NTFS re-partitioning

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Roger_Nickel, Feb 8, 2011.

  1. Roger_Nickel

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    I got a new hard disk to use as a Windows drive on my PC. The old drive
    was 80Gb with a 25 Gig. system partition and the new one is 1 Terrabyte
    in total. I used PING to do a sector-by-sector backup of the system
    partition from the old disk to a folder in my Linux home directory and
    used Parted to partition the new disk--a small primary FAT partition for
    DOS7 and another primary partition for the Windows System files. I
    decided to increase the Windows system partition to 100 Gig with the rest
    of the space as a logical NTFS data partition. Boot into Windows and
    format the NTFS system partition. Boot into Linux and use PING to
    transfer the DOS7 and Windows system images across to the new disk. Hit
    the MBR of the new disk with ms-sys to make GRUB and the Windows boot
    manager play nice together. Boot into Windows from GRUB---success!. Uh-
    oh, Windows thinks that the new system partition is only 25 Gig.
    Evidently it is looking directly at the NTFS filesystem rather than at
    the partition table. Parted doesn't want to know. 75 wasted gigabytes--oh
    no!. Is there any simple way of fixing this? it works OK but it just
    seems wrong. I only have OEM Windows and not any of the professional
    versions. I don't have the recovery console. Many thanks in advance for
    useful suggestions.
     
    Roger_Nickel, Feb 8, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Roger_Nickel

    peterwn Guest

    On Feb 8, 7:33 pm, Roger_Nickel <> wrote:
    > I got a new hard disk to use as a Windows drive on my PC. The old drive
    > was 80Gb with a 25 Gig. system partition and the new one is 1 Terrabyte
    > in total. I used PING to do a sector-by-sector backup of the system
    > partition from the old disk to a folder in my Linux home directory and
    > used Parted to partition the new disk--a small primary FAT partition for
    > DOS7 and another primary partition for the Windows System files. I
    > decided to increase the Windows system partition to 100 Gig with the rest
    > of the space as a logical NTFS data partition. Boot into Windows and
    > format the NTFS system partition. Boot into Linux and use PING to
    > transfer the DOS7 and Windows system images across to the new disk. Hit
    > the MBR of the new disk with ms-sys to make GRUB and the Windows boot
    > manager play nice together. Boot into Windows from GRUB---success!. Uh-
    > oh, Windows thinks that the new system partition is only 25 Gig.
    > Evidently it is looking directly at the NTFS filesystem rather than at
    > the partition table. Parted doesn't want to know. 75 wasted gigabytes--oh
    > no!. Is there any simple way of fixing this?  it works OK but it just
    > seems wrong. I only have OEM Windows and not any of the professional
    > versions. I don't have the recovery console. Many thanks in advance for
    > useful suggestions.

    See:
    http://www.linux.com/archive/feed/53924
    There are various free open source tools for shrinking and expanding
    FAT, NTFS, and EXTx file systems. And they work reliably.

    However back up important data first even if using expensive
    professional tools.
     
    peterwn, Feb 8, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Roger_Nickel

    Boots Guest

    On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 19:33:40 +1300, Roger_Nickel wrote:

    > Evidently it is looking
    > directly at the NTFS filesystem rather than at the partition table.
    > Parted doesn't want to know. 75 wasted gigabytes--oh no!. Is there any
    > simple way of fixing this? it works OK but it just seems wrong.


    Blow away what you did. Create a new partition the identical size as your
    original system. Copy the original system across. Confirm all working OK.
    Then expand the file system up to the 100gig size. Confirm all working OK.

    Try that. :)

    The issue was that you didn't merely copy the data - you replaced the
    100gig file system with your original 25gig file system. :)


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Boots, Feb 8, 2011
    #3
  4. Roger_Nickel

    peterwn Guest

    On Feb 8, 10:33 pm, Boots <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 19:33:40 +1300, Roger_Nickel wrote:
    > > Evidently it is looking
    > > directly at the NTFS filesystem rather than at the partition table.
    > > Parted doesn't want to know. 75 wasted gigabytes--oh no!. Is there any
    > > simple way of fixing this?  it works OK but it just seems wrong.

    >
    > Blow away what you did. Create a new partition the identical size as your
    > original system. Copy the original system across. Confirm all working OK.
    > Then expand the file system up to the 100gig size. Confirm all working OK..
    >
    > Try that. :)

    That will not help. One might just as well 'tweak' the 100G partition
    size back to 25G rather than tearing up what has been done and
    starting over. The issue facing the OP is to expand the 25G file
    system. Even if you copy the 25G file system into a 100G partition, it
    still needs to be expanded by a method like I indicated in my post.

    A few interesting quirks with file systems:
    1. DOS / Windows 'format' takes the proposed file system size from any
    boot sector that happens to be at the start of the partition even if
    the boot sector is irrelevant. The remedy is to ensure the boot sector
    is wiped with fdisk, or with some tool like 'dd' running under Linux
    (for example: dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda1 count =16 ). As one can see
    'dd' is highly potent so great care is needed. count=1 suffices for
    FAT16 but needs to be larger (I cannot remember how much) for FAT32.

    2. If you have say a 10G FAT32 file system sitting in a 100G
    partition, and then convert it to NTFS under Windows XP etc, the
    utility will convert it to a 100G NTFS file system while it is at it.
    Incidentally the cnversion cannot be done in reverse under Windows.
     
    peterwn, Feb 8, 2011
    #4
  5. Roger_Nickel

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 15:20:43 -0800, peterwn wrote:

    > On Feb 8, 10:33 pm, Boots <> wrote:
    >> On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 19:33:40 +1300, Roger_Nickel wrote:
    >> > Evidently it is looking
    >> > directly at the NTFS filesystem rather than at the partition table.
    >> > Parted doesn't want to know. 75 wasted gigabytes--oh no!. Is there
    >> > any simple way of fixing this?  it works OK but it just seems wrong.

    >>
    >> Blow away what you did. Create a new partition the identical size as
    >> your original system. Copy the original system across. Confirm all
    >> working OK. Then expand the file system up to the 100gig size. Confirm
    >> all working OK.
    >>
    >> Try that. :)

    > That will not help. One might just as well 'tweak' the 100G partition
    > size back to 25G rather than tearing up what has been done and starting
    > over. The issue facing the OP is to expand the 25G file system. Even if
    > you copy the 25G file system into a 100G partition, it still needs to be
    > expanded by a method like I indicated in my post.
    >
    > A few interesting quirks with file systems: 1. DOS / Windows 'format'
    > takes the proposed file system size from any boot sector that happens to
    > be at the start of the partition even if the boot sector is irrelevant.
    > The remedy is to ensure the boot sector is wiped with fdisk, or with
    > some tool like 'dd' running under Linux (for example: dd if=/dev/zero
    > of=/dev/sda1 count =16 ). As one can see 'dd' is highly potent so great
    > care is needed. count=1 suffices for FAT16 but needs to be larger (I
    > cannot remember how much) for FAT32.
    >
    > 2. If you have say a 10G FAT32 file system sitting in a 100G partition,
    > and then convert it to NTFS under Windows XP etc, the utility will
    > convert it to a 100G NTFS file system while it is at it. Incidentally
    > the cnversion cannot be done in reverse under Windows.


    A couple of points. ms-sys will re-write the MBR of a hard disk without
    trashing the partition table or the disk id. Parted is happy to resize an
    ntfs partition providing the partition table and the ntfs file system
    agree exactly on the file size, it also looks for the AA55 string ("DOS
    magic") at the end of the MBR. Parted can also copy partitions (including
    the partition boot record) between drives,---you need the "ntfsprogs"
    package to do all of this in Ubuntu. Agree that dd is one of the most
    useful and one of the most dangerous of all the unix/Linux utilities. The
    gddrescue program will drag data off a failing hard disk if any retrieval
    is at all possible, it just doesn't quit.
     
    Roger_Nickel, Feb 9, 2011
    #5
  6. Roger_Nickel

    peterwn Guest

    On Feb 10, 11:55 am, Roger_Nickel <> wrote:

    >
    > A couple of points. ms-sys will re-write the MBR of a hard disk without
    > trashing the partition table or the disk id. Parted is happy to resize an
    > ntfs partition providing the partition table and the ntfs file system
    > agree exactly on the file size, it also looks for the AA55 string ("DOS
    > magic") at the end of the MBR.


    ??????? I thought an upward re-size is possible as long as the new
    file system size is not greater than the partition size given in the
    partition table.
     
    peterwn, Feb 10, 2011
    #6
  7. Roger_Nickel

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 19:36:45 -0800, peterwn wrote:

    > On Feb 10, 11:55 am, Roger_Nickel <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> A couple of points. ms-sys will re-write the MBR of a hard disk without
    >> trashing the partition table or the disk id. Parted is happy to resize
    >> an ntfs partition providing the partition table and the ntfs file
    >> system agree exactly on the file size, it also looks for the AA55
    >> string ("DOS magic") at the end of the MBR.

    >
    > ??????? I thought an upward re-size is possible as long as the new file
    > system size is not greater than the partition size given in the
    > partition table.


    It turns out that my new drive (Hitachi 7K1000 Deskstar) was a dud. I got
    a few bad sectors so I left it running chkdsk overnight and this morning
    Windows was still plugging away remapping thousands of bad sectors. I
    booted into Linux and Parted complained about a "ridiculously large
    number of bad sectors" on the drive. Gsmart had the disk icon in a
    fetching shade of red and the warning "--disk failure imminent, back up
    your data---". I even had an email!. Good to see that the warnings all
    work, although maybe a bit late. I took the drive back to PBTech and they
    checked the SMART data and gave me another without question. Now Parted
    will indeed resize the NTFS filesystem to fit the partition but it does
    warn "inconsistencies found in ntfs filesystem. Run chkdsk /f from
    Windows and reboot TWICE."
     
    Roger_Nickel, Feb 10, 2011
    #7
  8. In message <4d5398bd$>, Roger_Nickel wrote:

    > Now Parted will indeed resize the NTFS filesystem to fit the partition but
    > it does warn "inconsistencies found in ntfs filesystem. Run chkdsk /f from
    > Windows and reboot TWICE."


    Why does Dimdows need two reboots?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 10, 2011
    #8
  9. Roger_Nickel

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:08:29 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In message <4d5398bd$>, Roger_Nickel wrote:
    >
    >> Now Parted will indeed resize the NTFS filesystem to fit the partition
    >> but it does warn "inconsistencies found in ntfs filesystem. Run chkdsk
    >> /f from Windows and reboot TWICE."

    >
    > Why does Dimdows need two reboots?


    One reboot to start chkdsk on an unmounted disk. When chkdsk finishes
    Windows re-mounts the partition, warns that a reboot is needed to
    synchronise the repaired ntfs filesystem with its patched driver and asks
    if you want to do it right away or later. Reboot number two. Changes to
    drivers in Windows have always require a reboot. You know this?.
     
    Roger_Nickel, Feb 10, 2011
    #9
  10. In message <4d53b2ac$>, Roger_Nickel wrote:

    > On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:08:29 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In message <4d5398bd$>, Roger_Nickel wrote:
    >>
    >>> Now Parted will indeed resize the NTFS filesystem to fit the partition
    >>> but it does warn "inconsistencies found in ntfs filesystem. Run chkdsk
    >>> /f from Windows and reboot TWICE."

    >>
    >> Why does Dimdows need two reboots?

    >
    > One reboot to start chkdsk on an unmounted disk.


    But you were already told to run that yourself before the first reboot.

    > When chkdsk finishes Windows re-mounts the partition, warns that a reboot
    > is needed to synchronise the repaired ntfs filesystem with its patched
    > driver and asks if you want to do it right away or later. Reboot number
    > two. Changes to drivers in Windows have always require a reboot. You know
    > this?.


    I didn’t know a change to a driver was needed just to repair a filesystem.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 10, 2011
    #10
  11. Roger_Nickel

    Enkidu Guest

    On 10/02/11 22:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message<4d53b2ac$>, Roger_Nickel wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:08:29 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>> In message<4d5398bd$>, Roger_Nickel wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Now Parted will indeed resize the NTFS filesystem to fit the partition
    >>>> but it does warn "inconsistencies found in ntfs filesystem. Run chkdsk
    >>>> /f from Windows and reboot TWICE."
    >>>
    >>> Why does Dimdows need two reboots?

    >>
    >> One reboot to start chkdsk on an unmounted disk.

    >
    > But you were already told to run that yourself before the first reboot.
    >
    >> When chkdsk finishes Windows re-mounts the partition, warns that a reboot
    >> is needed to synchronise the repaired ntfs filesystem with its patched
    >> driver and asks if you want to do it right away or later. Reboot number
    >> two. Changes to drivers in Windows have always require a reboot. You know
    >> this?.

    >
    > I didn’t know a change to a driver was needed just to repair a filesystem.
    >

    It doesn't.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The ends justifies the means - Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.

    The end excuses any evil - Sophocles
     
    Enkidu, Feb 10, 2011
    #11
  12. Roger_Nickel

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 09:13:19 +1300, Enkidu wrote:

    > On 10/02/11 22:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >> In message<4d53b2ac$>, Roger_Nickel wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:08:29 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In message<4d5398bd$>, Roger_Nickel wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Now Parted will indeed resize the NTFS filesystem to fit the
    >>>>> partition but it does warn "inconsistencies found in ntfs
    >>>>> filesystem. Run chkdsk /f from Windows and reboot TWICE."
    >>>>
    >>>> Why does Dimdows need two reboots?
    >>>
    >>> One reboot to start chkdsk on an unmounted disk.

    >>
    >> But you were already told to run that yourself before the first reboot.
    >>
    >>> When chkdsk finishes Windows re-mounts the partition, warns that a
    >>> reboot is needed to synchronise the repaired ntfs filesystem with its
    >>> patched driver and asks if you want to do it right away or later.
    >>> Reboot number two. Changes to drivers in Windows have always require a
    >>> reboot. You know this?.

    >>
    >> I didn’t know a change to a driver was needed just to repair a
    >> filesystem.
    > >

    > It doesn't.
    >
    > Cheers,


    I decided to try and get to the bottom of this once and for all.Instead
    of using Parted to create the partitions and Partimage to restore the
    filesystems. I used dd to copy the entire old disk across to the new,
    sector by sector. Then I used the partition manager to resize the
    partitions. It all worked flawlessly. One difference is that the Windows
    system partition is now a logical partition inside the extended partition
    (as it originally was) instead of a primary partition (as I originally
    wanted the new disk to be). My first try would have put the partition
    table parameters for the Windows partition in the MBR rather than in the
    extended partition boot record, where Windows expected to find them. I
    can't think of anything else. Anyway, it all works now.
    >
    > Cliff
     
    Roger_Nickel, Feb 11, 2011
    #12
  13. In message <>, Roger_Nickel wrote:

    > On 10/02/11 22:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In message<4d53b2ac$>, Roger_Nickel wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:08:29 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In message<4d5398bd$>, Roger_Nickel wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Now Parted will indeed resize the NTFS filesystem to fit the
    >>>>> partition but it does warn "inconsistencies found in ntfs
    >>>>> filesystem. Run chkdsk /f from Windows and reboot TWICE."
    >>>>
    >>>> Why does Dimdows need two reboots?
    >>>
    >>> One reboot to start chkdsk on an unmounted disk.

    >>
    >> But you were already told to run that yourself before the first reboot.
    >>
    >>> When chkdsk finishes Windows re-mounts the partition, warns that a
    >>> reboot is needed to synchronise the repaired ntfs filesystem with its
    >>> patched driver and asks if you want to do it right away or later.
    >>> Reboot number two. Changes to drivers in Windows have always require a
    >>> reboot. You know this?.

    >>
    >> I didn’t know a change to a driver was needed just to repair a
    >> filesystem.

    >
    > I decided to try and get to the bottom of this once and for all.Instead
    > of using Parted to create the partitions and Partimage to restore the
    > filesystems. I used dd to copy the entire old disk across to the new,
    > sector by sector. Then I used the partition manager to resize the
    > partitions. It all worked flawlessly.


    So how many times did you need to reboot?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Feb 11, 2011
    #13
  14. Roger_Nickel

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 13:10:47 +1300, Roger_Nickel wrote:


    >>>
    >>> I didn’t know a change to a driver was needed just to repair a
    >>> filesystem.
    >> >

    >> It doesn't.
    >>
    >> Cheers,

    >
    > I decided to try and get to the bottom of this once and for all.Instead
    > of using Parted to create the partitions and Partimage to restore the
    > filesystems. I used dd to copy the entire old disk across to the new,
    > sector by sector. Then I used the partition manager to resize the
    > partitions. It all worked flawlessly. One difference is that the Windows
    > system partition is now a logical partition inside the extended
    > partition (as it originally was) instead of a primary partition (as I
    > originally wanted the new disk to be). My first try would have put the
    > partition table parameters for the Windows partition in the MBR rather
    > than in the extended partition boot record, where Windows expected to
    > find them. I can't think of anything else. Anyway, it all works now.


    A final note. I created a 100 Gb logical partition on the new drive and
    used Partimage to copy across a duplicate of the 25 Gig Windows system
    partition. Booted into windows and Windows insisted on checking all of
    the ntfs partitions and then gave the "driver modified" message. The
    event log revealed that "Volume id for I has been reset since it was a
    duplicate of that on L". Partition labels and UUID's are still duplicated
    as shown by the blkid command in Linux, so it is the actual ntfs id which
    has been re-written. Live and learn!. Thanks for replies--it does help me
    to clarify my thinking on this stuff.
     
    Roger_Nickel, Feb 11, 2011
    #14
  15. Roger_Nickel

    ~misfit~ Guest

    HDD returns. Was: NTFS re-partitioning

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Roger_Nickel wrote:
    [snip]
    > It turns out that my new drive (Hitachi 7K1000 Deskstar) was a dud. I
    > got a few bad sectors so I left it running chkdsk overnight and this
    > morning Windows was still plugging away remapping thousands of bad
    > sectors. I booted into Linux and Parted complained about a
    > "ridiculously large number of bad sectors" on the drive. Gsmart had
    > the disk icon in a fetching shade of red and the warning "--disk
    > failure imminent, back up your data---". I even had an email!. Good
    > to see that the warnings all work, although maybe a bit late. I took
    > the drive back to PBTech and they checked the SMART data and gave me
    > another without question. Now Parted will indeed resize the NTFS
    > filesystem to fit the partition but it does warn "inconsistencies
    > found in ntfs filesystem. Run chkdsk /f from Windows and reboot
    > TWICE."


    That's good of PBTech and Hitachi.

    I installed a new 320GB WD Scorpio Blue HDD into a mate's laptop for him a
    couple weeks ago, bought it from Ascent. I normally buy Seagate but they
    seem to have stopped making PATA laptop drives, or at least they're no
    longer bought into NZ.

    Anyway it didn't require a reinstall of XP or anything. I just swapped it
    for the old HDD, fitted the old HDD to an external enclosure and booted from
    my Acronis True Image CD. I selected 'Clone Disk' from the menu and selected
    source and destination disks (manually setting the partition sizes). I left
    it doing it's thing while and went back a while later. The 'reboot now?'
    screen was showing so I hit yes, unplugged the USB enclosure, removed the
    Acronis CD and it booted into Windows just fine.

    I quickly checked that the machine was working OK, that the partitions were
    all good and gave it back to him.

    He bought it back to me a couple of days ago saying that there was a
    vibration and that, if he rested his fingers on the palmrest for long they'd
    get 'tingly'. I hadn't noticed it before but then it's not my laptop and I
    didn't spend any time with it really. I touched the laptop and he was right,
    there was a high-frequency vibration.

    Just to check that it was the HDD I took it out and put it in an external
    enclosure and it was even more noticable. I re-fitted it and ran Hard Disk
    Sentinel. It said that all was good with SMART data, that there were no bad
    sectors, data transfer errors or spin-up problems.

    I emailed Ascent and told them and the rang me the next day. They basically
    said that I could send it back if I wanted to but they were pretty damn sure
    that WD would just give it back to them saying 'no fault found', that the
    vibration isn't considered to be a fault. I was quite welcome to ask for an
    RMA number and Ascent would give me one but in their opinion I'd be wasting
    the time it took to send to Singapore (I think he said) and back.

    Anyway, just thought I'd vent. That bloody annoyed me; that a badly
    vibrating HDD can be considered to be 'not faulty'. My mate is obviously
    very concerned about the security of his data and is doing nightly back-ups
    now (where he used to only do weekly, it's not *that* critical...). it's
    adding an extra few minutes 'work' to his day (it's a personal laptop
    aqlthough he uses it for paying his business bills etc.).

    I knew that there was a reason I used to prefer Seagate. At least they'd
    give me an up-front swap if I had any issues with a drive... (I asked the
    Ascent guy if I could do the same with WD and he said not going by my
    description of the fault.)

    Bugger!

    LOL, as you were....
    --
    Shaun.

    "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a
    monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also
    into you." Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
     
    ~misfit~, Feb 11, 2011
    #15
  16. Roger_Nickel

    peterwn Guest

    On Feb 10, 10:08 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <>, Roger_Nickel wrote:
    >
    > > Now Parted will indeed resize the NTFS filesystem to fit the partition but
    > > it does warn "inconsistencies found in ntfs filesystem. Run chkdsk /f from
    > > Windows and reboot TWICE."

    >
    > Why does Dimdows need two reboots?


    It sometimes does. After doing major 'surgery' on a XP partition, I re-
    booted once, then took an image of the partition. When I restored the
    image, it immediately required a second reboot. So I always re-boot a
    XP machine twice before imaging the HD or returning it to the owner.

    It is rather like if you change the combination of a safe. Good
    practice is to try the new combination THREE TIMES with the door open.
    Once should suffice but...... . I could not get a safe at work to
    open, but since I had tried the combination three times I was sure it
    was not my fault. Something had stuck and Mr Chubb soon got it open
    with I combination I gave him (and a few taps of a hammer to un-stick
    the part).
     
    peterwn, Feb 14, 2011
    #16
  17. Roger_Nickel

    Boots Guest

    On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 21:19:34 -0800, peterwn wrote:

    > It sometimes does. After doing major 'surgery' on a XP partition, I re-
    > booted once, then took an image of the partition. When I restored the
    > image, it immediately required a second reboot. So I always re-boot a XP
    > machine twice before imaging the HD or returning it to the owner.


    This is one of the fascinating things about MS Windows - the fact that it
    needs to be rebooted for so much stuff that simply doesn't require a
    reboot on any other platform.

    The only thing that Linux would require a reboot for would be a
    modification to the actual kernel of the OS. Solaris doesn't even need to
    be rebooted for that as it has a way of loading the new kernel into RAM.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
     
    Boots, Feb 14, 2011
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. billyw

    Re: partitioning

    billyw, Apr 29, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    526
  2. no one

    partitioning

    no one, Apr 29, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    492
    no one
    Apr 29, 2004
  3. Kendal Emery

    Re: partitioning

    Kendal Emery, Apr 29, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    518
    Consultant
    Apr 29, 2004
  4. philo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    509
    philo
    Aug 24, 2003
  5. Tech
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    739
    Plato
    Apr 6, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page