Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Changing Hard Drives

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
February 22, 2005 11:03:56 AM

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

I have XP Pro installed on a small drive (15 Gig). It is formatted with
NTFS. I would like to transfer the entire install on this drive to a
different 60 Gig that is formatted in Fat 32. I have burned a copy of the
NTFS drive to a DVD. What's the best way to do this? I might add that this
is a dual-boot, so I can boot to a 30 Gig drive where I could restore the
DVD backup to the C: drive. Will the new HD need to be formatted NTFS first?

Thanks

More about : changing hard drives

Anonymous
February 22, 2005 5:44:42 PM

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

Patch wrote:
> I have XP Pro installed on a small drive (15 Gig). It is formatted
> with NTFS. I would like to transfer the entire install on this drive
> to a different 60 Gig that is formatted in Fat 32. I have burned a
> copy of the NTFS drive to a DVD. What's the best way to do this? I
> might add that this is a dual-boot, so I can boot to a 30 Gig drive
> where I could restore the DVD backup to the C: drive. Will the new HD
> need to be formatted NTFS first?

You will either need to reinstall and then move documents and other data, or
you will have to use third party software such as Ghost. You cannot simply
copy the OS and expect it to work.
February 22, 2005 5:44:43 PM

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

I'd certainly recommend using NTFS over FAT32 anyway. Is there a reason
you need to keep the 60Gb drive as FAT32? Is there something on it you
want to keep, or something?

The way I'd do it would be to install the 60Gb drive, as a secondary
drive. Make both disk Dynamic, and then mirror the 15Gb drive to the 60.
When that's complete, you should be able to pull the 15 and let the
machine boot using the 15Gb partition on the 60. Of course, it will be
unmirrored, and you'll need to break that mirror, at some point. Since
the disk is dynamic, you'll also be able to expand it to the full 60Gb
later, if you want.

Andre, is there a reason that wouldn't work?

grep

André Gulliksen wrote:
> Patch wrote:
>
>> I have XP Pro installed on a small drive (15 Gig). It is formatted
>>with NTFS. I would like to transfer the entire install on this drive
>>to a different 60 Gig that is formatted in Fat 32. I have burned a
>>copy of the NTFS drive to a DVD. What's the best way to do this? I
>>might add that this is a dual-boot, so I can boot to a 30 Gig drive
>>where I could restore the DVD backup to the C: drive. Will the new HD
>>need to be formatted NTFS first?
>
>
> You will either need to reinstall and then move documents and other data, or
> you will have to use third party software such as Ghost. You cannot simply
> copy the OS and expect it to work.
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 7:13:55 PM

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

grep

Patch wrote "this is a dual-boot". Implying another version of
Windows -perhaps Windows 98?

--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FCA

Using invalid email address

Stourport, Worcs, England
Enquire, plan and execute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please tell the newsgroup how any
suggested solution worked for you.

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"grep" <grep@grep.com> wrote in message
news:o oscbePGFHA.1924@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I'd certainly recommend using NTFS over FAT32 anyway. Is there a
> reason you need to keep the 60Gb drive as FAT32? Is there something on
> it you want to keep, or something?
>
> The way I'd do it would be to install the 60Gb drive, as a secondary
> drive. Make both disk Dynamic, and then mirror the 15Gb drive to the
> 60. When that's complete, you should be able to pull the 15 and let
> the machine boot using the 15Gb partition on the 60. Of course, it
> will be unmirrored, and you'll need to break that mirror, at some
> point. Since the disk is dynamic, you'll also be able to expand it to
> the full 60Gb later, if you want.
>
> Andre, is there a reason that wouldn't work?
>
> grep
>
> André Gulliksen wrote:
>> Patch wrote:
>>
>>> I have XP Pro installed on a small drive (15 Gig). It is formatted
>>>with NTFS. I would like to transfer the entire install on this drive
>>>to a different 60 Gig that is formatted in Fat 32. I have burned a
>>>copy of the NTFS drive to a DVD. What's the best way to do this? I
>>>might add that this is a dual-boot, so I can boot to a 30 Gig drive
>>>where I could restore the DVD backup to the C: drive. Will the new HD
>>>need to be formatted NTFS first?
>>
>>
>> You will either need to reinstall and then move documents and other
>> data, or you will have to use third party software such as Ghost. You
>> cannot simply copy the OS and expect it to work.
Anonymous
February 22, 2005 8:51:19 PM

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

grep wrote:
> The way I'd do it would be to install the 60Gb drive, as a secondary
> drive. Make both disk Dynamic, and then mirror the 15Gb drive to the
> 60. When that's complete, you should be able to pull the 15 and let
> the machine boot using the 15Gb partition on the 60. Of course, it
> will be unmirrored, and you'll need to break that mirror, at some
> point. Since the disk is dynamic, you'll also be able to expand it to
> the full 60Gb later, if you want.
>
> Andre, is there a reason that wouldn't work?

I did not think of this method, and have not tried it myself, but it might
work. At least if you boot with a recovery console and run fixboot and/or
fixmbr after removing the 15 GB drive.
February 23, 2005 12:23:55 AM

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

Not to burst your bubble, but:
Mirrored volumes are not available on computers running Windows 2000
Professional, Windows XP Home Edition, Windows XP Professional, or Windows
XP 64-Bit Edition.

Bummer, ain't it.

george

"grep" <grep@grep.com> wrote in message
news:o oscbePGFHA.1924@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I'd certainly recommend using NTFS over FAT32 anyway. Is there a reason
> you need to keep the 60Gb drive as FAT32? Is there something on it you
> want to keep, or something?
>
> The way I'd do it would be to install the 60Gb drive, as a secondary
> drive. Make both disk Dynamic, and then mirror the 15Gb drive to the 60.
> When that's complete, you should be able to pull the 15 and let the
> machine boot using the 15Gb partition on the 60. Of course, it will be
> unmirrored, and you'll need to break that mirror, at some point. Since the
> disk is dynamic, you'll also be able to expand it to the full 60Gb later,
> if you want.
>
> Andre, is there a reason that wouldn't work?
>
> grep
>
> André Gulliksen wrote:
>> Patch wrote:
>>
>>> I have XP Pro installed on a small drive (15 Gig). It is formatted
>>>with NTFS. I would like to transfer the entire install on this drive
>>>to a different 60 Gig that is formatted in Fat 32. I have burned a
>>>copy of the NTFS drive to a DVD. What's the best way to do this? I
>>>might add that this is a dual-boot, so I can boot to a 30 Gig drive
>>>where I could restore the DVD backup to the C: drive. Will the new HD
>>>need to be formatted NTFS first?
>>
>>
>> You will either need to reinstall and then move documents and other data,
>> or you will have to use third party software such as Ghost. You cannot
>> simply copy the OS and expect it to work.
Anonymous
February 23, 2005 2:01:22 PM

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

Won't work for a variety of reasons and you don't want to go near dynamic
volumes yet. They're fine in a managed environment, but in an unmanaged they
can be highly problematic if things go splat.

The new drive, unless it was an OEM/whitebox kit, came with a utility that
will copy the contents of the old drive to the new drive. Just use that.

--
Walter Clayton
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org


"André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote in message
news:421b6a9c$1@news.broadpark.no...
> grep wrote:
>> The way I'd do it would be to install the 60Gb drive, as a secondary
>> drive. Make both disk Dynamic, and then mirror the 15Gb drive to the
>> 60. When that's complete, you should be able to pull the 15 and let
>> the machine boot using the 15Gb partition on the 60. Of course, it
>> will be unmirrored, and you'll need to break that mirror, at some
>> point. Since the disk is dynamic, you'll also be able to expand it to
>> the full 60Gb later, if you want.
>>
>> Andre, is there a reason that wouldn't work?
>
> I did not think of this method, and have not tried it myself, but it might
> work. At least if you boot with a recovery console and run fixboot and/or
> fixmbr after removing the 15 GB drive.
>
February 23, 2005 11:09:26 PM

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

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:23:55 +0100, george wrote:

> Not to burst your bubble, but:
> Mirrored volumes are not available on computers running Windows 2000
> Professional, Windows XP Home Edition, Windows XP Professional, or Windows
> XP 64-Bit Edition.
>
> Bummer, ain't it.
>
> george
>

"Mirrored volumes are not available on computers running..."

They are quite available and many people do run RAID 1 and RAID 5.

Rush
http://www.bythedrop.com
February 24, 2005 3:29:11 PM

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

Excuse me, but the reaction was given to an answer that talked about making
the disks dynamic and then taking a mirror.
No indication that there already was a hardware Raid solution available, nor
that such a solution would be made available through purchase.
This leaves only the software solution built into the Windows product and
(aside from the discussion if the software approach is a good one),
technically (according to Microsoft documentation) the software based fault
tolerant solutions are not available in the products mentioned.
Hence, "quite available and many people do run RAID 1 and RAID 5." can only
pertain to a solution that involves adding additional hardware (ie.
controller) to the machine.

george


"Rush" <thecatch@bythedrop.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.02.24.03.09.25.614128@bythedrop.com...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:23:55 +0100, george wrote:
>
>> Not to burst your bubble, but:
>> Mirrored volumes are not available on computers running Windows 2000
>> Professional, Windows XP Home Edition, Windows XP Professional, or
>> Windows
>> XP 64-Bit Edition.
>>
>> Bummer, ain't it.
>>
>> george
>>
>
> "Mirrored volumes are not available on computers running..."
>
> They are quite available and many people do run RAID 1 and RAID 5.
>
> Rush
> http://www.bythedrop.com
>
February 24, 2005 11:57:13 PM

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

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:29:11 +0100, george wrote:

> Excuse me, but the reaction was given to an answer that talked about
> making the disks dynamic and then taking a mirror. No indication that
> there already was a hardware Raid solution available, nor that such a
> solution would be made available through purchase. This leaves only the
> software solution built into the Windows product and (aside from the
> discussion if the software approach is a good one), technically (according
> to Microsoft documentation) the software based fault tolerant solutions
> are not available in the products mentioned. Hence, "quite available and
> many people do run RAID 1 and RAID 5." can only pertain to a solution that
> involves adding additional hardware (ie. controller) to the machine.
>
> george
>
>
>

I'm not posing this question to be a smart *ss, but is there an OS that
supports RAID natively through software without a hardware controller?

Rush
http://www.bythedrop.com
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 10:17:14 AM

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

Yes, at least Windows Server 2003
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;323434


--
Tumppi
Reply to group
=================================================
Most learned on nntp://news.mircosoft.com
Helsinki, Finland (remove _NOSPAM)
(translations from FI/SE not always accurate)
=================================================



"Rush" <thecatch@bythedrop.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:p an.2005.02.25.03.57.13.489838@bythedrop.com...
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:29:11 +0100, george wrote:
>
> > Excuse me, but the reaction was given to an answer that talked about
> > making the disks dynamic and then taking a mirror. No indication that
> > there already was a hardware Raid solution available, nor that such a
> > solution would be made available through purchase. This leaves only the
> > software solution built into the Windows product and (aside from the
> > discussion if the software approach is a good one), technically
(according
> > to Microsoft documentation) the software based fault tolerant solutions
> > are not available in the products mentioned. Hence, "quite available and
> > many people do run RAID 1 and RAID 5." can only pertain to a solution
that
> > involves adding additional hardware (ie. controller) to the machine.
> >
> > george
> >
> >
> >
>
> I'm not posing this question to be a smart *ss, but is there an OS that
> supports RAID natively through software without a hardware controller?
>
> Rush
> http://www.bythedrop.com
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 11:50:57 AM

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

RAID is a hardware solution..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"Rush" <thecatch@bythedrop.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.02.25.03.57.13.489838@bythedrop.com...
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 12:29:11 +0100, george wrote:
>
>> Excuse me, but the reaction was given to an answer that talked about
>> making the disks dynamic and then taking a mirror. No indication that
>> there already was a hardware Raid solution available, nor that such a
>> solution would be made available through purchase. This leaves only the
>> software solution built into the Windows product and (aside from the
>> discussion if the software approach is a good one), technically
>> (according
>> to Microsoft documentation) the software based fault tolerant solutions
>> are not available in the products mentioned. Hence, "quite available and
>> many people do run RAID 1 and RAID 5." can only pertain to a solution
>> that
>> involves adding additional hardware (ie. controller) to the machine.
>>
>> george
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'm not posing this question to be a smart *ss, but is there an OS that
> supports RAID natively through software without a hardware controller?
>
> Rush
> http://www.bythedrop.com
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 1:30:15 PM

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

Rush wrote:
> I'm not posing this question to be a smart *ss, but is there an OS
> that supports RAID natively through software without a hardware
> controller?

If you only refer to Windows OSes: The Windows NT server variants, at least
since NT 4.0 (I don't know about 3.x), all supports some sort of software
RAID.
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 8:35:45 PM

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

Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
> RAID is a hardware solution..

RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks) is the organization of multiple
disks into one large logical disk, normally with the intent of achieving
larger volumes than is possible with single disks, higher total transfer
speed and/or security from drive failures. The actual drives and the
interfaces are of course hardware, but the logics behind splitting data
between disks can be handled in both software and hardware.
Anonymous
February 25, 2005 8:35:46 PM

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

The actual drives and the interfaces are of course hardware.. quote from
your post..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote in message
news:421f5438@news.broadpark.no...
> Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
>> RAID is a hardware solution..
>
> RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks) is the organization of
> multiple disks into one large logical disk, normally with the intent of
> achieving larger volumes than is possible with single disks, higher total
> transfer speed and/or security from drive failures. The actual drives and
> the interfaces are of course hardware, but the logics behind splitting
> data between disks can be handled in both software and hardware.
>
February 25, 2005 11:20:43 PM

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

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:50:57 -0500, Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:

> RAID is a hardware solution...

I run several system with RAID configs.
Apparently RAID is not solely a hardware solution as you can do 'software
RAID' in Windows 2003 without the use of a hardware RAID controller.
This is news to me, learn something new everyday I guess.

Rush
http://www.bythedrop.com
February 26, 2005 12:31:44 AM

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

Keep the context:
<snip>
The actual drives and the interfaces are of course hardware,
but the logics behind splitting data between disks can be handled
in both software and hardware.
</snip>

As an MVP you (at least should) very well know that 'interfaces' refers to
I/O controllers in the machine, be they plain and simple IDE, SCSI or
purpose built controllers.
'Logics' referring to some sort of intelligence that handles the data in the
proper manner, given the RAID implementaion used.

As an MVP you (at least should) also very well know that, given a couple of
regular (dumb) IDE controllers (without any purpose built raid logic
incorporated in them) and some plain disks, Windows systems (since the dawn
of NT) support fault tolerant RAID implementations.
And while were at it, it also supports, non-fault tolerant, but performance
oriented RAID implementations.
Windows natively can implement this through *SOFTWARE*, i.o.w. a purpose
built piece of coding called a driver.
The hardware has nothing special to do here, but it's job: accept data
presented by the driver and present data requested by the driver.

Now, if you are saying: "RAID is a hardware solution.", meaning I've never
used it any other way but fork out the extra cash for the hardware unit with
the purpose built chip that takes care of all that, then that's an entirely
different discussion.

purposeful snipping just helps to take things out of context to prove a
debatable point.

george



"Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ekSNdU2GFHA.3108@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> The actual drives and the interfaces are of course hardware.. quote from
> your post..
>
> --
> Mike Hall
> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> "André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote in message
> news:421f5438@news.broadpark.no...
>> Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
>>> RAID is a hardware solution..
>>
>> RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks) is the organization of
>> multiple disks into one large logical disk, normally with the intent of
>> achieving larger volumes than is possible with single disks, higher total
>> transfer speed and/or security from drive failures. The actual drives and
>> the interfaces are of course hardware, but the logics behind splitting
>> data between disks can be handled in both software and hardware.
>>
>
>
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:31:45 AM

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

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"george" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23jpISk3GFHA.1396@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Keep the context:
> <snip>
> The actual drives and the interfaces are of course hardware,
> but the logics behind splitting data between disks can be handled
> in both software and hardware.
> </snip>
>
> As an MVP you (at least should) very well know that 'interfaces' refers to
> I/O controllers in the machine, be they plain and simple IDE, SCSI or
> purpose built controllers.
> 'Logics' referring to some sort of intelligence that handles the data in
> the proper manner, given the RAID implementaion used.
>
> As an MVP you (at least should) also very well know that, given a couple
> of regular (dumb) IDE controllers (without any purpose built raid logic
> incorporated in them) and some plain disks, Windows systems (since the
> dawn of NT) support fault tolerant RAID implementations.
> And while were at it, it also supports, non-fault tolerant, but
> performance oriented RAID implementations.
> Windows natively can implement this through *SOFTWARE*, i.o.w. a purpose
> built piece of coding called a driver.
> The hardware has nothing special to do here, but it's job: accept data
> presented by the driver and present data requested by the driver.
>
> Now, if you are saying: "RAID is a hardware solution.", meaning I've never
> used it any other way but fork out the extra cash for the hardware unit
> with the purpose built chip that takes care of all that, then that's an
> entirely different discussion.
>
> purposeful snipping just helps to take things out of context to prove a
> debatable point.
>
> george
>
>
>
> "Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:ekSNdU2GFHA.3108@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> The actual drives and the interfaces are of course hardware.. quote from
>> your post..
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hall
>> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>>
>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote in message
>> news:421f5438@news.broadpark.no...
>>> Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
>>>> RAID is a hardware solution..
>>>
>>> RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks) is the organization of
>>> multiple disks into one large logical disk, normally with the intent of
>>> achieving larger volumes than is possible with single disks, higher
>>> total transfer speed and/or security from drive failures. The actual
>>> drives and the interfaces are of course hardware, but the logics behind
>>> splitting data between disks can be handled in both software and
>>> hardware.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
February 26, 2005 12:31:45 AM

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

George

Hardware RAID cards are produced that will work with Win 9x as well as later
OS'es.. the hardware variety is undeniably more expensive, but is regarded
as generally better, although not in every instance maybe.. software RAID is
harder on the cpu.. but you know this already..

My opinion.. hardware raid is the way to go.. reliability has a price,
unfortunately..

That said, all this talk of RAID is not helping the OP any.. he is in enough
trouble already, having copied, by means unknown, the 'entire' contents of
his C drive to DVD in the hope that he can just copy them back..


--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"george" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23jpISk3GFHA.1396@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Keep the context:
> <snip>
> The actual drives and the interfaces are of course hardware,
> but the logics behind splitting data between disks can be handled
> in both software and hardware.
> </snip>
>
> As an MVP you (at least should) very well know that 'interfaces' refers to
> I/O controllers in the machine, be they plain and simple IDE, SCSI or
> purpose built controllers.
> 'Logics' referring to some sort of intelligence that handles the data in
> the proper manner, given the RAID implementaion used.
>
> As an MVP you (at least should) also very well know that, given a couple
> of regular (dumb) IDE controllers (without any purpose built raid logic
> incorporated in them) and some plain disks, Windows systems (since the
> dawn of NT) support fault tolerant RAID implementations.
> And while were at it, it also supports, non-fault tolerant, but
> performance oriented RAID implementations.
> Windows natively can implement this through *SOFTWARE*, i.o.w. a purpose
> built piece of coding called a driver.
> The hardware has nothing special to do here, but it's job: accept data
> presented by the driver and present data requested by the driver.
>
> Now, if you are saying: "RAID is a hardware solution.", meaning I've never
> used it any other way but fork out the extra cash for the hardware unit
> with the purpose built chip that takes care of all that, then that's an
> entirely different discussion.
>
> purposeful snipping just helps to take things out of context to prove a
> debatable point.
>
> george
>
>
>
> "Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:ekSNdU2GFHA.3108@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> The actual drives and the interfaces are of course hardware.. quote from
>> your post..
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hall
>> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>>
>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote in message
>> news:421f5438@news.broadpark.no...
>>> Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
>>>> RAID is a hardware solution..
>>>
>>> RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks) is the organization of
>>> multiple disks into one large logical disk, normally with the intent of
>>> achieving larger volumes than is possible with single disks, higher
>>> total transfer speed and/or security from drive failures. The actual
>>> drives and the interfaces are of course hardware, but the logics behind
>>> splitting data between disks can be handled in both software and
>>> hardware.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
February 26, 2005 4:02:37 PM

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

Mike,

Personally I agree with your take on this 100%:

Hardware RAID is the way to go, if you need the best in performance,
reliability, continuity etc. and can afford the price.
I was commenting on your unqualified statement (no disrespect intended):
RAID is a hardware solution, that was totally forgoing one of the nice
Windows disk storage features for the 'small wallet'. Apparently MS seems to
think that too, otherwise they would have dropped that support going from
NT4 to W2K when they decided to exchange their own support for it with the
Logical Disk Manager from Veritas, that AFAICT probably needed adapting to
that feature.

:-))

george



"Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:%23Bd9K75GFHA.2976@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> George
>
> Hardware RAID cards are produced that will work with Win 9x as well as
> later OS'es.. the hardware variety is undeniably more expensive, but is
> regarded as generally better, although not in every instance maybe..
> software RAID is harder on the cpu.. but you know this already..
>
> My opinion.. hardware raid is the way to go.. reliability has a price,
> unfortunately..
>
> That said, all this talk of RAID is not helping the OP any.. he is in
> enough trouble already, having copied, by means unknown, the 'entire'
> contents of his C drive to DVD in the hope that he can just copy them
> back..
>
>
> --
> Mike Hall
> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> "george" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:%23jpISk3GFHA.1396@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Keep the context:
>> <snip>
>> The actual drives and the interfaces are of course hardware,
>> but the logics behind splitting data between disks can be handled
>> in both software and hardware.
>> </snip>
>>
>> As an MVP you (at least should) very well know that 'interfaces' refers
>> to I/O controllers in the machine, be they plain and simple IDE, SCSI or
>> purpose built controllers.
>> 'Logics' referring to some sort of intelligence that handles the data in
>> the proper manner, given the RAID implementaion used.
>>
>> As an MVP you (at least should) also very well know that, given a couple
>> of regular (dumb) IDE controllers (without any purpose built raid logic
>> incorporated in them) and some plain disks, Windows systems (since the
>> dawn of NT) support fault tolerant RAID implementations.
>> And while were at it, it also supports, non-fault tolerant, but
>> performance oriented RAID implementations.
>> Windows natively can implement this through *SOFTWARE*, i.o.w. a purpose
>> built piece of coding called a driver.
>> The hardware has nothing special to do here, but it's job: accept data
>> presented by the driver and present data requested by the driver.
>>
>> Now, if you are saying: "RAID is a hardware solution.", meaning I've
>> never used it any other way but fork out the extra cash for the hardware
>> unit with the purpose built chip that takes care of all that, then that's
>> an entirely different discussion.
>>
>> purposeful snipping just helps to take things out of context to prove a
>> debatable point.
>>
>> george
>>
>>
>>
>> "Mike Hall (MS-MVP)" <mike.hall.mail@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:ekSNdU2GFHA.3108@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> The actual drives and the interfaces are of course hardware.. quote from
>>> your post..
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mike Hall
>>> MVP - Windows Shell/user
>>>
>>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "André Gulliksen" <andre.gulliksen@start.no> wrote in message
>>> news:421f5438@news.broadpark.no...
>>>> Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
>>>>> RAID is a hardware solution..
>>>>
>>>> RAID (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks) is the organization of
>>>> multiple disks into one large logical disk, normally with the intent of
>>>> achieving larger volumes than is possible with single disks, higher
>>>> total transfer speed and/or security from drive failures. The actual
>>>> drives and the interfaces are of course hardware, but the logics behind
>>>> splitting data between disks can be handled in both software and
>>>> hardware.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
!