

    2. Forcing OS and program loads to the front part of the disk means faster load times.

    3. Putting rarely used stuff at the inner part of the disk menas stuff you never access is on slowest part....nice spot for backups rather than random placement

    4. Partitioning allows different formatting for each partition....while the trade off is worth it for security and stability on all other partitions you can take advantage of faster access on FAT32 swap partition....

    5. Searching for a file on a a 16Gig space has gotta be a lot faster than in a 120 Gig space.

    6. Less cluster slop with smaller cluster sizes.

    7. Directory structure is smaller so finding where a file is stored is much faster.

    http://www.mgforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39212

    "Partitioning a hard drive lets your computer find things faster. Even routine access to information is speeded up because the computer can organize the information more efficiently with smaller directories. Quicker searches for files or directories also result because the computer only has to search a single partition instead of the entire large disk."
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by JackNaylorPE
    you gonna have to show me that published somewhere...all the data I have seen...and bench tests done on workstations here show otherwise.
    Go to www.storagereview.com click on faq, click on partitioning.
    Quote Originally Posted by storagereview faq
    For a Windows user, the only reason to have more than one partition on a drive is to support separate file systems. Unnecessary partitioning reduces performance, complicates your setup, and fragments the drive. Use folders for organizational purposes that's what they are there for. Few users with only one system drive will need to reinstall their operating system; all data on the computer should be backed-up before making such a move, anyway, so, extra partitions are useless.
    Quote Originally Posted by JackNaylorPE
    Major software documentation such as AutoCAD specifically recommends partitioning to improve speed. We typically spend about $500-800 per 15k hard drive on our CAD boxes so we take HD speed seriously. None has ever benchmarked slower whan not partitioned....
    I don't think Treolo will be running Autocad, but from a development standpoint, if the software has instructions about partitioning, i will bet it is because they are using swap a swap file and are giving you the option of positioning it / them on more than one drive, this will always be faster than a single drive, or a single partitioned drive
    Quote Originally Posted by JackNaylorPE
    we have seen 20% speed increases on benchmarks just by creating a static swap partition and reformatting the dedicated swap file partitions from NTFS to FAT32

    From a common sense point of view....

    1. Forcing the swap file to the outer portion of the disk where it's twice as fast as the inner portion doubles your most frequent disk activity speed. Our current build has transfer rate of 125 Mb/sec at outer edge....68 at inner edge....where do I want most of my disk access staking place....closer to the 125 MB/sec end no

    2. Forcing OS and program loads to the front part of the disk means faster load times.

    3. Putting rarely used stuff at the inner part of the disk menas stuff you never access is on slowest part....nice spot for backups rather than random placement

    4. Partitioning allows different formatting for each partition....while the trade off is worth it for security and stability on all other partitions you can take advantage of faster access on FAT32 swap partition....

    5. Searching for a file on a a 16Gig space has gotta be a lot faster than in a 120 Gig space.

    6. Less cluster slop with smaller cluster sizes.

    7. Directory structure is smaller so finding where a file is stored is much faster.

    http://www.mgforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39212
    Your defragmentation software should be keeping your swap file at the beginning of your drive, but in Windows XP, it's not even as important as having multiple swap files on seperate drives, not just seperate partitions. Windows will swap to the least busy drive.

    Your hard drive is a mechanical device. You get optimal performance when the spindle on each drive is allowed to work independently. (this is also a main reason why the consensus at storage review is against raid zero) Reading from one drive for example, and writing to another. All of the performance gains you mention (while not without merit), do not approach the performance hit that happens if the arm on your hard drive has to move back and forth from one partition to the other.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Go to www.storagereview.com click on faq, click on partitioning.
    Summary from the FAQ (comemnts by 4 guys) at storage review

    1st Guy...in short and paraphrasing "partitioning is bad", very scientific....no support for his statements

    2nd guy...in short and paraphrasing "won't help, won't hurt"

    3rd guys says "If you have separate partitions for your temp and swap, the partitioning will force your temp and swap files to be physically located far away from your most frequently used program files and system files / DLL's (i.e., many cylinders away), thus greatly increasing average seek distances. "

    This is a very dumb partitioning scheme....you don't lump data and programs on same partition or this is exactly what happens. This is just like an unpartitioned HD....if you let windows manage the swap, its fragemented and all over the place.

    That is the point....by partitioning, you force your temp and swap files to be close to those programs files. On 200 Gig HD

    OS ...... 0 - 8 Gigs
    Swap ....8-12 Gigs
    Programs 12-24 gigs

    This way no program dll is any more than 12 gigs away from our swap...and on the large radius part of the platter....no OS file is more than 8 gigs from my swap temp files....again on the wide end of the disk....I install an upgrade to photoshop and it deletes the files at spot 12-14 Gigs on the disk and places some at 12-14 and some at 165-168 on the disk...that is a hell of a lot futher away....and half is at one end and half at the other.....he defeats his own argument.

    4th guy says "can be beneficial

    So at storage review, 1 guys says its bad with no support, one guy says its bad but he partitions anyway, a third says don't matter and one says its beneficial.....hardly sounds like string support.

    Let's see what Microsoft says on the subject:

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u...partition.mspx

    "Depending on your budget and goals, you can choose the solution that works best for your system. In this column, I'll focus on three areas where your partitioning scheme can really make a difference:

    Organizing your work
    Safeguarding your data
    Boosting your computer's performance"

    Seems to apply to apple too:

    http://www.sciencequest.org/support/...titioning.html

    "By partitioning a drive, you may designate which files are devoted to the fastest portions of the drive platen (media), and which go to the slowest, thus increasing your System and application performance. Don't forget that the Finder is just another application, and it is central to using most others. If the Finder is unhappy, so will your other applications, because they must work with the Finder to use your hard drives and other media."

    Personally I don't think partitioning in and of itself changes anything performance wise. It's what the partitions allow you to do that is significant:

    1. being able to have FAT 32 swap file is very significant
    2. being able to set huge cluster size for swap is very significant
    3. keeping swap forever at outer rim of disk where speeds are double is as much as a 2:1 advantage
    4. forcing the swap between program and OS, contary to what the one guy said at storagereview, minimizes rather than increases head travel....a) the lateral movement of the arm is going to be smaller where disk path is larger diameter and b) from the 4 Gig spot to the 16 Gig spot is a hell of a lot shorter than from 4 gig spot to 178 gig spot....when partitioned with data at ends, only time head goes there is to open a file and save a file. If I open the file at 9 am and finish my work at 2 pm....my disk heads never gonna move past 24 Gig mark in 5 hours on a "properly" partitioned drive...with a swap file all over the place and program dll's all over the place that arm going to be getting lot of travel in an unpartitioned HD.
    5. There is a definite advantge to having smaller directories to search. When a program makes a function call that requires a dll it asks the MBR where that file is...so the HD has to search thru the directory structure and tell the arm to go to this sector / cluster and go get it....smaller directories mean faster searches....so searching for a program dll on a 12Gig partition gonna be a lot faster than searching structure on a 200 GB partition
  15.    #15  
    I know it is a pain in the **** to start from scratch but I also know that it has been more than 5 years running the same install of XP so I guess I'm just gonna reinstall. What a pain in the ****...

    Thanks a lot guys for your thoughts,

    Al
  16. #16  
    Try BackupMan or BackupBuddy. It should work.


Posting Permissions