Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [xosl] Resizing partitions with XP's own inbuilt utility

Expand Messages
  • Mike O'Connor
    ... Hi Dermot, Thanks for that interesting bit of experimentation -filed for future reference. Maybe now that Symantec owns Partition Magic, they ll come up
    Message 1 of 8 , Feb 28, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Dermot Moynihan wrote:

      >I've been doing some experimenting with XP's own inbuilt resizing utility -
      >thought you folks might be interested:
      >
      >1. It will only resize upwards.
      >2. One needs unallocated adjoining space that it can absorb.
      >3. One cannot tell it what size one wants to increase the partition to - it
      >will automatically absorb all adjoining unallocated space.
      >4. It will not work from FATxx only NTFS.
      >5. It does the job in seconds, no matter what size one wants absorbed.
      >6. It does not work with dynamic volumes/drives. Or at least it wouldn't
      >for me. Dynamic has it's own method for extending a volume. Quite a
      >different thing altogether.
      >7. I believe XP Home also has this resizing utility though as I do not have
      >the "Home" I'm only guessing.
      >
      >Conclusions/suggestions:
      >it has a lot of restricitions but if one has nothing else and needs to make
      >a partition that contains "stuff" larger and if one is happy with NTFS go
      >for it. You should still back up first of course. Incidentally, Partition
      >Magic 8 would not let me turn FAT32 into NTFS so I had to use XP's inbuilt
      >"convert" utility. Magic did, however, allow me to change it back from NTFS
      >to FAT32 afterwards.
      >
      >While I was at this I did a bit of experimenting with dynamic drives:
      >1. There seemed to be a lot of problems on the Internet with getting rid of
      >a dynamic drive that was the system "partition". The solution that was
      >given eventually was to use bootitng. Obviously, they have never heard of
      >RPM which just blows it away.
      >2. Partition Magic will show you your entire disk as a dynamic but gives no
      >options to do anything with it. Not even get rid of it.
      >3. From what I've seen, as "going dynamic" means changing the entire drive
      >to dynamic it is useless for multi boot. Though I suppose one could hide a
      >few partitions, turn the remainder into dynamic, and then see what has
      >happened to the hidden ones. Dynamic seems to be a real fussy, powerful
      >thing so I doubt if it would work or even be worth the trouble.
      >4. Most importantly, there ain't no way back from dynamic to basic (that's
      >your common or garden variety) without deleting the dynamic, losing all
      >one's data if not backed up, and recreating new partitions i.e. basic ones.
      >5. I don't believe XP Home has dynamic capability. In all meanings of that
      >word.
      >
      >So, the conclusion would appear to be, give a wide berth to dynamic drives
      >unless you specifically require them for fault tolerance in a business
      >environment.
      >

      Hi Dermot,

      Thanks for that interesting bit of experimentation -filed for future
      reference. Maybe now that Symantec owns Partition Magic, they'll come
      up with something to really screw-it completely and eliminate it from
      the market just like the former competitiors[superior to Norton, IMO]
      Xtree/PCTools. :-(

      To save others reinventing the wheel, I will repost your information on
      one of the OS/2 lists for information of other multi-booters. Almost
      all OS/2 users do *really* multi-boot, as it's so simple when for the
      past 12 years all that has been required is a logical partition to
      install into, and each boot partition can have further multiple boot
      configurations with/without network|maintenance|test|debug partitions
      using desktops on other [data] drives etc., so the active
      mission-critical one is under no threat from BETAs/experimentation.

      --
      Regards,
      Mike

      Failed the exam for
      --------------------
      MCSE - Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
      --------------------
      [ISP blocks *.exe, *.cmd, *.bat, *.reg attachments]
      [Please use zipped versions of above]
    • Dermot Moynihan
      Somebody asked me the following over at RPM and as it might be of interest here it is:
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 1, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Somebody asked me the following over at RPM and as it might be of interest
        here it is:

        <I was quite interested in your discussion of the built
        <in XP resizing utility. I cannot seem to acces it
        <however. Would you shae a little detail as to how it
        <is accessed, used, etc?, or a reference at Microsoft
        <tahe discusses it. A search of their website yielded
        <nothing. Thank you

        If you have XP installed it's already there. (At least it is in XP PRO - If
        you are running XP HOME and discover that it is not there let me know.)

        1. From within XP open a Command Prompt window (i.e. via Start-Run, type
        CMD and hit enter).
        Type DISKPART and hit <ENTER>
        That will take you to the DISKPART prompt.

        2. Type LIST DISK and hit <ENTER>
        this displays all your hard drives.

        3. Notice that each disk has a number. If you only have the one disk it
        will have the number 0.
        Choose which drive you need to modify, e.g. if modifying your one and only
        hard drive (or your first drive if you have more than one) type:
        SELECT DISK 0

        4. Still at the DISKPART prompt type:
        LIST VOLUME
        This displays all the volumes on your selected disk.
        Note the numbers of each volume.

        5. Now type
        SELECT VOLUME x
        where x is the number of the volume you wish to enlarge e.g. SELECT VOLUME
        0 changes the size of your first volume, or SELECT VOLUME 1 if you wish to
        change the second one and so on.

        6. Type
        EXTEND
        to enlarge the size of the selected volume (partition).
        It will start without any warning -all you will see is a flashing cursor.
        You won't know it is working except for the flashing hard drive lights.

        That's it. It will give you a message to tell you it is done.

        To get out of DISKPART (a lot of regular command line commands won't work
        from within it) type EXIT. Type another EXIT to get rid of the Command window.

        The above commands are UPPER case just for clarity.

        You can see the results of your endeavours by going straightaway to Disk
        Management.
        But it is probably just as well to do a reboot before actually *using* the
        altered volume. Can't hurt.

        By the way, regarding the fact that it will take up ALL adjoining
        unallocated space: To tame the thing it should be possible to use RPM to
        make a partiton beginning where you want your resized partition to end.
        That might limit the thing. You can delete that partition when you are
        done. I haven't tried this but I can't see why it shouldn't work.

        Just in passing - using "convert" to change your file system to ntfs and
        using DISKPART is pretty intensive stuff and, consequently, can cause
        problems so be sure to back up first.

        If this isn't clear let me know.

        Kind regards
        Dermot
      • Mike O'Connor
        ... Hi Dermot, I guess that RPM [unlike the RedHat-type] stands for Ranish Partition Manager. Is there a mailing-list for that too? -- Regards, Mike
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 1, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Dermot Moynihan wrote:

          >Somebody asked me the following over at RPM and as it might be of interest
          >here it is:
          >
          ><I was quite interested in your discussion of the built
          ><in XP resizing utility.
          >
          <SNIPPED>


          Hi Dermot,
          I guess that RPM [unlike the RedHat-type] stands for Ranish Partition
          Manager. Is there a mailing-list for that too?

          --
          Regards,
          Mike

          Failed the exam for
          --------------------
          MCSE - Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
          --------------------
          [ISP blocks *.exe, *.cmd, *.bat, *.reg attachments]
          [Please use zipped versions of above]
        • Dermot Moynihan
          ... http://groups.yahoo.com/group/partman/ Dermot
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 2, 2004
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            At 21:35 01/03/2004, Mike wrote:
            >Hi Dermot,
            >I guess that RPM [unlike the RedHat-type] stands for Ranish Partition
            >Manager. Is there a mailing-list for that too?

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/partman/

            Dermot
          • Mike O'Connor
            ... Hi Dermot, Thanks! Been without access last 48 hrs [long story] -- Regards, Mike Failed the exam for ... MCSE - Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 3, 2004
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Dermot Moynihan wrote:

              >At 21:35 01/03/2004, Mike wrote:
              >
              >
              >>Hi Dermot,
              >>I guess that RPM [unlike the RedHat-type] stands for Ranish Partition
              >>Manager. Is there a mailing-list for that too?
              >>
              >>
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/partman/
              >
              Hi Dermot,
              Thanks! Been without access last 48 hrs [long story]

              --
              Regards,
              Mike

              Failed the exam for
              --------------------
              MCSE - Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
              --------------------
              [ISP blocks *.exe, *.cmd, *.bat, *.reg attachments]
              [Please use zipped versions of above]
            • Dermot Moynihan
              ... That s probably the healthiest you ve been for a long time. ;) Dermot
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 3, 2004
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                At 12:59 03/03/2004, Mike wrote:

                >Hi Dermot,
                >Thanks! Been without access last 48 hrs [long story]
                >
                >--
                >Regards,
                >Mike

                That's probably the healthiest you've been for a long time.
                ;)
                Dermot
              • Mike O'Connor
                ... Hi Dermot, Actually it wasn t the lines, it was a TCP/IP Tuneup, that went horribly wrong, so it was not a relaxing time at all, until I recovered all the
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 3, 2004
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dermot Moynihan wrote:

                  >At 12:59 03/03/2004, Mike wrote:
                  >
                  >>Hi Dermot,
                  >>Thanks! Been without access last 48 hrs [long story]
                  >>--
                  >>Regards,
                  >>Mike
                  >>
                  >>
                  >That's probably the healthiest you've been for a long time.
                  >;)
                  >Dermot
                  >
                  >

                  Hi Dermot,
                  Actually it wasn't the lines, it was a TCP/IP Tuneup, that went horribly
                  wrong,
                  so it was not a relaxing time at all, until I recovered all the affected
                  systems here, now back to 110%! ;-)

                  --
                  Regards,
                  Mike

                  Failed the exam for
                  --------------------
                  MCSE - Minesweeper Consultant and Solitaire Expert
                  --------------------
                  [ISP blocks *.exe, *.cmd, *.bat, *.reg attachments]
                  [Please use zipped versions of above]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.