Transfer Operation System to new hard drive

[ajay67]

I am using Windows 98 with 6GB hard drive. I plan to purchase bigger/faster hard drive, make it the primary drive and install Windows XP on it. Then, the old hard drive will become my second drive. I need advice the best way to do it right from the beginning (formatting, partitioning etc).



Thanks

[Wiggo]

Are ya meanin' to dual boot this or just dump 98? :?:

[ajay67]

I want to use Windows XP only, no need to have win98

[Wiggo]

Ok I use a 98 startup disk to fdisk the partitions in and then format those partition/s not goin' to be used by XP in FAT32 then I reboot with the XP CD which will format the partition that it will sit on in NTFS durin' the setup (yes the lot can be done thru the XP CD but I personally find the other way easier/quicker, maybe because of my age as well).

[Yawgm0th]

If you don't need 98 than just wait until you get your new HD. Put the new HD as primary and the old one as secondary, change your BIOS settings to boot from CD, put in the XP CD and install. The fact that you are using a second hard drive with an OS already installed doesn't matter, so long as you booting from the drive XP is installed on. Is it help installing XP that you want? It's pretty easy, just make sure you know where to get the right drivers for everything in the event that XP doesn't have them. The only major choice to make in XP installation is what file system you use. Many people NTFS for added security benefits, among other things. It really depends on what your using your computer for and if anybody else has access to your computer. Personally, I prefer FAT32 because it's readable from Windows 98 (I have a 98\XP\Linux dual boot) and might in the future be readable by Linux. On top of that, FAT32 has a 5 minute error check whereas NTFS can take over 3 hours depending on the hard drive. If you choose FAT32 you will probably have to have multiple partitions (I think it can only support 30 GB on a partition or something around there). Other than that, installing XP is pretty easy, but if you really need help this site probably has guides all over it that someone could give you a link to.

[asklepios]

The only major choice to make in XP installation is what file system you use. Many people NTFS for added security benefits, among other things. It really depends on what your using your computer for and if anybody else has access to your computer. Personally, I prefer FAT32 because it's readable from Windows 98 (I have a 98\XP\Linux dual boot) and might in the future be readable by Linux. On top of that, FAT32 has a 5 minute error check whereas NTFS can take over 3 hours depending on the hard drive.

NTFS is readable from Linux and my 40GB HD takes 1-2 minutes to do a CHKDSK /F. are you sure about that 3 hours part? :confused:

[Yawgm0th]

It takes 3 hours on 80 gig drives I've done when "Automatically fix file system errors" and "Scan for and attempt recovery of bad sectors" are checked. If you open command prompt and type checkdisk[DriveLetter] it won't do either of those, won't require a reboot with error checking scheduled, and should go incredibly fast. It also doesn't work as well. In any case, it doesn't matter that much, I was just saying I like FAT32 better, I really don't care that much what the thread starter uses. NTFS is better in a lot of ways, but as I said I dual boot and Windows 98 CANNOT read NTFS and I need access to my XP partition and other partitions while using it. My Linux distro must getting old or something (which is quite possible), because last time I checked it couldn't read NTFS partitions. What distro do you use?

[Wiggo]

I've never had a drive no matter what the size or speed take 3hrs (my JB800's take about 1hr 20mins and my old 60GB Barra IV's take about 1hr 50mins, even my old 5400rpm 20GB Fujitsu drives only take 2hr 15mins), I'd be checkin' the drive with the maker's diagnostic software if that was the case (or checkin' the BIOS to make sure that the proper communication mode is engaged), though NTFS is much better for XP (or Win2K) to be mounted on but my shared partition/s are always done in FAT32 for easier recovery when the os neededs to be redone (only done 3 times with XP in my experience since it was intro'd but many more others are still chuggin' along) plus I now loath scandisk engagin' after a brownout (or improper shut down) which happens when only FAT32 is used (it doesn't happen with NTFS though a lot of my older PC's run 98SE which can't be helped). Oh btw I use 10GB partitions for XP to reside on with everything else on a FAT32 partition (other's may not agree with my setups but they're stable and work for me and my customers).

[asklepios]

actually i don't have any problems with anyone using whatever filesystems they want to. its just that 3 hour thing striking me and now i understand what you are saying. well yes disk checking in NTFS might take 3 hours on a huge disk but then try ScanDisk with a full surface scan on the same disk and you will have that much of time. they both take almost same time. when you check the box regarding bad sectors, that is what checkdisk does. it goes for a full surface scan hence taking that much of time. if you are sure that your drive does not have bad sectors then just checking the box against fix errors stuff does the job pretty well.
about Linux well all the recent distros can read from NTFS and now the Linux developers are planning on using MS drivers to access NTFS which will allow even write operations (NTFS is read-only for Linux till now) and that too safely. i have checked it with Mandrake 9.1, Slackware 9.0 and my current distro Slackware 9.1. RedHat does not support NTFS inherently but you can install the patch available on sourceforge and you will be done. afaik its only RedHat that does not support NTFS out-of-box cos of legal issues otherwise all distros support this file system. tell us what distro are you using.

[Wiggo]

The only thing is that the author of this thread has in no way mentioned Linux so why have others? (but then FAT32 is still easier to work with) :confused:

[minibubba]

The only thing is that the author of this thread has in no way mentioned Linux so why have others? (but then FAT32 is still easier to work with) :confused:

it's here:

Personally, I prefer FAT32 because it's readable from Windows 98 (I have a 98\XP\Linux dual boot) and might in the future be readable by Linux. On top of that, FAT32 has a 5 minute error check whereas NTFS can take over 3 hours depending on the hard drive.

it wasn't brought up by the author, but it still came up anyway. it's funny how a small little comment can make a thread take on a new course.

*btw, welcome to tweaktown Yawgm0th & ajay67 :)

[ajay67]

thanks for all your good feedback. I've got my HD already, I'll install it after reviewing all feedbacks.

BTW can I format to FAT32 using XP, or I have to do it with win98? If dual-boot is good, then I rather keep my win98 on old drive

[asklepios]

IIRC XP does provide you an option to format the drive in FAT32 or NTFS at the time of install process. you can do it from there.
if you don't want to use Win98 at all then i don't see any reason as to why you should have it.

[Yawgm0th]

If your going to dual boot, just format in FAT32 (unless you want NTFS) from Windows 98 and when XP asks where to install it make sure you select your new drive and the correct partition. You will have to have 3 seperate partitions, which isn't a bad thing neccesarily. If you mess up and have to reinstall and still want a dual boot system, make sure you install 98 first (it will overwrite XP's boot loader otherwise). You can format from XP's install disk, but it's faster and easier from 98 (in my opinion). As for Linux, I was lying when I said my distro might be getting old, I'm using RedHat 9. I was just trying to hide the fact that I'm only a small step above newbie in terms of Linux familiarty. I'm sorry :o . Interesting about the NTFS update. I might try that in the future if and when I build another computer. There isn't any way to get RedHat to read and/or write to FAT32 currently is there?

[asklepios]

There isn't any way to get RedHat to read and/or write to FAT32 currently is there?

i think you meant NTFS there. didn't you? cos Redhat 9 or any other distro can very well use FAT32 as easily as it can use may be ext2, ext3 or reiserfs for that matter. just not for installation purpose otherwise it is a great file-system to have on a machine with both Linux and Windows.
about NTFS and Redhat. just go to http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/ and read on. you will be amazed to see as to how simple it is :cheers: