Too old for this game

[Des]

This is probably not the best group for this. I have allways installed
windows by using FDISK partitoning it and formatting all the
partitions. Now I find myself with a maxtor 200G HDD. FDISK does not
want to know and informs me that it is only 32G. Is there a way around
this. FDISK 2005 ???

Desmond.

 

[TaurArian [MVP]]

Some info on this site
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/cleanxpinstall.html

 

[Des]

This helps but I would relay like to partition my 200G HDD if only to
protect all my word documents and spread sheets from having to
re-install windows.

Desmond.

 

[Lil' Dave]

This is probably not the best group for this. I have allways installed
windows by using FDISK partitoning it and formatting all the
partitions. Now I find myself with a maxtor 200G HDD. FDISK does not
want to know and informs me that it is only 32G. Is there a way around
this. FDISK 2005 ???

Desmond.

http://maxtor.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/...SZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PWZkaXNr&p_li=&p_topview=1

http://www.maxtor.com/portal/site/M... Kits/ATA-SATA Family/Utilities&downloadID=57

 

[Anna]

This is probably not the best group for this. I have allways installed
windows by using FDISK partitoning it and formatting all the
partitions. Now I find myself with a maxtor 200G HDD. FDISK does not
want to know and informs me that it is only 32G. Is there a way around
this. FDISK 2005 ???

Desmond.

Desmond:
Forget about using DOS FDISK and the FORMAT commands to partition/format
(including creating multiple partitions) your 200 GB HD. Assuming you're
installing that drive as a second drive in a functioning XP system, there's
no reason not to be using the XP Disk Management utility for that purpose.
DM does the job and does it easily & well. I'm further assuming that you
have no problem with formatting the drive NTFS. If you're contemplating a
FAT32 file system that's a different story and we can discuss that later.

If you're installing XP on that drive using the XP installation CD, then you
can use the installation process to partition/format the drive as part of
the installation process. Again, you can create multiple partitions should
you wish. Again, we're talking NTFS here, right?

The 32 GB limitation you mentioned is probably due to XP's inability to
partition/format a drive > 32 GB in FAT32. How you used FDISK to come up
with that limitation I don't know but it's irrelevant at this point, again
assuming that you have no problem formatting the drive with NTFS partitions.

Use XP's Help and Support files to get detailed information on the DM
utility.
Anna

 

[Vanguard]

This is probably not the best group for this. I have allways installed
windows by using FDISK partitoning it and formatting all the
partitions. Now I find myself with a maxtor 200G HDD. FDISK does not
want to know and informs me that it is only 32G. Is there a way around
this. FDISK 2005 ???

Desmond.

Boot using the Windows XP installation CD and use *THAT* to delete,
create, and format the partitions. Yeah, you're old, but stop using the
old and inappropriate software utilities.

 

[WIRED]

Use the MaxBlast software that came with the hard drive. I recently
installed dual identical 80gig drives in a machine and it worked superbly.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

This is probably not the best group for this. I have allways
installed
windows by using FDISK partitoning it and formatting all the
partitions. Now I find myself with a maxtor 200G HDD. FDISK
does not
want to know and informs me that it is only 32G. Is there a way
around
this. FDISK 2005 ???

You neither can nor should do it this way. Just boot from the
Windows XP CD (change the BIOS boot order if necessary to
accomplish this) and follow the prompts for a clean installation
(delete the existing partition if there is one by pressing "D"
when prompted, then create the new ones).
You can find detailed instructions here:
http://michaelstevenstech.com/cleanxpinstall.html

or here http://windowsxp.mvps.org/XPClean.htm

or here http://www.webtree.ca/windowsxp/clean_install.htm

 

[NoNoBadDog!]

Use the MaxBlast software that came with the hard drive. I recently
installed dual identical 80gig drives in a machine and it worked superbly.

MaxBlast and other utilities that use overlay to handle the discs are a bad
idea. It is *much* better to make sure that your motherboard has the latest
BIOS for LBA support and just use the Windows installation CD to format the
drive.

The use of MaxBlast is advised *only* when your motherboard cannot
natively support hard drives larger that 128GB.

Bobby

 

[Anna]

MaxBlast and other utilities that use overlay to handle the discs are a
bad idea. It is *much* better to make sure that your motherboard has the
latest BIOS for LBA support and just use the Windows installation CD to
format the drive.

The use of MaxBlast is advised *only* when your motherboard cannot
natively support hard drives larger that 128GB.

Bobby

Bobby is absolutely correct. Those "drive overlay" type of programs like the
MaxBlast one are curses. They should not be used in an XP environment. It
seems they invariably cause mischief in the future as any computer
technician will attest to. As Bobby points out (and I think others who've
responded to the OP's query) the Windows XP installation CD is just fine for
partitioning & formatting one's HD. And XP's Disk Managment utility
similarly works fine to partition/format secondary HDs.

I'll go one step further then Bobby did. Do not use any drive overlay
program under *any* circumstances. If your motherboard's BIOS does not
support drives > 137 GB (roughly 127 GB binary) and there is no BIOS update
available to provide that capability, then purchase a controller card such
as the Promise Ultra 133 TX2 to get around this barrier. These type of cards
sell for about $30 or so.

Frankly, any motherboard that does not support large-capacity disks is very
old, computer-timewise. In this XP world the user would be well advised to
purchase a more up-to-date board, financial circumstances permitting, of
course.
Anna

 

[WIRED]

Bobby is absolutely correct. Those "drive overlay" type of programs like
the MaxBlast one are curses. They should not be used in an XP environment.
It seems they invariably cause mischief in the future as any computer
technician will attest to. As Bobby points out (and I think others who've
responded to the OP's query) the Windows XP installation CD is just fine
for partitioning & formatting one's HD. And XP's Disk Managment utility
similarly works fine to partition/format secondary HDs.

I'll go one step further then Bobby did. Do not use any drive overlay
program under *any* circumstances. If your motherboard's BIOS does not
support drives > 137 GB (roughly 127 GB binary) and there is no BIOS
update available to provide that capability, then purchase a controller
card such as the Promise Ultra 133 TX2 to get around this barrier. These
type of cards sell for about $30 or so.

Frankly, any motherboard that does not support large-capacity disks is
very old, computer-timewise. In this XP world the user would be well
advised to purchase a more up-to-date board, financial circumstances
permitting, of course.
Anna

You are both thinking of the old MaxBlast software. I would agree with you
on overlay programs. That is however NOT what I was referencing when I
suggested the use of MaxBlast in this case. The software that comes with new
Maxtor HDD's currently is excellent at both partitioning and formatting HD's
and the mirror capability is outstanding; beating Norton Ghost in simplicity
and speed.

It was my intention that he / she try those utilities in place of FDISK to
see if the HDD's full capacity was recognized. Not to install a horrible
overlay. Perhaps I was unclear.

 

[Lil' Dave]

You are both thinking of the old MaxBlast software. I would agree with you
on overlay programs. That is however NOT what I was referencing when I
suggested the use of MaxBlast in this case. The software that comes with new
Maxtor HDD's currently is excellent at both partitioning and formatting HD's
and the mirror capability is outstanding; beating Norton Ghost in simplicity
and speed.

It was my intention that he / she try those utilities in place of FDISK to
see if the HDD's full capacity was recognized. Not to install a horrible
overlay. Perhaps I was unclear.

Understood your first reply myself. The overlay is not installed unless the
bios cannot recognize the full capacity of the hard drive. Seems to be alot
of assuming by some people here.

 

[Anna]

This is probably not the best group for this. I have allways installed
windows by using FDISK partitoning it and formatting all the
partitions. Now I find myself with a maxtor 200G HDD. FDISK does not
want to know and informs me that it is only 32G. Is there a way around
this. FDISK 2005 ???

Desmond.

(Desmond continues...)
This helps but I would relay like to partition my 200G HDD if only to
protect all my word documents and spread sheets from having to
re-install windows.
Desmond.


(Anna responds....)
Desmond:
Forget about using DOS FDISK and the FORMAT commands to partition/format
(including creating multiple partitions) your 200 GB HD. Assuming you're
installing that drive as a second drive in a functioning XP system, there's
no reason not to be using the XP Disk Management utility for that purpose.
DM does the job and does it easily & well. I'm further assuming that you
have no problem with formatting the drive NTFS. If you're contemplating a
FAT32 file system that's a different story and we can discuss that later.

If you're installing XP on that drive using the XP installation CD, then you
can use the installation process to partition/format the drive as part of
the installation process. Again, you can create multiple partitions should
you wish. Again, we're talking NTFS here, right?

The 32 GB limitation you mentioned is probably due to XP's inability to
partition/format a drive > 32 GB in FAT32. How you used FDISK to come up
with that limitation I don't know but it's irrelevant at this point, again
assuming that you have no problem formatting the drive with NTFS partitions.

Use XP's Help and Support files to get detailed information on the DM
utility.
Anna


"Wired" responds...
Use the MaxBlast software that came with the hard drive. I recently
installed dual identical 80gig drives in a machine and it worked superbly.

the latest BIOS for LBA support and just use the Windows installation CD
to

environment. It seems they invariably cause mischief in the future as any
computer
who've responded to the OP's query) the Windows XP installation CD is just
fine


new Maxtor HDD's currently is excellent at both partitioning and
formatting
HD's and the mirror capability is outstanding; beating Norton Ghost in
simplicity and speed.

WIRED:
Thanks for your clarification.

With regard to partitioning/formatting one's HD, I still maintain that there
is no reason the user should not use either the XP installation routine
should the user be installing the OS or XP's Disk Management utility in the
case of partitioning/formatting secondary drives. The built-in capability of
XP to partition & format the user's HD is one of the strongest features of
XP. It's relatively simple to use and performs virtually flawlessly. There
is simply no reason for the user to engage a third-party program to do this
(FAT32 considerations aside). If the user has problems with XP's
partitioning/formatting process, he or she must determine *why* the problem
exists and correct it, be it a hardware or software issue. Using a
third-party program is *not* a acceptable workaround in my view.

Re the specific issue raised by Desmond...
His basic objective was (is?) to multi-partition his 200 GB HD and format
same. There's no indication that he was (is?) interested in formatting FAT32
partitions. So there's no need to invoke the DOS FDISK or FORMAT commands in
this situation. If I'm wrong about Desmond's objective I trust he will
correct me.

As to your comment that "the mirror capability (of MaxBlast) is outstanding,
beating Norton Ghost in simplicity and speed", that certainly has not been
my experience. I assume you're referring to the disk-to-disk copying
(cloning) feature in the MaxBlast program. Admittedly I haven't used it in
some time (maybe about six months or so ago), but assuming it performs about
the same today as when I last used it -- I found its disk copying function
*considerably* slower than Symantec's Norton Ghost (I use the 2003 version).
Considerably slower. Using Ghost in a medium-powered system with internal
PATA drives, cloning speed will typically be in the 1 GB/min range. Would
you say the Maxtor software typically performs faster than that? If so, I
would like to hear about it.

And as far as the Maxtor cloning software being simpler to use than Ghost
(again, I'm talking Ghost 2003), that is also not so in my experience.
Following bootup and accessing the Ghost program, I can easily set up &
begin the cloning process probably within a half-dozen or so keyclicks and
within 20 seconds time. My recollection is that with the Maxtor disk copying
program it wasn't any simpler or less time-consuming.

But having said all this, let me say that if the user intends to use the
disk-copying (cloning) process as a one-time deal to clone his or her old HD
to a new one, the Maxtor program is fine, along with similar programs like
the one from Western Digital. But should the user be interested in a
disk-cloning program for routine & systematic backups of his/her working HD,
then he or she should definitely consider a disk imaging program such as
Symantec's Norton Ghost or Acronis True Image.
Anna

 

[Kerry Brown]

You are both thinking of the old MaxBlast software. I would agree with you
on overlay programs. That is however NOT what I was referencing when I
suggested the use of MaxBlast in this case. The software that comes with
new Maxtor HDD's currently is excellent at both partitioning and
formatting HD's and the mirror capability is outstanding; beating Norton
Ghost in simplicity and speed.

It was my intention that he / she try those utilities in place of FDISK to
see if the HDD's full capacity was recognized. Not to install a horrible
overlay. Perhaps I was unclear.

The Maxtor partition copy function does not handle errors well. In my
experience it just quits when it finds an error. Norton Ghost and Acronis
True Image both can make copies of drives that have errors. If the errors
are in system files you may have to do a repair install after cloning the
drive but you can get all your programs and data copied. If you are
upgrading a drive the Maxtor software works fine and has the advantage of
being free. If you are replacing a drive that has started to go bad it
doesn't work in most cases. As for simplicity and speed I find it much
slower than Ghost or TI and the interface is only simple if you understand
the concepts of cloning and are conversant in geek language. Many newbies
find the program very intimidating.

Kerry

 

[Ken Blake]

In

This helps but I would relay like to partition my 200G HDD if
only to
protect all my word documents and spread sheets from having to
re-install windows.

I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind about how to
partition, but I wanted to make a comment:

If your Word documents and spreadsheets are important to you, you
need to perform regular backups of them to external media. That's
the only real way to protect them. You don't need protection
against having to reinstall Windows, you need protection against
losing the entire drive, for any reason.

If you think that having them in a separate partition is
adequate, you're kidding yourself, as far as I'm concerned. They
will be vulnerable to loss of the entire drive by such things as
head crashes, severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes,
virus attacks, even theft of the computer.

 

[WIRED]

With regard to partitioning/formatting one's HD, I still maintain that
there is no reason the user should not use either the XP installation
routine should the user be installing the OS or XP's Disk Management
utility in the case of partitioning/formatting secondary drives. The
built-in capability of XP to partition & format the user's HD is one of
the strongest features of XP. It's relatively simple to use and performs
virtually flawlessly. There is simply no reason for the user to engage a
third-party program to do this (FAT32 considerations aside). If the user
has problems with XP's partitioning/formatting process, he or she must
determine *why* the problem exists and correct it, be it a hardware or
software issue. Using a third-party program is *not* a acceptable
workaround in my view.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion. My opinion is that
there is nothing wrong with using a third party program for these tasks if
one finds it easier to find / use.

Re the specific issue raised by Desmond...
His basic objective was (is?) to multi-partition his 200 GB HD and format
same. There's no indication that he was (is?) interested in formatting
FAT32 partitions. So there's no need to invoke the DOS FDISK or FORMAT
commands in this situation. If I'm wrong about Desmond's objective I trust
he will correct me.

The issue raised was that FDISK was telling him that his new HDD was only
32Gig when in fact it was a 200Gig drive. Hence the suggestion to see if a
third party program, MaxBlast, gave him / her the same information. I did
not even consider the fact that the motherboard might be outdated because if
that was indeed the case, I seriously doubt it would have run XP to begin
with. That is of course *assuming* that XP was the OS since it is never
mentioned by the OP.

As to your comment that "the mirror capability (of MaxBlast) is
outstanding, beating Norton Ghost in simplicity and speed", that certainly
has not been my experience. I assume you're referring to the disk-to-disk
copying (cloning) feature in the MaxBlast program. Admittedly I haven't
used it in some time (maybe about six months or so ago), but assuming it
performs about the same today as when I last used it -- I found its disk
copying function *considerably* slower than Symantec's Norton Ghost (I use
the 2003 version). Considerably slower. Using Ghost in a medium-powered
system with internal PATA drives, cloning speed will typically be in the 1
GB/min range. Would you say the Maxtor software typically performs faster
than that? If so, I would like to hear about it.

I have used it over a dozen times recently installing new hard drives for
people who have taken advantage of the low prices as well as myself. I have
found MaxBlasts mirror / ghosting capabilities flawless, and yes faster than
that of Norton Ghost. My benchmarks have been based on time to clone the
same disk. 8.5 gig transfered completely in just under six minutes with
MaxBlast compared to just over eight minutes with Ghost. Speed record? No.
But faster yes.

And as far as the Maxtor cloning software being simpler to use than Ghost
(again, I'm talking Ghost 2003), that is also not so in my experience.
Following bootup and accessing the Ghost program, I can easily set up &
begin the cloning process probably within a half-dozen or so keyclicks and
within 20 seconds time. My recollection is that with the Maxtor disk
copying program it wasn't any simpler or less time-consuming.

Simple in that it does not require a large installation of it's own before
its ready to be used, added to the fact that I found the interface very easy
to use. Perhaps I am far too used to reading "geek", but I saw the entire
program as requiring minimal knowledge to navigate successfully.

But having said all this, let me say that if the user intends to use the
disk-copying (cloning) process as a one-time deal to clone his or her old
HD to a new one, the Maxtor program is fine, along with similar programs
like the one from Western Digital. But should the user be interested in a
disk-cloning program for routine & systematic backups of his/her working
HD, then he or she should definitely consider a disk imaging program such
as Symantec's Norton Ghost or Acronis True Image.
Anna

I don't recommend MaxBlast for regular use. Only for cloning a new HD, then
it's discarded. However, and this has been my opinion since I first used a
Norton product, anything by Symantec is best used as a coaster and not
installed on any PC. Installing third party software that completely takes
control of the entire system is worse than going unprotected. Remember, my
opinion. I have not used True Image.

 

[WIRED]

The Maxtor partition copy function does not handle errors well. In my
experience it just quits when it finds an error. Norton Ghost and Acronis
True Image both can make copies of drives that have errors. If the errors
are in system files you may have to do a repair install after cloning the
drive but you can get all your programs and data copied. If you are
upgrading a drive the Maxtor software works fine and has the advantage of
being free. If you are replacing a drive that has started to go bad it
doesn't work in most cases. As for simplicity and speed I find it much
slower than Ghost or TI and the interface is only simple if you understand
the concepts of cloning and are conversant in geek language. Many newbies
find the program very intimidating.

Kerry

I have found just the opposite in speed and ease of use, but perhaps I have
been reading "geek" far too long eh? As far as the error's go, I have never
used MaxBlast on a drive that had errors, so I obviously would have to
decline commenting on that part.

As I stated to Anna in a previous post, I find Symantec's software similar
to the Borg. It wants to assimilate every function of a computer, and I'll
have no part of that. Ghost is the only Symantec product I currently own,
but do not have installed. The rest of my Norton CD's joined the AOL CD's I
get in the mail.

 

[Kerry Brown]

I have found just the opposite in speed and ease of use, but perhaps I
have been reading "geek" far too long eh? As far as the error's go, I have
never used MaxBlast on a drive that had errors, so I obviously would have
to decline commenting on that part.

As I stated to Anna in a previous post, I find Symantec's software similar
to the Borg. It wants to assimilate every function of a computer, and I'll
have no part of that. Ghost is the only Symantec product I currently own,
but do not have installed. The rest of my Norton CD's joined the AOL CD's
I get in the mail.

I only use Ghost if a customer requests it and purchases it for future use.
I prefer True Image for the reasons you state. With both Ghost and TI the
ability to create an image from within Windows pretty much means they need
to be installed. TI uninstalls cleanly. Ghost does not which is par for the
course with Symantec. For someone installing a new drive the manufacturer's
utility is usually more than good enough. I forgot to mention one thing in
my last post. The Maxblast software wouldn't copy a hidden restore partition
on an HP the last time I tried it.

Kerry

 

[Anna]

I only use Ghost if a customer requests it and purchases it for future
use. I prefer True Image for the reasons you state. With both Ghost and TI
the ability to create an image from within Windows pretty much means they
need to be installed. TI uninstalls cleanly. Ghost does not which is par
for the course with Symantec. For someone installing a new drive the
manufacturer's utility is usually more than good enough. I forgot to
mention one thing in my last post. The Maxblast software wouldn't copy a
hidden restore partition on an HP the last time I tried it.

Kerry

Kerry:
We've been using Symantec's Ghost 2003 for just about three years now.
During that time we've used that disk imaging program to clone scores of
different hard drives, both internal & external, hundreds of times. And done
so with virtually no problems that could be attributable to defects of the
Ghost 2003 program. Whatever problems we've encountered are invariably due
to...
1. Defective source and/or destination drives.
2. Corrupted system files on the source drive ("If you clone garbage,
garbage is what you'll get") and, not least of all,
3. User error
We use the program for routine and systematic backups for one purpose and
one purpose only -- to clone the contents of one HD to another HD.

In using the program we use the Ghost 2003 bootable floppy disk (or Ghost
bootable CD) that is easily created in the program. There is *no* need to
use the Windows GUI and indeed we rarely, if ever, use it. The simplicity
and portability of using a Ghost bootable floppy or Ghost bootable CD for
disk-to-disk cloning entirely suits us. It's simple, straightforward, and
effective.

I've no major problem with the Acronis 8.0 program (we haven't as yet worked
with their recently upgraded version 9). I particularly like its data
cloning speed - it's usually considerably faster than Ghost in our
experience. Unfortunately, unlike Ghost 2003, one cannot use a single
bootable floppy disk to perform the cloning operation although you can use a
bootable CD to do so. That's the way we usually use the ATI program. And, as
I'm sure you know, the program does not have the capability of *directly*
cloning individual partitions from a multi-partitioned drive. That latter
capability or lack thereof is of minor significance to us. And I'm not sure
if the ATI 9 version now has that capability.

I most certainly agree, as I've stated previously, that for a one-shot
disk-to-disk copying process, the HD manufacturer's cloning utility is more
than adequate.
Anna

 

[Kerry Brown]

Kerry:
We've been using Symantec's Ghost 2003 for just about three years now.
During that time we've used that disk imaging program to clone scores of
different hard drives, both internal & external, hundreds of times. And
done so with virtually no problems that could be attributable to defects
of the Ghost 2003 program. Whatever problems we've encountered are
invariably due to...
1. Defective source and/or destination drives.
2. Corrupted system files on the source drive ("If you clone garbage,
garbage is what you'll get") and, not least of all,
3. User error
We use the program for routine and systematic backups for one purpose and
one purpose only -- to clone the contents of one HD to another HD.

In using the program we use the Ghost 2003 bootable floppy disk (or Ghost
bootable CD) that is easily created in the program. There is *no* need to
use the Windows GUI and indeed we rarely, if ever, use it. The simplicity
and portability of using a Ghost bootable floppy or Ghost bootable CD for
disk-to-disk cloning entirely suits us. It's simple, straightforward, and
effective.

I've no major problem with the Acronis 8.0 program (we haven't as yet
worked with their recently upgraded version 9). I particularly like its
data cloning speed - it's usually considerably faster than Ghost in our
experience. Unfortunately, unlike Ghost 2003, one cannot use a single
bootable floppy disk to perform the cloning operation although you can use
a bootable CD to do so. That's the way we usually use the ATI program.
And, as I'm sure you know, the program does not have the capability of
*directly* cloning individual partitions from a multi-partitioned drive.
That latter capability or lack thereof is of minor significance to us. And
I'm not sure if the ATI 9 version now has that capability.

I most certainly agree, as I've stated previously, that for a one-shot
disk-to-disk copying process, the HD manufacturer's cloning utility is
more than adequate.
Anna

I don't have a problem with Ghost or TI. I use TI because the license was
cheaper and I'm now used to it. I mostly use it the same as you use Ghost,
to clone one drive to another. Either program works well in a
production/repair environment. For personal use cloning one partition may be
important. It is not to me. For personal backups I copy files to a server
and burn DVD's.

Kerry