98 to XP HDD query.

[Guest]

if cost is not an issue, then forget the seamless upgrade, and buy the full
version of XP Pro, upgrading from 98 to XP is problematic, ie (chock full of
issues).
I would strongly urge you to get a new HD install XP cleanly, then pick and
choose your data to move over.

 

[Clark...]

Cheers Sgopus,
I did not make myself clear, apologies

I have the XP box, waiting in the wings,
new HDD with XP installed.
It is my peripheral HDD's that are the query.
They hold around 40,000 images each,
of my postage stamp album.

I was wondering if I attach the internal D drive
which is FAT32 inside my XP box, if it would
create issues, (and again my external HDD's)
or it would be better to start with new
formatted NTFS drives.

The XP NTFS partition will see the FAT32 partition just fine so yes you can
move it to the new box.(its FAT32 that can't see NTFS)
be sure to set your jumpers on the drives correctly , master and slave or
cable select on both drives, the master drive is going to be the one at the
end of the parallel cable, or if drives are SATA 1 is the master 2 slave
etc,

Clark...

 

[Malke]

Cheers Sgopus,
I did not make myself clear, apologies

I have the XP box, waiting in the wings,
new HDD with XP installed.
It is my peripheral HDD's that are the query.
They hold around 40,000 images each,
of my postage stamp album.

I was wondering if I attach the internal D drive
which is FAT32 inside my XP box, if it would
create issues, (and again my external HDD's)
or it would be better to start with new
formatted NTFS drives.

There will be no problem using your older data drives like that. You
might want to purchase a new, huge drive for the future if those
peripherals hard drives are old. It would also be wise to have an
additional backup to DVD-R and/or offsite backup (like Mozy for ex.) and
not put all your precious eggs in one basket since hard drives - even
new ones - eventually die.


Malke

 

[Rod]

'mornin all.

I aiming at a seamless transfer
98se to XP.

My second internal hard drive in 98se,
and my external HDD's (E:\ and F:\)
are all FAT32

I was aiming at swapping the internal
HDD from one box t'other.
May I do this? or is it preferable to
add and format a new internal, then transfer the data?
Cost is not an issue.

Thank you.
R

 

[Bob Harris]

XP can read and write both FAT32 and NTFS. Further, it handles the details
automatically, so you can copy&paste to/from any attached hard drive from
any other attached hard drive, internal and/or external. (XP can also
handle FAT16, such as really old DOS, win95, and FAT12, such as floppies.)

However, if you ever want someone running 98 or ME (maybe MAC and LINUX) to
be able to read the external hard drive, then stick with FAT32 as its
format. NTFS format is unique to NT, 2000, XP, and Vista, and the XP format
may not be compatible with the older versions. However, NTFS is better
suited for large disks, and has some self-correction abilities not available
in FAT32.

 

[Rod]

if cost is not an issue, then forget the seamless upgrade, and buy the full
version of XP Pro, upgrading from 98 to XP is problematic, ie (chock full of
issues).
I would strongly urge you to get a new HD install XP cleanly, then pick and
choose your data to move over.

Cheers Sgopus,
I did not make myself clear, apologies

I have the XP box, waiting in the wings,
new HDD with XP installed.
It is my peripheral HDD's that are the query.
They hold around 40,000 images each,
of my postage stamp album.

I was wondering if I attach the internal D drive
which is FAT32 inside my XP box, if it would
create issues, (and again my external HDD's)
or it would be better to start with new
formatted NTFS drives.

 

[Rod]

There will be no problem using your older data drives like that. You
might want to purchase a new, huge drive for the future if those
peripherals hard drives are old. It would also be wise to have an
additional backup to DVD-R and/or offsite backup (like Mozy for ex.) and
not put all your precious eggs in one basket since hard drives - even
new ones - eventually die.

Thanks Malke, thanks Clark.
useful advice.
I prefer to <avoid> the software "backup" route,
I was severly bitten way back in the early days
when I had a tape drive.

I prefer to use "copy" backups.

I sourced small drives from upgraded
playstation boxes, now I source cheap drives
elsewhere, I recently bought a swag of mixed drives
for $20.
I probably do overkill, but whilst having tea,
I sling my entire folder set over to an
external HDD, and swap HDD's in the case

I copy the entire disk once a month figuring
I can recover ok from that data loss.

Now that it's getting around 30Gb I probably
need other advice, I understand one can
piggyback drives using a scsi drive
so I may have to pursue that avenue.
cheers
R

 

[Rod]

XP can read and write both FAT32 and NTFS. Further, it handles the details
automatically, so you can copy&paste to/from any attached hard drive from
any other attached hard drive, internal and/or external. (XP can also
handle FAT16, such as really old DOS, win95, and FAT12, such as floppies.)

However, if you ever want someone running 98 or ME (maybe MAC and LINUX) to
be able to read the external hard drive, then stick with FAT32 as its

Thank you Bob,
I was dragged kicking and screaming to XP,
now I will be changing, I'll try to not look back
Thanks for your comments
very helpful, and filed.
Rodney.

 

[HeyBub]

The XP NTFS partition will see the FAT32 partition just fine so yes
you can move it to the new box.(its FAT32 that can't see NTFS)
be sure to set your jumpers on the drives correctly , master and
slave or cable select on both drives, the master drive is going to be
the one at the end of the parallel cable, or if drives are SATA 1 is
the master 2 slave etc,

Huh? Partitions don't look at each other and any one partition is
indifferent to the formatting of another.

It's Win98 that CAN'T read an NTFS partion. XP CAN read a FAT32 partion.

 

[HeyBub]

I copy the entire disk once a month figuring
I can recover ok from that data loss.

Now that it's getting around 30Gb I probably
need other advice, I understand one can
piggyback drives using a scsi drive
so I may have to pursue that avenue.
cheers

Thirty Gigs is piddly.

You can find 40Gb drives in the bottom of CrackerJack boxes.

High-end common is now 500Gb with 1 Terabyte drives on the horizon.

 

[Rod]

Thirty Gigs is piddly.
You can find 40Gb drives in the bottom of CrackerJack boxes.
High-end common is now 500Gb with 1 Terabyte drives on the horizon.

You are correct of course,
but it's all relative,
if you lived in the outskirts of Madagascar,
the cracker jack boxes (whatever they are)
may be empty.
I can buy a 1Tb Raid here for $1,899
but what's the point?
18Gb is fine for me, I am not storing movies,
I rent them at $1.
Piddly is just fine, till my needs require otherwise.
It's not how big you are, but how you use it.

 

[dobey]

You are correct of course,
but it's all relative,
if you lived in the outskirts of Madagascar,
the cracker jack boxes (whatever they are)
may be empty.
I can buy a 1Tb Raid here for $1,899
but what's the point?
18Gb is fine for me, I am not storing movies,
I rent them at $1.
Piddly is just fine, till my needs require otherwise.
It's not how big you are, but how you use it.

"High- End", is just that.

Middle, low end users don't need vast amounts of disk space.

If your only doing basic text / internet usage, 30GB is fine, and cheap,
just add another disk.

The only downside would be the age of the drives and their relative
slowness, but matched with the right machine it makes no difference.

I just picked up a 500GB drive. At about AU$150, it was hard to resist!
Though being a horder I have no trouble finding stuff to "look at later" to
place on the disk.

Of course with that much disk space, backup becomes more of a headache.

 

[Rod]

"High- End", is just that.
Middle, low end users don't need vast amounts of disk space.

With respect, I'd dispute that.
It seems to me it's <what> you do, that decides disk space.

I have a 5 million record database that takes up just 600mb.

Then I have an area where I scan ancient magazines,
and I do around 5000 scans a month perhaps.
Rather than "back up" I prefer to "duplicate"
My "recent" folder holds 93,864 images
and that takes up 19Gb.

I can see the benefits of both, but I feel secure
in "duplication" on cheap HDD's, which is just
what RAID does, but on a larger scale.

A1Tb Raid network hard drive now is $599.

I'd suggest in a few years I'll be picking that up
at auction for around $60

 

[dobey]

With respect, I'd dispute that.
It seems to me it's <what> you do, that decides disk space.

And this is not obvious... why? You've snipped my qualifying statement.

I have a 5 million record database that takes up just 600mb.

Then I have an area where I scan ancient magazines,
and I do around 5000 scans a month perhaps.
Rather than "back up" I prefer to "duplicate"
My "recent" folder holds 93,864 images
and that takes up 19Gb.

Well again that is not a lot of disk space. I'm not even sure.

Does quibling over terms mean anything. "Back-up" has become a generic term
that just means to copy, (duplicate) data to another medium. Certainly it
began as a specific term amongst IT workers.

It's used more by professionals in the IT area because they are accustomed
to doing entire systems rather than just data. Doesn't need to be automated,
but to have a worker standing around to initiate a service that can be
reliably automated would be a waste. I've heard plenty of horror stories
about companies that have manual backup systems where nothing ever got
backed up.

I can see the benefits of both, but I feel secure
in "duplication" on cheap HDD's, which is just
what RAID does, but on a larger scale.

There is a reason why they are so cheap. Just out of curiosity what is you
failure rate of these drives?

A1Tb Raid network hard drive now is $599.

Wow!, prices have certainly dropped since your last post!

I'd suggest in a few years I'll be picking that up
at auction for around $60

I'm sure HDD's used in a RAID setup on a server somewhere will be worth that
much.

One wonders if you factored in the cost of your time aquiring these parts,
along with the time spent swapping disks, sorting through the drives,
checking them first, (which I assume you do), etc, just how much you would
have saved.

I'm sure it makes a nice hobby.

 

[Rod]

Wow!, prices have certainly dropped since your last post!

$1,899 1Tb Netgear ReadyNAS NV+ Raid 0,1,5 and X Raid
$599 1 Tb Western digital world edition network hard drive. Raid1