Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

(2nd) HDD Format & Setup Suggestions Please

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 11:51:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I acquired a new pc a few months ago and the existing "small" HD is beginning
to fail. Also discovered the existing copy of XP Pro, SP2 on here is pirated.
*(Yes, I have bought a new full version with SP2 to install)

New drive is a WD 80GB Caviar SE 7200 RPM EIDE drive. Will be formatting NTFS.

The existing drive is a Quantum Fireball LCT, 15GB ATA IDE, 4400 RPM, FAT32.

I have a x86 Dual CPU board with dual CPU's, 1GB SDRAM, Primary & Secondary
IDE, BIOS is updated, new Ultra100 drive cable.

I have already set my CD-ROM to boot 1st.

My concern is once I have the new HD formatted and the new XP Pro installed,
I will not be able to see my old HD and be able to extract files, etc. needed
from there. How will I boot the PC with both HD's containing an OS of XP,
especially one licensed and the other pirated?

All I want is the new WD to boot and then the old drive showing up and
accessable as it is now without getting read only messages, etc. I actually
have most everything I want backed-up through Quicken Online back-up, but not
sure if I could retrieve those files and programs to the new HD with it being
a new format (NTFS).

My plan is to disconnect the existing HD while I format and install XP on
the new HD, then connect back up, is this ok to do? Should I keep the old HD
on the secondary IDE and the bootable CD-ROM and new HD on the Primary IDE
for better performance? Both HD's would be jumpered as Masters correct?

Lastly, suggestions on partitions. This is my 1st HD install by the way, so
be easy on me. This is how I understand it so far....

WD HD Disk "0" - Basic Disk:

1st will be my (active?) partition for booting my new XP correct? What size
partition?

2nd would be my System (primary?) partition which would be Drive C correct?
Size of partition?

Then there is the boot partition which is the same as the system partition?

I would like to have the paging file on it's own partition. Does it matter
where this is partitioned on the HD? Size of partition? A network engineer
suggested to me to make it 5GB.

Besides that, should I have more partitions than that as to not create a
disaster later on down the road?

Lastly, what methos should I use in formatting, etc? Should I use the XP CD,
WD software or Disk Management in the existing pirated copy?

After all is said and done, I'd like to scrub and reformat the existing HD
for other uses. Will I need to install XP on that drive or will it use the XP
copy on my new HD?

Thanks all for reading and any help you can give to this HD newbie. I am
sure I have a few things backwards in my description above.
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 7:37:01 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Oh, also, with the old HD being FAT32 and my new being formatted in NTFS,
will this adversley effect my chances of using any of my current backed up
files and/or swapping files from the old to the new HD since cluster size is
different, etc? I have also read in here somewhere some users having a very
hard time, they can see the old drive but then they try to copy or drag files
over and the old HD is showing as "read only", etc.

"TimBud" wrote:

>
> New drive is a WD 80GB Caviar SE 7200 RPM EIDE drive. Will be formatting NTFS.
>
> The existing drive is a Quantum Fireball LCT, 15GB ATA IDE, 4400 RPM, FAT32.
>
April 9, 2005 8:19:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I would do this....

> My plan is to disconnect the existing HD while I format and install XP on
> the new HD, then connect back up, is this ok to do? Should I keep the old
> HD
> on the secondary IDE and the bootable CD-ROM and new HD on the Primary IDE
> for better performance? Both HD's would be jumpered as Masters correct?

Treat the install process as a new system install with your new fresh copy
of XP while the old HDD is disconnected.

When the new install is 100% connect Old HDD on the Primary IDE channel as
SLAVE (you could connect it elsewhere, but you may lose CD's or DVD-RW) then
Copy off / zip / NTBackup the old HDD & if it is failing throw it out after
stomping on it a lot.

Don't worry about paritioning before starting XP install. During the install
process you will have a screen where you nominate where to install XP - via
that screen you can whatever partitions you need. For the purposes of
Install, create the C drive partition only with the correct size leaving
room for the other partition(s) - you can create the others after you are up
and running using Disc Management (in Computer Management in Administrative
tools). IF you do it this way, the partition will be set active correctly.

This:

> I would like to have the paging file on it's own partition. Does it matter
> where this is partitioned on the HD? Size of partition? A network engineer
> suggested to me to make it 5GB.

is a complete waste of time as it will guarantee Drive Seeks for the swap
file will have to go further down the disc and so slow the system. If you
have another disc drive (physical disc) then you can set the page file
there. If this disc is on the same IDE channel, this is a waste of time
again. (If you had a SCSI setup, it would be quite different.)

The best performance gain you will get on this system is the new disc drive.
It is higly likely to be significantly faster than the old. Personally I
would have considered SATA disc drives on a low cost SATA RAID controller
(they cost peanuts).

Do you have 5GB of RAM? No... Let windows manage it for you, just make sure
your C drive is large enough for Windows + Apps + Page File + Hyber File (if
you want ot allow Hybernate) + Free Space. It is rare to find applications
that need a big swap file. If you do have one then this is fine, but
otherwise the general rule is to let Windows manage it for you - the default
page file size in MB = MemorySizeInMB x 1.5 + 2MB and should be on C so that
post mortem dumps can be written there. IF the machine was previously a
server - esp a file sharing server, the advice may have been good then with
a server OS, but your workload is quite different in nature.

You would be best to look at the PerfMon (performance monitor - in
Administrative Tools under XP / W2K) statistics and make a qualified
judgement on what is doing what using what resources when the system is up
and running. You can always move swap files to different partitions later -
sort of.

> Besides that, should I have more partitions than that as to not create a
> disaster later on down the road?

Backups! Offsite Backups! UPS! :)  My preference is to store data in a data
partition, and backup all of that partition daily. It does take some effort.
Depending on system size and backup capability to know well what software is
installed, CD keys, CD's are at hand and have backup copies and take the
attitude that loss of the system volume (C) will require a reinstall,
reconfigure and then restore of data only. "Home" Systems tend to be too big
to backup completely so a separate partition for Data is always a good idea.
Use partitions when it makes sense / has benefits, not to complicate things
or force longer seeks.

> Lastly, what methos should I use in formatting, etc? Should I use the XP
> CD,

Use the XP CD during setup - only keep the pirated copy as long as it takes
to get everything off it then shoot it (fdisk) and stomp on the drive :) 

> WD software or Disk Management in the existing pirated copy?
>
> After all is said and done, I'd like to scrub and reformat the existing HD
> for other uses. Will I need to install XP on that drive or will it use the
> XP
> copy on my new HD?
>
> Thanks all for reading and any help you can give to this HD newbie. I am
> sure I have a few things backwards in my description above.
Related resources
April 10, 2005 4:58:14 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Quantum Fireball? I have seen many of these and all have failed. The company
gave up on IDE drives if I remember correctly.

Don't try and re-use any system stuff on the old drive - data yes, software
no, pagefile no - use the control panel / system to create the swap file(s)
you want where you want them - pay attention to what it says the recommended
size is - as per previous formula. Unless you have special requirements, and
a good array of disc drives, there is seldom much benefit in playing around
with swap file placement - IE you need to have a server with multiple
controllers and HDD's to make this worthwhile.

Many misinterpret the statistics on Page Faults to mean every page fault = a
disc IO. This is not the case at all! By far most do not relate to disc
IO's - if you run perfmon then add the physical IO counters to the display
when page faults are high and you will see little correlation between the
two. There are basically two kinds of page faults: those that mean the
memory does not exist (Soft) vs. those that mean the referenced memory is
not in RAM but it is in the Page File (Hard).

The first type - Soft - often result in memory allocations - a process has
just run out of normal memory and needs more or is trying to access memory
flagged as read only so is now allocating writable memory and copying in the
read only stuff so that the requestor can write to a private copy (aka Copy
on Write Protection - used often). You are unlikely to see much true paging
on a system that has substantial physical RAM as the system keeps stuff in
RAM until it runs out - programs that were run some time ago, DLL's that
have been unloaded, Help File data, File IO buffers etc. Only when RAM is
oversubsribed does it routinely throw stuff out.

The system does do some paging when a program is minimized and the paging
accelerates as available (free) ram drops - it shoots about when it hits 4MB
free and becomes aggressive when below 4MB - a scavenger process kicks in
and starts to pinch RAM where it can off processes even when running - see
other post. The Physical Memory / Available counter in Task Manager is an
indication of how close you are to this 4MB limit - mine says Available =
1,706,868kb at the moment (IE > 15.GB aavailable with 2GB physical and
running 36 processes = very little). You will notice that the system by
default has a massive IO cache.

I have read about issues with getting stuff off old HDD's too. FAT32 has no
security so that won't get in the way. Just copy the files across if it is
something you know you need and reset any read only flags if you come across
them. I always take a full copy of such discs using EG WinZip or WinRar,
check the backup, then shoot the disc. FAT32 has no place on an exclusively
XP system.

There will always be "somewhere some users having a very hard time"..... If
you strike problems, post back.


"TimBud" <tim@northgeorgianospamsecurity.com> wrote in message
news:44E81A92-4358-49FF-88FC-457D839F9AC7@microsoft.com...
> Oh, also, with the old HD being FAT32 and my new being formatted in NTFS,
> will this adversley effect my chances of using any of my current backed up
> files and/or swapping files from the old to the new HD since cluster size
> is
> different, etc? I have also read in here somewhere some users having a
> very
> hard time, they can see the old drive but then they try to copy or drag
> files
> over and the old HD is showing as "read only", etc.
>
> "TimBud" wrote:
>
>>
>> New drive is a WD 80GB Caviar SE 7200 RPM EIDE drive. Will be formatting
>> NTFS.
>>
>> The existing drive is a Quantum Fireball LCT, 15GB ATA IDE, 4400 RPM,
>> FAT32.
>>
>
Anonymous
April 10, 2005 4:58:15 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Maxtor bought out Quantum. TimBud, follow Tim's advice.

To stop page file fragmentation set a static size, on this machine my RAM is 512 MB and I have the page file set at 1Gig and no fragments.

--
Just my 2ยข worth,
Jeff
_________In response to________
"Tim" <Tim@NoSpam> wrote in message news:ek1ZLdWPFHA.3076@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Quantum Fireball? I have seen many of these and all have failed. The company
| gave up on IDE drives if I remember correctly.
|
| Don't try and re-use any system stuff on the old drive - data yes, software
| no, pagefile no - use the control panel / system to create the swap file(s)
| you want where you want them - pay attention to what it says the recommended
| size is - as per previous formula. Unless you have special requirements, and
| a good array of disc drives, there is seldom much benefit in playing around
| with swap file placement - IE you need to have a server with multiple
| controllers and HDD's to make this worthwhile.
|
| Many misinterpret the statistics on Page Faults to mean every page fault = a
| disc IO. This is not the case at all! By far most do not relate to disc
| IO's - if you run perfmon then add the physical IO counters to the display
| when page faults are high and you will see little correlation between the
| two. There are basically two kinds of page faults: those that mean the
| memory does not exist (Soft) vs. those that mean the referenced memory is
| not in RAM but it is in the Page File (Hard).
|
| The first type - Soft - often result in memory allocations - a process has
| just run out of normal memory and needs more or is trying to access memory
| flagged as read only so is now allocating writable memory and copying in the
| read only stuff so that the requestor can write to a private copy (aka Copy
| on Write Protection - used often). You are unlikely to see much true paging
| on a system that has substantial physical RAM as the system keeps stuff in
| RAM until it runs out - programs that were run some time ago, DLL's that
| have been unloaded, Help File data, File IO buffers etc. Only when RAM is
| oversubsribed does it routinely throw stuff out.
|
| The system does do some paging when a program is minimized and the paging
| accelerates as available (free) ram drops - it shoots about when it hits 4MB
| free and becomes aggressive when below 4MB - a scavenger process kicks in
| and starts to pinch RAM where it can off processes even when running - see
| other post. The Physical Memory / Available counter in Task Manager is an
| indication of how close you are to this 4MB limit - mine says Available =
| 1,706,868kb at the moment (IE > 15.GB aavailable with 2GB physical and
| running 36 processes = very little). You will notice that the system by
| default has a massive IO cache.
|
| I have read about issues with getting stuff off old HDD's too. FAT32 has no
| security so that won't get in the way. Just copy the files across if it is
| something you know you need and reset any read only flags if you come across
| them. I always take a full copy of such discs using EG WinZip or WinRar,
| check the backup, then shoot the disc. FAT32 has no place on an exclusively
| XP system.
|
| There will always be "somewhere some users having a very hard time"..... If
| you strike problems, post back.
|
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 3:09:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Yep, Quantum Fireball, and they did as Jeff said below Maxtor bought them
out. A piece of you know what in my opinion, but it's what the PC had in it
from when my son's buddy built it. Amyway, sorry for not replying sooner,
just had time to get back on. I am going to try all of this out here shortly,
wish me luck! I'll let you know how it turned out. Thanks again Tim! I really
do appreciate your time and effort.

TimBud

"Tim" wrote:

> Quantum Fireball? I have seen many of these and all have failed. The company
> gave up on IDE drives if I remember correctly.
>
> Don't try and re-use any system stuff on the old drive - data yes, software
> no, pagefile no - use the control panel / system to create the swap file(s)
> you want where you want them - pay attention to what it says the recommended
> size is - as per previous formula. Unless you have special requirements, and
> a good array of disc drives, there is seldom much benefit in playing around
> with swap file placement - IE you need to have a server with multiple
> controllers and HDD's to make this worthwhile.
>
> Many misinterpret the statistics on Page Faults to mean every page fault = a
> disc IO. This is not the case at all! By far most do not relate to disc
> IO's - if you run perfmon then add the physical IO counters to the display
> when page faults are high and you will see little correlation between the
> two. There are basically two kinds of page faults: those that mean the
> memory does not exist (Soft) vs. those that mean the referenced memory is
> not in RAM but it is in the Page File (Hard).
>
> The first type - Soft - often result in memory allocations - a process has
> just run out of normal memory and needs more or is trying to access memory
> flagged as read only so is now allocating writable memory and copying in the
> read only stuff so that the requestor can write to a private copy (aka Copy
> on Write Protection - used often). You are unlikely to see much true paging
> on a system that has substantial physical RAM as the system keeps stuff in
> RAM until it runs out - programs that were run some time ago, DLL's that
> have been unloaded, Help File data, File IO buffers etc. Only when RAM is
> oversubsribed does it routinely throw stuff out.
>
> The system does do some paging when a program is minimized and the paging
> accelerates as available (free) ram drops - it shoots about when it hits 4MB
> free and becomes aggressive when below 4MB - a scavenger process kicks in
> and starts to pinch RAM where it can off processes even when running - see
> other post. The Physical Memory / Available counter in Task Manager is an
> indication of how close you are to this 4MB limit - mine says Available =
> 1,706,868kb at the moment (IE > 15.GB aavailable with 2GB physical and
> running 36 processes = very little). You will notice that the system by
> default has a massive IO cache.
>
> I have read about issues with getting stuff off old HDD's too. FAT32 has no
> security so that won't get in the way. Just copy the files across if it is
> something you know you need and reset any read only flags if you come across
> them. I always take a full copy of such discs using EG WinZip or WinRar,
> check the backup, then shoot the disc. FAT32 has no place on an exclusively
> XP system.
>
> There will always be "somewhere some users having a very hard time"..... If
> you strike problems, post back.
>
>
> "TimBud" <tim@northgeorgianospamsecurity.com> wrote in message
> news:44E81A92-4358-49FF-88FC-457D839F9AC7@microsoft.com...
> > Oh, also, with the old HD being FAT32 and my new being formatted in NTFS,
> > will this adversley effect my chances of using any of my current backed up
> > files and/or swapping files from the old to the new HD since cluster size
> > is
> > different, etc? I have also read in here somewhere some users having a
> > very
> > hard time, they can see the old drive but then they try to copy or drag
> > files
> > over and the old HD is showing as "read only", etc.
> >
> > "TimBud" wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> New drive is a WD 80GB Caviar SE 7200 RPM EIDE drive. Will be formatting
> >> NTFS.
> >>
> >> The existing drive is a Quantum Fireball LCT, 15GB ATA IDE, 4400 RPM,
> >> FAT32.
> >>
> >
>
>
>
April 18, 2005 2:11:44 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Luck!


"TimBud" <tim@northgeorgianospamsecurity.com> wrote in message
news:CF463458-D7ED-4B84-A2D4-DF197484DEAB@microsoft.com...
> Yep, Quantum Fireball, and they did as Jeff said below Maxtor bought them
> out. A piece of you know what in my opinion, but it's what the PC had in
> it
> from when my son's buddy built it. Amyway, sorry for not replying sooner,
> just had time to get back on. I am going to try all of this out here
> shortly,
> wish me luck! I'll let you know how it turned out. Thanks again Tim! I
> really
> do appreciate your time and effort.
>
> TimBud
>
> "Tim" wrote:
>
>> Quantum Fireball? I have seen many of these and all have failed. The
>> company
>> gave up on IDE drives if I remember correctly.
>>
>> Don't try and re-use any system stuff on the old drive - data yes,
>> software
>> no, pagefile no - use the control panel / system to create the swap
>> file(s)
>> you want where you want them - pay attention to what it says the
>> recommended
>> size is - as per previous formula. Unless you have special requirements,
>> and
>> a good array of disc drives, there is seldom much benefit in playing
>> around
>> with swap file placement - IE you need to have a server with multiple
>> controllers and HDD's to make this worthwhile.
>>
>> Many misinterpret the statistics on Page Faults to mean every page fault
>> = a
>> disc IO. This is not the case at all! By far most do not relate to disc
>> IO's - if you run perfmon then add the physical IO counters to the
>> display
>> when page faults are high and you will see little correlation between the
>> two. There are basically two kinds of page faults: those that mean the
>> memory does not exist (Soft) vs. those that mean the referenced memory is
>> not in RAM but it is in the Page File (Hard).
>>
>> The first type - Soft - often result in memory allocations - a process
>> has
>> just run out of normal memory and needs more or is trying to access
>> memory
>> flagged as read only so is now allocating writable memory and copying in
>> the
>> read only stuff so that the requestor can write to a private copy (aka
>> Copy
>> on Write Protection - used often). You are unlikely to see much true
>> paging
>> on a system that has substantial physical RAM as the system keeps stuff
>> in
>> RAM until it runs out - programs that were run some time ago, DLL's that
>> have been unloaded, Help File data, File IO buffers etc. Only when RAM is
>> oversubsribed does it routinely throw stuff out.
>>
>> The system does do some paging when a program is minimized and the paging
>> accelerates as available (free) ram drops - it shoots about when it hits
>> 4MB
>> free and becomes aggressive when below 4MB - a scavenger process kicks in
>> and starts to pinch RAM where it can off processes even when running -
>> see
>> other post. The Physical Memory / Available counter in Task Manager is an
>> indication of how close you are to this 4MB limit - mine says Available =
>> 1,706,868kb at the moment (IE > 15.GB aavailable with 2GB physical and
>> running 36 processes = very little). You will notice that the system by
>> default has a massive IO cache.
>>
>> I have read about issues with getting stuff off old HDD's too. FAT32 has
>> no
>> security so that won't get in the way. Just copy the files across if it
>> is
>> something you know you need and reset any read only flags if you come
>> across
>> them. I always take a full copy of such discs using EG WinZip or WinRar,
>> check the backup, then shoot the disc. FAT32 has no place on an
>> exclusively
>> XP system.
>>
>> There will always be "somewhere some users having a very hard time".....
>> If
>> you strike problems, post back.
>>
>>
>> "TimBud" <tim@northgeorgianospamsecurity.com> wrote in message
>> news:44E81A92-4358-49FF-88FC-457D839F9AC7@microsoft.com...
>> > Oh, also, with the old HD being FAT32 and my new being formatted in
>> > NTFS,
>> > will this adversley effect my chances of using any of my current backed
>> > up
>> > files and/or swapping files from the old to the new HD since cluster
>> > size
>> > is
>> > different, etc? I have also read in here somewhere some users having a
>> > very
>> > hard time, they can see the old drive but then they try to copy or drag
>> > files
>> > over and the old HD is showing as "read only", etc.
>> >
>> > "TimBud" wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> New drive is a WD 80GB Caviar SE 7200 RPM EIDE drive. Will be
>> >> formatting
>> >> NTFS.
>> >>
>> >> The existing drive is a Quantum Fireball LCT, 15GB ATA IDE, 4400 RPM,
>> >> FAT32.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
!