Cannot transfer large file to external HD

[do_not_reply1]

I'm running an early version of Win XP and am considering upgrading to
SP2 to speed up and secure my PC. Here is what I'm currently running:

Win XP Version 5.1 (Build 2600.xpclnt_qfe.010827-1803)
Compaq Presario 1500
Pentium 4 @ 2.0 GHz
256 MB RAM

I've been using Drive Image 2002 to create backup files to a partition
on my internal hard drive. Then I copy the image files to an external
HD for a secure backup. However, Drive Image creates multiple image
files, each of which is never greater than 2GB. I've never had a
problem transferring these image files to my external HD.

From experience, I know that Win XP SP2 will not run Drive Image 2002.

As a result, I've used BackUp My PC, which creates one large backup
file of my hard drive. (In my case, the file is about 4.5GB). I created
the backup file successfully on my internal hard drive partition, but
when I try to copy the file to my external HD, I get a low disk space
warning, even though I have about 20GB free space on the external HD.
One additional note: My internal HD uses NTFS while my external HD uses
FAT32.

I'm sort of in a Catch 22. Upgrading to SP2 *may* solve the problem of
transferring the large file to my external HD--but it may not. Then my
Drive Image files would be useless. I would feel more comfortable
getting the transfer to work with my current build of XP before making
the upgrade. Any suggestions you could offer to solve my problem would
be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
John E.

 

[Richard Urban]

The reason you are having problems is because your external hard drive is
formatted in a version of a fat file system. By design, fat32 is limited to
a 4 gig maximum file size (fat16 is limited to 2 gig). Drive image must live
with these limitations and is smart enough to break it's image file into
usable sizes.

If you want the image file to be in one contiguous file you must format the
external drive as an NTFS file system.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Guest]

Well if you run ntfs and you create files,you cant send to a hd in FAT32
because FAT32 is unable to read ntfs files.Try converting the hd to ntfs,
open cmd,type:CONVERT D: /FS:ntfs D: being the drive to convert,also,
before you send,R.click the file,send to:Compressed (zipped file),send
zipped.

 

[Richard Urban]

Well if you run ntfs and you create files,you cant send to a hd in FAT32
because FAT32 is unable to read ntfs files.Try converting the hd to ntfs,
open cmd,type:CONVERT D: /FS:ntfs D: being the drive to convert,also,
before you send,R.click the file,send to:Compressed (zipped file),send
zipped.

Wrong Andrew ( as usual)!!! You have the basic concepts incorrect or you
are just unable to emote what you are really trying to say.

You can have the operating system on an NTFS partition, create an image and
store it on a fat32 file partition. It is done everyday by hundreds of
thousands who use imaging programs.

Any NTFS file can be sent to a fat32 partition and it will be converted to a
fat32 file - automatically. The operating system does this without you even
being aware of the fact (and you are NOT aware of the fact). )-:


--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Malke]

Well if you run ntfs and you create files,you cant send to a hd in
FAT32
because FAT32 is unable to read ntfs files.

(snip Andrew's drivel)

Once again, Andrew E. comes through with wrong and possibly dangerous
advice. I'm not even going to go through all the reasons Andrew is
wrong; the OP should just follow Richard Urban's advice and ignore
anything ever written by Andrew E. - anywhere.

Malke

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Well if you run ntfs and you create files,you cant send to a hd in
FAT32 because FAT32 is unable to read ntfs files.Try converting the
hd to ntfs, open cmd,type:CONVERT D: /FS:ntfs D: being the drive
to convert,also, before you send,R.click the file,send
to:Compressed (zipped file),send zipped.

It's nice that you try Andrew.
You're right and wrong.

FAT32 is a file system. It is not trying to read NTFS files (because there
is no such thing - because NTFS is a file system as well.)

Files can be written on and interchanged between NTFS and FAT32 and FAT16
and FAT12 and an assortment of other file systems (easier if shared over a
network) - because the file system does not matter to the file itself EXCEPT
that each file system has limitations.

The reason this situation came up..

OP has a file that is likely greater than 4GB in size. If it was 3.9GB -
this situation wold not arise. FAT32 cannot accept files greater than 4GB
in size. NTFS can. So this external drive is probably formatted with FAT32
(that's logical - so they can be the most compatable) -> so it cannot accept
files greater than 4GB.

Now I realize Andrew will never come back here and respond. Andrew never
does. It seems more of Andrew's "style" to hit-and-run with incorrect
information and perhaps a few snide comments in Andrew's next response if
Andrew feels Andrew was treated unfairly in the last post where Andrew was
told the answer given was incorrect.

Rest assured, the OP has gotten good advice in other responses to this
thread. Essentially they need to format the external drive with a file
system that will allow greater than 4GB files.

 

[All Things Mopar]

Today commented courteously on the subject at hand

I'm running an early version of Win XP and am considering
upgrading to SP2 to speed up and secure my PC.

suggest you not. SP2 is demonstrably slower in every way,
forces you to update lots of things, and is about 1% more
secure than SP1, so you're reaching conclusions based on
unfounded assumptions and/or you've been listening to MVPs
again telling you that SP2 cures insomnia.

Here is what

I'm currently running:

Win XP Version 5.1 (Build 2600.xpclnt_qfe.010827-1803)
Compaq Presario 1500
Pentium 4 @ 2.0 GHz
256 MB RAM

best not try SP2 without a 4-fold increase in ram!

I've been using Drive Image 2002 to create backup files to
a partition on my internal hard drive. Then I copy the
image files to an external HD for a secure backup. However,
Drive Image creates multiple image files, each of which is
never greater than 2GB. I've never had a problem
transferring these image files to my external HD.

As a result, I've used BackUp My PC, which creates one
large backup file of my hard drive. (In my case, the file
is about 4.5GB). I created the backup file successfully on
my internal hard drive partition, but when I try to copy
the file to my external HD, I get a low disk space warning,
even though I have about 20GB free space on the external
HD. One additional note: My internal HD uses NTFS while my
external HD uses FAT32.

I'm sort of in a Catch 22. Upgrading to SP2 *may* solve the
problem of transferring the large file to my external
HD--but it may not. Then my Drive Image files would be
useless. I would feel more comfortable getting the transfer
to work with my current build of XP before making the
upgrade. Any suggestions you could offer to solve my
problem would be greatly appreciated.

If you cannot transfer to your external, it is highly doubtful
SP2 will fix it. Why not contact the manufacurer for an
undated driver, if it needs one, or figure out why it won't
transfer now? I run 3 externals across SP1 and SP2 with no
problems whatsoever, I just wish I'd never "upgraded" to SP2
....

 

[All Things Mopar]

Today =?Utf-8?B?QW5kcmV3IEUu?= commented courteously on the
subject at hand

Well if you run ntfs and you create files,you cant send
to a hd in FAT32
because FAT32 is unable to read ntfs files.

horsepucky! and, before even attempting to change file systems,
it'd be a damn good thing to back up the contents first, which
may itself be a problem. What /is/ true is that if the file the
OP is trying to transfer is over 4 gig, yes, it won't copy to
FAT32.

Try converting

 

[Walter R.]

I have two 40 GB hard drives, each partitioned into 10 GB partitions,
formatted in Fat 32.

I have used Drive Image for the last 5 years. I make an image of my boot
drive, which uses about 3 GB with Win XP. Drive Image automatically
compresses this to a 1.5 GB image file. This 1.5 GB file is stored
automatically in a partition on my second hard drive. All in fat 32.

Works great with Windows XP or Xp +SP2.

 

[Doug]

Where do you get this "SP2 is demonstrably slower in every way"
bit? Good Lord, millions of people have downloaded and installed
SP2 with few problems. Get with the program.

Maybe SP2 is not needed but it has some desirable advantages.

Doug


--

 

[All Things Mopar]

Today Doug commented courteously on the subject at hand

Where do you get this "SP2 is demonstrably slower in every
way" bit? Good Lord, millions of people have downloaded and
installed SP2 with few problems. Get with the program.

Maybe SP2 is not needed but it has some desirable
advantages.

I figured I get this response, sooner or later. I expect more
will follow.

What makes me giggle so much is people sitting at their desks,
especially MVPs,it isn't a memory hog, it is very efficient,
SP2 doesn't/can't work the way you describe, it isn't slow,
it is fast, it doesn't go bump in the night on its own, it
doesn't corrupt its own registry, it actually fixes what it
says it does, CUs never cause trouble, I have never heard of
assertions you're making, your system is messed up somehow or
you have it configured wrong or you should upgrade your
hardware or you should nuke and reinstall. Right now, the
latest scan du jour is x64, which has the "advantage" of a
couple terrabytes of memory, which wouldn't be needed in the
first place, nor would dual-CPUs, if Windoze were optimized
today as it once was, not that this is even technically
feasible anymore.

Now, which or all of the above are you? And, exactly what are
these so-called "advantages"? As to millions using it without
problem, that is rediculous! Hundreds of millions have
XP/SP1/SP2 installed, but hardly without problems, else the M
$ KB wouldn't grow geometrically. You must live on another
planet and haven't read the /thousands/ of posts each and
every day about XP in general, SP2, CUs, et al, here and
dozens of other NGs.

So, sitting where you do thinking like you do, how can you
possibly make any kind of intelligent comment about my
experience, or anybody elses? There is no "program to get
with", Doug, save Linux some day or leaving the Dark Side and
joining the fruit cake crowd with Sweet Delicious Apples. So,
shill on to your hearts content if that floats your boat.

I use microcrap software for one and only one reason: there is
no - repeat NO - viable alternatives that I can see. It ain't
Linux and it sure as hell ain't Apple OSX.

In conclusion, why don't you run some benchmarks on various
incantations of Windoze starting with 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, NT,
ME, XP, SP1, SP2, et al, apples-to-apples. Scientific CPU
benchmarks, disk I/O reads/writes, memory reads/writes,
virtual mem I/O, real-world tasks that accomplish useful work,
I could go on but suspect I'm trying to reason with a fool.

Then, come back and tell me why Windoze hasn't gotten an order
of magnitude or more bloated in the space of half a decade and
slower and slower and slower each upgrade. If it weren't for
computers getting twice as fast and half as expensive as often
as they do, Bill the Gates wouldn't be able to do the P.T.
Barnum any more.

 

[Richard Urban]

You speak from your personal experience. I speak from mine.

I have installed Windows XP - along with SP2 - on more than 750 computers
since SP2 was released. The great majority, I'll repeat - the great
majority -, of problems I have ever run into were caused by program
interactions (as much the fault of the 3rd party programs as it was of
Windows XP SP2), hardware/driver faults and massive amounts of
spyware/malware/virus's on my customers computers.

Oh! On a handful of occasions I have had CD and DVD drives revert to pio
mode of operation and we all know what causes that - defective media. Easy
to remedy in about 3-4 minutes.

If people had compliant hardware/drivers, kept their computers clean of
"crap" programs, used available antivirus/antispyware programs and exercised
a bit of care where they went on the internet (including email) I wouldn't
be repairing computers part time.

The worst enemy of a computer is the person who is operating said computer.

Give a decent technician your computer and he/she will have it running like
a clock.


--
Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Doug]

Well I never!!! Sputter, choke, fume!!!

If you want to do what you are doing it is fine by me,

I have a fairly new computer AMD 64 3500+Athlon with 1 GB
memory. It benchmarks reasonably well up in the top 10 of most
popular computers and even beats some dual core processors.

It is adequate for my purposes and the price was right.

I too hate spending so much time downloading patches but am not
alone in this. By the time they get all of the bugs out of
Windows I will be most likely pushing up daisies.

 

[do_not_reply1]

Thanks very much, all. Formatting the external HD to NTFS solved the
problem. Transferring the large file occurred without a hitch!

Best,
John E.