Clone OS to HD via DOS and Clean Install XP?

DaveDeFeet wrote:
Give the guy a break, he probably is a mis-understood genius.

I used DOS to refragment my system files once; I tried Norton Ghost
and it scared the pants off me, give me DOS anytime, with DOS I can
create new planets and re-program my car's EM chip so it's more
economical (cos it wouldn't start after)

DOS rules and if it really wanted to it could back up XP, you just
type "backup C: A: /defrag /-t /w /a /t format C: /q restore A:
C: /-q/ u/ /a /c/ /k" all fully automated, no probs.

idiot toppoast:
krillfile on / off
--- on
*PLONK*


easy innit!

hah!!! should have asked me first!!!!

Dave


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Dr. Bill wrote in message
t.nl...
Eric Gisin wrote

You defragmented your drive with Ghost,
it is a low-level file copy program.

Your friend is looney if he thinks DOS can copy long filenames.

Is this the one?:
http://www.binarybroz.com/looney.jpg
aside
In most cases top-poasters are looney too.

Nothing like as looney as those mindlessly
obsessing about how others post.


"Nehmo Sergheyev" wrote in message
...
When I proudly described to a knowledgeable friend how I had used
Ghost 2003 to clone a hard drive and make the new HD the bootable
Windows XP drive, he said I should have used a different method.
He said the OS becomes fragmented over time and defrag doesn't
repair it because defrag doesn't deal with system files. He said I
shouldn't have cloned this already fragmented OS. He said I should
have copied some file (I don't remember which) Go into the BIOS
and make the new HD bootable in DOS Then clean install Windows
XP on the new HD Then copy what I wanted.

Apparently he was saying I didn't need a copy program at all. The
whole thing could be accomplished with DOS commands.

"Dr. Bill" wrote in message
t.nl...
Eric Gisin wrote:
"DaveDeFeet" wrote in message
news:hdo9c.23$Yj3.4@newsfe1-win...
Give the guy a break, he probably is a mis-understood genius.

I used DOS to refragment my system files once; I tried Norton Ghost
and it scared the pants off me, give me DOS anytime, with DOS I can
create new planets and re-program my car's EM chip so it's more
economical (cos it wouldn't start after)

You should be able to figure out Ghost then.

DOS rules and if it really wanted to it could back up XP, you just
type "backup C: A: /defrag /-t /w /a /t format C: /q restore A:
C: /-q/ u/ /a /c/ /k" all fully automated, no probs.

easy innit!

hah!!! should have asked me first!!!!

Absolutely clueless. Win XP will not run, all the long filenames are
lost.

What is with all the idiots from alt.os.windows?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

idiot post:
krillfile on / off

What's a "krillfile", sounds like some kind of sealife.



--- on
*PLONK*

Spinner wrote:
"Dr. Bill" wrote in message
t.nl...
Eric Gisin wrote:
"DaveDeFeet" wrote in message
news:hdo9c.23$Yj3.4@newsfe1-win...
Give the guy a break, he probably is a mis-understood genius.

I used DOS to refragment my system files once; I tried Norton Ghost
and it scared the pants off me, give me DOS anytime, with DOS I can
create new planets and re-program my car's EM chip so it's more
economical (cos it wouldn't start after)

You should be able to figure out Ghost then.

DOS rules and if it really wanted to it could back up XP, you just
type "backup C: A: /defrag /-t /w /a /t format C: /q restore A:
C: /-q/ u/ /a /c/ /k" all fully automated, no probs.

easy innit!

hah!!! should have asked me first!!!!

Absolutely clueless. Win XP will not run, all the long filenames are
lost.

What is with all the idiots from alt.os.windows?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

idiot post:
krillfile on / off

What's a "krillfile", sounds like some kind of sealife.

http://peanut-gallery.kadaitcha.cx/main.html




--- on
*PLONK*

On 3/28/2004 2:31 AM, Nehmo Sergheyev wrote:

When I proudly described to a knowledgeable friend how I had used Ghost
2003 to clone a hard drive and make the new HD the bootable Windows XP
drive, he said I should have used a different method. He said the OS
becomes fragmented over time and defrag doesn't repair it because defrag
doesn't deal with system files. He said I shouldn't have cloned this
already fragmented OS. He said I should have copied some file (I don't
remember which) Go into the BIOS and make the new HD bootable in DOS
Then clean install Windows XP on the new HD Then copy what I wanted.

So you didn't loose anything. They were "unrepairable" on the old hard
drive, and according to your friend, now they're on the new hard drive.
So what.

Apparently he was saying I didn't need a copy program at all. The whole
thing could be accomplished with DOS commands.

Does it work? Did you know how to do it his way? No. So then Ghost
was the best option for you, and just about everyone else in the world.
Plus you can use Ghost for other things like backing up you HD on a
regular basis... easily.

Is he right? And how exactly should this process be accomplished? I'm
not doing anything right now, but I'd like to know for next time.

Keep using Ghost.

--
Brian

Eric Gisin wrote:

What is with all the idiots from alt.os.windows?

Oh... now I see, *THAT'S* where _you_ post from!

Spinner wrote:

What's a "krillfile", sounds like some kind of sealife.

Just don't ask about "froup" or "poast". You'd /really/ look foolish then.

"Dr. Bill" wrote in message
t.nl...
Spinner wrote:
"Dr. Bill" wrote in message
t.nl...
Eric Gisin wrote:
"DaveDeFeet" wrote in message
news:hdo9c.23$Yj3.4@newsfe1-win...
Give the guy a break, he probably is a mis-understood genius.

I used DOS to refragment my system files once; I tried Norton Ghost
and it scared the pants off me, give me DOS anytime, with DOS I can
create new planets and re-program my car's EM chip so it's more
economical (cos it wouldn't start after)

You should be able to figure out Ghost then.

DOS rules and if it really wanted to it could back up XP, you just
type "backup C: A: /defrag /-t /w /a /t format C: /q restore A:
C: /-q/ u/ /a /c/ /k" all fully automated, no probs.

easy innit!

hah!!! should have asked me first!!!!

Absolutely clueless. Win XP will not run, all the long filenames are
lost.

What is with all the idiots from alt.os.windows?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

idiot post:
krillfile on / off

What's a "krillfile", sounds like some kind of sealife.

http://peanut-gallery.kadaitcha.cx/main.html


Good one! :-)




--- on
*PLONK*

My mistake, you're not an idiot. You're a mental case. Take your meds.

"Dr. Bill" wrote in message
t.nl...
What is with all the idiots from alt.os.windows?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

idiot post:
krillfile on / off
--- on
*PLONK*

A lot of system files by nature are not continually altered & rewritten,
but a section of files are so there is a benefit to system area defragment.

If you are that bothered about system files suffering fragmentation then
use a separate disk (or partition) for system files re avoiding data-mixing.
A separate disk is better re head repositioning time over multiple partitions,
and a good idea if your data-disks are for streaming video or such like.

Surprising microsoft haven't incorporated "Ghost" into it to USB drives etc,
but plenty of market offerings give it. You can do it from a Linux-floppy.
--
Dorothy Bradbury
www.stores.ebay.co.uk/panaflofan for fans, books & other items
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/dorothy...ry/panaflo.htm (Direct)

"Nehmo Sergheyev" wrote in message
...
When I proudly described to a knowledgeable friend how I had used
Ghost
2003 to clone a hard drive and make the new HD the bootable Windows
XP
drive, he said I should have used a different method. He said the OS
becomes fragmented over time and defrag doesn't repair it because
defrag
doesn't deal with system files. He said I shouldn't have cloned this
already fragmented OS. He said I should have copied some file (I
don't
remember which) Go into the BIOS and make the new HD bootable in
DOS
Then clean install Windows XP on the new HD Then copy what I
wanted.

Apparently he was saying I didn't need a copy program at all. The
whole
thing could be accomplished with DOS commands.

Is he right? And how exactly should this process be accomplished?
I'm
not doing anything right now, but I'd like to know for next time.

What you say and what your friend says makes little to no sense.
_Read the help files from Ghost_
The dog down the street told the neighbors cat that told me, seldom
if never helps with problems.

Dorothy Bradbury
wrote in message news:TDE9c.213$Me.11@newsfe1-win...

A lot of system files by nature are not continually
altered & rewritten, but a section of files are

Correct.

so there is a benefit to system area defragment.

Not necessarily. The modern reality is that the heads
are moving around quite a bit due to the nature of access
to various bits of the drive and the very theoretical extra
head movements due to what fragmentation does occur
with system files may not in practice actually be any slower.

If you are that bothered about system files suffering fragmentation then
use a separate disk (or partition) for system files re avoiding data-mixing.

And that wont necessarily help either, particularly with a separate partition.
That can produce bigger head movements than are seen without it.

A separate disk is better re head repositioning time over multiple partitions,

But the difference may not even be detectable with modern OSs
and systems with enough physical ram in a proper double blind trial.

and a good idea if your data-disks are for streaming video or such like.

It makes a lot more sense to have the video in digital format
before it gets into the PC and then you dont need to bother.

Surprising microsoft haven't incorporated "Ghost" into it to USB drives etc,
but plenty of market offerings give it. You can do it from a Linux-floppy.

And what matters is that ghost does effectively defrag when
cloning anyway, if you are obsessed with defragged files.

BUT XP normally does its own thing moving files around
in an attempt to speed things up anyway, so there is
more involved than just fragrmention of system files.

"Dr. Bill" wrote:

DaveDeFeet wrote:
Give the guy a break, he probably is a mis-understood genius.

I used DOS to refragment my system files once; I tried Norton Ghost
and it scared the pants off me, give me DOS anytime, with DOS I can
create new planets and re-program my car's EM chip so it's more
economical (cos it wouldn't start after)

DOS rules and if it really wanted to it could back up XP, you just
type "backup C: A: /defrag /-t /w /a /t format C: /q restore A:
C: /-q/ u/ /a /c/ /k" all fully automated, no probs.

idiot toppoast:
krillfile on / off
--- on
*PLONK*

hehe.

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:26:25 -0500, "Stephan"

Certain files are not movable, not sure which ones.

Usually it's files that are "in use". You can bet the pagefile will
be one, and the registry hives may be another.

one thing to consider also, how did the system files files
fragment if they are not movable?

Code files won't frag, but slowly-growing settings files such as
registry files and log files may, and the directories themselves will
too (esp. with the obscenely gross default web cache size).

The impact of long subdirectory chains (i.e. the dir itself, not the
contents of the files in it) might appear to be a bigger problem with
NTFS, given that NTFS stores more metadata per file than FATxx does.
But the reverse is true, as unlike FATxx, NTFS doesn't have to step
through every entry in a directory to find the right one (or to be
sure that a putative new name is not already used - a biggie for temp)

The only thing a fresh install buys you is emilinating possible problems
caused by spyware, trojans, bad uninstalls, etc.

Also loses your patches and leaves you naked to attack.

Lovesan, anyone?



-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.
-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 06:07:08 +1000, "Rod Speed"
Dorothy Bradbury

so there is a benefit to system area defragment.

Not necessarily. The modern reality is that the heads
are moving around quite a bit due to the nature of access
to various bits of the drive and the very theoretical extra
head movements due to what fragmentation does occur
with system files may not in practice actually be any slower.

If you are that bothered about system files suffering fragmentation then
use a separate disk (or partition) for system files re avoiding data-mixing.

And that wont necessarily help either, particularly with a separate partition.
That can produce bigger head movements than are seen without it.

Partitioning certainly can speed things up, with all of the above
factors in mind. The trick is to be clueful about what goes where,
and how you size and order your partitions and volumes.

Let's say you have a 120G HD that contains 4G of core OS and app code,
about 2G tops or swap and temp (having slashed the web cache to 20M),
and 90G of assorted movies, MP3, games etc. that you use from time to
time. On one big C:, the OS may *try* to put things in sensible
places, but it's quite likely to mess up.

So let's say you put the "hot" 4G + 2G in an 8G C:, crucial data in a
2G D: (safely away from all C:'s write traffic) and everything else
after that on a big E:. Let's say you reserve the last 2G for a small
F:, which contain auto-backups of D:.

Now it doesn't matter how clueless defrag is - not matter where it
splatters the contents of C:, it's always in the first 8G of the HD.
And as most of the tinme you're using C: and D:, the system is as fast
as if you'd just bought it and hadn't gunked it up with 90G of stuff!

Also, when you have to ChkDsk after a bad exit, or defrag, C: is fast,
because it's so small. If you need to ChkDsk E: as well, you can do
so when it suits; just don't use anything there until you've done so.

A separate disk is better re head repositioning time over multiple partitions,

A separate disk is a luxury, and has downsides. For example, one 120G
would cost less than 2 x 40G and run faster too.

BUT XP normally does its own thing moving files around
in an attempt to speed things up anyway, so there is
more involved than just fragrmention of system files.

Yep. It's annoying to see a 120G "big C:" with an 8G total file set,
and find half the stuff is stuck in the middle of the HD. IMO, better
to keep that in a smaller C: so that even if the OS does decide to
spread things out, it can only do so within a small part of the HD.
Then de-bulk the "engine room" to other volumes.



-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Running Windows-based av to kill active malware is like striking
a match to see if what you are standing in is water or petrol.
-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 06:07:08 +1000, "Rod Speed"
Dorothy Bradbury

so there is a benefit to system area defragment.

Not necessarily. The modern reality is that the heads
are moving around quite a bit due to the nature of access
to various bits of the drive and the very theoretical extra
head movements due to what fragmentation does occur
with system files may not in practice actually be any slower.

If you are that bothered about system files suffering fragmentation
then
use a separate disk (or partition) for system files re avoiding
data-mixing.

And that wont necessarily help either, particularly with a separate
partition. That can produce bigger head movements than are seen
without it.

Partitioning certainly can speed things up, with all of the above
factors in mind. The trick is to be clueful about what goes where,
and how you size and order your partitions and volumes.

Let's say you have a 120G HD that contains 4G of core OS and app code,
about 2G tops or swap and temp (having slashed the web cache to 20M),
and 90G of assorted movies, MP3, games etc. that you use from time to
time. On one big C:, the OS may *try* to put things in sensible
places, but it's quite likely to mess up.

So let's say you put the "hot" 4G + 2G

LOL what a ****ing ******.