Formatting on drive wiped out when testing another drive

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by docsavage20@yahoo.com, May 25, 2006.

  1. Guest

    "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote:

    |>> HD0: if you have CDEF and add HD1 with active partition you will then
    |>> have CEF - HD1's first partition will take over D: and the rest of the
    |>> partitions follow F (GH..)
    |>>
    |>
    |> You've not had much real life experience with the NT class OSes,
    |>especially XP.

    And a follow up, no I haven't experienced this on XP as I have only
    one drive one it and always had one drive (this computer) - but darn
    if I don't feel like adding another.

    The second hard drive taking the D: spot was a problem for many
    people, over the years at one time - mayhaps XP fix;d this as well as
    now not being able to create a CON directory - my suggestion to the OP
    wayyy up there, was maybe this had happen'd and it wasn't his
    partition he thought it was

    --
    Save a planet
    http://www.samorost2.net/samorost1/
     
    , May 28, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rod Speed Guest

    wrote
    > Ralph Wade Phillips <> wrote


    >>>> HD0: if you have CDEF and add HD1 with active partition
    >>>> you will then have CEF - HD1's first partition will take over
    >>>> D: and the rest of the partitions follow F (GH..)


    >>> You've not had much real life experience
    >>> with the NT class OSes, especially XP.


    > And a follow up, no I haven't experienced this on XP as I have
    > only one drive one it and always had one drive (this computer)


    So you hadnt even noticed what the NT/2K/XP family
    does with drive letters when extra drives are added.

    Its done quite differently to the way its done in the 9x/ME family.

    > but darn if I don't feel like adding another.


    You'll find its a lot more bulletproof drive letter wise.

    > The second hard drive taking the D: spot was a
    > problem for many people, over the years at one time


    Yes, but in the 9x/ME family.

    > - mayhaps XP fix;d this


    No perhaps about it. So did NT and 2K too.

    > as well as now not being able to create a CON directory -
    > my suggestion to the OP wayyy up there, was maybe this
    > had happen'd and it wasn't his partition he thought it was


    And you were just plain wrong with XP, it doesnt work like that.
     
    Rod Speed, May 28, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Guest

    "Rod Speed" <> wrote:

    |>So you hadnt even noticed what the NT/2K/XP family
    |>does with drive letters when extra drives are added.

    sigh......



    --
    Save a planet
    http://www.samorost2.net/samorost1/
     
    , May 28, 2006
    #43
  4. Rod Speed Guest

    wrote
    > Rod Speed <> wrote


    >> So you hadnt even noticed what the NT/2K/XP family
    >> does with drive letters when extra drives are added.


    > sigh......


    Heavy breathing aint gunna save your bacon, child.
     
    Rod Speed, May 28, 2006
    #44
  5. Folkert Rienstra wrote:

    <snip>

    Soory, but your reply was such an incoherent jumble I'm not going to bother.
     
    David Maynard, May 29, 2006
    #45
  6. Rod Speed Guest

    David Maynard <> wrote
    > Folkert Rienstra wrote


    > <snip>


    > Soory, but your reply was such an incoherent jumble I'm not going to bother.


    Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
     
    Rod Speed, May 29, 2006
    #46
  7. Odie Guest

    David Maynard wrote:
    >
    > Folkert Rienstra wrote:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > Soory, but your reply was such an incoherent jumble I'm not going to bother.


    That's Folkert for you.

    Nothing constructive, but excessive amounts of useless drivel.

    Happy to condemn posts, but posts nothing constructive or informative
    himself.

    I suppose it goes with the territory.

    Useless waste of time.


    Odie
    --
    Retrodata
    www.retrodata.co.uk
    Globally Local Data Recovery Experts
     
    Odie, May 29, 2006
    #47
  8. Guest

    "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote:

    |> IF, however, Disk Manager was used on the drive, and a drive letter
    |>assigned to it ... it'll keep it.
    |>
    |> That's how it happened.
    |>
    |> Two cases. But Pennywise keeps claiming that the NT class OSen
    |>don't do persistent drive letters ... and ayep, they do.

    Ok here's the deal - I bought a Gateway computer - it was cheaper than
    building one.

    They have the hard drive set where the first partition of the hard
    drive is D: and is the restore partition; and came installed with XP
    home. The first thing I did was to change from NTFS to FAT32, with no
    loss of data (the entire drive).

    Then I installed XP Pro on the E: partition, when I boot'd up in that
    OS all the drive letters were screw'd up - I went as far as naming the
    H: drive "Last_Drive" to help me out (it was F: I think). I was lucky
    E: stay'd E: - and of course I had to change most of the drive letters
    around to make it easier for me whichever OS I was in.

    It would seem this function of drive letters being written in stone is
    a function of NFTS and not XP.

    Why FAT32 and not NTFS - in a pinch I want to be able to boot up with
    a Win98 disk and fix a problem if it ever occurs.

    --
    http://www.crazyhamzters.com/flash/cunningstunt.html
     
    , May 29, 2006
    #48
  9. Howdy!

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote:
    >
    > |> IF, however, Disk Manager was used on the drive, and a drive letter
    > |>assigned to it ... it'll keep it.
    > |>
    > |> That's how it happened.
    > |>
    > |> Two cases. But Pennywise keeps claiming that the NT class OSen
    > |>don't do persistent drive letters ... and ayep, they do.
    >
    > Ok here's the deal - I bought a Gateway computer - it was cheaper than
    > building one.
    >
    > They have the hard drive set where the first partition of the hard
    > drive is D: and is the restore partition; and came installed with XP
    > home. The first thing I did was to change from NTFS to FAT32, with no
    > loss of data (the entire drive).
    >
    > Then I installed XP Pro on the E: partition, when I boot'd up in that
    > OS all the drive letters were screw'd up - I went as far as naming the
    > H: drive "Last_Drive" to help me out (it was F: I think). I was lucky
    > E: stay'd E: - and of course I had to change most of the drive letters
    > around to make it easier for me whichever OS I was in.
    >
    > It would seem this function of drive letters being written in stone is
    > a function of NFTS and not XP.


    Err - Pennywise? You ever see a 9X OS running with NTFS partitions?

    You've got it backwards. AND - XP will happily put the drive letter
    in the boot blocks for a FAT32 partition also, when it a) formats it or b)
    when you reassign the drive letters in Disk Management.

    HOWEVER - If that partition is formatted in a 9X OS, then UNTIL you
    touch it with Disk Manager, it stays in the "Oh, look - here's an open drive
    letter. Let's stuff it in there!" mode.

    Which *ahem* is what I said earlier.

    And you might want to note - if you HAD been right about it being
    just like Win9X, then you wouldn't have had to move the drive letters
    around, eh?

    RwP

    >
    > Why FAT32 and not NTFS - in a pinch I want to be able to boot up with
    > a Win98 disk and fix a problem if it ever occurs.
    >
    > --
    > http://www.crazyhamzters.com/flash/cunningstunt.html
     
    Ralph Wade Phillips, May 29, 2006
    #49
  10. Guest

    "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote:

    |>Which *ahem* is what I said earlier.
    |>
    |> And you might want to note - if you HAD been right about it being
    |>just like Win9X, then you wouldn't have had to move the drive letters
    |>around, eh?

    I was right and stand by it. I guess experence beats out reading a web
    page.

    --
    http://www.crazyhamzters.com/flash/cunningstunt.html
     
    , May 29, 2006
    #50
  11. Guest

    , May 29, 2006
    #51
  12. Rod Speed Guest

    wrote:
    > "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote:
    >
    >>> Which *ahem* is what I said earlier.
    >>>
    >>> And you might want to note - if you HAD been right about it
    >>> being just like Win9X, then you wouldn't have had to move the drive
    >>> letters around, eh?


    > I was right


    Nope, not once. You've mangled the story even more comprehensively now.

    > and stand by it.


    You can stand wherever you like, changes absolutely nothing at all.

    > I guess experence beats out reading a web page.


    Guess again. It cant have happened anything like you claimed.

    And you're just plain wrong with your claim that the NT/2K/XP family
    allocates the drive letters the same way that the DOS/9x/ME family
    does, and its completely trivial to prove that too. Dont need a web page.
     
    Rod Speed, May 29, 2006
    #52
  13. "Rod Speed" <> wrote in message news:
    > Folkert Rienstra <> wrote
    > > David Maynard <> wrote
    > > > Rod Speed wrote
    > > > > David Maynard <> wrote
    > > > > > Folkert Rienstra wrote
    > > > > > > David Maynard > wrote
    > > > > > > > wrote
    > > > > > > > > Rod Speed <> wrote
    > > > > > > > > > > wrote
    > > > > > > > > > > > wrote

    >
    > > > > > Win9x has the 'reverse' problem. It will fail to boot (properly)
    > > > > > if the system drive is physically moved to a different position
    > > > > > because then it's no longer C:

    >
    > > > > That varys too.

    >
    > > Nope, it's just plain wrong.

    >
    > We'll see...


    Yup, we will indeed.

    >
    > > Bootdrive is always C: with Win9x.

    >
    > I was commenting on the 'it will fail to boot (properly),


    Yes, and your comment that "it varys" was wrong in the way
    that you suggested it. It will work fine in far more situations
    than you suggested. (However, Win9x can get confused when
    it finds itself in the same directory as on another drive and
    run off that other drive, once booted).

    > not on the drive letter claim.


    Doesn't matter.

    >
    > It'll boot fine when there is just one active primary dos parti-
    > tion and the drive that it is on is physically moved to a different
    > position.


    And not only in that case.
    It will be fine too with 2 drives with only primaries and even with
    2 drives with secondaries as long as references in registry are all
    to C: or not important to Windows to be able to boot up properly.

    > Yes, it will certainly have the C letter.
    >
    > > And it only 'varys' if both have primary partitions
    > > *and* secondaries and Windows is on the secondary.


    > Even that doesnt necessarily stop it booting properly,


    Oh, yes it does.

    > all that does is affect the letters particular partions get.


    Exactly.
    And when the partition that Windows9x is on happens to
    be that "particular partion", than the reference to it's
    driveletter in MSDOS.SYS is wrong and the boot fails.

    >
    > > > > If there is only one drive, you can certainly
    > > > > move it to the second controller and boot off that fine.

    >
    > > > Irrelevant as the stated scenario was two drives.

    >
    > > Wrong. Doesn't matter with 'only' primaries.
    > > The booted drive is C:, the other is D: no matter where they are connected.


    > Correct,


    Right, so your claim that it varys was plain wrong in the case as suggested.

    > for once.


    Far more than you like to admit.
     
    Folkert Rienstra, May 29, 2006
    #53
  14. Guest

    "Rod Speed" <> wrote:

    |> wrote:
    |>> "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote:
    |>>
    |>>>> Which *ahem* is what I said earlier.
    |>>>>
    |>>>> And you might want to note - if you HAD been right about it
    |>>>> being just like Win9X, then you wouldn't have had to move the drive
    |>>>> letters around, eh?
    |>
    |>> I was right
    |>
    |>Nope, not once. You've mangled the story even more comprehensively now.

    Yes it got confusing, the first post cover'd many years and this
    recent XP story is within the last 6 months. -

    |>> and stand by it.
    |>
    |>You can stand wherever you like, changes absolutely nothing at all.
    |>
    |>> I guess experence beats out reading a web page.
    |>
    |>Guess again. It cant have happened anything like you claimed.
    |>
    |>And you're just plain wrong with your claim that the NT/2K/XP family
    |>allocates the drive letters the same way that the DOS/9x/ME family
    |>does, and its completely trivial to prove that too. Dont need a web page.
    |>

    So be it,

    --
    Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
    hhttp://www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm
     
    , May 30, 2006
    #54
  15. "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote in message news:wkGeg.33425$4H.19174@dukeread03
    > Howdy!
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > > IF, however, Disk Manager was used on the drive, and a drive letter
    > > > > assigned to it ... it'll keep it.
    > > > >
    > > > > That's how it happened.
    > > > >
    > > > > Two cases. But Pennywise keeps claiming that the NT class OSen
    > > > > don't do persistent drive letters ... and ayep, they do.

    > >
    > > Ok here's the deal - I bought a Gateway computer - it was cheaper than
    > > building one.
    > >
    > > They have the hard drive set where the first partition of the hard
    > > drive is D: and is the restore partition; and came installed with XP
    > > home. The first thing I did was to change from NTFS to FAT32, with no
    > > loss of data (the entire drive).
    > >
    > > Then I installed XP Pro on the E: partition, when I boot'd up in that
    > > OS all the drive letters were screw'd up - I went as far as naming the
    > > H: drive "Last_Drive" to help me out (it was F: I think). I was lucky
    > > E: stay'd E: - and of course I had to change most of the drive letters
    > > around to make it easier for me whichever OS I was in.
    > >
    > > It would seem this function of drive letters being written in stone is
    > > a function of NFTS and not XP.

    >
    > Err - Pennywise? You ever see a 9X OS running with NTFS partitions?
    >
    > You've got it backwards. AND -


    > XP will happily put the drive letter in the boot blocks for a FAT32 partition also,
    > when it a) formats it or b) when you reassign the drive letters in Disk Management.


    Oh? Never heard of that before. Any reference to that?
    AFAIK only LDM records driveletter info outside of Windows registry and it's not
    in the partition bootblocks.

    >
    > HOWEVER - If that partition is formatted in a 9X OS, then UNTIL you
    > touch it with Disk Manager, it stays in the "Oh, look - here's an open drive
    > letter. Let's stuff it in there!" mode.


    > Which *ahem* is what I said earlier.


    You did? Must have missed that too.

    >
    > And you might want to note - if you HAD been right about it being
    > just like Win9X, then you wouldn't have had to move the drive letters
    > around, eh?
    >
    > RwP
    >
    > >
    > > Why FAT32 and not NTFS - in a pinch I want to be able to boot up with
    > > a Win98 disk and fix a problem if it ever occurs.
    > >
    > > --
    > > http://www.crazyhamzters.com/flash/cunningstunt.html
     
    Folkert Rienstra, May 30, 2006
    #55
  16. "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote in message news:h6leg.33289$4H.26449@dukeread03
    > <> wrote in message news:...
    >
    > >
    > > HD0: if you have CDEF and add HD1 with active partition you will then
    > > have CEF - HD1's first partition will take over D: and the rest of the
    > > partitions follow F (GH..)
    > >

    >
    > You've not had much real life experience with the NT class OSes,
    > especially XP.
    >
    > Because, as anyone who works with it knows, It Does Not Work Like That.
    >
    > Well, it can - if a) all the logical drives were formatted first with FAT32,
    > and b) nobody's EVERY run Disk Management to handle anything.


    Erm, so why would mountmanager mount them DOS/Win9x style -driveletter wise-
    if *not* formatted through WinXP and mount them differently when created and
    formatted through WinXP? And what's the point of having a drive signature on
    the drive in combination with registry entries detailing the partition drive letters
    if the drive letters are already stored in the partition bootblocks as well.

    >
    > But if EITHER is wrong (i.e., the partitioning and formatting was done by XP,
    > OR Disk Manager was ever run to remap, say, an optical drive),


    > then it gets a persistent drive letter written in the PARTITION'S BOOT BLOCK.


    The information I *did* find didn't say that. It didn't make any mention of that. (On
    the other hand, neither did it for how exactly it stores the info in the registry either).
    Presumably partition drive letters are stored/recognized in combination with a drive
    signature stored in the MBR (sector 0).

    >
    > As is WELL documented by Microsoft and others.


    Maybe so but then why can't I google that up if it is so well documented.

    >
    > Keep this up, and you'll look like ever more and anon someone who
    > doesn't have any idea what they're talking about.


    It would appear that you have the same problem, gaging some of the reactions.

    >
    > Otherwise, please explain why so many XP machines get first logical
    > partition C, first optical D, and the added HD's primary partition as E ...
    >
    > Or why removing the USB card readers doesn't automagically make an
    > E: or F: boot partition C: ...


    According to the information I *could* find, due to registration in the
    Windows registry and in combination with a signature in the MBR.

    >
    > RwP
    >
    > RwP
     
    Folkert Rienstra, May 30, 2006
    #56
  17. Rod Speed wrote:
    > David Maynard <> wrote
    >
    >>Folkert Rienstra wrote

    >
    >
    >><snip>

    >
    >
    >>Soory, but your reply was such an incoherent jumble I'm not going to bother.

    >
    >
    > Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
    >
    >


    You're right. When it comes to 'bullshit' I'm unarmed.
     
    David Maynard, May 31, 2006
    #57
  18. "Folkert Rienstra" <> wrote in message
    news:447ca70f$0$14238$...
    > "Ralph Wade Phillips" <> wrote in message

    news:wkGeg.33425$4H.19174@dukeread03
    >
    > > XP will happily put the drive letter in the boot blocks for a FAT32

    partition also,
    > > when it a) formats it or b) when you reassign the drive letters in Disk

    Management.
    >
    > Oh? Never heard of that before. Any reference to that?
    > AFAIK only LDM records driveletter info outside of Windows registry and

    it's not
    > in the partition bootblocks.
    >


    I have a "mule" machine that I use for data recovery, virus
    scanning, et al.

    Its one FAT32 partition? Gets mapped as "E" in it, the other mule
    machine, or even on my girlfriend's laptop when I use a USB case to get
    access to it (a few large files that I really didn't want to waste a DVD for
    .... )

    > >
    > > HOWEVER - If that partition is formatted in a 9X OS, then UNTIL

    you
    > > touch it with Disk Manager, it stays in the "Oh, look - here's an open

    drive
    > > letter. Let's stuff it in there!" mode.

    >
    > > Which *ahem* is what I said earlier.

    >
    > You did? Must have missed that too.
    >


    I'd have to dig it out - but yes, I had mentioned that there are
    times that XP can enumerate just like 9X did. But the other methods DO take
    precedence ...

    RwP
     
    Ralph Wade Phillips, May 31, 2006
    #58
  19. Rod Speed wrote:

    > David Maynard <> wrote:
    >
    >>Rod Speed wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>David Maynard <> wrote:


    <multiple snips to cut down the BS>

    >>>Nope, it aint persistence thats the problem with cloning.

    >
    >
    >>It most certainly is.

    >
    >
    > Nope.


    Yep.

    >
    >
    >>Why do you suppose none of this was an issue prior to drive letter persistence?

    >
    >
    > Its a coincidence.


    A "coincidence." <chuckle>

    > Its actually due to the way ntldr
    > works, nothing to do with drive letter pesistence.


    Well, it's certainly true that ntldr has to be able to find the partitions.
    Of course, so does everything else.


    > It cant be due to drive letter persistence if being careful
    > to ensure that XP cant see the original drive on the first
    > boot of the clone ensures that the clone boots fine.


    And why do you need to 'be careful it doesn't see the original drive'?
    Because the drive assignments are PERSISTENT as long as the partition is
    there to see (or manually assigned).

    I am pleased as punch your method, whatever it is, works 'every time' for
    you but the giant leap you then make that every possible method behaves the
    same is incorrect, as well as the second invalid leap that it isn't drive
    letter persistence.

    Depending on the program used to make the clone, and which options one uses
    in that program, the partition and drive IDs may, or may not, be preserved
    and they are not 'all the same'. For example, in Ghost 2003 the -FDSZ
    switch forces the disk signature zero while the -FDSP switch forces disk
    signature preserve and the reason for both switches is that the 'default'
    setting depends on how the clone is being made.

    When making a 'replacement' boot drive, however, the entire issue goes
    away, not even needing to know which does what, if one simply boots the
    cloning software and clones first, without having booted XP with the new
    drive installed, in which case it won't have seen the new hard drive and
    will not have created a drive signature for it prior to cloning. Then, as
    you suggest, boot the new drive alone so the old one doesn't come up as C:
    since that assignment is PERSISTENT as long as the partition is there to
    'see' (or is forced into reassignment by a collision).
     
    David Maynard, May 31, 2006
    #59
  20. Rod Speed Guest

    David Maynard <> wrote
    > Rod Speed wrote
    >> David Maynard <> wrote
    >>> Rod Speed wrote
    >>>> David Maynard <> wrote


    > <multiple snips to cut down the BS>


    You added more bullshit.

    >>>> Nope, it aint persistence thats the problem with cloning.


    >>> It most certainly is.


    >> Nope.


    > Yep.


    Nope.

    >>> Why do you suppose none of this was an issue prior to drive letter persistence?


    >> Its a coincidence.


    > A "coincidence." <chuckle>


    Having fun child ?

    >> Its actually due to the way ntldr works, nothing to do with drive letter pesistence.


    > Well, it's certainly true that ntldr has to be able to find the partitions. Of course,
    > so does everything else.


    Irrelevant to whether drive letter persistence is the problem.

    >> It cant be due to drive letter persistence if being careful
    >> to ensure that XP cant see the original drive on the first
    >> boot of the clone ensures that the clone boots fine.


    > And why do you need to 'be careful it doesn't see the original drive'?
    > Because the drive assignments are PERSISTENT as long as the partition is there to see
    > (or manually assigned).


    Wrong.

    > I am pleased as punch your method, whatever it is, works 'every time' for you but the
    > giant leap you then make that every possible method behaves the same is incorrect,


    YOU get to spell out when that approach doesnt work.

    THATS how it works.

    > as well as the second invalid leap that it isn't drive letter persistence.


    YOU made that claim.

    YOU get to substantiate that claim.

    THATS how it works.

    > Depending on the program used to make the clone, and which options one uses in that
    > program, the partition and drive IDs may, or may not, be preserved and they are not 'all
    > the same'.


    They are on that question of what XP can see on the first boot of the clone.

    > For example, in Ghost 2003 the -FDSZ switch forces the disk signature zero while
    > the -FDSP switch forces disk signature preserve and the reason for both switches is that
    > the 'default' setting depends on how the clone is being made.


    Irrelevant to whether drive persistence is the problem.

    > When making a 'replacement' boot drive, however, the entire issue goes away, not even
    > needing to know which does what, if one simply boots the cloning software and clones
    > first, without having booted XP with the new drive installed, in which case it won't
    > have seen the new hard drive and will not have created a drive signature for it prior to
    > cloning.


    Pity that will see the boot of the clone involve both drives
    if XP can see the original on the first boot after the clone.

    > Then, as you suggest, boot the new drive alone so the old one doesn't come up as C:
    > since that assignment is PERSISTENT as long as the partition is there to 'see' (or is
    > forced into reassignment by a collision).


    Pity that a complete sector by sector clone will mean that
    XP wont even notice that the drive has changed and so it
    has nothing to do with drive letter persistence at all.

    And there cant be any collision if only one drive
    is visible to XP on the first boot of the clone.

    And have fun explaining how come you can make the
    original drive visible to XP again after the first boot
    of the clone with impunity. Clearly drive letter persistence
    doesnt matter THEN.
     
    Rod Speed, May 31, 2006
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.