Larger HD on Win XP?

[Terry Pinnell]

I'd welcome some advice please. I have two identical HDs at present on
my AMD Athlon XP1800, 512MB, both 60GB 7200rpm MAXTOR 6L060J3 UDMA-133
EIDE with 2MB buffer. Although it's been so long that I've forgotten
exactly how I did it, they are partitioned as follows:

HD #1
-----
C: Win XP system 15 GB
D: Data etc 45 GB

HD #2
-----
E: Old copy of Win XP 15 GB
F: Data backup etc 45 GB

I want to replace HD 2 with a 200 GB drive, as I'm running out of
space. I'd then use the new F: partition for all my extra data, as
well as backup. Not sure if I'd make a new 'recovery' copy of Win XP
on the new E: partition; it quickly gets so old that its usefulness in
the event of C: failing is arguable. And (touches wood), in 3 years so
far I've never had to use it in earnest.

So, my question: If just physically remove and replace HD #2, using
whatever jumper settings I find on the old one, and reboot, will
everything come up OK? No surprises, no new partition letters to throw
me, no daunting error messages, etc?

Any practical advice would be much appreciated please.

 

[Rod Speed]

I'd welcome some advice please. I have two identical HDs
at present on my AMD Athlon XP1800, 512MB, both 60GB
7200rpm MAXTOR 6L060J3 UDMA-133 EIDE with 2MB buffer.

Although it's been so long that I've forgotten
exactly how I did it, they are partitioned as follows:

HD #1

HD #2

I want to replace HD 2 with a 200 GB drive, as I'm running out of space.
I'd then use the new F: partition for all my extra data, as well as backup.

Not sure if I'd make a new 'recovery' copy of Win XP
on the new E: partition; it quickly gets so old that its
usefulness in the event of C: failing is arguable.
Yep.

And (touches wood), in 3 years so far I've never had to use it in earnest.

So, my question: If just physically remove and replace
HD #2, using whatever jumper settings I find on the
old one, and reboot, will everything come up OK?
Yes.

No surprises, no new partition letters to throw
me, no daunting error messages, etc?

You will have to partition and format it and
you can do that in disk management in XP.

Any practical advice would be much appreciated please.

Its important to ensure that at least SP1 is installed with
XP before you do that, and you might as well install SP2
if you havent got either installed already. Thats because
that is necessary for support of drives over 128GB.

 

[Terry Pinnell]

You will have to partition and format it and
you can do that in disk management in XP.


Its important to ensure that at least SP1 is installed with
XP before you do that, and you might as well install SP2
if you havent got either installed already. Thats because
that is necessary for support of drives over 128GB.

Thanks for that fast and helpful reply, Rod.

I have SP1. Had a bad experience with my attempt to install SP2 (but
can't swear some of that at least wasn't down to me), so I'm sticking
for now.

One short follow-up if I may please. About a year ago, I arranged
things so that when my PC boots, I'm offered:

- Win XP Home #1 (which is my usual C: system)
- Win XP Home #2 (which would be my E: system hopefully, if I'd ever
needed it
- Recovery Console

Will the absence of an E: partition at the time of that first boot
screw things up at all please?

 

[Rod Speed]

Thanks for that fast and helpful reply, Rod.

I have SP1. Had a bad experience with my attempt
to install SP2 (but can't swear some of that at least
wasn't down to me), so I'm sticking for now.

Thats fine, SP1 is enough for that 128G+ problem.

One short follow-up if I may please.

Sure, a rather slower response tho |-)

About a year ago, I arranged things so
that when my PC boots, I'm offered:

- Win XP Home #1 (which is my usual C: system)
- Win XP Home #2 (which would be my E: system
hopefully, if I'd ever needed it - Recovery Console

Will the absence of an E: partition at the time of
that first boot screw things up at all please?

It should manage to work it out for itself. If it cant,
its easy to edit the boot.ini that implements that.

 

[Irwin]

Why not keep an e partition? The reason you made it in the first place
is still valid, it is good to have a backup system drive sometimes. You
can copy the system partition exactly with any number of programs, and
then use something like drive image 2002 for the data. It will take
your data partition, copy the data, and then expand the partition to
fill the rest of your 200 gb drive.

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Thats fine, SP1 is enough for that 128G+ problem.


Sure, a rather slower response tho |-)




It should manage to work it out for itself. If it cant,
its easy to edit the boot.ini that implements that.

OK, thanks. Tomorrow I may hit Send on my 200 GB order!

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Why not keep an e partition? The reason you made it in the first place
is still valid, it is good to have a backup system drive sometimes. You
can copy the system partition exactly with any number of programs, and
then use something like drive image 2002 for the data. It will take
your data partition, copy the data, and then expand the partition to
fill the rest of your 200 gb drive.

Yes, you're probably right. It has certainly been reassuring to know
that I have had some fallback. Just glad I never had to use it! And,
with 200 GB, even with my photos, movies, maps and music, I reckon I
can afford 10 GB for a standby system partition.

 

[Rod Speed]

Yes, you're probably right. It has certainly been reassuring to know
that I have had some fallback. Just glad I never had to use it! And,
with 200 GB, even with my photos, movies, maps and music, I reckon I
can afford 10 GB for a standby system partition.

And image of the boot partition makes more sense.

The only reason for a copy of the boot partition
is if you need to be able to boot the copy as
quickly as possible, and you clearly dont.

The short story is that an image is easier to do and harder to stuff up.

 

[Irwin]

Actually, I like both . I always like to have a current image of the
active boot partition, since as just mentioned it is easier to do,
usually more current, and smaller to store. And I like to have a second
bootable partition to boot into to make the image of the first
partition, since I don't like to use the new programs that image an
active windows partition. Surely, one can boot an imaging program from
a floppy or CD and also image the boot partition, but booting from a
second windows partition gives you more networking and external storage
options, and maybe it is just my imagination but it seems to run faster
than running it from floppy. And as an added bonus you can work from
it, experiment with it, etc. So I try to have two boot partitions on
every system, and just juggle them with Bootmagic.

 

[Rod Speed]

Actually, I like both .

What is the point ?

I always like to have a current image of the active
boot partition, since as just mentioned it is easier
to do, usually more current, and smaller to store.

Then you are unlikely to actually use the clone, just because its older.

And I like to have a second bootable partition to boot into to
make the image of the first partition, since I don't like to use
the new programs that image an active windows partition.
Surely, one can boot an imaging program from a floppy or
CD and also image the boot partition, but booting from a
second windows partition gives you more networking and
external storage options,

Sure, but it doesnt need to be a clone of the normally booted partition,
any old OS bootable partition would be fine and a lot smaller.

and maybe it is just my imagination but it
seems to run faster than running it from floppy.

Sure, floppy is dinosaur technology.

And as an added bonus you can work from it, experiment with it, etc.

And it wont fail like floppys do.

So I try to have two boot partitions on every
system, and just juggle them with Bootmagic.

Even the standard built in XP boot manager is easy
enough when you get the hang of the boot.ini syntax and
thats really just the odd way of specifying the partition.

 

[Terry Pinnell]

An image of the boot partition makes more sense.

The only reason for a copy of the boot partition
is if you need to be able to boot the copy as
quickly as possible, and you clearly dont.

The short story is that an image is easier to do and harder to stuff up.

Only if you're familiar with what you're doing, and with using the
necessary tools! I'm not. I did it all once, but it hasn't stuck.

So I will first have to dust-off and re-read my user guides for Drive
Image 2002 and PowerQuest Partition Magic 2.0 to recall what
partitions and images are all about. And complement that by
re-learning what XP Disk Management can do. I recall that it was
surprisingly handy. But that will inevitably muddy the water by making
me indecisive about whether I actually *need* the other tools. Because
ideally I like a minimalist approach; the fewer external programs I
have to concern myself with, the better. And then there's that
boot.ini stuff, which I remember took me a while to sort out, with
several scary moments en-route when I thought I'd lost everything <g>.
Plus the area that's always been *very* much a black art to me: what
you can and cannot boot from, i.e. bootable versus system/data
partitions, etc, etc. And I bet I've forgotten a few other
complications and provisos that I'll have to watch out for!

By contrast, the concept of *copying* is well-ingrained and intuitive
to me.

Of course, there's a sense of satisfaction directly after sorting it
all out. And no doubt I'll realise I was making heavy weather of it,
and think it's now all remembered. Until the next time... <g>

 

[Rod Speed]

Only if you're familiar with what you're
doing, and with using the necessary tools!

Nope, particularly when you dont have both.

I'm not. I did it all once, but it hasn't stuck.

Then you are better sticking with images.

So I will first have to dust-off and re-read my user guides
for Drive Image 2002 and PowerQuest Partition Magic 2.0
to recall what partitions and images are all about.

No need, just use DI and do what is obvious.

And complement that by re-learning
what XP Disk Management can do.

No need with images.

I recall that it was surprisingly handy. But that will
inevitably muddy the water by making me indecisive
about whether I actually *need* the other tools.

And you will quickly find that you do.

Because ideally I like a minimalist approach; the fewer
external programs I have to concern myself with, the better.

Then just use DI. Nothing else will do by itself.

And then there's that boot.ini stuff, which I remember took me a while to sort
out, with several scary moments en-route when I thought I'd lost everything
<g>.

You can ignore it completely if you stick with images.

Plus the area that's always been *very* much a black
art to me: what you can and cannot boot from, i.e.
bootable versus system/data partitions, etc, etc.

Doesnt apply with XP. And if you JUST use images,
you dont need to know anything about that.

And I bet I've forgotten a few other complications
and provisos that I'll have to watch out for!

Nope, not if you JUST use images.

By contrast, the concept of *copying*
is well-ingrained and intuitive to me.

Pity it doesnt work with XP.

Of course, there's a sense of satisfaction directly after sorting it
all out. And no doubt I'll realise I was making heavy weather of it,
and think it's now all remembered. Until the next time... <g>

No need if you stick with images.

 

[Terry Pinnell]

Nope, particularly when you dont have both.


Then you are better sticking with images.


No need, just use DI and do what is obvious.


No need with images.


And you will quickly find that you do.


Then just use DI. Nothing else will do by itself.


You can ignore it completely if you stick with images.


Doesnt apply with XP. And if you JUST use images,
you dont need to know anything about that.


Nope, not if you JUST use images.


Pity it doesnt work with XP.


No need if you stick with images.

OK, I'm sold! When released from weekend husband duties, I'll browse
that DI guide and make an image of my C: drive:

Used space: 10,544,928,768 bytes 9.82 GB
Free space: 2,031,491,584 bytes 1.89 GB
Capacity: 12,576,420,352 bytes 11.7 GB

Presumably I can make the destination my E: partition?
Used space: 9,111,002,624 bytes 8.48 GB
Free space: 3,465,417,728 bytes 3.22 GB
Capacity: 12,576,420,352 bytes 11.7 GB

Over-writing the old *copy* of C: that is currently occupying it?

Thanks for your patience - hope you'll stick around until I've done
it! Particularly to remind me what I'm supposed to do if/when the time
comes to use it in earnest. BTW, isn't that another possible merit of
a *copy*, that you can easily test it without risk?

 

[Timothy Daniels]

OK, I'm sold! When released from weekend husband duties,
I'll browse that DI guide and make an image of my C: drive:

Used space: 10,544,928,768 bytes 9.82 GB
Free space: 2,031,491,584 bytes 1.89 GB
Capacity: 12,576,420,352 bytes 11.7 GB

Presumably I can make the destination my E: partition?
Used space: 9,111,002,624 bytes 8.48 GB
Free space: 3,465,417,728 bytes 3.22 GB
Capacity: 12,576,420,352 bytes 11.7 GB

Over-writing the old *copy* of C: that is currently occupying it?

Thanks for your patience - hope you'll stick around until I've done
it! Particularly to remind me what I'm supposed to do if/when the time
comes to use it in earnest. BTW, isn't that another possible merit of
a *copy*, that you can easily test it without risk?

OK, Rod, what does this guy do about starting up the
clone for the 1st time in isolation from its "parent"? They're
both on the same hard drive. Does he have to never ever
test his clone before he uses it as a backup? And to test
his clone, he has to add to his "parent" system's boot.ini
file to boot the clone's partition, OR he has to set his clone's
partition to "active" and modify its boot.ini file so the 2nd
partition is passed control by the MBR. I think he's biting off
more than he can chew and that he should stick to putting
clones on a separate hard drive.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Rod Speed]

OK, I'm sold! When released from weekend husband duties,

Who wears the pants at your place ? PCs are
MUCH more important than anything else, boy |-)

I'll browse that DI guide and make an image of my C: drive:

You dont really need to bother with the guide, just
do it. Its pretty intuitive once you understand what
the words image, physical drive and partition mean.

Used space: 10,544,928,768 bytes 9.82 GB
Free space: 2,031,491,584 bytes 1.89 GB
Capacity: 12,576,420,352 bytes 11.7 GB

Presumably I can make the destination my E: partition?

Yes, you can use any destination
except the partition you are imaging.

Used space: 9,111,002,624 bytes 8.48 GB
Free space: 3,465,417,728 bytes 3.22 GB
Capacity: 12,576,420,352 bytes 11.7 GB

Over-writing the old *copy* of C: that is currently occupying it?

You should delete that first so there is enough free space there.

Thanks for your patience - hope you'll stick around until I've done it!

Yeah, I'm not going anywhere.

Particularly to remind me what I'm supposed to
do if/when the time comes to use it in earnest.
Sure.

BTW, isn't that another possible merit of a *copy*,
that you can easily test it without risk?

Yes, but you can do a test restore of that image to somewhere
else than the C partition as you originally proposed.

 

[Rod Speed]

Terry Pinnell wrote

OK, Rod, what does this guy do about starting up the
clone for the 1st time in isolation from its "parent"?

He doesnt have a clone anymore. Just an image of the C partition.

They're both on the same hard drive.

Nope, his C and E partitions are on different physical drives.

Does he have to never ever test his clone before he uses it as a backup?

He doesnt have a clone anymore, just an image of the C partition.

And to test his clone,

See above.

he has to add to his "parent" system's boot.ini file to boot the clone's
partition, OR he has to set his clone's partition to "active" and modify its
boot.ini file so the 2nd
partition is passed control by the MBR.

See above.

I think he's biting off more than he can chew and that he should stick to
putting clones on a separate hard drive.

He doesnt have a clone anymore, just an image of the C partition.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

He doesnt have a clone anymore, just an image of the C partition.

OK. When you say "image", you mean "image file", not
a bootable image - which a clone is. And the guy will have
to restore that image, i.e. copy the contents of the image file
back to another partition, before it can be booted.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

OK. When you say "image", you mean "image file", not a bootable image - which
a clone is.

Thats a copy/clone, not an image.

And the guy will have to restore that image, i.e. copy the contents of the
image file back to another partition, before it can be booted.

Duh.

 

[Data Recovery Expert]

If you want to know internals of Partitons, File System and Data
Recovery etc you may go for the Book "Data Recovery with & without
Programming"

You can Find the Details and Contents of the book on following Link:

http://www.DataDoctor.biz/author.htm


The Book Also has a Free CD with it, which has all the Source Codes of
the Programs, described within the Book

Regards

TT

 

[Data Recovery Expert]

If you want to know internals of Partitons, File System and Data
Recovery etc you may go for the Book "Data Recovery with & without
Programming"

You can Find the Details and Contents of the book on following Link:

http://www.DataDoctor.biz/author.htm


The Book Also has a Free CD with it, which has all the Source Codes of
the Programs, described within the Book

Regards

TT