convert.exe

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system (More info?)

I have installed XP professional over Win 2000 Pro which
was installed over Win ME. Original file system and
current file system is FAT32.

I understand - and have read seemingly all Microsoft
literature - that convert.exe may be used to "upgrade"
from FAT32 to NTFS.

I am looking for opinions (presumably from someone who
has successfully or unsuccessfully tried this) as to
whether or not the reward (security, efficiency, etc.)
outways the risk (data loss, etc.).

Any comments are welcome. Thanks in advance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system (More info?)

Hi, Hal.

Unless you plan to install Win9x/ME or MS-DOS on this computer, there's no
good reason to cling to the FAT past.

> outways the risk (data loss, etc.).

I've never heard of any data loss from using convert.exe. It's always
possible to have a power failure in the middle, of course, but it's
ironclad, short of that.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
rc@corridor.net
Microsoft Windows MVP

"Hal R" <hal.rosner@directinsite.com> wrote in message
news:1cc501c4fcda$3593b840$a401280a@phx.gbl...
>I have installed XP professional over Win 2000 Pro which
> was installed over Win ME. Original file system and
> current file system is FAT32.
>
> I understand - and have read seemingly all Microsoft
> literature - that convert.exe may be used to "upgrade"
> from FAT32 to NTFS.
>
> I am looking for opinions (presumably from someone who
> has successfully or unsuccessfully tried this) as to
> whether or not the reward (security, efficiency, etc.)
> outways the risk (data loss, etc.).
>
> Any comments are welcome. Thanks in advance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system (More info?)

There's no supported upgrade path from WinME to Windows 2000. Your best bet
is to start a clean install of Windows XP

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Hal R" wrote:
|I have installed XP professional over Win 2000 Pro which
| was installed over Win ME. Original file system and
| current file system is FAT32.
|
| I understand - and have read seemingly all Microsoft
| literature - that convert.exe may be used to "upgrade"
| from FAT32 to NTFS.
|
| I am looking for opinions (presumably from someone who
| has successfully or unsuccessfully tried this) as to
| whether or not the reward (security, efficiency, etc.)
| outways the risk (data loss, etc.).
|
| Any comments are welcome. Thanks in advance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system (More info?)

Dave, I'm not sure your statement is entirely true or if
it even answers my question. There was no upgrade "patch"
from ME>2K(pro). It was an "OS install" over the top of
an existing install. Ditto for 2K>XP. That procedure is
very clearly "supported" by Microsoft.

Of course it is "better" to start clean. But it is often
more of hassel with data backup, reinstallation of
applications and so forth.

Thanks, however, for your response.

Hal


>-----Original Message-----
>There's no supported upgrade path from WinME to Windows
2000. Your best bet
>is to start a clean install of Windows XP
>
>--
>Regards,
>
>Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in
newsgroup.
>Microsoft Certified Professional
>Microsoft MVP [Windows]
>http://www.microsoft.com/protect
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system (More info?)

I know what you mean about "clinging to the past".
However, I have no compeling reason to change to NTFS.
It's nice knowing that I could though. For now I'll use
the philosphy "if it ain't broke don't fix it".

Understood as far as power outages and
other "environmental variables".

>-----Original Message-----
>Hi, Hal.
>
>Unless you plan to install Win9x/ME or MS-DOS on this
computer, there's no
>good reason to cling to the FAT past.
>
>> outways the risk (data loss, etc.).
>
>I've never heard of any data loss from using
convert.exe. It's always
>possible to have a power failure in the middle, of
course, but it's
>ironclad, short of that.
>
>RC
>--
>R. C. White, CPA
>San Marcos, TX
>rc@corridor.net
>Microsoft Windows MVP
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system (More info?)

Windows Me to Windows 2000 Upgrade Is Not Supported
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=272627


--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Hal R" wrote:
| Dave, I'm not sure your statement is entirely true or if
| it even answers my question. There was no upgrade "patch"
| from ME>2K(pro). It was an "OS install" over the top of
| an existing install. Ditto for 2K>XP. That procedure is
| very clearly "supported" by Microsoft.
|
| Of course it is "better" to start clean. But it is often
| more of hassel with data backup, reinstallation of
| applications and so forth.
|
| Thanks, however, for your response.
|
| Hal

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system (More info?)

Interesting.

I have forwarded your information to our networking
department as someone there did the physical install. I
myself did not "witness" the install. I did the physical
install of XP over 2000.

I would have to think, however, that even though
Microsoft may not officially support ME>2K, it does not
mean it (Win2000) would "work" any differently than had
it been installed over 95 or 98, which is supported.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
us;232039

And when I indicate "work" I mean the underlying
technology in addition to the end user experience. I
observed nothing unusuall or unexpected after ME>2K was
accomplished.

Furthermore, please allow me to point out that what I
previously indicated in my last post was that
the "procedure" of doing an OS install over the top of
another OS is supported.

Thank you sincerely for your input. I understand you are
an MS MVP - which I am not.

Hal

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system (More info?)

If you check the setup and setup_upgrade groups you'll find that the
majority of win9x upgrades fail for a number of reasons. Never is it a
recommended task. Upgrades in general are mostly undesirable but in the case
of 2000 > XP the successes do out number the failures. If the source of your
install was WinME then you should plan on a clean install as soon as
possible.

As far as the other question; Windows 2000 includes the convert.exe utility
that allows you to convert to NTFS without any loss of data. The downside to
this is you'll end up with 512 byte clusters which is pretty inefficient,
slow, and more prone to fragmentation. The overhead of traversing a greater
number of clusters to retrieve and commit data will result in a degradation
in file system (or disk I/O) performance. Best to choose NTFS at the time of
install. From a command prompt;
chkdsk
to see the cluster size.

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Hal R" wrote:
| Interesting.
|
| I have forwarded your information to our networking
| department as someone there did the physical install. I
| myself did not "witness" the install. I did the physical
| install of XP over 2000.
|
| I would have to think, however, that even though
| Microsoft may not officially support ME>2K, it does not
| mean it (Win2000) would "work" any differently than had
| it been installed over 95 or 98, which is supported.
|
| http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
| us;232039
|
| And when I indicate "work" I mean the underlying
| technology in addition to the end user experience. I
| observed nothing unusuall or unexpected after ME>2K was
| accomplished.
|
| Furthermore, please allow me to point out that what I
| previously indicated in my last post was that
| the "procedure" of doing an OS install over the top of
| another OS is supported.
|
| Thank you sincerely for your input. I understand you are
| an MS MVP - which I am not.
|
| Hal

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system (More info?)

Thank you for the advice on doing a clean install. I will
consider doing just that if and when the need presents
itself. Moreover, I will keep it "in mind" at all times.

I know of the cluster issue and your point is well taken.
To that end I would simply run defrag "analysis" more
often with the potential of actually having to defrag
more often. Given that, I could not imagine having to
defrag more than once a week.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system (More info?)

Hi, Hal.

As Dave pointed out (and I had forgotten), the Win2K version of convert.exe
often produced 512-byte clusters. The WinXP version almost always produces
4 KB clusters. The technical details are over my head, and sometimes the
results are different. But are more likely to get better 4 KB clusters with
convert.exe from a WinXP CD-ROM.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
rc@corridor.net
Microsoft Windows MVP

"Hal R" <hal.rosner@directinsite.com> wrote in message
news:00c901c4fd8a$6b088090$a401280a@phx.gbl...
> Thank you for the advice on doing a clean install. I will
> consider doing just that if and when the need presents
> itself. Moreover, I will keep it "in mind" at all times.
>
> I know of the cluster issue and your point is well taken.
> To that end I would simply run defrag "analysis" more
> often with the potential of actually having to defrag
> more often. Given that, I could not imagine having to
> defrag more than once a week.

 

[somebody]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system (More info?)

"Hal R" <hal.rosner@directinsite.com> wrote:

>I have installed XP professional over Win 2000 Pro which
>was installed over Win ME. Original file system and
>current file system is FAT32.
>
>I understand - and have read seemingly all Microsoft
>literature - that convert.exe may be used to "upgrade"
>from FAT32 to NTFS.
>
>I am looking for opinions (presumably from someone who
>has successfully or unsuccessfully tried this) as to
>whether or not the reward (security, efficiency, etc.)
>outways the risk (data loss, etc.).
>
>Any comments are welcome. Thanks in advance.

Hal,

Two items to keep in mind when considering convert.exe:
1) Clusters are 512 bytes rather than the default 4096 when formatting
to NTFS at install (as pointed out by others)
2) NTFS permissions are not set with the same granularity as when
installing directly to NTFS.

I have used convert.exe on a W2K FAT32. The actual conversion worked
fine. However, the disk was slow (slower), fragmented rapidly and
kept getting disk errors. This was frustrating, and even with the
added security and the option to use EFS I did not feel that I had
"upgraded", to use that expression.

Anyway, I ended up reinstalling everything and selecting NTFS at
install. I'm glad I did. IMO, there is no comparison in terms of
speed, fragmenting and stability between a native NTFS disk and a
converted disk.

If you do reinstall, do not select a cluster size larger than the default 4096
as some disk utilities cannot handle clusters larger than 4096.

I remember reading about a third party utility than can change cluster size, but
I wasn't really interested in it and don't recall any details.

Roger

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.file_system (More info?)

c@corridor.net wrote:
> Hi, Hal.
> As Dave pointed out (and I had forgotten), the Win2K version of convert.exe
> often produced 512-byte clusters. The WinXP version almost always produces
> 4 KB clusters. The technical details are over my head, and sometimes the
> results are different. But are more likely to get better 4 KB clusters with
> convert.exe from a WinXP CD-ROM.
> RC
> --
> R. C. White, CPA
> San Marcos, TX
> rc@corridor.net
> Microsoft Windows MVP
> "Hal R" <hal.rosner@directinsite.com> wrote in message
> news:00c901c4fd8a$6b088090$a401280a@phx.gbl...

Thank you

marquis_j@cidermail.com