Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Using Drive Image to adjust space?

Tags:
Last response: in Storage
Share
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 2, 2005 3:41:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Following a major crash, my wife recently had a second 40GB HD
installed. Unfortunately, the installer took the simplest option of
making the whole new drive a single partition, instead of two of 8GB
and 32GB, as on the other drive. The organisation is therefore now as
follows:

HD1
---
C 40GB:Win XP Home SP2, programs and all data

HD2
---
F 8GB: Empty
G 32GB: Nightly backups of all data and settings from C

That's obviously more secure than before, but I'd like to go further.
I want to use Drive Image 2002 to copy the OS to F, so that in an
emergency we could boot up to that instead of C. But DI won't allow
that. Even though C contains only a TOTAL of about 7GB, and F is 8GB,
it says there is insufficient space. Presumably it's the *partition*
size that matters, not the actual size used.

It's been a long time since I last used DI, and I'm nervous about how
best to proceed at minimum risk. Can I achieve my aim by using the
facilities under Disk Operations to 'Redistribute free space among
partitions'? Relatively risk free? Hate to think of the marital
consequences of wiping WinXP! <g>

Any advice would be much appreciated please.

Terry, UK
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 2, 2005 3:41:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Terry Pinnell wrote:
> Following a major crash, my wife recently had a second 40GB HD
> installed. Unfortunately, the installer took the simplest option of
> making the whole new drive a single partition, instead of two of 8GB
> and 32GB

This would have been quite a feat with a 40GB drive.

------------------------------------------------------
It's easy to make a decision when there are no options
September 2, 2005 3:41:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 11:41:46 +0100, Terry Pinnell
<terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:

>Following a major crash, my wife recently had a second 40GB HD
>installed. Unfortunately, the installer took the simplest option of
>making the whole new drive a single partition, instead of two of 8GB
>and 32GB, as on the other drive. The organisation is therefore now as
>follows:
>
>HD1
>---
>C 40GB:Win XP Home SP2, programs and all data
>
>HD2
>---
>F 8GB: Empty
>G 32GB: Nightly backups of all data and settings from C
>
>That's obviously more secure than before, but I'd like to go further.
>I want to use Drive Image 2002 to copy the OS to F, so that in an
>emergency we could boot up to that instead of C. But DI won't allow
>that. Even though C contains only a TOTAL of about 7GB, and F is 8GB,
>it says there is insufficient space. Presumably it's the *partition*
>size that matters, not the actual size used.
>
>It's been a long time since I last used DI, and I'm nervous about how
>best to proceed at minimum risk. Can I achieve my aim by using the
>facilities under Disk Operations to 'Redistribute free space among
>partitions'? Relatively risk free? Hate to think of the marital
>consequences of wiping WinXP! <g>
>
>Any advice would be much appreciated please.
>
>Terry, UK
>

In order to make a partition bootable it needs to be a primary
partition, not an extended partition.

I have in the past used drive image and partition magic to create two
bootable partitions. The first, the basic one I set as active. The
second, the back up, I set as hidden. If the first one gets corrupted
I can simply hide it, unhide the backup and set it as active. This
has saved me a couple of times. The key is to have recent backups.

Now I simply use drive image to make backups to an external hard
drive. If the "C" drive gets corrupted I restore from the external
drive.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 2, 2005 3:41:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Terry Pinnell" wrote:
> Following a major crash, my wife recently had a second 40GB HD
> installed. Unfortunately, the installer took the simplest option of
> making the whole new drive a single partition, instead of two of 8GB
> and 32GB, as on the other drive. The organisation is therefore now
> as follows:
>
> HD1
> ---
> C 40GB:Win XP Home SP2, programs and all data
>
> HD2
> ---
> F 8GB: Empty
> G 32GB: Nightly backups of all data and settings from C
>
> That's obviously more secure than before, but I'd like to go further.
> I want to use Drive Image 2002 to copy the OS to F, so that in an
> emergency we could boot up to that instead of C. But DI won't allow
> that. Even though C contains only a TOTAL of about 7GB, and F is
> 8GB, it says there is insufficient space. Presumably it's the
> *partition* size that matters, not the actual size used.
>
> It's been a long time since I last used DI, and I'm nervous about
> how best to proceed at minimum risk. Can I achieve my aim by
> using the facilities under Disk Operations to 'Redistribute free
> space among partitions'? Relatively risk free? Hate to think of the
> marital consequences of wiping WinXP! <g>
>
> Any advice would be much appreciated please.


I'm not too familiar with DI 2002, but Partition Magic
(which came with DI 7.0) will shrink that oversize 40GB
partition very simply.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 2, 2005 3:41:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"JC" wrote:
> In order to make a partition bootable it needs to be a primary
> partition, not an extended partition.


That is only partially true. The boot files, i.e. ntldr (the loader),
boot.ini (the boot menu), ntdetect.com (the environment
detector), have to be on a primary partition that has a
boot sector and is marked "active", and that partition has to
be on a HD that is at the head of the BIOS's HD boot order,
and that HD must have an MBR. This partition is called
the "system" partition by Microsoft.

Then the boot.ini file must point to the partition somewhere in
the system from which to load the OS. The choice of partitions
may be by default, by timeout, or by the operator's choice via
keyboard input. The OS may reside on either a primary
partition or on a logical partition within an extended partition.
This partition from which the OS is loaded is called the "boot"
partition by Microsoft. (I did not get that reversed - that's just
Microsoft's perversity.) Both the "boot" partition and the
"system" partition are specified by the Disk Management
utility's GUI.

To sum up, the boot files and the OS don't have to reside
in the same partition, and the OS doesn't have to reside in a
primary partition. You can even put the boot files (the necessary
contents of the "system" partition) on a floppy disk and use that
to load the OS from a HD partition.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 2, 2005 3:41:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"JC" wrote:
> I have in the past used drive image and partition magic
> to create two bootable partitions. The first, the basic one
> I set as active. The second, the back up, I set as hidden.
> If the first one gets corrupted I can simply hide it, unhide
> the backup and set it as active. This has saved me a
> couple of times. The key is to have recent backups.


So on what partition and on what HD is the uncorrupted
partition with its resident boot files and OS and its
installed Partition Magic - which are all needed to
"unhide" the uncorrupted partition?

Why must you "hide" the reserve partition in the first
place? Why not just dual boot one or the other
(assuming you have WinNT or Win2K or WinXP)?
If they are on separate HDs, you don't even have to
understand dual-booting - you can just select the
drive to boot by selecting which HD is at the BIOS's
HD boot order by keyboard input at boot time. In both
of these scenarios, there is no "hiding" and thus no
Partition Magic needed.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 2, 2005 3:41:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"JC" wrote:
> Now I simply use drive image to make backups to an external hard
> drive. If the "C" drive gets corrupted I restore from the external
> drive.


Since HDs have gotten so cheap, why not use the convenience
of a 2nd internal HD to keep the clone? Then no "restore"
process would be necessary. You could dual-boot between the
two or you could use keyboard input to the BIOS at boot time to
switch between the two. You could even keep your 2nd HD
off-site if you want. And if you don't want the labor of removing
and replacing a HD, you could use a "mobile rack" or
"removable tray" for the 2nd HD such as those sold by Kingwin:
http://www.kingwin.com/pdut_Cat.asp?CateID=25 . I use the
KF-101-IPF model with the ventilation fan in the bottom of the
removable tray, and it has worked fine for me for so far for
about 2 years:
http://www.kingwin.com/pdut_detail.asp?LineID=&CateID=2... .
These sell on the Web for around $25, and I've seen extra trays
selling for less than $15. The only drawback is that it takes up
a spare 5 1/2" bay.

*TimDaniels*
September 2, 2005 4:33:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:55:47 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"JC" wrote:
>> I have in the past used drive image and partition magic
>> to create two bootable partitions. The first, the basic one
>> I set as active. The second, the back up, I set as hidden.
>> If the first one gets corrupted I can simply hide it, unhide
>> the backup and set it as active. This has saved me a
>> couple of times. The key is to have recent backups.
>
>
> So on what partition and on what HD is the uncorrupted
> partition with its resident boot files and OS and its
> installed Partition Magic - which are all needed to
> "unhide" the uncorrupted partition?

The OS is on a bootable CD. I run drive image and partition magic
from floppies. That way if the OS is totally screwed up it does not
matter, I can still restore from my most recent backup.
>
> Why must you "hide" the reserve partition in the first
> place? Why not just dual boot one or the other
> (assuming you have WinNT or Win2K or WinXP)?

Because it is simpler to not use dual booting. No extra software to
be installed and possibly corrupt the first few sectors of the drive
that are needed for booting (yes I have seen it happen.)

> If they are on separate HDs, you don't even have to
> understand dual-booting - you can just select the
> drive to boot by selecting which HD is at the BIOS's
> HD boot order by keyboard input at boot time. In both
> of these scenarios, there is no "hiding" and thus no
> Partition Magic needed.
>
>*TimDaniels*
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 2, 2005 4:33:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"JC" wrote:
> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>> Why must you "hide" the reserve partition in the first
>> place? Why not just dual boot one or the other
>> (assuming you have WinNT or Win2K or WinXP)?
>
> Because it is simpler to not use dual booting. No extra software to
> be installed and possibly corrupt the first few sectors of the drive
> that are needed for booting (yes I have seen it happen.)


If you are using WinNT/2K/XP, the (multi)boot manager
is built-in as ntldr/boot.ini . There is no software to install
as it is there all the time, and it's already used each time
you boot the system. If they're corrupted, the system won't
boot, anyway (without some external copies of the
ntldr/boot.ini/ntdetect.com trio to perform the function).

Consider the paragraph below as a minimalist operation.
It involves no fiddling with boot.ini to enable a dual-boot
scenario, just readjusting the HD boot order in the BIOS:


>> If they are on separate HDs, you don't even have to
>> understand dual-booting - you can just select the
>> drive to boot by selecting which HD is at the BIOS's
>> HD boot order by keyboard input at boot time. In both
>> of these scenarios, there is no "hiding" and thus no
>> Partition Magic needed.
>>
>>*TimDaniels*
September 2, 2005 4:40:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 09:07:52 -0700, "Timothy Daniels"
<TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"JC" wrote:
>> Now I simply use drive image to make backups to an external hard
>> drive. If the "C" drive gets corrupted I restore from the external
>> drive.
>
>
> Since HDs have gotten so cheap, why not use the convenience
> of a 2nd internal HD to keep the clone? Then no "restore"
> process would be necessary. You could dual-boot between the
> two or you could use keyboard input to the BIOS at boot time to
> switch between the two. You could even keep your 2nd HD
> off-site if you want.

Because I am the co-chairman of the department of redundancy
department. I also do this. I have a cloned hard drive in a desk
drawer. I also have Drive Image backups on DVD's stored off site.
Call me paranoid but it is simpler than starting all over. Ask me how
I know.

> And if you don't want the labor of removing
> and replacing a HD, you could use a "mobile rack" or
> "removable tray" for the 2nd HD such as those sold by Kingwin:
> http://www.kingwin.com/pdut_Cat.asp?CateID=25 .

I have used removable trays in the past but I have gotten away from
them. Before computer cases were really easy to open I used them.
But it usually meant installing an IDE controller card. The
controller card did not always play nice. I find it easier to open
the case and make the changes, but it a removable tray is certainly a
good option.

> I use the
> KF-101-IPF model with the ventilation fan in the bottom of the
> removable tray, and it has worked fine for me for so far for
> about 2 years:
> http://www.kingwin.com/pdut_detail.asp?LineID=&CateID=2... .
> These sell on the Web for around $25, and I've seen extra trays
> selling for less than $15. The only drawback is that it takes up
> a spare 5 1/2" bay.
>
>*TimDaniels*
September 2, 2005 5:03:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> I'm not too familiar with DI 2002, but Partition Magic
> (which came with DI 7.0) will shrink that oversize 40GB
> partition very simply.

Obviously you should attempt using PM only after you have made a reliable
backup of your data.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 2, 2005 5:10:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

In article <2vagh117g2btpre8osk7ibfqeo6ic2s5m0@4ax.com>,
terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com says...
> Following a major crash, my wife recently had a second 40GB HD
> installed. Unfortunately, the installer took the simplest option of
> making the whole new drive a single partition, instead of two of 8GB
> and 32GB, as on the other drive. The organisation is therefore now as
> follows:
>
> HD1
> ---
> C 40GB:Win XP Home SP2, programs and all data
>
> HD2
> ---
> F 8GB: Empty
> G 32GB: Nightly backups of all data and settings from C
>
> That's obviously more secure than before, but I'd like to go further.
> I want to use Drive Image 2002 to copy the OS to F, so that in an
> emergency we could boot up to that instead of C. But DI won't allow
> that. Even though C contains only a TOTAL of about 7GB, and F is 8GB,
> it says there is insufficient space. Presumably it's the *partition*
> size that matters, not the actual size used.
>
> It's been a long time since I last used DI, and I'm nervous about how
> best to proceed at minimum risk. Can I achieve my aim by using the
> facilities under Disk Operations to 'Redistribute free space among
> partitions'? Relatively risk free? Hate to think of the marital
> consequences of wiping WinXP! <g>
>
> Any advice would be much appreciated please.
>
> Terry, UK

if i got you right : you have to delete f: and di will restore an image
to the free space . but be aware of consequences by changing drive
letters and partition-numbers for your os . you'll have to do some
changes in the boot.ini etc. .

excuse my poor english .

--
gruss , wolfgang
--<-@
gravity is still alive
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 2, 2005 10:06:20 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"Terry Pinnell" wrote:
>> Following a major crash, my wife recently had a second 40GB HD
>> installed. Unfortunately, the installer took the simplest option of
>> making the whole new drive a single partition, instead of two of 8GB
>> and 32GB, as on the other drive. The organisation is therefore now
>> as follows:
>>
>> HD1
>> ---
>> C 40GB:Win XP Home SP2, programs and all data
>>
>> HD2
>> ---
>> F 8GB: Empty
>> G 32GB: Nightly backups of all data and settings from C
>>
>> That's obviously more secure than before, but I'd like to go further.
>> I want to use Drive Image 2002 to copy the OS to F, so that in an
>> emergency we could boot up to that instead of C. But DI won't allow
>> that. Even though C contains only a TOTAL of about 7GB, and F is
>> 8GB, it says there is insufficient space. Presumably it's the
>> *partition* size that matters, not the actual size used.
>>
>> It's been a long time since I last used DI, and I'm nervous about
>> how best to proceed at minimum risk. Can I achieve my aim by
>> using the facilities under Disk Operations to 'Redistribute free
>> space among partitions'? Relatively risk free? Hate to think of the
>> marital consequences of wiping WinXP! <g>
>>
>> Any advice would be much appreciated please.
>
>
> I'm not too familiar with DI 2002, but Partition Magic
> (which came with DI 7.0) will shrink that oversize 40GB
> partition very simply.
>
>*TimDaniels*

Thanks. I have PM 7 too, but have not yet installed it on Janet's PC.
And it appears that DI 2002 can resize too. Never done it before, but
apparently just a matter of dragging its rh edge leftwards. I'll
probably still need to increase size of F, as not much leeway. If so,
that means first decreasing size of G. And I really ought to make a
new partition on HD1 first, as in the long term I don't want OS and
data all together. That of course, as Wolfgang said, has implicatiuons
for drive letters. All makes me a tad apprehensive! Particularly as
confidence is low after DI crashed on my *own* PC today, while using
Copy Drive. (Will post separately.)

Terry, UK
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 2, 2005 10:06:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Terry Pinnell" wrote:
> Thanks. I have PM 7 too, but have not yet installed it on Janet's PC.
> And it appears that DI 2002 can resize too. Never done it before, but
> apparently just a matter of dragging its rh edge leftwards. I'll
> probably still need to increase size of F, as not much leeway. If so,
> that means first decreasing size of G. And I really ought to make a
> new partition on HD1 first, as in the long term I don't want OS and
> data all together. That of course, as Wolfgang said, has implicatiuons
> for drive letters. All makes me a tad apprehensive! Particularly as
> confidence is low after DI crashed on my *own* PC today, while using
> Copy Drive. (Will post separately.)
>
> Terry, UK


DI quite probably shrinks partitions the same way that
Partition Magic does. It's a pretty simple operation as
no internal data has to be moved as with partition-shifing.
I've used PM to shrink partitions, and it did it quickly and
correctly. I'd be more leary of partition-shifting. It might
help to defrag the partition (known to Disk Management
as a "Local Disk") before doing the shrinking so as to
consolidate as much data at the start of the partition as
possible. But then, you have to trust that the defrag goes
well, too... :-)

By the way, if you want a dedicated copy/clone utility for
HDs only (not for external media), try Casper XP (for WinXP
systems). You can download a free trial copy from the
Future Systems Solutions' webpade at
www.FSSdev/products/casperxp/ . I tried it and like it
enough to buy a copy. The paid version comes with a
copy of Drive2Drive, which is for pre-XP/NT/2K Windows
OSes.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 2, 2005 10:07:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

wolfgang schneider <schnusi@gmx.net> wrote:

>In article <2vagh117g2btpre8osk7ibfqeo6ic2s5m0@4ax.com>,
>terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com says...
>> Following a major crash, my wife recently had a second 40GB HD
>> installed. Unfortunately, the installer took the simplest option of
>> making the whole new drive a single partition, instead of two of 8GB
>> and 32GB, as on the other drive. The organisation is therefore now as
>> follows:
>>
>> HD1
>> ---
>> C 40GB:Win XP Home SP2, programs and all data
>>
>> HD2
>> ---
>> F 8GB: Empty
>> G 32GB: Nightly backups of all data and settings from C
>>
>> That's obviously more secure than before, but I'd like to go further.
>> I want to use Drive Image 2002 to copy the OS to F, so that in an
>> emergency we could boot up to that instead of C. But DI won't allow
>> that. Even though C contains only a TOTAL of about 7GB, and F is 8GB,
>> it says there is insufficient space. Presumably it's the *partition*
>> size that matters, not the actual size used.
>>
>> It's been a long time since I last used DI, and I'm nervous about how
>> best to proceed at minimum risk. Can I achieve my aim by using the
>> facilities under Disk Operations to 'Redistribute free space among
>> partitions'? Relatively risk free? Hate to think of the marital
>> consequences of wiping WinXP! <g>
>>
>> Any advice would be much appreciated please.
>>
>> Terry, UK
>
>if i got you right : you have to delete f: and di will restore an image
>to the free space . but be aware of consequences by changing drive
>letters and partition-numbers for your os . you'll have to do some
>changes in the boot.ini etc. .
>
>excuse my poor english .

Thanks Wolfgang. No problems understanding! See also my reply to
Timothy.

Terry, UK
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 3, 2005 12:18:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"Terry Pinnell" wrote:
>> Thanks. I have PM 7 too, but have not yet installed it on Janet's PC.
>> And it appears that DI 2002 can resize too. Never done it before, but
>> apparently just a matter of dragging its rh edge leftwards. I'll
>> probably still need to increase size of F, as not much leeway. If so,
>> that means first decreasing size of G. And I really ought to make a
>> new partition on HD1 first, as in the long term I don't want OS and
>> data all together. That of course, as Wolfgang said, has implicatiuons
>> for drive letters. All makes me a tad apprehensive! Particularly as
>> confidence is low after DI crashed on my *own* PC today, while using
>> Copy Drive. (Will post separately.)
>>
>> Terry, UK
>
>
> DI quite probably shrinks partitions the same way that
> Partition Magic does. It's a pretty simple operation as
> no internal data has to be moved as with partition-shifing.
> I've used PM to shrink partitions, and it did it quickly and
> correctly. I'd be more leary of partition-shifting. It might
> help to defrag the partition (known to Disk Management
> as a "Local Disk") before doing the shrinking so as to
> consolidate as much data at the start of the partition as
> possible. But then, you have to trust that the defrag goes
> well, too... :-)
>
> By the way, if you want a dedicated copy/clone utility for
> HDs only (not for external media), try Casper XP (for WinXP
> systems). You can download a free trial copy from the
> Future Systems Solutions' webpade at
> www.FSSdev/products/casperxp/ . I tried it and like it
> enough to buy a copy. The paid version comes with a
> copy of Drive2Drive, which is for pre-XP/NT/2K Windows
> OSes.
>
>*TimDaniels*

Many thanks, very helpful. Will get back on the case tomorrow. At
present side-tracked by other problems concerning Windows Update!

Terry, UK
September 3, 2005 2:24:04 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> Following a major crash, my wife recently had a second 40GB HD
> installed. Unfortunately, the installer took the simplest option of
> making the whole new drive a single partition, instead of two of 8GB
> and 32GB, as on the other drive. The organisation is therefore now as
> follows:
>
> HD1
> ---
> C 40GB:Win XP Home SP2, programs and all data
>
> HD2
> ---
> F 8GB: Empty
> G 32GB: Nightly backups of all data and settings from C
>
> That's obviously more secure than before, but I'd like to go further.
> I want to use Drive Image 2002 to copy the OS to F, so that in an
> emergency we could boot up to that instead of C. But DI won't allow
> that. Even though C contains only a TOTAL of about 7GB, and F is 8GB,
> it says there is insufficient space. Presumably it's the *partition*
> size that matters, not the actual size used.
>
> It's been a long time since I last used DI, and I'm nervous about how
> best to proceed at minimum risk. Can I achieve my aim by using the
> facilities under Disk Operations to 'Redistribute free space among
> partitions'? Relatively risk free? Hate to think of the marital
> consequences of wiping WinXP! <g>
>
> Any advice would be much appreciated please.
>
> Terry, UK

Since you do not have any unique data on your second drive (just nightly
backups from C: to G:) , I would suggest to repartition second drive and
create a single, 40GB partition for drive F:.
Then you could use your cloning method (if you really want to clone that
way).
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 3, 2005 9:51:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:
> "Terry Pinnell" wrote:
>> Following a major crash, my wife recently had a second 40GB HD
>> installed. Unfortunately, the installer took the simplest option of
>> making the whole new drive a single partition, instead of two of 8GB
>> and 32GB, as on the other drive. The organisation is therefore now
>> as follows:
>>
>> HD1
>> ---
>> C 40GB:Win XP Home SP2, programs and all data
>>
>> HD2
>> ---
>> F 8GB: Empty
>> G 32GB: Nightly backups of all data and settings from C
>>
>> That's obviously more secure than before, but I'd like to go further.
>> I want to use Drive Image 2002 to copy the OS to F, so that in an
>> emergency we could boot up to that instead of C. But DI won't allow
>> that. Even though C contains only a TOTAL of about 7GB, and F is
>> 8GB, it says there is insufficient space. Presumably it's the
>> *partition* size that matters, not the actual size used.
>>
>> It's been a long time since I last used DI, and I'm nervous about
>> how best to proceed at minimum risk. Can I achieve my aim by
>> using the facilities under Disk Operations to 'Redistribute free
>> space among partitions'? Relatively risk free? Hate to think of the
>> marital consequences of wiping WinXP! <g>
>>
>> Any advice would be much appreciated please.

> I'm not too familiar with DI 2002, but Partition Magic
> (which came with DI 7.0) will shrink that oversize 40GB
> partition very simply.

But that process isnt risk free.

It would be MUCH safer to use True Image
to make a copy of his C drive to the F drive.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 3, 2005 9:51:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" wrote:
> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>> I'm not too familiar with DI 2002, but Partition Magic
>> (which came with DI 7.0) will shrink that oversize 40GB
>> partition very simply.
>
> But that process isnt risk free.
>
> It would be MUCH safer to use True Image
> to make a copy of his C drive to the F drive.


Agreed that making a backup copy or clone first
would be best, but the original poster's destination
partitions aren't large enough to fit the 40GB source
C: partition, and making a copy of it is the thing he's
trying to do.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 3, 2005 9:52:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:
> "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:
>
>> "Terry Pinnell" wrote:
>>> Following a major crash, my wife recently had a second 40GB HD
>>> installed. Unfortunately, the installer took the simplest option of
>>> making the whole new drive a single partition, instead of two of 8GB
>>> and 32GB, as on the other drive. The organisation is therefore now
>>> as follows:
>>>
>>> HD1
>>> ---
>>> C 40GB:Win XP Home SP2, programs and all data
>>>
>>> HD2
>>> ---
>>> F 8GB: Empty
>>> G 32GB: Nightly backups of all data and settings from C
>>>
>>> That's obviously more secure than before, but I'd like to go
>>> further. I want to use Drive Image 2002 to copy the OS to F, so
>>> that in an emergency we could boot up to that instead of C. But DI
>>> won't allow that. Even though C contains only a TOTAL of about 7GB,
>>> and F is 8GB, it says there is insufficient space. Presumably it's
>>> the *partition* size that matters, not the actual size used.
>>>
>>> It's been a long time since I last used DI, and I'm nervous about
>>> how best to proceed at minimum risk. Can I achieve my aim by
>>> using the facilities under Disk Operations to 'Redistribute free
>>> space among partitions'? Relatively risk free? Hate to think of the
>>> marital consequences of wiping WinXP! <g>
>>>
>>> Any advice would be much appreciated please.
>>
>>
>> I'm not too familiar with DI 2002, but Partition Magic
>> (which came with DI 7.0) will shrink that oversize 40GB
>> partition very simply.
>>
>> *TimDaniels*
>
> Thanks. I have PM 7 too, but have not yet installed it on Janet's PC.
> And it appears that DI 2002 can resize too. Never done it before, but
> apparently just a matter of dragging its rh edge leftwards. I'll
> probably still need to increase size of F, as not much leeway. If so,
> that means first decreasing size of G. And I really ought to make a
> new partition on HD1 first, as in the long term I don't want OS and
> data all together. That of course, as Wolfgang said, has implicatiuons
> for drive letters. All makes me a tad apprehensive! Particularly as
> confidence is low after DI crashed on my *own* PC today, while using
> Copy Drive. (Will post separately.)

Yes, its very risky indeed to use PM to resize partitions without a full backup.

You'd have to be mad to risk that.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 3, 2005 11:02:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote

> At present side-tracked by other problems concerning Windows Update!

If that is just getting updates where it complains about you not having
a valid copy of XP, its trivially fixable by letting it install the ActiveX
control, get to the Update screen which gives the choice of Express
and Custom upgrade checks. Paste
javascript:void(window.g_sDisableWGACheck='all')

into the url box and hit enter. You don't see anything change on the screen.

Then use the button you require and it doesn't bother to do the check.



You can also use automatic updates too instead of that kludge.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 3, 2005 2:20:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote
>
>> At present side-tracked by other problems concerning Windows Update!
>
>If that is just getting updates where it complains about you not having
>a valid copy of XP, its trivially fixable by letting it install the ActiveX
>control, get to the Update screen which gives the choice of Express
>and Custom upgrade checks. Paste
>javascript:void(window.g_sDisableWGACheck='all')
>
>into the url box and hit enter. You don't see anything change on the screen.
>
>Then use the button you require and it doesn't bother to do the check.
>
>
>
>You can also use automatic updates too instead of that kludge.

Thanks. What on earth are MS doing to introduce such a confusing
obstacle to what is already a fairly complex procedure?!

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 3, 2005 2:35:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>> Following a major crash, my wife recently had a second 40GB HD
>> installed. Unfortunately, the installer took the simplest option of
>> making the whole new drive a single partition, instead of two of 8GB
>> and 32GB, as on the other drive. The organisation is therefore now as
>> follows:
>>
>> HD1
>> ---
>> C 40GB:Win XP Home SP2, programs and all data
>>
>> HD2
>> ---
>> F 8GB: Empty
>> G 32GB: Nightly backups of all data and settings from C
>>
>> That's obviously more secure than before, but I'd like to go further.
>> I want to use Drive Image 2002 to copy the OS to F, so that in an
>> emergency we could boot up to that instead of C. But DI won't allow
>> that. Even though C contains only a TOTAL of about 7GB, and F is 8GB,
>> it says there is insufficient space. Presumably it's the *partition*
>> size that matters, not the actual size used.
>>
>> It's been a long time since I last used DI, and I'm nervous about how
>> best to proceed at minimum risk. Can I achieve my aim by using the
>> facilities under Disk Operations to 'Redistribute free space among
>> partitions'? Relatively risk free? Hate to think of the marital
>> consequences of wiping WinXP! <g>
>>
>> Any advice would be much appreciated please.
>>
>> Terry, UK
>
>Since you do not have any unique data on your second drive (just nightly
>backups from C: to G:) , I would suggest to repartition second drive and
>create a single, 40GB partition for drive F:.
>Then you could use your cloning method (if you really want to clone that
>way).
>
Thanks, I'll think seriously about that alternative. But that would
end up with two single partitions, each filling their 40GB drives.
Isn't that generally regarded as undesirable? What about the aim to
keep OS and data separated?

BTW, up-thread I said I thought DI could resize a partition, but I was
wrong. I will have to use PM 7.0 for that.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 3, 2005 6:32:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Timothy Daniels wrote

>>> I'm not too familiar with DI 2002, but Partition Magic
>>> (which came with DI 7.0) will shrink that oversize 40GB
>>> partition very simply.

>> But that process isnt risk free.

>> It would be MUCH safer to use True Image
>> to make a copy of his C drive to the F drive.

> Agreed that making a backup copy or clone first would be best,

Only the stupid wouldnt have a backup.

> but the original poster's destination partitions aren't
large enough to fit the 40GB source C: partition,

Wrong, its only got 7G of files in it.

> and making a copy of it is the thing he's trying to do.

And I told him how to do that, just do it via an image file.

Even DI 2002 will do that fine.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 3, 2005 6:32:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" wrote:
> Timothy Daniels wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Timothy Daniels wrote
>
>>>> I'm not too familiar with DI 2002, but Partition Magic
>>>> (which came with DI 7.0) will shrink that oversize 40GB
>>>> partition very simply.
>
>>> But that process isnt risk free.
>
>>> It would be MUCH safer to use True Image
>>> to make a copy of his C drive to the F drive.
>
>> Agreed that making a backup copy or clone first would be best,
>
> Only the stupid wouldnt have a backup.
>
>> but the original poster's destination partitions aren't
> large enough to fit the 40GB source C: partition,
>
> Wrong, its only got 7G of files in it.
>
>> and making a copy of it is the thing he's trying to do.
>
> And I told him how to do that, just do it via an image file.
>
> Even DI 2002 will do that fine.



I hope he knows the difference between an "image file"
and a "clone".

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 3, 2005 6:32:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Timothy Daniels wrote
>
>>>> I'm not too familiar with DI 2002, but Partition Magic
>>>> (which came with DI 7.0) will shrink that oversize 40GB
>>>> partition very simply.
>
>>> But that process isnt risk free.
>
>>> It would be MUCH safer to use True Image
>>> to make a copy of his C drive to the F drive.
>
>> Agreed that making a backup copy or clone first would be best,
>
>Only the stupid wouldnt have a backup.
>
>> but the original poster's destination partitions aren't
>large enough to fit the 40GB source C: partition,
>
>Wrong, its only got 7G of files in it.
>
>> and making a copy of it is the thing he's trying to do.
>
>And I told him how to do that, just do it via an image file.
>
>Even DI 2002 will do that fine.
>

Why don't you stop the drivel and actually *read* the thread?

And why do you make such sweeping and unfounded assumptions?

- I had already backed up all data before I even posted here.
"Nightly backups of all data and settings from C"
And I also made a second copy of it all, to be (literally) doubly
sure.

- I have also made an image of it with DI.
So I have 3 recovery routes for all data.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 3, 2005 7:42:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:

>"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:
>
>>"Terry Pinnell" wrote:
>>> Thanks. I have PM 7 too, but have not yet installed it on Janet's PC.
>>> And it appears that DI 2002 can resize too. Never done it before, but
>>> apparently just a matter of dragging its rh edge leftwards. I'll
>>> probably still need to increase size of F, as not much leeway. If so,
>>> that means first decreasing size of G. And I really ought to make a
>>> new partition on HD1 first, as in the long term I don't want OS and
>>> data all together. That of course, as Wolfgang said, has implicatiuons
>>> for drive letters. All makes me a tad apprehensive! Particularly as
>>> confidence is low after DI crashed on my *own* PC today, while using
>>> Copy Drive. (Will post separately.)
>>>
>>> Terry, UK
>>
>>
>> DI quite probably shrinks partitions the same way that
>> Partition Magic does. It's a pretty simple operation as
>> no internal data has to be moved as with partition-shifing.
>> I've used PM to shrink partitions, and it did it quickly and
>> correctly. I'd be more leary of partition-shifting. It might
>> help to defrag the partition (known to Disk Management
>> as a "Local Disk") before doing the shrinking so as to
>> consolidate as much data at the start of the partition as
>> possible. But then, you have to trust that the defrag goes
>> well, too... :-)
>>
>> By the way, if you want a dedicated copy/clone utility for
>> HDs only (not for external media), try Casper XP (for WinXP
>> systems). You can download a free trial copy from the
>> Future Systems Solutions' webpade at
>> www.FSSdev/products/casperxp/ . I tried it and like it
>> enough to buy a copy. The paid version comes with a
>> copy of Drive2Drive, which is for pre-XP/NT/2K Windows
>> OSes.
>>
>>*TimDaniels*
>
>Many thanks, very helpful. Will get back on the case tomorrow. At
>present side-tracked by other problems concerning Windows Update!
>
>Terry, UK

Happy to report my approach proved successful. These were steps:

1) Copied C:\Documents and Settings\Janet\My Documents to
G:\C-MyDocs\My Documents to reduce size of C: by about 3GB, and
provide another backup in addition to one made automatically last
night of entire C:\Documents and Settings.

2) Installed PM 7.0 and made Rescue Diskettes. (I'd previously done
chkdsk on C: and G:) 

3) With PM, resized 38GB C: partition to about 8GB. That was the step
I was most nervous about, but it went smoothly as you'd suggested.
(Note that I could *not* do this in DI as I'd thought earlier.)

4) Used Drive Image 2002 to Copy Drive C: to F: That took a long time
but again went well.

5) Was then able to dual boot as desired!

6) Used PM 7 to resize C: back up to 38GB

7) Copied G:\C-MyDocs\My Documents back to C:\Documents and
Settings\Janet

---------

The only glitch was that somehow both versions of XP (on C: and F:) 
now identified the special folder 'My Documents' as being
G:\C-MyDocs\My Documents. So various programs Open/Save interfaces
were now misleading and irritating. Took a while to stumble on the
cure: from Start, r-click My Documents and in Properties use the Move
option to re-specify C:\Documents and Settings\Janet. (I'd be
interested if anyone can explain why that issue arose please.)

On testing the alternative boot, I'd forgotten about the 'active'
partition apparently always getting called C:, so it came as a
surprise that C: and F: were reversed <g>.

So that's a nice friendly environment on tap immediately should she
ever have another disaster with the other HD.

Much appreciate the help I received here.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
September 3, 2005 7:42:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> So that's a nice friendly environment on tap immediately should she
> ever have another disaster with the other HD.

How does she keep C: and F: in sync?
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 3, 2005 7:42:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Terry Pinnell" wrote:
> Happy to report my approach proved successful. These
> were steps:
>
> 1) Copied
> C:\Documents and Settings\Janet\My Documents
> to
> G:\C-MyDocs\My Documents
> to reduce size of C: by about 3GB, and provide another
> backup in addition to one made automatically last night
> of entire C:\Documents and Settings.
>
> 2) Installed PM 7.0 and made Rescue Diskettes. (I'd
> previously done chkdsk on C: and G:) 
>
> 3) With PM, resized 38GB C: partition to about 8GB. That
> was the step I was most nervous about, but it went
> smoothly as you'd suggested.
> (Note that I could *not* do this in DI as I'd thought earlier.)
>
> 4) Used Drive Image 2002 to Copy Drive C: to F:
That took a long time but again went well.
>
> 5) Was then able to dual boot as desired!
>
> 6) Used PM 7 to resize C: back up to 38GB
>
> 7) Copied
> G:\C-MyDocs\My Documents
> back to
> C:\Documents and Settings\Janet
>
> ---------
>
> The only glitch was that somehow both versions of XP
> (on C: and F:)  now identified the special folder
> 'My Documents' as being G:\C-MyDocs\My Documents.
> So various programs Open/Save interfaces were now
> misleading and irritating. Took a while to stumble on the
> cure: from Start, r-click My Documents and in Properties,
> use the Move option to re-specify
> C:\Documents and Settings\Janet.
> (I'd be interested if anyone can explain why that issue
> arose please.)


That appears to be symptomatic of the problem first
mentioned by Rod Speed that happens when the
clone of a WinXP OS (and perhaps also WinNT/2K)
get started for its first time with the "parent" OS visible
to it. The clone seems to form links or short cuts to
randomly selected files in the "parent" file structure so
that updates thought to apply to the clone are actually
applied to the "parent's" files. The first inkling of this is
usually when the "parent" is taken away and then files
are noticed to be "missing" in the clone. This may
happen throughout the file structure, but I've only
noticed it in My Documents.

As Rod has pointed out, this can be remedied by
merely removing or disconnecting the HD containing
the "parent" OS before the clone is booted for the 1st
time. Thereafter, the "parent" can be present when
the clone is booted, and the "parent" merely appears
to the clone as another "Local Disk", i.e. partition,
with an accessible file structure that allows drag/drop
and cutting/pasting of files between the file structures.

If you want to experiment with using Partition Magic
(running SOMEWHERE) to "hide" the "parent" partition
before the clone's 1st boot, let us know how it works out.
That might be handy if one were to make a clone on
the same HD as the "parent" OS's partition.

Otherwise, I use a DPST micro toggle switch to cut
the power to the "parent" HD to hide it during the clone's
1st bootup. It works, but fitfully. My PCI controller card
sometimes doesn't see the Slave if the Master on the
same IDE channel is depowered. The problem doesn't
occur if the two HDs are on different IDE channels.


> On testing the alternative boot, I'd forgotten about the 'active'
> partition apparently always getting called C:, so it came as a
> surprise that C: and F: were reversed <g>.


Be careful with the terminology. The "active" partition is
the one that gets passed control by the MBR during the
boot process. It is supposed to have a boot sector, which
implies that it must be a primay partition, and it's supposed
to have the loader (ntldr), the boot menu (boot.ini) and the
environment detector (ntdetect.com). But the partition
containing the OS to be loaded may be in any partition on
any IDE hard drive in the system - even within an extended
partition. Basically, then, the loading is done by the "active"
partition (which Disk Management calls it the "system" partition),
and an entry in the boot.ini file designates the OS's partition
(which Disk Management calls the "boot" parition).
So the OS comes from the "boot" partition which needn't be
the "system" partition nor the "active" partition. Crazy, huh?
That's Microsoft.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 3, 2005 9:57:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Timothy Daniels wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Timothy Daniels wrote

>>>>> I'm not too familiar with DI 2002, but Partition Magic
>>>>> (which came with DI 7.0) will shrink that oversize 40GB
>>>>> partition very simply.

>>>> But that process isnt risk free.

>>>> It would be MUCH safer to use True Image
>>>> to make a copy of his C drive to the F drive.

>>> Agreed that making a backup copy or clone first would be best,

>> Only the stupid wouldnt have a backup.

>>> but the original poster's destination partitions aren't
>>> large enough to fit the 40GB source C: partition,

>> Wrong, its only got 7G of files in it.

>>> and making a copy of it is the thing he's trying to do.

>> And I told him how to do that, just do it via an image file.

>> Even DI 2002 will do that fine.

> I hope he knows the difference between an "image file" and a "clone".

Not hard to check that if he doesnt.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 3, 2005 10:50:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Peter" <peterfoxghost@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>> So that's a nice friendly environment on tap immediately should she
>> ever have another disaster with the other HD.
>
>How does she keep C: and F: in sync?

F: is not meant to be kept up to date! I don't intend to do this copy
as a regular backup. After much effort following the XP re-install, we
now have all the programs my wife uses on a regular basis. Very little
will change. If, heaven forbid, we had another disaster in a year from
now, I reckon she would be able to boot into E: and be instantly
familiar with the environment.

And if she surprises me and *does* add many more programs, then I'll
repeat the exercise - with more confidence this time <g>.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
September 3, 2005 10:50:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

> If, heaven forbid, we had another disaster in a year from
> now, I reckon she would be able to boot into E: and be instantly
> familiar with the environment.

Unless, instead of disk failure, she contracts a nasty virus which scrambles
all file systems it can find. But chances for that are extremaly small, at
least for now.
Yes, your approach will mostly be fine, with the limitations you are already
aware. But Microsoft might still have another surprise for you, because of
two XP partitions and booting one or another.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2005 12:20:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote

>>> At present side-tracked by other problems concerning Windows Update!

>> If that is just getting updates where it complains about you not
>> having a valid copy of XP, its trivially fixable by letting it install
>> the ActiveX control, get to the Update screen which gives the
>> choice of Express and Custom upgrade checks. Paste
>> javascript:void(window.g_sDisableWGACheck='all')
>> into the url box and hit enter. You don't see anything
>> change on the screen. Then use the button you require
>> and it doesn't bother to do the check.

>> You can also use automatic updates too instead of that kludge.

> Thanks. What on earth are MS doing to introduce such a confusing
> obstacle to what is already a fairly complex procedure?!

They didnt, that's a way of bypassing their attempt to stop those who
dont have what they claim is a legal copy getting access to updates.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2005 12:28:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Timothy Daniels wrote

>>>>> I'm not too familiar with DI 2002, but Partition
>>>>> Magic (which came with DI 7.0) will shrink
>>>>> that oversize 40GB partition very simply.

>>>> But that process isnt risk free.

>>>> It would be MUCH safer to use True Image
>>>> to make a copy of his C drive to the F drive.

>>> Agreed that making a backup copy or clone first would be best,

>> Only the stupid wouldnt have a backup.

>>> but the original poster's destination partitions aren't
>>> large enough to fit the 40GB source C: partition,

>> Wrong, its only got 7G of files in it.

>>> and making a copy of it is the thing he's trying to do.

>> And I told him how to do that, just do it via an image file.

>> Even DI 2002 will do that fine.

> Why don't you stop the drivel and actually *read* the thread?

Why dont you go shove your head up a dead bear's arse ?

> And why do you make such sweeping and unfounded assumptions?

Why dont you go shove your head up a dead bear's arse ?

> - I had already backed up all data before I even posted here.

Then why did you ask about the risk when using DI ?

> "Nightly backups of all data and settings from C"

Then why did you ask about the risk when using DI ?

> And I also made a second copy of it all, to be (literally) doubly sure.

Then why did you ask about the risk when using DI ?

> - I have also made an image of it with DI.
> So I have 3 recovery routes for all data.

Then why did you ask about the risk when using DI ?
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2005 9:26:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:
> Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>> "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Terry Pinnell" wrote:
>>>> Thanks. I have PM 7 too, but have not yet installed it on Janet's
>>>> PC. And it appears that DI 2002 can resize too. Never done it
>>>> before, but apparently just a matter of dragging its rh edge
>>>> leftwards. I'll probably still need to increase size of F, as not
>>>> much leeway. If so, that means first decreasing size of G. And I
>>>> really ought to make a new partition on HD1 first, as in the long
>>>> term I don't want OS and data all together. That of course, as
>>>> Wolfgang said, has implicatiuons for drive letters. All makes me a
>>>> tad apprehensive! Particularly as confidence is low after DI
>>>> crashed on my *own* PC today, while using Copy Drive. (Will post
>>>> separately.)
>>>>
>>>> Terry, UK
>>>
>>>
>>> DI quite probably shrinks partitions the same way that
>>> Partition Magic does. It's a pretty simple operation as
>>> no internal data has to be moved as with partition-shifing.
>>> I've used PM to shrink partitions, and it did it quickly and
>>> correctly. I'd be more leary of partition-shifting. It
>>> might help to defrag the partition (known to Disk Management
>>> as a "Local Disk") before doing the shrinking so as to
>>> consolidate as much data at the start of the partition as
>>> possible. But then, you have to trust that the defrag goes
>>> well, too... :-)
>>>
>>> By the way, if you want a dedicated copy/clone utility for
>>> HDs only (not for external media), try Casper XP (for WinXP
>>> systems). You can download a free trial copy from the
>>> Future Systems Solutions' webpade at
>>> www.FSSdev/products/casperxp/ . I tried it and like it
>>> enough to buy a copy. The paid version comes with a
>>> copy of Drive2Drive, which is for pre-XP/NT/2K Windows
>>> OSes.
>>>
>>> *TimDaniels*
>>
>> Many thanks, very helpful. Will get back on the case tomorrow. At
>> present side-tracked by other problems concerning Windows Update!
>>
>> Terry, UK
>
> Happy to report my approach proved successful. These were steps:
>
> 1) Copied C:\Documents and Settings\Janet\My Documents to
> G:\C-MyDocs\My Documents to reduce size of C: by about 3GB, and
> provide another backup in addition to one made automatically last
> night of entire C:\Documents and Settings.
>
> 2) Installed PM 7.0 and made Rescue Diskettes. (I'd previously done
> chkdsk on C: and G:) 
>
> 3) With PM, resized 38GB C: partition to about 8GB. That was the step
> I was most nervous about, but it went smoothly as you'd suggested.
> (Note that I could *not* do this in DI as I'd thought earlier.)
>
> 4) Used Drive Image 2002 to Copy Drive C: to F: That took a long time
> but again went well.
>
> 5) Was then able to dual boot as desired!
>
> 6) Used PM 7 to resize C: back up to 38GB

There was no need to do that, you could have just imaged
the C drive and produced the F drive from that image.

> 7) Copied G:\C-MyDocs\My Documents back to C:\Documents and
> Settings\Janet

You should physically unplug the C drive and make sure you
really can boot off the F drive without the C drive being present.

If the C drive was visible on the first boot of the F drive
after it had been produced, you may well find you cant
boot off it without the C drive being visible now.

> ---------
>
> The only glitch was that somehow both versions of XP (on C: and F:) 
> now identified the special folder 'My Documents' as being
> G:\C-MyDocs\My Documents. So various programs Open/Save interfaces
> were now misleading and irritating. Took a while to stumble on the
> cure: from Start, r-click My Documents and in Properties use the Move
> option to re-specify C:\Documents and Settings\Janet. (I'd be
> interested if anyone can explain why that issue arose please.)

My Documents isnt the simple folder it superficially appears to be.

It isnt quite a virtual folder, but it is to some extent with the name.

> On testing the alternative boot, I'd forgotten about the 'active'
> partition apparently always getting called C:, so it came as a
> surprise that C: and F: were reversed <g>.

> So that's a nice friendly environment on tap immediately
> should she ever have another disaster with the other HD.

Maybe, it remains to be seen what happens with no C drive visible.

> Much appreciate the help I received here.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2005 1:03:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"Terry Pinnell" wrote:
>> Happy to report my approach proved successful.

<snip>

>> ---------
>>
>> The only glitch was that somehow both versions of XP
>> (on C: and F:)  now identified the special folder
>> 'My Documents' as being G:\C-MyDocs\My Documents.
>> So various programs Open/Save interfaces were now
>> misleading and irritating. Took a while to stumble on the
>> cure: from Start, r-click My Documents and in Properties,
>> use the Move option to re-specify
>> C:\Documents and Settings\Janet.
>> (I'd be interested if anyone can explain why that issue
>> arose please.)
>
>
> That appears to be symptomatic of the problem first
> mentioned by Rod Speed that happens when the
> clone of a WinXP OS (and perhaps also WinNT/2K)
> get started for its first time with the "parent" OS visible
> to it. The clone seems to form links or short cuts to
> randomly selected files in the "parent" file structure so
> that updates thought to apply to the clone are actually
> applied to the "parent's" files. The first inkling of this is
> usually when the "parent" is taken away and then files
> are noticed to be "missing" in the clone. This may
> happen throughout the file structure, but I've only
> noticed it in My Documents.
>
> As Rod has pointed out, this can be remedied by
> merely removing or disconnecting the HD containing
> the "parent" OS before the clone is booted for the 1st
> time. Thereafter, the "parent" can be present when
> the clone is booted, and the "parent" merely appears
> to the clone as another "Local Disk", i.e. partition,
> with an accessible file structure that allows drag/drop
> and cutting/pasting of files between the file structures.

Yes, with hindsight maybe I should have had more courage and done what
Rod suggested. But as I mentioned, Janet's office is very small, and
access to the CPU case difficult. Even without that restriction, I'd
have to be careful to ensure I knew which drive was which. Happily
that 'Move' approach I described appears to do make the correction OK
though.

> If you want to experiment with using Partition Magic
> (running SOMEWHERE) to "hide" the "parent" partition
> before the clone's 1st boot, let us know how it works out.
> That might be handy if one were to make a clone on
> the same HD as the "parent" OS's partition.

I would indeed love to experiment more with PM. Doing so when actually
faced with a disaster is not smart! But just *where* is the problem.
Ideally it would be on a cheap new PC, with a fresh XP Home installed
- but I don't have that luxury. I'm thinking about maybe installing PM
on my old W98 PC in my shed/workshop (dedicated to my electronics
hobby).

The next immediate use of PM will be on my own PC. As I think I
mentioned, my attempt to use DI to do a similar exercise as on Janet's
PC failed. So I need to resize the target partition E:, after reducing
the size of the adjacent F:, in order to Copy Drive C: to E:.


> Otherwise, I use a DPST micro toggle switch to cut
> the power to the "parent" HD to hide it during the clone's
> 1st bootup. It works, but fitfully. My PCI controller card
> sometimes doesn't see the Slave if the Master on the
> same IDE channel is depowered. The problem doesn't
> occur if the two HDs are on different IDE channels.

Neat idea. Pity about that 'fitfully' though <g>.
>
>> On testing the alternative boot, I'd forgotten about the 'active'
>> partition apparently always getting called C:, so it came as a
>> surprise that C: and F: were reversed <g>.
>
>
> Be careful with the terminology.
Yes, I knew I was on shaky ground there, as I recall reading some of
the stuff you describe below...

> The "active" partition is
> the one that gets passed control by the MBR during the
> boot process. It is supposed to have a boot sector, which
> implies that it must be a primay partition, and it's supposed
> to have the loader (ntldr), the boot menu (boot.ini) and the
> environment detector (ntdetect.com). But the partition
> containing the OS to be loaded may be in any partition on
> any IDE hard drive in the system - even within an extended
> partition. Basically, then, the loading is done by the "active"
> partition (which Disk Management calls it the "system" partition),
> and an entry in the boot.ini file designates the OS's partition
> (which Disk Management calls the "boot" parition).
> So the OS comes from the "boot" partition which needn't be
> the "system" partition nor the "active" partition. Crazy, huh?
> That's Microsoft.

.... and coming to similar conclusions! Except that I still don't
understand it well enough for confidence in any practical situation.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2005 1:14:08 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

JC <eat@joes.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 11:41:46 +0100, Terry Pinnell
><terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>Following a major crash, my wife recently had a second 40GB HD
>>installed. Unfortunately, the installer took the simplest option of
>>making the whole new drive a single partition, instead of two of 8GB
>>and 32GB, as on the other drive. The organisation is therefore now as
>>follows:
>>
>>HD1
>>---
>>C 40GB:Win XP Home SP2, programs and all data
>>
>>HD2
>>---
>>F 8GB: Empty
>>G 32GB: Nightly backups of all data and settings from C
>>
>>That's obviously more secure than before, but I'd like to go further.
>>I want to use Drive Image 2002 to copy the OS to F, so that in an
>>emergency we could boot up to that instead of C. But DI won't allow
>>that. Even though C contains only a TOTAL of about 7GB, and F is 8GB,
>>it says there is insufficient space. Presumably it's the *partition*
>>size that matters, not the actual size used.
>>
>>It's been a long time since I last used DI, and I'm nervous about how
>>best to proceed at minimum risk. Can I achieve my aim by using the
>>facilities under Disk Operations to 'Redistribute free space among
>>partitions'? Relatively risk free? Hate to think of the marital
>>consequences of wiping WinXP! <g>
>>
>>Any advice would be much appreciated please.
>>
>>Terry, UK
>>
>
>In order to make a partition bootable it needs to be a primary
>partition, not an extended partition.
>
>I have in the past used drive image and partition magic to create two
>bootable partitions. The first, the basic one I set as active. The
>second, the back up, I set as hidden. If the first one gets corrupted
>I can simply hide it, unhide the backup and set it as active. This
>has saved me a couple of times. The key is to have recent backups.
>
>Now I simply use drive image to make backups to an external hard
>drive. If the "C" drive gets corrupted I restore from the external
>drive.

Thanks.

Hadn't thought about a 'hidden' partition. Sounds a neat idea.

I too like the idea of an external drive. But my PC is 3 years old,
with USB1, and I gather that would slow down a modern USB2-based drive
dramatically.

BTW, I've recently bought a new 200GB internal drive, and will be
posting separately soon with a request for help about installing it.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2005 1:26:50 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:


>>> Terry, UK
>>
>> Happy to report my approach proved successful. These were steps:
>>
>> 1) Copied C:\Documents and Settings\Janet\My Documents to
>> G:\C-MyDocs\My Documents to reduce size of C: by about 3GB, and
>> provide another backup in addition to one made automatically last
>> night of entire C:\Documents and Settings.
>>
>> 2) Installed PM 7.0 and made Rescue Diskettes. (I'd previously done
>> chkdsk on C: and G:) 
>>
>> 3) With PM, resized 38GB C: partition to about 8GB. That was the step
>> I was most nervous about, but it went smoothly as you'd suggested.
>> (Note that I could *not* do this in DI as I'd thought earlier.)
>>
>> 4) Used Drive Image 2002 to Copy Drive C: to F: That took a long time
>> but again went well.
>>
>> 5) Was then able to dual boot as desired!
>>
>> 6) Used PM 7 to resize C: back up to 38GB
>
>There was no need to do that, you could have just imaged
>the C drive and produced the F drive from that image.

Ok, thanks. But can I just be sure I have it straight please. You're
saying use DI Create Image facility with C: as source and G: as
destination, then Restore the image (PQI files) on G:, but with F: as
the destination, yes? But how does that get around F: being marginally
too small? Wouldn't I have to resize it first anyway? If so, Copy
Drive accomplishes the objective in one operation, instead of two.

>> 7) Copied G:\C-MyDocs\My Documents back to C:\Documents and
>> Settings\Janet
>
>You should physically unplug the C drive and make sure you
>really can boot off the F drive without the C drive being present.

Understood, but see also my reply to Timothy.

>If the C drive was visible on the first boot of the F drive
>after it had been produced, you may well find you cant
>boot off it without the C drive being visible now.

Well, all seems OK, in that I can boot into either of the two XP
versions now, on C: (default) or F: (alternative).

>>
>> The only glitch was that somehow both versions of XP (on C: and F:) 
>> now identified the special folder 'My Documents' as being
>> G:\C-MyDocs\My Documents. So various programs Open/Save interfaces
>> were now misleading and irritating. Took a while to stumble on the
>> cure: from Start, r-click My Documents and in Properties use the Move
>> option to re-specify C:\Documents and Settings\Janet. (I'd be
>> interested if anyone can explain why that issue arose please.)
>
>My Documents isnt the simple folder it superficially appears to be.
>
>It isnt quite a virtual folder, but it is to some extent with the name.

Agreed! Frankly, I'd far prefer to be able to set up my own structure
without the obstacle of these 'special' files. On my own PC, I have
most data under D:\Docs. That's a lot easier for me to get my mind
around than say C:\Documents and Settings\Terry Pinnell\My Documents
(and various similar folders for 'All Users' and 'Default'). Not to
mention the shorter path names in folder titles. Or avoiding the
occasional glitch that comes from having a space in a path, or the
inconvenience of having to place quotes around it sometimes (but not
always...). Even so, I'm still exasperated that, if I go 'up' from
Docs, instead of getting to the root D:, XP takes me to 'Desktop'.
IMO, that's not intuitive, but maybe I'm in the minority.

>> On testing the alternative boot, I'd forgotten about the 'active'
>> partition apparently always getting called C:, so it came as a
>> surprise that C: and F: were reversed <g>.
>
>> So that's a nice friendly environment on tap immediately
>> should she ever have another disaster with the other HD.
>
>Maybe, it remains to be seen what happens with no C drive visible.

Not sure what you mean there? Given my earlier description, don't you
agree Janet's system is now fully OK?

>> Much appreciate the help I received here.

Despite our earlier exchange, that of course goes for you too. BTW, no
bears around here <g>.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2005 2:10:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Terry Pinnell" wrote:
> JC <eat@joes.com> wrote:
>>I have in the past used drive image and partition magic to
>> create two bootable partitions. The first, the basic one I
>> set as active. The second, the back up, I set as hidden.
>> If the first one gets corrupted I can simply hide it, unhide
>> the backup and set it as active.


The question remains, WHERE does Partition Magic
reside such that it can be accessed and used to "unhide"
the backup when the 1st HD fails? If it's on the 1st HD,
it's toast.


>> Now I simply use drive image to make backups to an external
>> hard drive. If the "C" drive gets corrupted I restore from the
>> external drive.


Notice, Terry, that he refers to an external drive. Thus, he
doesn't use a bootable clone. The image file that resides
on the external drive cannot be booted without first "restoring"
it to an internal HD.


> BTW, I've recently bought a new 200GB internal drive, and will be
> posting separately soon with a request for help about installing it.


If you have a spare 5 1/2" expansion bay, install a removable
hard drive tray. They are extremely convenient, and you can
get good quality all-aluminum ones for $24 on the Web.
Mull around in here to get ideas:
http://www.kingwin.com/pdut_Cat.asp?CateID=25 .
I use the KF-101-IPF model with the fan in the bottom of the
tray, and I love it.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2005 11:49:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Terry, UK

>>> Happy to report my approach proved successful. These were steps:
>>>
>>> 1) Copied C:\Documents and Settings\Janet\My Documents to
>>> G:\C-MyDocs\My Documents to reduce size of C: by about 3GB, and
>>> provide another backup in addition to one made automatically last
>>> night of entire C:\Documents and Settings.
>>>
>>> 2) Installed PM 7.0 and made Rescue Diskettes. (I'd previously done
>>> chkdsk on C: and G:) 
>>>
>>> 3) With PM, resized 38GB C: partition to about 8GB. That was the
>>> step I was most nervous about, but it went smoothly as you'd
>>> suggested. (Note that I could *not* do this in DI as I'd thought
>>> earlier.)
>>>
>>> 4) Used Drive Image 2002 to Copy Drive C: to F: That took a long
>>> time but again went well.
>>>
>>> 5) Was then able to dual boot as desired!
>>>
>>> 6) Used PM 7 to resize C: back up to 38GB
>>
>> There was no need to do that, you could have just imaged
>> the C drive and produced the F drive from that image.

> Ok, thanks. But can I just be sure I have it straight please. You're saying
> use DI Create Image facility with C: as source and G: as destination,

Any destination with enough space for it, yes.

> then Restore the image (PQI files) on G:,
> but with F: as the destination, yes?

Yes.

> But how does that get around F: being marginally too small?

I doubt DI will see it as marginally to small in that situation,
as you said originally, its a bit bigger than it needs to be.

> Wouldn't I have to resize it first anyway?

Nope, should be fine. You said that there are 7G of files
in the C drive and that original size of the F drive was 8G.

> If so, Copy Drive accomplishes the
> objective in one operation, instead of two.

Correct, but that isnt one operation when you have to resize.
You avoid the resize by doing it via an image file.

>>> 7) Copied G:\C-MyDocs\My Documents back to C:\Documents and
>>> Settings\Janet

>> You should physically unplug the C drive and make sure you
>> really can boot off the F drive without the C drive being present.

> Understood, but see also my reply to Timothy.

Not clear what you mean there, whether you mean the 200G or what.

>> If the C drive was visible on the first boot of the F drive
>> after it had been produced, you may well find you cant
>> boot off it without the C drive being visible now.

> Well, all seems OK, in that I can boot into either of the two XP
> versions now, on C: (default) or F: (alternative).

That doesnt mean you can if the C drive dies tho.

>>> The only glitch was that somehow both versions of XP (on C: and F:) 
>>> now identified the special folder 'My Documents' as being
>>> G:\C-MyDocs\My Documents. So various programs Open/Save interfaces
>>> were now misleading and irritating. Took a while to stumble on the
>>> cure: from Start, r-click My Documents and in Properties use the
>>> Move option to re-specify C:\Documents and Settings\Janet. (I'd be
>>> interested if anyone can explain why that issue arose please.)

>> My Documents isnt the simple folder it superficially appears to be.

>> It isnt quite a virtual folder, but it is to some extent with the name.

> Agreed! Frankly, I'd far prefer to be able to set up my own structure
> without the obstacle of these 'special' files. On my own PC, I have
> most data under D:\Docs. That's a lot easier for me to get my mind
> around than say C:\Documents and Settings\Terry Pinnell\My Documents
> (and various similar folders for 'All Users' and 'Default'). Not to
> mention the shorter path names in folder titles. Or avoiding the
> occasional glitch that comes from having a space in a path, or the
> inconvenience of having to place quotes around it sometimes (but not
> always...). Even so, I'm still exasperated that, if I go 'up' from
> Docs, instead of getting to the root D:, XP takes me to 'Desktop'.
> IMO, that's not intuitive, but maybe I'm in the minority.

There are basically advantages and disadvantages with both approaches.

The big advantage with the approach MS takes is that its
much more intuitive with multiple users on a particular PC.

>>> On testing the alternative boot, I'd forgotten about the 'active'
>>> partition apparently always getting called C:, so it came as a
>>> surprise that C: and F: were reversed <g>.

>>> So that's a nice friendly environment on tap immediately
>>> should she ever have another disaster with the other HD.

>> Maybe, it remains to be seen what happens with no C drive visible.

> Not sure what you mean there? Given my earlier description, don't you
> agree Janet's system is now fully OK?

No, because you have almost certainly produced a config where
the boot of the F drive actually invoves files on the C drive, which
is fine while the C drive is fine, but the whole point of the F drive
is to allow an XP boot if the C drive goes pear shaped and you
wont actually be able to boot the F drive if it does go pear shaped.

>>> Much appreciate the help I received here.

> Despite our earlier exchange, that of course
> goes for you too. BTW, no bears around here <g>.

Then go and find one |-)
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 4, 2005 11:49:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" wrote:
> Terry Pinnell wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Terry, UK
>
>>>> Happy to report my approach proved successful. These were steps:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Copied C:\Documents and Settings\Janet\My Documents to
>>>> G:\C-MyDocs\My Documents to reduce size of C: by about 3GB, and
>>>> provide another backup in addition to one made automatically last
>>>> night of entire C:\Documents and Settings.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Installed PM 7.0 and made Rescue Diskettes. (I'd previously done
>>>> chkdsk on C: and G:) 
>>>>
>>>> 3) With PM, resized 38GB C: partition to about 8GB. That was the
>>>> step I was most nervous about, but it went smoothly as you'd
>>>> suggested. (Note that I could *not* do this in DI as I'd thought
>>>> earlier.)
>>>>
>>>> 4) Used Drive Image 2002 to Copy Drive C: to F: That took a long
>>>> time but again went well.
>>>>
>>>> 5) Was then able to dual boot as desired!
>>>>
>>>> 6) Used PM 7 to resize C: back up to 38GB
>>>
>>> There was no need to do that, you could have just imaged
>>> the C drive and produced the F drive from that image.
>
>> Ok, thanks. But can I just be sure I have it straight please. You're saying
>> use DI Create Image facility with C: as source and G: as destination,
>
> Any destination with enough space for it, yes.
>
>> then Restore the image (PQI files) on G:,
>> but with F: as the destination, yes?
>
> Yes.
>
>> But how does that get around F: being marginally too small?
>
> I doubt DI will see it as marginally to small in that situation,
> as you said originally, its a bit bigger than it needs to be.
>
>> Wouldn't I have to resize it first anyway?
>
> Nope, should be fine. You said that there are 7G of files
> in the C drive and that original size of the F drive was 8G.
>
>> If so, Copy Drive accomplishes the
>> objective in one operation, instead of two.
>
> Correct, but that isnt one operation when you have to resize.
> You avoid the resize by doing it via an image file.


Notice, Terry, that Rod is saying "image file" and not "clone".
This differentiating terminology is not used consistently from
one copy utility to another, but at least here in this NG, an
"image" is the entire contents of a partition formatted as a
standard file and stored as a file for later "restoration" to a
partition format on a HD. "Clone" refers to the byte-for-byte,
sector-by-sector duplicate of one HD partition in another HD
partition. (You can see why "clones" cannot be made to
optical media since the optical media have an entirely different
sector format.)

I may be wrong, but I believe images are made file-by-file
from the original partition, and thus they don't preserve the
sector format and can ignore unused sectors and, in effect,
"compress" the contents of the partition down to just the
space necessary to contain the data. Thus, in a two-step
process, i.e. "imaging" and then "restoration", one could, in
effect, "shrink" a partition (in transit) down to a smaller size.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 5, 2005 8:32:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Terry Pinnell wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Terry, UK

>>>>> Happy to report my approach proved successful. These were steps:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Copied C:\Documents and Settings\Janet\My Documents to
>>>>> G:\C-MyDocs\My Documents to reduce size of C: by about 3GB, and
>>>>> provide another backup in addition to one made automatically last
>>>>> night of entire C:\Documents and Settings.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Installed PM 7.0 and made Rescue Diskettes. (I'd previously
>>>>> done chkdsk on C: and G:) 
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) With PM, resized 38GB C: partition to about 8GB. That was the
>>>>> step I was most nervous about, but it went smoothly as you'd
>>>>> suggested. (Note that I could *not* do this in DI as I'd thought
>>>>> earlier.)
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) Used Drive Image 2002 to Copy Drive C: to F: That took a long
>>>>> time but again went well.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5) Was then able to dual boot as desired!
>>>>>
>>>>> 6) Used PM 7 to resize C: back up to 38GB
>>>>
>>>> There was no need to do that, you could have just imaged
>>>> the C drive and produced the F drive from that image.
>>
>>> Ok, thanks. But can I just be sure I have it straight please.
>>> You're saying use DI Create Image facility with C: as source and G:
>>> as destination,
>>
>> Any destination with enough space for it, yes.
>>
>>> then Restore the image (PQI files) on G:,
>>> but with F: as the destination, yes?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> But how does that get around F: being marginally too small?
>>
>> I doubt DI will see it as marginally to small in that situation,
>> as you said originally, its a bit bigger than it needs to be.
>>
>>> Wouldn't I have to resize it first anyway?
>>
>> Nope, should be fine. You said that there are 7G of files
>> in the C drive and that original size of the F drive was 8G.
>>
>>> If so, Copy Drive accomplishes the
>>> objective in one operation, instead of two.
>>
>> Correct, but that isnt one operation when you have to resize.
>> You avoid the resize by doing it via an image file.

> Notice, Terry, that Rod is saying "image file" and not "clone".
> This differentiating terminology is not used consistently from
> one copy utility to another,

Wrong with the mainstream utes.

> but at least here in this NG, an "image" is the entire contents of a
> partition formatted as a standard file

Stored in a standard files is a better way of saying it.
And its normally more than one file with a partition or
drive with 7G of files in it.

> and stored as a file for later "restoration" to a partition format on a HD.
> "Clone" refers to the byte-for-byte, sector-by-sector duplicate of one HD
> partition in another HD partition.

That last is just plain wrong with most of the cloners.
They are NOT sector by sector duplicates, essentially
because they are mostly used when upgrading the system
drive when its replaced with a larger physical drive.

> (You can see why "clones" cannot be made to optical media since the optical
> media have an entirely different sector format.)

> I may be wrong, but I believe images are made file-by-file
> from the original partition, and thus they don't preserve the
> sector format and can ignore unused sectors and, in effect,
> "compress" the contents of the partition down to just the
> space necessary to contain the data.

So do most cloners now.

> Thus, in a two-step process, i.e. "imaging" and then "restoration", one could,
> in effect, "shrink" a partition (in transit) down to a smaller size.

So can most cloners too, as long as the
total space used by files still fits in the copy.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 5, 2005 8:32:51 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" wrote:
> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>> Notice, Terry, that Rod is saying "image file" and not "clone".
>> This differentiating terminology is not used consistently from
>> one copy utility to another,
>
> Wrong with the mainstream utes.


The most mainstream "ute" now is Ghost 9.0, and
its User's Manual doesn't use the term "clone". But
Ghost does have a feature that would be of interest
to Terry called "SmartSector" copying. It speeds up
the copying process by only copying clusters and
sectors that "contain data". The User's Manual for
Ghost 9.0 may be downloaded here:
ftp://ftp.symantec.com/public/english_us_canada/product...


>> but at least here in this NG, an "image" is the entire contents of a
>> partition formatted as a standard file
>
> Stored in a standard files is a better way of saying it.


Agreed.


> And its normally more than one file with a partition or
> drive with 7G of files in it.
>
>> and stored as a file for later "restoration" to a partition format on a HD.
>> "Clone" refers to the byte-for-byte, sector-by-sector duplicate of one HD
>> partition in another HD partition.
>
> That last is just plain wrong with most of the cloners.
> They are NOT sector by sector duplicates, essentially
> because they are mostly used when upgrading the system
> drive when its replaced with a larger physical drive.


OK, the clone partition contains a sector-by-sector
duplicate of the original partition plus whatever excess
space the user designates for the destination partition
and that the new HD can accommodate. And presumably,
the extra space will be formatted by the cloning utility.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 5, 2005 10:22:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Timothy Daniels wrote

>>> Notice, Terry, that Rod is saying "image file" and not "clone".
>>> This differentiating terminology is not used consistently from
>>> one copy utility to another,

>> Wrong with the mainstream utes.

> The most mainstream "ute" now is Ghost 9.0,

Dunno, its not clear how many even ghost users use it.

> and its User's Manual doesn't use the term "clone".

The term image file is used consistently between
Ghost and True Image, which is the next most
mainstream still current imager.

> But Ghost does have a feature that would be of interest to Terry called
> "SmartSector" copying.

Nope, the DI 2002 he is using has that too and
its a lot more reliable than Ghost 9 is as well.

> It speeds up the copying process by only copying clusters and sectors that
> "contain data".

DI was doing that LONG before Ghost 9 ever showed up.

> The User's Manual for Ghost 9.0 may be downloaded here:
> ftp://ftp.symantec.com/public/english_us_canada/product...

>>> but at least here in this NG, an "image" is the entire contents of a
>>> partition formatted as a standard file

>> Stored in standard files is a better way of saying it.

> Agreed.

>> And its normally more than one file with a partition or drive with 7G of
>> files in it.

>>> and stored as a file for later "restoration" to a partition format
>>> on a HD. "Clone" refers to the byte-for-byte, sector-by-sector
>>> duplicate of one HD partition in another HD partition.

>> That last is just plain wrong with most of the cloners.
>> They are NOT sector by sector duplicates, essentially
>> because they are mostly used when upgrading the system
>> drive when its replaced with a larger physical drive.

> OK, the clone partition contains a sector-by-sector
> duplicate of the original partition

No it doesnt. Its a file by file copy.

> plus whatever excess space the user designates for the destination partition
> and that the new HD can accommodate.

That wont work, the directory structures have to
be adjusted to allow for the different sized drive.

> And presumably, the extra space will be formatted by the cloning utility.

Wrong again. No need to touch them.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 5, 2005 10:22:37 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" wrote:
> Timothy Daniels wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Timothy Daniels wrote
>>>> Notice, Terry, that Rod is saying "image file" and not "clone".
>>>> This differentiating terminology is not used consistently from
>>>> one copy utility to another,
>
>>> Wrong with the mainstream utes.
>
>> The most mainstream "ute" now is Ghost 9.0,
>> and its User's Manual doesn't use the term "clone".
>
> The term image file is used consistently between
> Ghost and True Image, which is the next most
> mainstream still current imager.


And neither Ghost 9.0 nor True Image 8.0 (the most
recent versions of those utilities) use the term "clone".
Here is the User's Manual for True Image 8.0:
http://us1.download.acronis.com/pdf/trueimage8.0_ug.en....


>> But Ghost does have a feature that would be of interest
>> to Terry called "SmartSector" copying.
>
> Nope, the DI 2002 he is using has that too and
> its a lot more reliable than Ghost 9 is as well.


And Ghost does have a feature that would be of interest
to Terry, as did Drive Image, called "SmartSector" copying.


>> It speeds up the copying process by only copying clusters
>> and sectors that "contain data".
>
> DI was doing that LONG before Ghost 9 ever showed up.


And now Ghost 9.0, the successor to PowerQuest's
Drive Image 7, does it ,too.


>> OK, the clone partition contains a sector-by-sector
>> duplicate of the original partition
>
> No it doesnt. Its a file by file copy.


And are the Master Boot Record and Boot Sector
file-by-file copies, too?

And why does the clone have the same file
fragmentation as did the original if files are
copied as files and not just contents of sectors?


>> plus whatever excess space the user designates for
>> the destination partition and that the new HD can
>> accommodate.
>
> That wont work, the directory structures have to
> be adjusted to allow for the different sized drive.


I didn't say that the directory structures would not
be adjusted.


>> And presumably, the extra space will be formatted
>> by the cloning utility.
>
> Wrong again. No need to touch them.


Cloning sector-by-sector carries formatting information
along "on top" the sectors. If the utility makes a clone
of the same size partition, there is no need for it to format
the new partition. If there is more space in the destination
partition than the clone that is going into it, the remaining
space in the new partition will have to be formatted by the
utility.

Now say "Wrong again" or simply "Nope". :-)

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 5, 2005 2:08:15 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"Terry Pinnell" wrote:
>> JC <eat@joes.com> wrote:
>>>I have in the past used drive image and partition magic to
>>> create two bootable partitions. The first, the basic one I
>>> set as active. The second, the back up, I set as hidden.
>>> If the first one gets corrupted I can simply hide it, unhide
>>> the backup and set it as active.
>
>
> The question remains, WHERE does Partition Magic
> reside such that it can be accessed and used to "unhide"
> the backup when the 1st HD fails? If it's on the 1st HD,
> it's toast.
>
>
>>> Now I simply use drive image to make backups to an external
>>> hard drive. If the "C" drive gets corrupted I restore from the
>>> external drive.
>
>
> Notice, Terry, that he refers to an external drive. Thus, he
> doesn't use a bootable clone. The image file that resides
> on the external drive cannot be booted without first "restoring"
> it to an internal HD.
>
>
>> BTW, I've recently bought a new 200GB internal drive, and will be
>> posting separately soon with a request for help about installing it.

>
>
> If you have a spare 5 1/2" expansion bay, install a removable
> hard drive tray. They are extremely convenient, and you can
> get good quality all-aluminum ones for $24 on the Web.
> Mull around in here to get ideas:
> http://www.kingwin.com/pdut_Cat.asp?CateID=25 .
> I use the KF-101-IPF model with the fan in the bottom of the
> tray, and I love it.
>
Thanks, I'll follow up on that idea. Looks like one such space below
my 2 CD/DVD drives. But I assume I must first check my
(dauntingly-written) motherboard guide to first establish whether I
can *add* a third IDE drive?

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 5, 2005 2:08:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Terry Pinnell" wrote:
> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>> If you have a spare 5 1/2" expansion bay, install a removable
>> hard drive tray. They are extremely convenient, and you can
>> get good quality all-aluminum ones for $24 on the Web.
>> Mull around in here to get ideas:
>> http://www.kingwin.com/pdut_Cat.asp?CateID=25 .
>> I use the KF-101-IPF model with the fan in the bottom of the
>> tray, and I love it.
>>
> Thanks, I'll follow up on that idea. Looks like one such space below
> my 2 CD/DVD drives. But I assume I must first check my
> (dauntingly-written) motherboard guide to first establish whether I
> can *add* a third IDE drive?


If you have 2 IDE channels, you can put 4 devices on it.
If not, you can use a PCI add-in card with an IDE controller
on it. They're made by Promise, Highpoint, SIIG, and several
others. I use the SIIG controller card which accommodates
up to 4 devices:
http://www.siig.com/product.asp?catid=103&pid=437
SIIG also has them for serial ATA devices:
http://www.siig.com/product.asp?catid=103&pid=467
You can use the model nos. to search Nextag.com and
Pricewatch.com for the current "street" prices.

When you get to stuffing lots of devices into the tower,
cabling can get to be a problem for both routing and
air passage. I use "round" cables for IDE parallel ATA
devices (also the floppy drive), and they have worked
well for me for 2 years, now. I prefer the kind with the
aluminum braid shielding:
http://www.svc.com/cables-ata-100-133-round-cables.html
Here the aluminum shielding is called braided "silver":
http://www.svc.com/rc18hd1.html
"Round" cables don't conform to the formal ATA specs,
which designate 80-conductor ribbon cable, but these
use 80-conductor twisted pairs to accomplish the same
thing - each data wire is twisted together with a ground
wire. "Round" cables also come in a range of lengths
and in both one- and two-device configurations.

If you go the removable tray route for your backup HDs,
you'll be amazed at the convenience and versatility.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 5, 2005 2:13:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote:

>"Rod Speed" wrote:
>> Terry Pinnell wrote:
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Terry, UK
>>
>>>>> Happy to report my approach proved successful. These were steps:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Copied C:\Documents and Settings\Janet\My Documents to
>>>>> G:\C-MyDocs\My Documents to reduce size of C: by about 3GB, and
>>>>> provide another backup in addition to one made automatically last
>>>>> night of entire C:\Documents and Settings.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Installed PM 7.0 and made Rescue Diskettes. (I'd previously done
>>>>> chkdsk on C: and G:) 
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) With PM, resized 38GB C: partition to about 8GB. That was the
>>>>> step I was most nervous about, but it went smoothly as you'd
>>>>> suggested. (Note that I could *not* do this in DI as I'd thought
>>>>> earlier.)
>>>>>
>>>>> 4) Used Drive Image 2002 to Copy Drive C: to F: That took a long
>>>>> time but again went well.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5) Was then able to dual boot as desired!
>>>>>
>>>>> 6) Used PM 7 to resize C: back up to 38GB
>>>>
>>>> There was no need to do that, you could have just imaged
>>>> the C drive and produced the F drive from that image.
>>
>>> Ok, thanks. But can I just be sure I have it straight please. You're saying
>>> use DI Create Image facility with C: as source and G: as destination,
>>
>> Any destination with enough space for it, yes.
>>
>>> then Restore the image (PQI files) on G:,
>>> but with F: as the destination, yes?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> But how does that get around F: being marginally too small?
>>
>> I doubt DI will see it as marginally to small in that situation,
>> as you said originally, its a bit bigger than it needs to be.
>>
>>> Wouldn't I have to resize it first anyway?
>>
>> Nope, should be fine. You said that there are 7G of files
>> in the C drive and that original size of the F drive was 8G.
>>
>>> If so, Copy Drive accomplishes the
>>> objective in one operation, instead of two.
>>
>> Correct, but that isnt one operation when you have to resize.
>> You avoid the resize by doing it via an image file.
>
>
> Notice, Terry, that Rod is saying "image file" and not "clone".
> This differentiating terminology is not used consistently from
> one copy utility to another, but at least here in this NG, an
> "image" is the entire contents of a partition formatted as a
> standard file and stored as a file for later "restoration" to a
> partition format on a HD. "Clone" refers to the byte-for-byte,
> sector-by-sector duplicate of one HD partition in another HD
> partition. (You can see why "clones" cannot be made to
> optical media since the optical media have an entirely different
> sector format.)
>
> I may be wrong, but I believe images are made file-by-file
> from the original partition, and thus they don't preserve the
> sector format and can ignore unused sectors and, in effect,
> "compress" the contents of the partition down to just the
> space necessary to contain the data. Thus, in a two-step
> process, i.e. "imaging" and then "restoration", one could, in
> effect, "shrink" a partition (in transit) down to a smaller size.
>

OK, thanks, understood. That would then have been an alternative
approach, assuming the resultant restored F: would act exactly like
the original OS, as my present F: appears to do.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 5, 2005 4:26:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Timothy Daniels <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Timothy Daniels wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Timothy Daniels wrote

>>>>> Notice, Terry, that Rod is saying "image file" and not "clone".
>>>>> This differentiating terminology is not used consistently from
>>>>> one copy utility to another,

>>>> Wrong with the mainstream utes.

>>> The most mainstream "ute" now is Ghost 9.0,
>>> and its User's Manual doesn't use the term "clone".

>> The term image file is used consistently between
>> Ghost and True Image, which is the next most
>> mainstream still current imager.

> And neither Ghost 9.0 nor True Image 8.0 (the most
> recent versions of those utilities) use the term "clone".
> Here is the User's Manual for True Image 8.0:
> http://us1.download.acronis.com/pdf/trueimage8.0_ug.en....

That is just plain wrong, search on the word clone.

>>> But Ghost does have a feature that would be of interest to Terry called
>>> "SmartSector" copying.

>> Nope, the DI 2002 he is using has that too and
>> its a lot more reliable than Ghost 9 is as well.

> And Ghost does have a feature that would be of interest
> to Terry, as did Drive Image, called "SmartSector" copying.

Irrelevant to whether the DI he has has that too.

>>> It speeds up the copying process by only copying clusters and sectors that
>>> "contain data".

>> DI was doing that LONG before Ghost 9 ever showed up.

> And now Ghost 9.0, the successor to PowerQuest's Drive Image 7, does it ,too.

Irrelevant to whether the DI 2002 he has had all along has that too.

>>> OK, the clone partition contains a sector-by-sector
>>> duplicate of the original partition

>> No it doesnt. Its a file by file copy.

> And are the Master Boot Record and Boot Sector file-by-file copies, too?

Irrelevant to how the contents of the partition are copied.

> And why does the clone have the same file fragmentation as did the original

It doesnt.

> if files are copied as files and not just contents of sectors?

>>> plus whatever excess space the user designates for the destination partition
>>> and that the new HD can accommodate.

>> That wont work, the directory structures have to
>> be adjusted to allow for the different sized drive.

> I didn't say that the directory structures would not be adjusted.

You claimed that it does a sector by sector copy of the files, it doesnt.

>>> And presumably, the extra space will be formatted by the cloning utility.

>> Wrong again. No need to touch them.

> Cloning sector-by-sector carries formatting information along "on top" the
> sectors.

'formatting information' isnt the same thing
as 'the extra space will be formatted'

Nothing needs to be done with the extra space.

The directory structures, FAT etc need to allow for it.

> If the utility makes a clone of the same size partition, there is no need for
> it to format the new partition.

There is never any need to format the partition, the ute does
whatever needs to be done in the process of cloning, regardless
of its relative size, both with cloning and with restoring an image.

> If there is more space in the destination partition than the clone that is
> going into it, the remaining space in the new partition will have to be
> formatted by the utility.

Wrong, as always.

> Now say "Wrong again" or simply "Nope". :-)

Get stuffed.
Anonymous
a b G Storage
September 5, 2005 4:26:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

"Rod Speed" wrote:
> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Timothy Daniels wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Timothy Daniels wrote
>
>>>>>> Notice, Terry, that Rod is saying "image file" and not "clone".
>>>>>> This differentiating terminology is not used consistently from
>>>>>> one copy utility to another,
>
>>>>> Wrong with the mainstream utes.
>
>>>> The most mainstream "ute" now is Ghost 9.0,
>>>> and its User's Manual doesn't use the term "clone".
>
>>> The term image file is used consistently between
>>> Ghost and True Image, which is the next most
>>> mainstream still current imager.
>
>> And neither Ghost 9.0 nor True Image 8.0 (the most
>> recent versions of those utilities) use the term "clone".
>> Here is the User's Manual for True Image 8.0:
>> http://us1.download.acronis.com/pdf/trueimage8.0_ug.en....
>
> That is just plain wrong, search on the word clone.


Thanks for pointing that out, Rod, as it proves my point about
there being no consistency among cloning utilities in the use
of the term "clone". Ghost doesn't refer to a "clone" at all,
and True Image uses it to refer to a copy of an entire disk,
not just a partition. As a matter of fact, that particular feature
is why I don't use Acronis's True Image for cloning - I clone
just one partition from the source HD, and I put it among other
partitions on the destination HD. That cannot be done in
True Image without a 2-step process of first making an image
file of the partition onto some media, and then "restoring"
that image file onto the destination HD. With Ghost and
Casper XP, that can be done in one step. And since
Casper XP is $20 cheaper than Ghost 9.0 and it doesn't require
Microsoft's .NET Framework to run (as Ghost 9.0 does), I use
it instead of Ghost. for all my cloning chores. You can even
download a free trial version from:
www.FSSdev.com/products/casperxp/


*TimDaniels*
!