79 replies to this topic

[cdob]

a new usb hdd for multi booting

Most likely this uses 4K sectors internally. Use the 'Vista' layout at current hardware.
https://en.wikipedia...Advanced_Format

[Zoso]

Most likely this uses 4K sectors internally. Use the 'Vista' layout at current hardware.
https://en.wikipedia...Advanced_Format

i dont have a vista OS handy to check but does the diskmanager in vista behave exactly like W7? thats just one of the reasons i dont like W7, the diskmanagers way of laying out extended partitions.

i have a laptop that came with vista OEM but i wiped it right away and installed XP. time to pull out the factory restore CDROM i guess.

[cdob]

No idea about diskmanagers details. Yes you can use W7 one.
Use a partiton layout within hardware:
align the boundaries to the physical sectors, not to emulated 512 bytes one.
Do not use XP 63 hidden sectors layout at current hardware.

However if you are keen to old layout: ignore this and use XP 63 hidden sectors layout.
It's a small performance penalty.

[Zoso]

No idea about diskmanagers details. Yes you can use W7 one.
Use a partiton layout within hardware:
align the boundaries to the physical sectors, not to emulated 512 bytes one.
Do not use XP 63 hidden sectors layout at current hardware.

However if you are keen to old layout: ignore this and use XP 63 hidden sectors layout.
It's a small performance penalty.

I formatted a flashdrive in W7 with multiple partitions then checked the hidden sectors with PTTool and it shows 128 instead of 63 like from XP. i plan to install vista again just to see if diskmanager is any different than W7

also worth noting, i did check for this error in POSReady2009 and it does indeed do the same as XP x86 does which comes as no surprise really but wanted to check anyway since it is basically XP but still supported by m$

[Wonko the Sane]

I formatted a flashdrive in W7 with multiple partitions then checked the hidden sectors with PTTool and it shows 128 instead of 63 like from XP. i plan to install vista again just to see if diskmanager is any different than W7

This is normal, the disk manager attempts to minimize "wasted sectors" and 128 is as fine as 2048 (but on most devices - since they are nowadays "large"  - you will have 2048) and - as cdob stated - most "new" hard disks are nowadays AF, and though there is no real test/documentation about this it is very likely that the performance penalty (that was unnoticeable on good ol' hard disks with 512 bytes sectors hard disks) may be noticeable though - on the other hand - all "new" hard disk has large caches and thus the "performance penalty" in real use might anyway result unnoticeable.

 

Just in case, I will repeat how the "meaningful" part is that the value is a multiple of 4096 bytes or of 8 sectors, 128 is perfectly fine.

 

Wonko