If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
On 8/14/2014 9:04 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:33:29 -0400, "Bill Cunningham" wrote: "BillW50" wrote in message ... XP install should let you use either FAT or NTFS as long as the partition is 32GB or smaller if I recall correctly. Any larger and it will only install using NTFS. There are utilities that will convert from NTFS to FAT32 anyway, so no big deal. And if you install Windows 98SE first, dualboot should work just fine. Humm. I have one partiion about 200GB. Maybe that's it then. And does this 32G or less partition have to be at the beginning on the drive? Or can it be the 2nd or 3rd primary partition? The message you are replying to is *not* correct. XP cannot *create* a FAT32 partition larger than 32GB. That is what I said. But it will happily use one if it was created by other software. But that wasn't Bill's question. Bill's question was XP install will only allow formatting with NTFS. This is true if the partition is larger than 32GB. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
On 8/13/2014 11:33 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message ... XP install should let you use either FAT or NTFS as long as the partition is 32GB or smaller if I recall correctly. Any larger and it will only install using NTFS. There are utilities that will convert from NTFS to FAT32 anyway, so no big deal. And if you install Windows 98SE first, dualboot should work just fine. Humm. I have one partiion about 200GB. Maybe that's it then. And does this 32G or less partition have to be at the beginning on the drive? Or can it be the 2nd or 3rd primary partition? I believe early versions of XP might have problems with partitions larger than 132GB (or was it 128GB?), but that problem disappears with a hotfix quickly down the line. Windows 98SE is stuck with only using the first 128GB of the drive. So it must be within this first part and can't see further than this. I believe there are hacks around this problem if you need more. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
BillW50 wrote:
On 8/14/2014 9:04 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote: On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:33:29 -0400, "Bill Cunningham" wrote: "BillW50" wrote in message ... XP install should let you use either FAT or NTFS as long as the partition is 32GB or smaller if I recall correctly. Any larger and it will only install using NTFS. There are utilities that will convert from NTFS to FAT32 anyway, so no big deal. And if you install Windows 98SE first, dualboot should work just fine. Humm. I have one partiion about 200GB. Maybe that's it then. And does this 32G or less partition have to be at the beginning on the drive? Or can it be the 2nd or 3rd primary partition? The message you are replying to is *not* correct. XP cannot *create* a FAT32 partition larger than 32GB. That is what I said. But it will happily use one if it was created by other software. But that wasn't Bill's question. Bill's question was XP install will only allow formatting with NTFS. This is true if the partition is larger than 32GB. You have some options. The naive user starts with a hard drive completely blank, no MBR, nothing. Under those conditions, you accept whatever the installer CD throws at you in terms of policy. You're not going to be all that happy with the choices. However, you also have the option of preparing a partition in advance. The install can then be instructed to "eat its vegetables", use the offered partition, don't format it or attempt to format it. You can do that with later OSes, like on Windows 7, force a one-partition install instead of the default two-partition install. All by offering a pre-formatted partition. In the case of an OS like Debian, it gives you royal hell to offer it a pre-defined partition setup. For that OS, it "wants the whole damn drive" and out of frustration, I generally just give it the whole drive. Because I've got better things to do, figuring out the installer with no web browser to consult. Windows installers are a little more flexible, in that I usually get what I'm after. Just because they artificially cut off partition size at 32GB for FAT32, doesn't mean that there aren't ways available to do it. Paul |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
On 8/14/2014 11:08 AM, Paul wrote:
BillW50 wrote: On 8/14/2014 9:04 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote: On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:33:29 -0400, "Bill Cunningham" wrote: "BillW50" wrote in message ... XP install should let you use either FAT or NTFS as long as the partition is 32GB or smaller if I recall correctly. Any larger and it will only install using NTFS. There are utilities that will convert from NTFS to FAT32 anyway, so no big deal. And if you install Windows 98SE first, dualboot should work just fine. Humm. I have one partiion about 200GB. Maybe that's it then. And does this 32G or less partition have to be at the beginning on the drive? Or can it be the 2nd or 3rd primary partition? The message you are replying to is *not* correct. XP cannot *create* a FAT32 partition larger than 32GB. That is what I said. But it will happily use one if it was created by other software. But that wasn't Bill's question. Bill's question was XP install will only allow formatting with NTFS. This is true if the partition is larger than 32GB. You have some options. The naive user starts with a hard drive completely blank, no MBR, nothing. Under those conditions, you accept whatever the installer CD throws at you in terms of policy. You're not going to be all that happy with the choices. However, you also have the option of preparing a partition in advance. The install can then be instructed to "eat its vegetables", use the offered partition, don't format it or attempt to format it. You can do that with later OSes, like on Windows 7, force a one-partition install instead of the default two-partition install. All by offering a pre-formatted partition. In the case of an OS like Debian, it gives you royal hell to offer it a pre-defined partition setup. For that OS, it "wants the whole damn drive" and out of frustration, I generally just give it the whole drive. Because I've got better things to do, figuring out the installer with no web browser to consult. Windows installers are a little more flexible, in that I usually get what I'm after. Just because they artificially cut off partition size at 32GB for FAT32, doesn't mean that there aren't ways available to do it. Of course, there are always ways around the defaults. Nobody ever questioned this at all. :-) -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
Hot-Text wrote:
Bill That old School Use This This Virtual PC 2007 http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/downl...s.aspx?id=4580 It Supported your Operating System Or https://www.virtualbox.org He's right, Bill. I once tried to install W95 on to a FAT32 partition on a computer with XP on it. The machine jammed. Not because my installation was faulty, but because the 2002 processor executed the 1995 code too quickly and caused, IIRC, a division by zero error. Good luck! David |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
On 8/14/2014 11:00 AM, Paul wrote:
BillW50 wrote: On 8/14/2014 10:29 AM, wrote: On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:58:43 -0500, BillW50 wrote: On 8/14/2014 9:25 AM, Paul wrote: [...] I keep the OS portion small, so the backup takes ten minutes. I never understood why people can't backup just the OS regardless if it lives on a separate partition or not. What kind of poor backup software are people using that doesn't allow backing up by path(s)? I've been backing up by paths since the 90's at least. There is no need to backup by partition unless you are just not very bright and just don't know how to do anything else. I think they are talking about being able to image your C: drive where all of the hard to reconstruct structures are and using another drive for "data" which is easily copied. Yes I understand this. But it isn't necessary at all. Virtually all backup software can backup by paths and you can create one backup for boot/system and another one for data if you would prefer, even if everything is on one partition. My favorite method is a bit different, as I prefer to sync my data instead of backing it up. And I prefer to clone my boot/system vs. backing up. And I prefer to have everything on my drive C and I have no problems separating boot/system and data on a single partition. It's a pushbutton backup strategy. Start it and walk away. When I bought Retrospect, I spent two solid days scripting the thing. In another case with Retrospect, I ended up writing a fifteen page, step by step guide to using it, so someone else would know how to use it. I was shocked at the length of the procedure. Compared to the 30 seconds I last spent to backup the WinXP drive. Click the button and walk away (or, go to bed). What prize do I win, if I'm more surgical in my approach ? When the backup I made, doesn't happen to have the file I need, what do I say then ? Better luck next time ? The nickel and dime approach made sense, when we didn't have big enough storage devices. Yes but it isn't that difficult anymore. You just point and click the folders the first time around and then save that profile. From there on, you just run that one profile. Same idea as push button backup strategy. It is really simple. I find lots of problems with keeping boot/system and data on separate partitions. One is somewhere down the line I always have to resize one or more of them. Keeping both on the same partition solves this problem. It doesn't matter if one grows larger or not. Then there are other problems too. Like applications will store stuff in the Program Folder, Documents and Settings, User, etc. folders. What do you consider this stuff as? Some stuff could be considered as data, configurations, profiles, accounts, updates, temp area, etc. And if you create two partitions, this stuff could easily be spread between the system and data partitions. This could cause problems down the line. Why cause more headaches than you really need? -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
On 8/14/2014 11:18 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:44:52 -0500, BillW50 wrote: On 8/14/2014 10:29 AM, wrote: On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:58:43 -0500, BillW50 wrote: On 8/14/2014 9:25 AM, Paul wrote: [...] I keep the OS portion small, so the backup takes ten minutes. I never understood why people can't backup just the OS regardless if it lives on a separate partition or not. What kind of poor backup software are people using that doesn't allow backing up by path(s)? I've been backing up by paths since the 90's at least. There is no need to backup by partition unless you are just not very bright and just don't know how to do anything else. I think they are talking about being able to image your C: drive where all of the hard to reconstruct structures are and using another drive for "data" which is easily copied. Yes I understand this. But it isn't necessary at all. Virtually all backup software can backup by paths and you can create one backup for boot/system and another one for data if you would prefer, even if everything is on one partition. My favorite method is a bit different, as I prefer to sync my data instead of backing it up. And I prefer to clone my boot/system vs. backing up. And I prefer to have everything on my drive C and I have no problems separating boot/system and data on a single partition. I suppose if you only have one machine this is a good way to deal with it but I have a bunch. The only thing that is unique on any of them is the C: drive and that (loaded) software. The big files are movies, songs and other byte hungry files that are duplicated all around the network so my main backup concern is the C: I use File Synchronizer to keep these "data" files backed up on a mirrored set of drives on my server, along with a couple of other machines where they may be played. Disk drives are cheap, you might as well have a lot of redundancy with your data.. I too have a lot of machines and I still keep everything on drive C. I have no problems whatsoever separating the system files from the data files. And I too sync my data files from machine to machine using SyncBack (the free one). And it doesn't matter if the data is on the same partition as the system files or not. There is no difference whatsoever where they are at. And if you want to make a system backup while ignoring the data, no problem. You tell your backup program to backup everything except temps, browser cache, etc. and all of this data. You tell it once and then it is just one button press to do so from there on. It is really easy. I do have some data that are usually really huge that doesn't make sense to have on every machine. Those are generally movies, videos, music collections, etc. This data is completely different than other data. Those are generally kept on different external drives instead. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
"BillW50" wrote in message ... On 8/14/2014 11:18 AM, wrote: On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:44:52 -0500, BillW50 wrote: On 8/14/2014 10:29 AM, wrote: On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:58:43 -0500, BillW50 wrote: [snip] Now what exactly is "Syncback"? I've never heard of that one. Bill |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
"BillW50" wrote in message ... Of course, there are always ways around the defaults. Nobody ever questioned this at all. :-) Ok I'm questioning Bill |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
On 8/14/2014 1:36 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message ... On 8/14/2014 11:18 AM, wrote: On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:44:52 -0500, BillW50 wrote: On 8/14/2014 10:29 AM, wrote: On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:58:43 -0500, BillW50 wrote: [snip] Now what exactly is "Syncback"? I've never heard of that one. Oh it is one of the best! It will do backup and restores, but it will sync too. The free version I use won't do anything with files in use like system files and such (the commercial version will, which I have little experience with), but I sync my data when the files isn't in use anyway. SyncBack has so many options that it will make most super advanced users happy, yet it is also simple enough to make novice users happy. They are real pros in this department. I measure everything compared to SyncBack. And fast? Yes very! Most of my data doesn't change and it can sync tons of GBs in seconds as long as most of it doesn't change. It is really worth looking into. SyncBack http://www.2brightsparks.com/syncback/syncback-hub.html -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
On 8/14/2014 1:46 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message ... Of course, there are always ways around the defaults. Nobody ever questioned this at all. :-) Ok I'm questioning Okay that opens lots of different forks in the road. Which way do you want to go? What do you exactly want to go for example? -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
"BillW50" wrote in message ... Okay that opens lots of different forks in the road. Which way do you want to go? What do you exactly want to go for example? Well I have noticed this for starters. Formating a new filesystem with fat32 will work with XP but the system hangs and stops installing. With ntfs it continues. Winows seems to be the only OS that can't handle a large fat32 filsystem and I think fat32 goes up to 1 TB. Is there a way around that? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
using an old OS on XP
On 8/14/2014 2:37 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message ... Okay that opens lots of different forks in the road. Which way do you want to go? What do you exactly want to go for example? Well I have noticed this for starters. Formating a new filesystem with fat32 will work with XP but the system hangs and stops installing. With ntfs it continues. Winows seems to be the only OS that can't handle a large fat32 filsystem and I think fat32 goes up to 1 TB. Is there a way around that? Whoa! How large is this FAT32 partition for starters? I never had a problem with XP installing in a more than a 32GB FAT32 already made partition before, but I never tried up to an 1TB partition before. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Kingston 120GB SSD - Thunderbird v24.4.0 Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|