Replacing the boot drive, w/o reinstalling Windows and the apps?

Gary S. Terhune wrote in message ...
ALL MSKB articles are at *least* a "little" obscure and hard to find!

Funny thing, I Googled something and got it on the first try, third article
listed--after Norton's Disk Editor. (Don't ask, I forget the exact search string
I used and can't figure out what it was or repeat it, either!)

Click in the blank Google search box and then hit the Down arrow.

OK. I'm looking. It's a tribute to BING that you get the same Scandisk
message in the source & destination. That's a real clone! Let me
continue reading to see what Terhune came up with...
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=127055
How to Cause ScanDisk for Windows to Retest Bad Clusters

Oh! That should do it! Apply it to the new drive, though, &... well...
get that working before attempting it on the original.


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
| PCR - thanks for all your help - I think I've got the mechanics down
now,
| but I still have that weird problem I just mentioned in my previous
post.
|
| PCR wrote:
| (5) Click the partition you wish to Copy on the right.
|
|
|
|

Tried that. For some reason, the KB article didn't come up the same as the
previous time.

Gawd! Do you know how many entries I have in that MRU? If I didn't know before
how much I use Google, I certainly do now!

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP for Win9x

"Hugh Candlin" wrote in message
...

Gary S. Terhune wrote in message
...
ALL MSKB articles are at *least* a "little" obscure and hard to find!

Funny thing, I Googled something and got it on the first try, third article
listed--after Norton's Disk Editor. (Don't ask, I forget the exact search
string
I used and can't figure out what it was or repeat it, either!)

Click in the blank Google search box and then hit the Down arrow.

Some comments on this HD replacement (finally accomplished - if I hadn't
found that MS article last nite with Gary's help, I was about ready to try
my old copy of Norton):

Item#1:
When I now run Defrag, it (for some reason) runs at lightning speed! This
is not a modest increase, at all. Considering that I replaced the drive
with the same model, I am a bit surprised. I don't think it's due to
improvements in technology so much as something must have been wrong (but
what?) with my old drive. This new drive runs quieter, which is nice!

I mean, is it possible that a hard drive can have it's seek times decrease
to say 10% or 20% of what they used to be? THAT seems hard to believe.
But Defrag runs MUCH, MUCH faster - maybe 5-10 times faster than before.

Item#2: The old drive showed this information in BING, some of which I
don't understand:

Partitions: Type: File
System:
ROOT DRIVE Partition FAT32 12/Ch: FAT32
MBR1 Entry1 Partition Extended 15/Fh: Extended
NONAME Volume FAT32 11/Bh: FAT32
I am guessing that those hex values are based on the specific type of the
partition.

My new drive has two FAT32 partitions, with File System: 12/Ch: FAT32.
Maybe 11/Bh means a "Volume" in the old drive. That must be it.


Item#3:

PCR, you left out some useful settings in BING. Specifically, I would
also check the "Limit Primaries" checkbox, which limits the HD to 4 primary
partitions, so that it will be compatible with other partitioning programs.
And also check "Use Volume Label" and "CHS Alternative" (you mentioned that
one, I believe). And copy Data (only) when doing a partition copy. And
last, but not least, if you do a partition copy and have bad sectors on the
source disk, use the information provided in that MS knowledgebase article
127055.

What a trip this has been. I think I'm exhausted. (I must have run
BING completely a half dozen times to get this all down).

Thanks for your help, guys!

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
| Some comments on this HD replacement (finally accomplished - if I
hadn't
| found that MS article last nite with Gary's help, I was about ready to
try
| my old copy of Norton):

Good man, that Terhune. I have always said so! I believe sf has told me
I am invited to live in his new home.

|
| Item#1:
| When I now run Defrag, it (for some reason) runs at lightning speed!
This
| is not a modest increase, at all. Considering that I replaced the
drive
| with the same model, I am a bit surprised. I don't think it's due
to
| improvements in technology so much as something must have been wrong
(but
| what?) with my old drive. This new drive runs quieter, which is
nice!

It is normal for Defrag to sail, when run 2/more times in a row.

|
| I mean, is it possible that a hard drive can have it's seek times
decrease
| to say 10% or 20% of what they used to be? THAT seems hard to
believe.
| But Defrag runs MUCH, MUCH faster - maybe 5-10 times faster than
before.
|
| Item#2: The old drive showed this information in BING, some of which
I
| don't understand:
|
| Partitions: Type: File
| System:
| ROOT DRIVE Partition FAT32 12/Ch: FAT32
| MBR1 Entry1 Partition Extended 15/Fh: Extended
| NONAME Volume FAT32 11/Bh: FAT32
| I am guessing that those hex values are based on the specific type of
the
| partition.
|
| My new drive has two FAT32 partitions, with File System: 12/Ch: FAT32.
| Maybe 11/Bh means a "Volume" in the old drive. That must be it.

Yes. Note 11 is decimal for "B" in hex. They are all like that. If you
use BING to change it to a partition type unknown to Windows, it will
become hidden. I haven't fooled with that!

|
|
| Item#3:
|
| PCR, you left out some useful settings in BING. Specifically, I
would
| also check the "Limit Primaries" checkbox, which limits the HD to 4
primary
| partitions, so that it will be compatible with other partitioning
programs.

Well, you are right, for perfect compatibility to Windows, it is
imperative to limit primaries-- 4 per hard drive. That is what I have
done, BUT I do not recall pressing a button for it. I THINK it was the
default. Once one goes beyond 4, one must never do partitioning except
using BING. Also, without BING, one will have access only to the 4 that
are in the MBR. (I'm no expert in the matter.)

| And also check "Use Volume Label"

I don't know... Is that the default.? I do know BING will recognise a
label put there in Explorer, but I... doubt... I... ever had to check
(from BootItNG.pdf)...

· Under General, select the Use Volume Label check box to use the volume
label of a
FAT/FAT32/HPFS partition as the name.
If the name of a FAT/FAT32 file system is changed, then the volume label
is also changed.

| and "CHS Alternative" (you mentioned that
| one, I believe).

Right. But I never did that one. I am happy enough with BING, & never
will use PM or whatever that doesn't like the things BING does. My
partitions seem compatible enough to Windows. Also, I never will use
FDISK, though I do not believe "CHS Alternative" relates to that.

| And copy Data (only) when doing a partition copy.

Right. That's how I do it. I SUPPOSE those various UNDELETE programs
will no longer work after that, though. That is until you do a new
delete.

| And
| last, but not least, if you do a partition copy and have bad sectors
on the
| source disk, use the information provided in that MS knowledgebase
article
| 127055.

That is something I did not know till this thread. It does prove BING
will create a clone par excellence!

|
| What a trip this has been. I think I'm exhausted. (I must have
run
| BING completely a half dozen times to get this all down).

Absolutely, it is tough with only a black/white photographic memory to
remember what one sees in BING or where one sees it!

|
| Thanks for your help, guys!

You are welcome.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR

PCR wrote:
"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
Some comments on this HD replacement (finally accomplished - if I hadn't
found that MS article last nite with Gary's help, I was about ready to
try
my old copy of Norton):

Good man, that Terhune. I have always said so! I believe sf has told me
I am invited to live in his new home.


Item#1:
When I now run Defrag, it (for some reason) runs at lightning speed! This
is not a modest increase, at all. Considering that I replaced the
drive
with the same model, I am a bit surprised. I don't think it's due to
improvements in technology so much as something must have been wrong (but
what?) with my old drive. This new drive runs quieter, which is nice!

It is normal for Defrag to sail, when run 2/more times in a row.

No, that's not it in this case. I run Defrag all the time, and it is *now*
MUCH, MUCH faster in operation. Like lightning fast. (I'm still using
the WinME defragger). (Trust me, this is unique). Any and all
fragments are rearranged at super speed now, like Daredevil or Batman.
Kinda fun watching it.

BTW - the defaults have apparently changed in BING from your recollection.
I had to go in and check a few items. I wanted to maintain maximum
compatibility with other HD programs (like PM). Heck, I don't even need 4
partitions on this hard drive - I have two, and that's enough for me.
Otherwise I'd go bonkers...

Very well. You always were a great proponent of an ME Defrag, I'll have
to look next time to see whether I have checked "Use Volume Label". I'm
thinking you may have created an EMBR by doing that, & that it was
unnecessary for the purpose of viewing labels created in Explorer.

Can you change the label in BING? Then, you have created an EMBR!


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
| PCR wrote:
| "Bill in Co." wrote in message
| ...
| Some comments on this HD replacement (finally accomplished - if I
hadn't
| found that MS article last nite with Gary's help, I was about ready
to
| try
| my old copy of Norton):
|
| Good man, that Terhune. I have always said so! I believe sf has told
me
| I am invited to live in his new home.
|
|
| Item#1:
| When I now run Defrag, it (for some reason) runs at lightning
speed! This
| is not a modest increase, at all. Considering that I replaced
the
| drive
| with the same model, I am a bit surprised. I don't think it's
due to
| improvements in technology so much as something must have been
wrong (but
| what?) with my old drive. This new drive runs quieter, which is
nice!
|
| It is normal for Defrag to sail, when run 2/more times in a row.
|
| No, that's not it in this case. I run Defrag all the time, and it is
*now*
| MUCH, MUCH faster in operation. Like lightning fast. (I'm still
using
| the WinME defragger). (Trust me, this is unique). Any and all
| fragments are rearranged at super speed now, like Daredevil or Batman.
| Kinda fun watching it.
|
| BTW - the defaults have apparently changed in BING from your
recollection.
| I had to go in and check a few items. I wanted to maintain maximum

| compatibility with other HD programs (like PM). Heck, I don't even
need 4
| partitions on this hard drive - I have two, and that's enough for me.
| Otherwise I'd go bonkers...
|
|

PCR wrote:
Very well. You always were a great proponent of an ME Defrag, I'll have
to look next time to see whether I have checked "Use Volume Label". I'm
thinking you may have created an EMBR by doing that, & that it was
unnecessary for the purpose of viewing labels created in Explorer.

Can you change the label in BING? Then, you have created an EMBR!

I don't know if I could have changed the label in BING. I did it later in
Explorer, and am now (happily) out of BING.


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
PCR wrote:
"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
Some comments on this HD replacement (finally accomplished - if I
hadn't
found that MS article last nite with Gary's help, I was about ready to
try
my old copy of Norton):

Good man, that Terhune. I have always said so! I believe sf has told me
I am invited to live in his new home.


Item#1:
When I now run Defrag, it (for some reason) runs at lightning speed!
This
is not a modest increase, at all. Considering that I replaced the
drive
with the same model, I am a bit surprised. I don't think it's due
to
improvements in technology so much as something must have been wrong
(but
what?) with my old drive. This new drive runs quieter, which is nice!

It is normal for Defrag to sail, when run 2/more times in a row.

No, that's not it in this case. I run Defrag all the time, and it is
*now*
MUCH, MUCH faster in operation. Like lightning fast. (I'm still
using
the WinME defragger). (Trust me, this is unique). Any and all
fragments are rearranged at super speed now, like Daredevil or Batman.
Kinda fun watching it.

BTW - the defaults have apparently changed in BING from your
recollection.
I had to go in and check a few items. I wanted to maintain maximum

compatibility with other HD programs (like PM). Heck, I don't even
need 4
partitions on this hard drive - I have two, and that's enough for me.
Otherwise I'd go bonkers...

I looked & saw "Use Volume Label" was not checked by default, & I never
did check or uncheck it. All the same, BING shows labels created in
Windows. I... think... that setting... probably won't do a thing, unless
you actually install BING. Then, likely it will create an EMBR record to
hold labels & such. Or... can it be... "Use Volume Label" will actually
prevent that & use the one created in Windows?

Unfortunately, my intensive study of BING began & ended before I could
definitively answer questions such as that. OK, good luck with it!


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
| PCR wrote:
| Very well. You always were a great proponent of an ME Defrag, I'll
have
| to look next time to see whether I have checked "Use Volume Label".
I'm
| thinking you may have created an EMBR by doing that, & that it was
| unnecessary for the purpose of viewing labels created in Explorer.
|
| Can you change the label in BING? Then, you have created an EMBR!
|
| I don't know if I could have changed the label in BING. I did it
later in
| Explorer, and am now (happily) out of BING.
|
|
| --
| Thanks or Good Luck,
| There may be humor in this post, and,
| Naturally, you will not sue,
| should things get worse after this,
| PCR
|
| "Bill in Co." wrote in message
| ...
| PCR wrote:
| "Bill in Co." wrote in message
| ...
| Some comments on this HD replacement (finally accomplished - if I
| hadn't
| found that MS article last nite with Gary's help, I was about
ready to
| try
| my old copy of Norton):
|
| Good man, that Terhune. I have always said so! I believe sf has
told me
| I am invited to live in his new home.
|
|
| Item#1:
| When I now run Defrag, it (for some reason) runs at lightning
speed!
| This
| is not a modest increase, at all. Considering that I replaced
the
| drive
| with the same model, I am a bit surprised. I don't think
it's due
| to
| improvements in technology so much as something must have been
wrong
| (but
| what?) with my old drive. This new drive runs quieter, which is
nice!
|
| It is normal for Defrag to sail, when run 2/more times in a row.
|
| No, that's not it in this case. I run Defrag all the time, and it
is
| *now*
| MUCH, MUCH faster in operation. Like lightning fast. (I'm
still
| using
| the WinME defragger). (Trust me, this is unique). Any and
all
| fragments are rearranged at super speed now, like Daredevil or
Batman.
| Kinda fun watching it.
|
| BTW - the defaults have apparently changed in BING from your
| recollection.
| I had to go in and check a few items. I wanted to maintain
maximum
|
| compatibility with other HD programs (like PM). Heck, I don't
even
| need 4
| partitions on this hard drive - I have two, and that's enough for
me.
| Otherwise I'd go bonkers...
|
|

"PCR" wrote in message ...
"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...

| Item#2: The old drive showed this information in BING, some of which
I
| don't understand:
|
| Partitions: Type: File
| System:
| ROOT DRIVE Partition FAT32 12/Ch: FAT32
| MBR1 Entry1 Partition Extended 15/Fh: Extended
| NONAME Volume FAT32 11/Bh: FAT32
| I am guessing that those hex values are based on the specific type of the
| partition.
|
| My new drive has two FAT32 partitions, with File System: 12/Ch: FAT32.
| Maybe 11/Bh means a "Volume" in the old drive. That must be it.

Yes. Note 11 is decimal for "B" in hex. They are all like that.

If a primary partition, 0xB is used for systems that don't support int 0x13
extentions (8GB), and 0xC is for systems that do. Only important to the
loader code, fwiu, and are both equal otherwise.


| Item#3:
|
| PCR, you left out some useful settings in BING. Specifically, I would
| also check the "Limit Primaries" checkbox, which limits the HD to 4 primary
| partitions, so that it will be compatible with other partitioning programs.

Yeah, I definetly wouldn't go there. The only "use", I can think of is
if you want to be able to multi-boot more than 4 OSs that require themselves
to be loaded from a primary partition. Even then, I would try to work around
it.


Well, you are right, for perfect compatibility to Windows, it is
imperative to limit primaries-- 4 per hard drive. That is what I have
done, BUT I do not recall pressing a button for it. I THINK it was the
default.

It asks when you install if you want to "limit parimarys". Or if you don't
install, it will ask when you try to create primary #5