Dreaded "Format" question again!

Posted by: BillyBob

Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/22/05 09:41 PM

I have XP installed on a 40 Gig HDD. Just bought an 80 Gig HDD. Can I partition the 80 Gig HDD into two 40 Gig partitions, copy my present XP HDD to one partition of the new HDD and install and run Windows98 on the second partition.

IF this can be done then I could wipe my present 40 Gig HDD and use it for DATA from both of the 80 Gig HDD partitions. Make sense?? Feasible??? laugh
Posted by: Jenny100

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/23/05 12:35 AM

I don't think you can just "copy" XP to a completely different partition and have it work. You might be able to "Ghost" it, using Norton's "Ghost" or a similar program for imaging hard drives. But XP would probably still have to be reactivated.

I think Windows 98 would be better on the first partition. That's usually how I hear people do it - install Windows 98 first, then install Windows XP and let XP set up your dual boot for you.

Is there any reason why you don't want to install Win 98 on the first partition of the new drive and use the rest of the drive for data? That way you wouldn't have to disturb your XP at all.
Posted by: rain2

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/23/05 01:04 AM

Copying everything over actually does work, but you have to make sure the partition is a bootable partition with the respective O/S. I know most hard drive these days have software that'll do this part automatically for you, if you have a retail hard drive, check the software.

It is recommended you install Windows 98 first, then Windows XP, but the dual boot works either way. At least this way, Windows XP will be the first in the dual boot screen. =)

Once you made sure all is good with both O/S, you most definitely can use your old drive for DATA for both O/S. I have it like that on my 2nd PC and works fine. =) Hope that helps a little.
Posted by: BillyBob

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/23/05 08:47 AM

Jenny100......

No problem as to which partition to put which OS. I assume I'd have to go into the BIOS and tell it which to boot to, depending on which I want to boot up.

It's going to take some work to find out how to have XP set it up, I imagine. I prefer to "copy" XP over to the new HDD because I just installed it and all my other stuff on the 40Gig HDD that I want to use for Data. woozy

rain2......
I believe I understand, once I get the HDD to having two partitions, about the "bootable" part but not sure what will do that for each partition. Won't I need to use a "boot disk" for each OS to do that?

If I install 98 first (on the first partition) wouldn't it tend to be the first to boot....but, then, wouldn't it depend on what I set in the BIOS?

The "DATA" disk is the only part I'm really clear about, I guess, except for one question. Can you partition it without making it a "bootable" disk? laugh
Posted by: TuesdayNext

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/24/05 04:43 PM

BillyBob - I was thinking of doing something similar. Make sure all your drivers are compatible with both OS.

tuesday next
Posted by: Rckasea

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/24/05 05:22 PM

Evening,
I'll just watch, how you guys do it.
My two older boys reformat at will.
They are very heavy gamers. The oldest, works for Ingram Micro. They keep telling me to reformat, partition and add a gig of memory and the same, to upgrade the graphics card, to mucho MB's.
I am happy with this system, as is.
They will pop on Boomers and give a hand.
Best of wishes, until then. smile
Posted by: Llewton

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/24/05 05:51 PM

Hi BillyBob
I've done this on my computer. you must have 98 installed first as it only accepts the C:\ drive for itself and with XP it doesn't matter. Transfer all your data files to CD-R's and then format your 40 gig. Install 98 on that and then install XP on the 80 gig. XP will recognize 98 and set up the dual boot for you. You can also partition the 80 gig at this point. I used partitions of 20,30,and 30 (the 20 partition for XP and the minimal apps and drivers I install on there. I then install all my apps to one of the 30 gig partitions and use the other one for games and data dump. This way woeks best. and your system will hum. XP does all the work in setting up the dual boot and partitions.

Good luck,
Bill
Posted by: BillyBob

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/24/05 05:57 PM

TuesdayNext....

Wondered for a second what you meant. Just dawned on me. Good thought. thumbsup

Rckasea....

I thought my biggest problem was formatting the 80 gig HDD into two partitions....untill I looked at some of the info that came with it.

I'll hold off a little while to see if one of your "boys" pops on. Meanwhile, do they know about Western Digital's Data Lifeguard Tools (disk that comes with their HDDs)? laugh
Posted by: Jenny100

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/24/05 08:37 PM

Here's an article on the subject of dual booting Win 98/ME with Win 2000, which may be of interest.
http://www.duxcw.com/digest/Howto/software/windows/dual/

The article is several pages. Click Next at the bottom of the page to get the next page. I don't know how different it is from dual booting with XP, but some things may be similar.
Posted by: Llewton

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/24/05 09:02 PM

BillyBob if you do what I suggested you'll be trouble free. I've done this and my sytem runs as smooth as a bell. XP does everything for you.
Posted by: BillyBob

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/24/05 09:28 PM

I don't think I have enough "zip" to do all this. I just reinstalled XP on a 40 Gig HDD along with all the other stuff I used to have with it.

Maybe (you tell me) I can make two partitions on the 80 Gig HDD and and put Win98 on one of the partitions and use the other for DATA. If the 80 Gig HDD goes out I wouldn't mind losing and having to reinstall Win98 near as much as I hate to have to go back and install XP on the 80 Gig HDD.

In case I've made this too confusing I'll try to simplify..........for all of us. lol

40 Gig = XP
80 Gig = Win98/first partition & Data/second partition

Does this make sense? Is it feasible? laugh
Posted by: Llewton

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/25/05 07:48 AM

As I said to really get it right and the easiest way is to save your data stuff you want to keep, format the 40 gig, then install Win98 then on the new drive install XP (98 must be installed first and then a clean install of XP). XP will find the 98 drive and setup the dual boot and at that point you can also do the partitions of the 80 gig (XP does it all for you (all you have to do is tell it the sizes for each. the reason you have to format the 40 is that XP is now your C:\ drive and Win 98 will only install as C:\ while with XP it doesn't matter (in my system XP is my F:\ drive. Hope this helps and makes sense BB.

Bill

Bill
Posted by: BillyBob

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/25/05 08:54 AM

Sorry, still a little unsure. Is this what you're telling me?........

1. Save the data to a CD R/RW Disk
2. Reformat the 40 Gig HDD
3. Install W98 on the 80 Gig
4. Install XP on the 80 Gig and it will let me partition it with 98 in one partition and XP in the other(?)
5. Make the 98/XP (80 Gig HDD) my Master
6. Make the 40 Gig HDD the Slave (and data drive)

This sound right? laugh
Posted by: Llewton

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/25/05 09:40 AM

No, install 98 on the 40 gig first and XP on the 80 gig after then partition the 80 gig. Make the 40 gig the master and the 80 the slave (way I have mine set up. 98 on 30 gig master, XP on 80 gig slave (on 3 partitions 20,30,30). 20 gig for XP, 30 gig for apps and 30 gig for games and data dump.
Posted by: BillyBob

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/25/05 10:57 AM

Sure hate to have to reinstall XP again. Guess I'll have to hold off a little while till I get enough "gumpsion" to tackle all that again. woozy Will hang onto the instructions! Appreciate the help. thumbsup

How about another question.........about CPUs and their ratings/performance?

I have an AMD Athlon 2 Gig CPU in my Win98 machine. System Info shows it at 1.7 Gig

I have a new AMD Semtron 2.3 Gig CPU in my XP machine. System Info shows it at 1.6 Gig

To me, this means the "faster" CPU is running slower than the other. What am I not understanding? rolleyes
Posted by: InlandAZ

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/25/05 11:29 AM

AMD uses an oddball naming convention when it comes to processors. The only Sempron (so far as I am aware) that runs at 1.6 GHz is the 2400+... Is this the model you have?

The fastest is the Sempron 2800+ which clocks in at 2 GHz.
Posted by: Llewton

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/25/05 11:44 AM

BillyBob I don't know what you did the last time you formatted but it's totally simplistic. Just save your data files then click your "Start button then "run" and type cmd. When you get a Dos prompt (C:\) type:
format C:/q
This will format the whole drive in the blink of an eye. Then install 98 on there.
Then on the new drive install XP, be sure to select FAT32 format or XP won't be able to see the 98 drive and vice versa. What's the problem there? it takes maybe 1/2 hour and you don't even have to stand by other than putting in the product key and the regional settings. It will then notice 98 and set up your dual boot. At this point you can partition the 80 gig XP drive and then use the partition space for data dump apps and games. As I stated before I set up mine 20 gig for the XP OS partition with minimal programs installed there, 30 gig for installed apps and 30 gig for games and data dump. It's really totally simple. I format my entire system about every 5-6 months and general system maintenance and it literally purrs. In fact I just did it this past weekend and had everything set up Sunday (ofcourse I didn't hve to do the partitioning stuff as I only formatted the 98 drive and the XP partition of the 80 gig.
Posted by: Jenny100

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/25/05 01:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Llewton:
the reason you have to format the 40 is that XP is now your C:\ drive and Win 98 will only install as C:\ while with XP it doesn't matter
If XP is on an NTFS partition, Windows 98 will not see it.

I have a friend who was trying to set up a dual boot with two Win 98 partitions. I told her it wouldn't work. I didn't think she'd be able to install her Win 98 to D:, but she did. The thing was, she didn't get the choice of which to boot to. After she installed Win 98 to D:, the computer would only boot from D: and not from C:.

If you get Partition Magic, it should allow you to keep your current XP installation, if that's what you want to do. Partition Magic was recently "acquired" by Norton and is up to version 8.0. There are demo versions available.
Posted by: Jenny100

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/25/05 01:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by InlandAZ:
AMD uses an oddball naming convention when it comes to processors. The only Sempron (so far as I am aware) that runs at 1.6 GHz is the 2400+
That's because an AMD at 1.6 GHz is so much faster than a Pentium at 1.6 GHz. You can't compare the two processors GHz for GHz.
Posted by: BillyBob

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/25/05 01:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by InlandAZ:
AMD uses an oddball naming convention when it comes to processors. The only Sempron (so far as I am aware) that runs at 1.6 GHz is the 2400+... Is this the model you have?

The fastest is the Sempron 2800+ which clocks in at 2 GHz.
No, I have the Semtron 2300+ which show running at 1.6 GHz

The question is.....why is my 2.3 Gig CPU running at a lower rate than my 2.0 Gig AMD Athlon which is shown running at 1.7 GHz??

Doesn't sound right to me. laugh
Posted by: InlandAZ

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/25/05 01:50 PM

Quote:
No, I have the Semtron 2300+ which show running at 1.6 GHz

The question is.....why is my 2.3 Gig CPU running at a lower rate than my 2.0 Gig AMD Athlon which is shown running at 1.7 GHz??

Doesn't sound right to me.
Because it's not a 2.3 GHz processor. AMD's naming conventions don't follow the Intel format. The numbers following the processor model have nothing to do with the clock frequency .

A sempron 2300 is rated at 1.583 GHz.

I don't find the ratings on the AMD site - but I did find another source - you'll find the rated clock speeds at the bottom of the page.

AMD Sempron
Posted by: InlandAZ

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/25/05 01:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jenny100:
Quote:
Originally posted by InlandAZ:
[b] AMD uses an oddball naming convention when it comes to processors. The only Sempron (so far as I am aware) that runs at 1.6 GHz is the 2400+
That's because an AMD at 1.6 GHz is so much faster than a Pentium at 1.6 GHz. You can't compare the two processors GHz for GHz. [/b]
Use to be the case - but, not anymore. HyperThreading changed the whole mix.
Posted by: Llewton

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/25/05 01:52 PM

BillyBob email me and I'll lead you through it if you want to go my route without having to buy Partition Magic. As I stated the way I told you is the easiest and more fool proof, letting XP do all the work. You won't have the problem Jenny stated if you set XP up as Fat32 on the reinstall.

Bill
Posted by: Jenny100

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/25/05 01:57 PM

2300+ does not mean the processor is running at 2.3 GHz. You can't gauge speed by directly comparing the GHz of the newer Athlon processors to those on the older processors. Their effective speed is faster than their clock speed. That's why AMD came up with their "+" system of denoting processor speed instead of reporting the GHz. A 2300+ AMD processor will run at the same speed as an older 2.3 GHz AMD processor (if they made them that fast) even though it's clocked at only 1.6 GHz.

For comparison, a 3200+ AMD Barton processor runs at 2.2 GHz.
Posted by: Jenny100

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/25/05 02:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by InlandAZ:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jenny100:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by InlandAZ:
[b] AMD uses an oddball naming convention when it comes to processors. The only Sempron (so far as I am aware) that runs at 1.6 GHz is the 2400+
That's because an AMD at 1.6 GHz is so much faster than a Pentium at 1.6 GHz. You can't compare the two processors GHz for GHz. [/b]
Use to be the case - but, not anymore. HyperThreading changed the whole mix. [/b]
It's still the case. You have to compare a 3.2 GHz Pentium with an AMD 3200+, not with a 3.2 GHz AMD (which doesn't exist, but if it did, it would be way faster than the Pentium).
Posted by: InlandAZ

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/25/05 02:16 PM

They're both good processors, without a doubt - but, Intel's HT Technology has closed the gap.

Intel/HT processors are capable of executing two instructions per clock cycle (which is exactly what allowed AMD make the claim of better throughput at lower clock speeds).
Posted by: BillyBob

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/25/05 02:18 PM

O.K., let's all back off and see the question one more time......... laugh

I'm comparing two AMD CPUs; NOT AMD compared to Pentium.

Since you can't compare the stated (2.0 / 2.3 rating); I KNOW they don't run at THAT speed.

I thought you could at least compare what they appear to be running as (1.7 / 1.6)

Is, or is not, the supposedly higher rated (2.3) Semtron running slower than the lower rated (2.0)?

Llewton.......

Thanks, but just not ready to tackle reinstalling XP again and all my programs again. Already had to reactivate it once and the more you do that the closer you get to having the hassle of justifying to Bill Gates why you've done what you've done. laugh

InlandAZ........

O.K., trying to find the rating now for the AMD 2000

Once I see that I think I'll know what's going on with these two processors. laugh
Posted by: Llewton

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/25/05 02:41 PM

Actually not true BillyBob I've formatted and reinstalled XP about 6 times already and no activation problem at all.

Bill
Posted by: InlandAZ

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/25/05 03:51 PM

If your Athlon is a T-Bred XP 2000+ here ya go -
AthlonXP 2000+ Processor Speeds

At the bottom of the page. (1.667 GHz)
Posted by: BillyBob

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/25/05 10:42 PM

InlandAZ........

That's about right for my 2.0MHz CPU but it's the Sempron CPU reading that's bugging me. laugh
Posted by: InlandAZ

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/26/05 11:11 AM

The clock speed shouldn't be a concern (windows will report the actual speed - and yours seem to report correctly).

Like Jenny stated, in the comparisons between Intel and AMD for equivalent GHz models - AMD will generally benchmark better (but that only applies to Intel's non HT processors - and the type of processing in the benchmark).

Here's a good article and that actually compared a pair of Sempron's and a Celeron (none were your specific processor model, but it should give you an idea of how AMD sizes up) -

Duron Successor: AMD Sempron
Posted by: BillyBob

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/26/05 05:47 PM

I surrender! laugh
Posted by: Jenny100

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/26/05 07:53 PM

In a good way or a bad way?
Posted by: BillyBob

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/27/05 12:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jenny100:
In a good way or a bad way?
Not really sure. lol Read the following.......

Last night I moved all the data files/folders I had on my "D" drive onto the "C" drive. Then, using XP, I reformatted the "D" drive. It would only format it to NTSF, not FAT32 (which is what I wanted). Didn't care, though, figured I can change it by reformatting again but not use XP again to do it.

When I got through I found I couldn't boot to XP anymore. Boot window said it was missing NTLDR and to hit Ctrl/Alt/Del to reboot. This simply turned into a vicious cycle. So this morning I put the XP disk into the CD Rom drive and booted to that. Thought I could use that to "fix" the problem. It portends to be able to "fix" problems. Didn't work that way. One of the choices it gave me was for "Aurtomated Recovery". Then it wanted the "Aurtomated Recovery" disk. No idea where I'm supposed to have that. Thought the "recovery" stuff would be on the XP disk. Wrong again.

Left with the choice of reinstalling XP, I took that option. When it was doneXP was totally reinstalled and I had nothing on my HDD except XP. All my other files and folders were GONE!! I didn't choose to reformat. The choice wasn't even proposed to me. All my reinstalled programs were gone; OE Address Book
gone; "Favorites" gone. Now I have to start all over......again. I just did this last week.

Whatever NTLDR is, it's a pain in the _ _ _!! rolleyes
Posted by: Jenny100

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/27/05 03:36 PM

Sounds like it was a bad way then.
Is your stuff completely gone? Do you have any of it it backed up on CDR somewhere? Or on another drive?

To get rid of NTFS partitions, you may need a utility. The Fdisk that comes with Win 98 won't do it. If you go here
http://bootdisk.com/utility.htm

and do a search for the word
partitioning
you'll find a section devoted to partitioning tools. I forget if it was AEFDISK or Delpart that I used, but it was one of those two. This site also has a new version of MS FDisk for hard drives larger than 64 GB.
Posted by: BillyBob

Re: Dreaded "Format" question again! - 02/28/05 06:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jenny100:
Sounds like it was a bad way then.
Is your stuff completely gone? Do you have any of it it backed up on CDR somewhere? Or on another drive?
Most of it is on other CD RW and/or DVD RW disks. Still, I lost a bunch of saves for MYST IV and not even sure about what else might have "gone with the wind". duh Saves for another game or two and possibly some pictures. I'll never know exactly what all I lost. Just determined not to fret over it. laugh