I bought a new HD (80GB), after a partition boot sector disaster with
the old HD used in a mobile rack. I want to partition the new HD in
two with FAT32 (as it was the previous one).
I was told that it is safer, to avoid similar disasters, to make two
Primary partitions, rather than one primary and the other
Extended/logical. I know that this will not be recognized by DOS/Win98.
Is it correct, and can you give advice on what to do best? Thank you.

On similar topic: is there a chkdsk \F substitute to your knowledge
that allows undo? Sometimes chkdsk puts HD coerence at the cost of
destroying all your data in unusable chanks CHK.

Primary Fat32 partitions will be recognized by DOS. Only one can be
marked active without confusing DOS. The main difference is that a
PRImary partion may not be subdivided into logical drives like an
EXTended partition can.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> I bought a new HD (80GB), after a partition boot sector disaster with
> the old HD used in a mobile rack. I want to partition the new HD in
> two with FAT32 (as it was the previous one).
> I was told that it is safer, to avoid similar disasters, to make two
> Primary partitions, rather than one primary and the other
> Extended/logical. I know that this will not be recognized by DOS/Win98.
> Is it correct, and can you give advice on what to do best? Thank you.
>
> On similar topic: is there a chkdsk \F substitute to your knowledge
> that allows undo? Sometimes chkdsk puts HD coerence at the cost of
> destroying all your data in unusable chanks CHK.
>

IMO NTFS is a more reliable file system. You can run chkdsk without
parameters to see what's in store for you. No undo AFAIK

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
|I bought a new HD (80GB), after a partition boot sector disaster with
| the old HD used in a mobile rack. I want to partition the new HD in
| two with FAT32 (as it was the previous one).
| I was told that it is safer, to avoid similar disasters, to make two
| Primary partitions, rather than one primary and the other
| Extended/logical. I know that this will not be recognized by DOS/Win98.
| Is it correct, and can you give advice on what to do best? Thank you.
|
| On similar topic: is there a chkdsk \F substitute to your knowledge
| that allows undo? Sometimes chkdsk puts HD coerence at the cost of
| destroying all your data in unusable chanks CHK.
|

Thank you for your answers.

I am not concerned about security. But about reliability in the sense
of not destructive behaviour, above all, considering that the HD will
move in different PCs with at least two different OSs: win2000 and
WinXP. Add, also that sometimes the mobile rack, may just not fit
exactly in the docking station.

Giving these premises, shall I stick with FAT32 or do you mantain that
NTFS is superior? And giving this use, would you suggest two primary or
one primary and one logical.
Thanks again for your valuable time and info.

This decision may be a combination of a overall system requirement and
personal preference issue. These links may help you decide.

http://www.ntfs.com/
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/d...c_fil_duwx.asp
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;EN-US;310525
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/100108/

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
| Thank you for your answers.
|
| I am not concerned about security. But about reliability in the sense
| of not destructive behaviour, above all, considering that the HD will
| move in different PCs with at least two different OSs: win2000 and
| WinXP. Add, also that sometimes the mobile rack, may just not fit
| exactly in the docking station.
|
| Giving these premises, shall I stick with FAT32 or do you mantain that
| NTFS is superior? And giving this use, would you suggest two primary or
| one primary and one logical.
| Thanks again for your valuable time and info.
|

If DOS/Win9x is not in the mix Fat32 is not necessary. The NTFS would be
the desired file system for strictly NT operating systems.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Thank you for your answers.
>
> I am not concerned about security. But about reliability in the sense
> of not destructive behaviour, above all, considering that the HD will
> move in different PCs with at least two different OSs: win2000 and
> WinXP. Add, also that sometimes the mobile rack, may just not fit
> exactly in the docking station.
>
> Giving these premises, shall I stick with FAT32 or do you mantain that
> NTFS is superior? And giving this use, would you suggest two primary or
> one primary and one logical.
> Thanks again for your valuable time and info.
>

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I bought a new HD (80GB), after a partition boot sector disaster with
> the old HD used in a mobile rack. I want to partition the new HD in
> two with FAT32 (as it was the previous one).
> I was told that it is safer, to avoid similar disasters, to make two
> Primary partitions, rather than one primary and the other
> Extended/logical. I know that this will not be recognized by DOS/Win98.
> Is it correct, and can you give advice on what to do best? Thank you.

There's no reason that two primary partitions will be any safer then one
primary with one extended partition.

In spite of the warnings, Win98 seems to handle multiple primary
partitions without any problems.

> On similar topic: is there a chkdsk \F substitute to your knowledge
> that allows undo? Sometimes chkdsk puts HD coerence at the cost of
> destroying all your data in unusable chanks CHK.

Yes, it's called a "backup".

--
-GJC [MS Windows SDK MVP]
-Software Consultant (Embedded systems and Real Time Controls)
- http://www.mvps.org/ArcaneIncantations/consulting.htm
-(E-Mail Removed)

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thank you for your answers.
>
> I am not concerned about security. But about reliability in the sense
> of not destructive behaviour, above all, considering that the HD will
> move in different PCs with at least two different OSs: win2000 and
> WinXP. Add, also that sometimes the mobile rack, may just not fit
> exactly in the docking station.
>
> Giving these premises, shall I stick with FAT32 or do you mantain that
> NTFS is superior? And giving this use, would you suggest two primary or
> one primary and one logical.

NTFS is far more reliable then FAT32. It is much more likely to be able
to recover itself from problems.

--
-GJC [MS Windows SDK MVP]
-Software Consultant (Embedded systems and Real Time Controls)
- http://www.mvps.org/ArcaneIncantations/consulting.htm
-(E-Mail Removed)