Partitioned Hard Drive in XP

[John John (MVP)]

You can't format unallocated space, you must first create a partition
then format the partition.

To the OP:

You stated that you had no data on drive D:. Assuming that the
unallocated space is adjacent to the D: drive, you can simply delete the
D: drive then create one new partition out of all the unallocated space,
that will give you two partitions, the C drive using 69.40GB and the
remainder of the disk space for the new D: drive that you will create.
The only alternative to that will be to use third party tools to resize
the C: drive, an option that is not completely without its own share of
dangers and risks of data loss!

John

 

[Ken Blake]

Good Day:

I bought my computer last week from a computer store and the owner
paritionrd XP into C:\ and D:\ drives.

He told me that the HD had 160GB but when I went into C:\ properties, it
shows 69.3GB and D:\ properties shows 58.5GB, totalling only 127.80GB,
leaving a difference of 32.8GB.

Which is the correct amount of hard disk space-160GB or 127.80GB?

160 billion bytes.You need two things to support a drive that large, and are
apparently missing at least one of them.:

1. A motherboard with a BIOS and controller that supports 48-bit LBA (or
alternatively, an add-in controller card that does).

2. At least SP1 of Windows XP.

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was 11/1/2008 3:35 PM, and on a whim, JS pounded out

The "Unallocated" drive space could be the 'Hidden' partition I mentioned or
it could be simply unused space.
I would check with the store or person you bought the PC from and get them
to tell you why it's unallocated.

Again: Did your PC come with a Windows XP CD and Key Code sticker. If you
have no CD
then there is a good chance this unallocated space is actually your
Restore/Recovery partition and as such should not be touched/changed.

JS
http://www.pagestart.com

If it was "hidden", it would show as a partition instead of not allocated.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was 11/1/2008 3:03 PM, and on a whim, Summer1 pounded
out on the keyboard:

Update:

Under Drive Management, it says:

Disk O Basic 149.05 GB

C drive=69.40GB D drive=58.59GB Unallocated=21.06GB

C: is the primary partition; D is the logical drive; Unallocated is the
extended partition.

If it is true that 160GB is the decimal size which equals 148.56GB, this
would make sense since C drive (69.40GB) plus D drive (58.58GB) plus
Unallocated (21.06GB) equals 148.50GB.

What 'still' does not make sense is what 'unallocated' means-Is it
'available' to me as part of the 158.50GB or do I only have access to
137.44GB?

Summer,

It has been suggested several times what to do. Now that you have added
that your D: drive is empty, then you have two choices:

1. Either use one of the utilities suggested to expand the partition (C:
or D that is next to the unallocated space. This will utilize the
whole drive and give you two partitions on the single drive.

2. Delete the empty D: drive and use one of the utilities to make the
C: drive use all of the hard drive.

I personally think it is better to keep data on a separate partition.
In case Windows goes bad, you can reformat the C: drive without touching
the data drive. BUT, sine you only have a single drive, if the drive
goes bad, you will lose EVERYTHING. Backing up is the most important
thing you can do to preserve your data, and this requires either an
additional drive added internally or one externally.

But the choice is yours.


--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Summer1]

Update: Issue resolved

I took the computer back to the store where I bought it. The 'unallocated'
21.06GB is part of the HD space (not a recovery partition) that was not
included during C: and D: partitioning.

He apologized for 'overlooking' it and created another partition, the F:
drive.

Now, I have 3 drives (C, D and F) and and E (CD-drive) and my entire
149.05GB (160 million bytes) hard disk space is accounted for and available
for use.

No need to any further replies/comments on this but cheers to everyone for
all the assistance and prompt replies!

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was 11/3/2008 2:18 PM, and on a whim, Summer1 pounded
out on the keyboard:

Update: Issue resolved

I took the computer back to the store where I bought it. The 'unallocated'
21.06GB is part of the HD space (not a recovery partition) that was not
included during C: and D: partitioning.

He apologized for 'overlooking' it and created another partition, the F:
drive.

Now, I have 3 drives (C, D and F) and and E (CD-drive) and my entire
149.05GB (160 million bytes) hard disk space is accounted for and available
for use.

No need to any further replies/comments on this but cheers to everyone for
all the assistance and prompt replies!

Summer,

That was a poor way to "fix" it IMO. They wouldn't take the time to use
a utility to just have your D: use up the space? I wouldn't go back
there. YOU could have done that without leaving your home.

I still suggest downloading one of the recommended utilities and
deleting F: and enlarging D: to use the rest of the space.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Ken Blake]

Update: Issue resolved

I took the computer back to the store where I bought it. The 'unallocated'
21.06GB is part of the HD space (not a recovery partition) that was not
included during C: and D: partitioning.

He apologized for 'overlooking' it and created another partition, the F:
drive.

Now, I have 3 drives (C, D and F) and and E (CD-drive) and my entire
149.05GB (160 million bytes) hard disk space is accounted for and
available
for use.

No need to any further replies/comments on this but cheers to everyone for
all the assistance and prompt replies!

Maybe no need to comment, but I will anyway. I think his solution to your
problem was terrible. If *you* wanted three partitions, and of those sizes,
it would be fine, but that apparently wasn't your situation, and the results
will now likely be poor for you. In general, except for those people running
multiple operating systems, three partitions are not desirable, and either
one or two is best.

 

[Ken Blake]

Maybe no need to comment, but I will anyway. I think his solution to your
problem was terrible. If *you* wanted three partitions, and of those
sizes, it would be fine, but that apparently wasn't your situation, and
the results will now likely be poor for you. In general, except for those
people running multiple operating systems, three partitions are not
desirable, and either one or two is best.

One more comment: depending on what you use it for, you may also find that a
21GB partition is too small to be useful.