The one quoted by Frodo seems to be missing the word "alignment".
Good catch
Direct from the mouth of the wolf :
http://support.micro...om/kb/931760/en
That would explain nicely the behaviour.
jaclaz
Posted 16 December 2009 - 08:04 PM
The one quoted by Frodo seems to be missing the word "alignment".
Posted 16 December 2009 - 09:05 PM
What does this mean???Good catch
Direct from the mouth of the wolf :
http://support.micro...om/kb/931760/en
That would explain nicely the behaviour.
jaclaz
Posted 17 December 2009 - 11:40 AM
What does this mean???
I already knew that!
This is exactly the registry edit I made (with "alignment". The registry keys/values were already there, I only had to set data to zero).
The second part of the article refers to a Hotfix for XP.
Does this imply that a fix must be made to XP too?
edborg
If you are using Microsoft Deployment Toolkit 2008 to deploy Windows XP
Posted 17 December 2009 - 01:24 PM
The mistery gets deeper...The actual article is referring to modify the behaviour of Diskpart.
It was actually my (or your, or our ) assumption that this setting would apply also for Disk Management, it seems like you proved that this is not true.
Here it is,Can you run on that disk diskext.exe:
http://technet.micro...s/bb896648.aspx
and post results?
Just to make sure, so that I can check the "fake" virtual disk I have put up to test partitionlogic is seen just as your XP sees your "real" disk.
jaclaz
Posted 17 December 2009 - 02:53 PM
Do I have to use xcopy with the /b option to be sure to clone the installation?
Posted 17 December 2009 - 08:16 PM
Posted 18 December 2009 - 08:19 AM
Posted 18 December 2009 - 09:11 AM
In my partition tables made with XP Disk Management then beyond CHS limit,
the partition start entry always reads as FE FF FF for H/S/C
It seems XP will use in this case the least significant bit to determine the Start Head = 0 and Start Sector = 1
Start Head FE = 1111 1110 and Start Sector FF = 1111 1111
Posted 18 December 2009 - 09:18 AM
Posted 18 December 2009 - 09:39 AM
Posted 18 December 2009 - 10:14 AM
Posted 18 December 2009 - 11:27 AM
Posted 18 December 2009 - 12:31 PM
Posted 18 December 2009 - 12:32 PM
Posted 18 December 2009 - 12:45 PM
Posted 18 December 2009 - 01:18 PM
Posted 18 December 2009 - 01:40 PM
Thanks for the Info.There are good reasons for the new cylinder alignment introduced by Vista / Win7 with the upcoming move to 4K sectors sizes on disks. See this article for more information:
http://www.anandtech...doc.aspx?i=3691
Posted 18 December 2009 - 02:47 PM
Note: The WD Quick Formatter is ONLY for external drives. Once the WD Quick Formatter is finished reformatting the drive, the drive will only have one partition. This is necessary in order to optimize the performance of the drive.
Posted 18 December 2009 - 05:36 PM
Posted 18 December 2009 - 06:58 PM
Using the fourth entry of the partition table is less save only because some backup programs will temporarily would like to use it on reboot for access of a virtual partition. If the process fails, your MBR is damaged. So I leave preferred the fourth entry unused.Wimb implies that, apart from the VDS alignment registry edit, out of the four partitions allowed by the old (512B) MBR only three are safely usable, perhaps because the fourth is the one suffering for or sharpening the inconsistencies?
I always used four (three primary and one extended) and would like to continue to do that if only possible.
Posted 18 December 2009 - 08:20 PM
Thanks for your clear answers. I'll do that.Using the fourth entry of the partition table is less save only because some backup programs will temporarily would like to use it on reboot for access of a virtual partition. If the process fails, your MBR is damaged. So I leave preferred the fourth entry unused.
But this has nothing to do with the alignment problems that you encountered.
To be save, backup your present data on other media and then start from scratch to prepare partitions on USB-HDD using XP Disk Management so that your USB-HDD will be compatible with all OSes.
Posted 18 December 2009 - 10:22 PM
Posted 18 December 2009 - 11:37 PM
Yes, of course this would be interesting. (though I had a workaround in mind for this case )4. I didn't manage to make the partitioning tool work on my system (I shall post a description of problems encountered with Partition Logic Beta, if of interest),
Posted 19 December 2009 - 01:11 AM
Posted 19 December 2009 - 07:46 AM
The second primary partition was quick formatted with XP format.com@Wimb Is it possible that you formatted under XP but NOT with XP's Disk Management?
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users