Guest JethroUK© Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 I have a new machine that i need to partition/format and has no floppy drive - Windows XP setup halts with a disc error asking me to run FDisk On my previous machine using floppy i could partition & format without windows at all (using MSDos commands) I've read Microsoft article on creating partitions but they discuss using floppy disc (which doesn't rely on windows) and using Windows which relies on windows already being installed They don't discuss how to create a partition (and format it) using windows xp cd e.g. if you don't already have Windows XP installed and don't have a floppy disk Any clues?
Guest Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Re: Fdisk vs WinXP JethroUK© <reply@the.board> wrote: > I have a new machine that i need to partition/format and has no floppy > drive - Windows XP setup halts with a disc error asking me to run > FDisk > > On my previous machine using floppy i could partition & format without > windows at all (using MSDos commands) > > I've read Microsoft article on creating partitions but they discuss > using floppy disc (which doesn't rely on windows) and using Windows > which relies on windows already being installed > > They don't discuss how to create a partition (and format it) using > windows xp cd e.g. if you don't already have Windows XP installed and > don't have a floppy disk > > Any clues? IIRC, boot from the XP CD, run setup, delete the existing partition(s), and then reboot. You might check out http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/cleanxpinstall.html
Guest Mark F. Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Re: Fdisk vs WinXP "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message news:0ncoi.111$gX5.101@newsfe2-win.ntli.net... >I have a new machine that i need to partition/format and has no floppy > drive - Windows XP setup halts with a disc error asking me to run FDisk > > On my previous machine using floppy i could partition & format without > windows at all (using MSDos commands) > > I've read Microsoft article on creating partitions but they discuss using > floppy disc (which doesn't rely on windows) and using Windows which relies > on windows already being installed > > They don't discuss how to create a partition (and format it) using windows > xp cd e.g. if you don't already have Windows XP installed and don't have a > floppy disk > > Any clues? > > You should start over and partition the drive using the Windows XP setup. This page explains it better than I could here. http://www.theeldergeek.com/hard_drives_03.htm Mark
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Re: Fdisk vs WinXP On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:24:28 GMT, "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote: > I have a new machine that i need to partition/format and has no floppy > drive - Windows XP setup halts with a disc error asking me to run FDisk > > On my previous machine using floppy i could partition & format without > windows at all (using MSDos commands) > > I've read Microsoft article on creating partitions but they discuss using > floppy disc (which doesn't rely on windows) and using Windows which relies > on windows already being installed > > They don't discuss how to create a partition (and format it) using windows > xp cd e.g. if you don't already have Windows XP installed and don't have a > floppy disk No floppy drive is required. You don't need to format the drive in advance of installing Windows. Just boot from the Windows XP CD (change the BIOS boot order if necessary to accomplish this) and follow the prompts for a clean installation (delete the existing partition by pressing "D" when prompted, then create a new one). -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Lil' Dave Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Re: Fdisk vs WinXP "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message news:0ncoi.111$gX5.101@newsfe2-win.ntli.net... >I have a new machine that i need to partition/format and has no floppy > drive - Windows XP setup halts with a disc error asking me to run FDisk That sounds like prevarication, or, at least, a fabrication based on some facts. > > On my previous machine using floppy i could partition & format without > windows at all (using MSDos commands) > > I've read Microsoft article on creating partitions but they discuss using > floppy disc (which doesn't rely on windows) and using Windows which relies > on windows already being installed > > They don't discuss how to create a partition (and format it) using windows > xp cd e.g. if you don't already have Windows XP installed and don't have a > floppy disk > > Any clues? > > Put the install CD and boot from it... You tell us. Dave
Guest Patrick Keenan Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Re: Fdisk vs WinXP "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message news:0ncoi.111$gX5.101@newsfe2-win.ntli.net... >I have a new machine that i need to partition/format and has no floppy > drive - Windows XP setup halts with a disc error asking me to run FDisk Not possible, XP will not do this. Fdisk is not part of XP. What is the actual error message? > On my previous machine using floppy i could partition & format without > windows at all (using MSDos commands) The XP CD has these functions under other names, and Setup allows you to do this as part of the routine. > I've read Microsoft article on creating partitions but they discuss using > floppy disc (which doesn't rely on windows) and using Windows which relies > on windows already being installed Perhaps if you read articles on XP, not W9x or DOS. All of this runs from CD now. > They don't discuss how to create a partition (and format it) using windows > xp cd e.g. if you don't already have Windows XP installed and don't have a > floppy disk > > Any clues? Yes, pay attention to the screens when installing. Where you select the destination disks, you can delete and recreate partitions and format them. HTH -pk
Guest Bruce Chambers Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Re: Fdisk vs WinXP JethroUK© wrote: > I have a new machine that i need to partition/format and has no floppy > drive - Windows XP setup halts with a disc error asking me to run FDisk > > On my previous machine using floppy i could partition & format without > windows at all (using MSDos commands) > > I've read Microsoft article on creating partitions but they discuss using > floppy disc (which doesn't rely on windows) and using Windows which relies > on windows already being installed > > They don't discuss how to create a partition (and format it) using windows > xp cd e.g. if you don't already have Windows XP installed and don't have a > floppy disk > > Any clues? > > FDisk is an old MS-DOS utility that is neither available or needed in WinXP. All legitimate WinXP installation CDs are bootable and have the capability of deleting, creating, and formatting partitions. Simply boot from the WinXP installation CD. You'll be offered the opportunity to delete, create, and format partitions as part of the installation process. (You may need to re-arrange the order of boot devices in the PC's BIOS to boot from the CD.) HOW TO Install Windows XP http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;316941 http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/cleanxpinstall.html http://www.webtree.ca/windowsxp/clean_install.htm -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell
Guest cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 Re: Fdisk vs WinXP On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 09:19:06 -0600, Bruce Chambers >JethroUK© wrote: >> I have a new machine that i need to partition/format and has no floppy >> drive - Windows XP setup halts with a disc error asking me to run FDisk Details on that, please? >FDisk is an old MS-DOS utility that is neither available or needed >in WinXP. All legitimate WinXP installation CDs are bootable and have >the capability of deleting, creating, and formatting partitions. True, but there's more detail to this. Firstly, XP's built-in partitioning tools are deficient, if you require FAT32 volumes > 32G then you need better tools, which will also do things like resize, slide, backup and copy volumes and partitions. I use BING (http://www.bootitng.com) for this, without installing it to HD (cancel the first dialog, go into Partition Management) and this can be CDR or 1.44M booted. The other side of the detail is that FDisk simply is not safe on modern PCs, due to various capacity limits and bugs: - Win98 and older: Can't "see" > 50G or so - WinME and "fixed" 98: Can't "see" > 137G - WinME and "fixed" 98: Can't enter values > 99 (G) >-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Hmmm... what was the *other* idea? >-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Guest Bruce Chambers Posted July 22, 2007 Posted July 22, 2007 Re: Fdisk vs WinXP cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote: > > True, but there's more detail to this. > > Firstly, XP's built-in partitioning tools are deficient,.... That's arguable. They meet the purpose for which they were designed, do they not? > .... if you > require FAT32 volumes > 32G then you need better tools,... Who'd want to waste space on such an inferior file system? It's utility is limited to external devices used to transfer data to and/or from legacy Win9x systems. (I know, you don't like NTFS, but most of us do.) > which will > also do things like resize, slide, backup and copy volumes and > partitions. Such capabilities are certainly nice, but useless during the initial OS installation phase, which is the topic of this thread > I use BING (http://www.bootitng.com) for this, without > installing it to HD (cancel the first dialog, go into Partition > Management) and this can be CDR or 1.44M booted. > As do I, but not during the initial istallation. > The other side of the detail is that FDisk simply is not safe on > modern PCs, due to various capacity limits and bugs: Agreed. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell
Guest cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) Posted July 23, 2007 Posted July 23, 2007 Re: Fdisk vs WinXP On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 09:21:39 -0600, Bruce Chambers >cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote: >> True, but there's more detail to this. >> >> Firstly, XP's built-in partitioning tools are deficient,.... > >That's arguable. They meet the purpose for which they were designed, >do they not? No, they do not. The OS feature set encompasses FAT32 volumes > 32G, which the tools are incapable of creating. More seriously, if you use the non-GUI Diskpart tool to create or format such volumes, the process fails destructively: - initiates the process - continues for a long time (presumably, 32G) - aborts with a "too large" error - leaves the disk space broken (no Undo) >> .... if you >> require FAT32 volumes > 32G then you need better tools,... > Who'd want to waste space on such an inferior file system? It's >utility is limited to external devices used to transfer data to and/or >from legacy Win9x systems. How much space does it "waste", really? You'd gain more than it "wastes" by curbing IE 6's insanely huge cache sizes (and with it, the slack space bloat on those thousands of tiny files) as repeated for each user account, than by going NTFS. Even MS's own /kb coverage advises against such huge caches, with IE7 dow defaulting to 50M instead. That's quite a U-turn in judgement, isn't it? So if MS pushes NTFS at me, am I supposed to blindly trust that judgement, too? >I know, you don't like NTFS, but most of us do. Hey, have I suggested XP should limit maximum NTFS size to 32G? :-) You may want to read this, BTW: http://cquirke.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C7DAB1E724AB8C23!188.entry?_c=BlogPart >> which will also do things like resize, slide, backup and copy >> volumes and partitions. >Such capabilities are certainly nice, but useless during the initial OS >installation phase, which is the topic of this thread Maybe, maybe not. I'm not assuming everyone always uses "one big C:", or that every new PC isn't afflicted with a "special" OEM partition that you may want to backup, resize and/or move. >> I use BING (http://www.bootitng.com) for this, without >> installing it to HD (cancel the first dialog, go into Partition >> Management) and this can be CDR or 1.44M booted. >As do I, but not during the initial istallation. I create my partitions and volumes with that before I do the installation, then I tell the installation to shaddup and use what's there. In the case of Vista, which I install as a .WIM image via WinPE-booted ImageX, I first BING a 32G C: and then format this to NTFS from WinPE. Converting to NTFS didn't work: http://cquirke.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C7DAB1E724AB8C23!194.entry >> The other side of the detail is that FDisk simply is not safe on >> modern PCs, due to various capacity limits and bugs: > >Agreed. I resisted the move to non-native partitioning tools for a long time, until XP, in fact. But when I tasted BING's ability to get things done without FDisk's stupid "Verifying... (by puking junk into every nth sector)" BS that one has to endure TWICE per custom-sized partition created, I thought "good riddance, FDisk" ;-) >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - Proverbs Unscrolled #37 "Build it and they will come and break it" >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Guest Bruce Chambers Posted July 24, 2007 Posted July 24, 2007 Re: Fdisk vs WinXP cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote: > >>> >>> Firstly, XP's built-in partitioning tools are deficient,.... >> That's arguable. They meet the purpose for which they were designed, >> do they not? > > No, they do not. The OS feature set encompasses FAT32 volumes > 32G, > which the tools are incapable of creating. > But *that* limitation is by deliberate design, so the tool meets its given purpose. > More seriously, if you use the non-GUI Diskpart tool to create or > format such volumes, the process fails destructively: > - initiates the process > - continues for a long time (presumably, 32G) > - aborts with a "too large" error > - leaves the disk space broken (no Undo) > Again, this is irrelevant to the initial installation of the OS, and is by design. Remember, FAT32 is a *legacy* file system, of little use nowadays. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell
Guest cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) Posted July 24, 2007 Posted July 24, 2007 Re: Fdisk vs WinXP On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:44:09 -0600, Bruce Chambers >cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote: >>>> Firstly, XP's built-in partitioning tools are deficient,.... >>> That's arguable. They meet the purpose for which they were designed, >>> do they not? >> >> No, they do not. The OS feature set encompasses FAT32 volumes > 32G, >> which the tools are incapable of creating. > >But *that* limitation is by deliberate design, so the tool meets its >given purpose. Well, MS trying to force us to use a doomed file system with no data recovery tools is a pretty poor design. >> More seriously, if you use the non-GUI Diskpart tool to create or >> format such volumes, the process fails destructively: >> - initiates the process >> - continues for a long time (presumably, 32G) >> - aborts with a "too large" error >> - leaves the disk space broken (no Undo) > >Again, this is irrelevant to the initial installation of the OS, and is >by design. "By design" would check the size FIRST, before puking all over it for several minutes, and stop with an error. Are you really telling me they deliberately designed this mess to destroy whatever was there, waste time, and leave you with porridge? >Remember, FAT32 is a *legacy* file system, of little use nowadays. It's very useful nowdays, as is FAT16 if it comes to that. Each file system has its strengths and weaknesses. If my first concern is recoverability, as opposed to locking out unauthorised access, and I don't need files > 2G or 4G in size, then NTFS isn't my best choice. You didn't care to respond the article link, which is a case in point. >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - - On the 'net, *everyone* can hear you scream >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Recommended Posts