won't defrag <20 GB HDD

[Walterius]

Defrag says "not enough memory to defrag this drive" and to close open pgms
and try again.

FAT32. Has 480 MB memory (after AGP), nothing extra running. Error makes no
sense. Defrags other drives of similar size.

???

[Noel Paton]

Most likely is that you have limited the Windows Swapfile and/or have Norton
software installed.

What is the size of your C:\ drive?
Do you have Norton software installed??
Have you limited your Swapfile/PageFile/Virtual Memory???


--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Walterius" > wrote in message
...
> Defrag says "not enough memory to defrag this drive" and to close open
> pgms
> and try again.
>
> FAT32. Has 480 MB memory (after AGP), nothing extra running. Error makes
> no
> sense. Defrags other drives of similar size.
>
> ???
>
>

[Ross Corben]

I have a defrag problem too. I cant use DVD player either. I have CW
shredder, stinger, Ad-Aware, Spybot, Spyblaster, AVG free. I followed the
steps in http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;218160 but
the defrag wont go further than 4%. Defrag didn't even start at all from
Maintenance Wizard

"Walterius" wrote:

> Hmmm. Thanks for your response, Noel.
>
> I do not use Norton.
> I have not knowingly set any limits on my swapfile/pagefile/VM.
> My C: drive is 26 GB. (It is a partition on a 60-GB drive.)
>
> The partition that won't defrag is 19.5 GB and runs Win2K. (It is a
> partition on a second 60-GB drive.)
>
> The partition that is attempting the defrag is C:, 26 GB, and runs Windows
> ME. (Note, it successfully defrags another Win2K partition that is larger
> than the 19.5 GB one.)
>
> All six partitions are FAT32:
>
> C: Win ME
> D: Win2K, defrags fine
> E: spare
> F: My Documents
> [G & H: optical drives]
> I: Win2K, won't defrag
>
> I do the defrags in Win ME because I can defrag all drives with one command,
> it has nice visual feedback if I want to watch it, and it is much faster
> than the Win 2K defrag program.
>
> This situation--where I can or cannot defrag a Win2K drive in WinME--comes
> and goes. I rebuild my systems a lot, and sometimes this symptom occurs, but
> usually it doesn't.
>
> "Noel Paton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Most likely is that you have limited the Windows Swapfile and/or have
> Norton
> > software installed.
> >
> > What is the size of your C:\ drive?
> > Do you have Norton software installed??
> > Have you limited your Swapfile/PageFile/Virtual Memory???
> >
> >
> > --
> > Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
> >
> > Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> > http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
> >
> > Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
> >
> > "Walterius" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Defrag says "not enough memory to defrag this drive" and to close open
> > > pgms
> > > and try again.
> > >
> > > FAT32. Has 480 MB memory (after AGP), nothing extra running. Error makes
> > > no
> > > sense. Defrags other drives of similar size.
> > >
> > > ???
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>

[Ross Corben]

I used Ctrl + Alt + Delete to get the close program window to close
everything except Explorer and Systray (& Wuauclt whatever that is - it
wouldn't close). Some things took several times to close. Anyway, then the
computer defragged (the whole C:) no problem. This is weird, because I've
never had to do this before. Haven't got DVD working yet - maybe the lens
needs cleaning?

"Ross Corben" wrote:

> I have a defrag problem too. I cant use DVD player either. I have CW
> shredder, stinger, Ad-Aware, Spybot, Spyblaster, AVG free. I followed the
> steps in http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;218160 but
> the defrag wont go further than 4%. Defrag didn't even start at all from
> Maintenance Wizard
>
> "Walterius" wrote:
>
> > Hmmm. Thanks for your response, Noel.
> >
> > I do not use Norton.
> > I have not knowingly set any limits on my swapfile/pagefile/VM.
> > My C: drive is 26 GB. (It is a partition on a 60-GB drive.)
> >
> > The partition that won't defrag is 19.5 GB and runs Win2K. (It is a
> > partition on a second 60-GB drive.)
> >
> > The partition that is attempting the defrag is C:, 26 GB, and runs Windows
> > ME. (Note, it successfully defrags another Win2K partition that is larger
> > than the 19.5 GB one.)
> >
> > All six partitions are FAT32:
> >
> > C: Win ME
> > D: Win2K, defrags fine
> > E: spare
> > F: My Documents
> > [G & H: optical drives]
> > I: Win2K, won't defrag
> >
> > I do the defrags in Win ME because I can defrag all drives with one command,
> > it has nice visual feedback if I want to watch it, and it is much faster
> > than the Win 2K defrag program.
> >
> > This situation--where I can or cannot defrag a Win2K drive in WinME--comes
> > and goes. I rebuild my systems a lot, and sometimes this symptom occurs, but
> > usually it doesn't.
> >
> > "Noel Paton" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Most likely is that you have limited the Windows Swapfile and/or have
> > Norton
> > > software installed.
> > >
> > > What is the size of your C:\ drive?
> > > Do you have Norton software installed??
> > > Have you limited your Swapfile/PageFile/Virtual Memory???
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
> > >
> > > Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> > > http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
> > >
> > > Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
> > >
> > > "Walterius" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Defrag says "not enough memory to defrag this drive" and to close open
> > > > pgms
> > > > and try again.
> > > >
> > > > FAT32. Has 480 MB memory (after AGP), nothing extra running. Error makes
> > > > no
> > > > sense. Defrags other drives of similar size.
> > > >
> > > > ???
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >

[Noel Paton]

wuauclt is the Windows Update Automatic Client - which in theory should shut
itself down after a few seconds unless there's something to download - have
you checked?


--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Ross Corben" > wrote in message
...
>I used Ctrl + Alt + Delete to get the close program window to close
> everything except Explorer and Systray (& Wuauclt whatever that is - it
> wouldn't close). Some things took several times to close. Anyway, then the
> computer defragged (the whole C:) no problem. This is weird, because I've
> never had to do this before. Haven't got DVD working yet - maybe the lens
> needs cleaning?
>
> "Ross Corben" wrote:
>
>> I have a defrag problem too. I cant use DVD player either. I have CW
>> shredder, stinger, Ad-Aware, Spybot, Spyblaster, AVG free. I followed the
>> steps in http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;218160
>> but
>> the defrag wont go further than 4%. Defrag didn't even start at all from
>> Maintenance Wizard
>>
>> "Walterius" wrote:
>>
>> > Hmmm. Thanks for your response, Noel.
>> >
>> > I do not use Norton.
>> > I have not knowingly set any limits on my swapfile/pagefile/VM.
>> > My C: drive is 26 GB. (It is a partition on a 60-GB drive.)
>> >
>> > The partition that won't defrag is 19.5 GB and runs Win2K. (It is a
>> > partition on a second 60-GB drive.)
>> >
>> > The partition that is attempting the defrag is C:, 26 GB, and runs
>> > Windows
>> > ME. (Note, it successfully defrags another Win2K partition that is
>> > larger
>> > than the 19.5 GB one.)
>> >
>> > All six partitions are FAT32:
>> >
>> > C: Win ME
>> > D: Win2K, defrags fine
>> > E: spare
>> > F: My Documents
>> > [G & H: optical drives]
>> > I: Win2K, won't defrag
>> >
>> > I do the defrags in Win ME because I can defrag all drives with one
>> > command,
>> > it has nice visual feedback if I want to watch it, and it is much
>> > faster
>> > than the Win 2K defrag program.
>> >
>> > This situation--where I can or cannot defrag a Win2K drive in
>> > WinME--comes
>> > and goes. I rebuild my systems a lot, and sometimes this symptom
>> > occurs, but
>> > usually it doesn't.
>> >
>> > "Noel Paton" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > Most likely is that you have limited the Windows Swapfile and/or have
>> > Norton
>> > > software installed.
>> > >
>> > > What is the size of your C:\ drive?
>> > > Do you have Norton software installed??
>> > > Have you limited your Swapfile/PageFile/Virtual Memory???
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>> > >
>> > > Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>> > > http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>> > >
>> > > http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>> > >
>> > > Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to
>> > > NG's
>> > >
>> > > "Walterius" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > > Defrag says "not enough memory to defrag this drive" and to close
>> > > > open
>> > > > pgms
>> > > > and try again.
>> > > >
>> > > > FAT32. Has 480 MB memory (after AGP), nothing extra running. Error
>> > > > makes
>> > > > no
>> > > > sense. Defrags other drives of similar size.
>> > > >
>> > > > ???
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >

[Walterius]

> which in theory should shut
> itself down after a few seconds

A "few" seconds is a most irritating 30 seconds.

As a test, I defragged the recalcitrant drive in Win2K. It took hours
because it was totally fragged. I then gave it to the WME defrag, which
again barfed. So it's not too having much defragging to do. It's something
else. It can't even defrag a defragged drive.

Anyway, I can defrag the drive, although it takes far longer in Win2K.

[Noel Paton]

The reasons that the drive defrags in Win2K is that it isn't being accessed
from the OS at the time, and therefore not hitting the problem - how much
free space is there on the drive?? (and how big is it?).

What's the EXACT error message you get? - ALL of it!

Not enough memory could mean a number of things - including that you have
limited the Virtual memory to the point where scandisk can no longer
function properly.
Check out the VM settings in System|Performance|Virtual Memory - make sure
that Windows is set to manage it.


--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Walterius" > wrote in message
...
>> which in theory should shut
>> itself down after a few seconds
>
> A "few" seconds is a most irritating 30 seconds.
>
> As a test, I defragged the recalcitrant drive in Win2K. It took hours
> because it was totally fragged. I then gave it to the WME defrag, which
> again barfed. So it's not too having much defragging to do. It's something
> else. It can't even defrag a defragged drive.
>
> Anyway, I can defrag the drive, although it takes far longer in Win2K.
>
>

[Walterius]

The only possible difference I can find between the drive that does not
defragment in WME and the drive that does is that I originally formatted the
recalcitrant drive in NTFS and later converted it to FAT32 in Partition
Magic.

All your other questions have been answered, most more than once, in my
previous posts. All parameters including VM are normal.

At this point, unless some other kind poster has new information, I give up.

[Noel Paton]

You didn't answer how much free space there is on the drive - Win ME's
Defragger has to have about 15% free, or it can get uppity.

However, the fact that you used PM to partition and format the drive may be
significant - PM had (maybe still has) a habit of creating non-standard
partitions which react in strange ways at times.
It's for this reason that I always recommend using FDISK to prepare a FAT32
drive for use by windows, unless other factors prohibit it.

Since PM is now owned by Symantec, you can guarantee that it's going to be
impossible to find answers for any problems with older versions of PM (I
assume you used PM6 or earlier?), and hard for any 'currently-supported'
versions :(

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Walterius" > wrote in message
...
> The only possible difference I can find between the drive that does not
> defragment in WME and the drive that does is that I originally formatted
> the
> recalcitrant drive in NTFS and later converted it to FAT32 in Partition
> Magic.
>
> All your other questions have been answered, most more than once, in my
> previous posts. All parameters including VM are normal.
>
> At this point, unless some other kind poster has new information, I give
> up.
>
>

[Noel Paton]

Ah - finally found something on the Symantec site, that prodded a
braincell----
what's the cluster size on that partition/drive? PM allowed the bad practice
of creating partitions greater than 8GB with a 4KB cluster size - with the
result that scandisk and defrag would run out of steam (not sure whether the
Win2k defragger is also affected or not)
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q229154/



--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Walterius" > wrote in message
...
> The only possible difference I can find between the drive that does not
> defragment in WME and the drive that does is that I originally formatted
> the
> recalcitrant drive in NTFS and later converted it to FAT32 in Partition
> Magic.
>
> All your other questions have been answered, most more than once, in my
> previous posts. All parameters including VM are normal.
>
> At this point, unless some other kind poster has new information, I give
> up.
>
>

[Walterius]

Free space on C: 21.5 GB (4.5 GB used)
Free space on non-defragging drive: 13 GB (6.5 GB used)

I am using PM 8.

"Noel Paton" > wrote in message
...
> You didn't answer how much free space there is on the drive - Win ME's
> Defragger has to have about 15% free, or it can get uppity.
>
> However, the fact that you used PM to partition and format the drive may
be
> significant - PM had (maybe still has) a habit of creating non-standard
> partitions which react in strange ways at times.
> It's for this reason that I always recommend using FDISK to prepare a
FAT32
> drive for use by windows, unless other factors prohibit it.
>
> Since PM is now owned by Symantec, you can guarantee that it's going to be
> impossible to find answers for any problems with older versions of PM (I
> assume you used PM6 or earlier?), and hard for any 'currently-supported'
> versions :(
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>
> "Walterius" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The only possible difference I can find between the drive that does not
> > defragment in WME and the drive that does is that I originally formatted
> > the
> > recalcitrant drive in NTFS and later converted it to FAT32 in Partition
> > Magic.
> >
> > All your other questions have been answered, most more than once, in my
> > previous posts. All parameters including VM are normal.
> >
> > At this point, unless some other kind poster has new information, I give
> > up.
> >
> >
>
>

[Walterius]

The 19.5 GB partition that does *not* defrag has 512 byte clusters.

The 19.8 GB partition that *does* defragment has 4k clusters.

According to the KB article (thanks!) " This configuration [won't defrag]
may occur if you use a third-party disk tool [PM8] to create a partition on
a hard disk that is larger than 8 GB and that has a cluster size that is
smaller than 8 KB."

Progress at last! Now what do I do?

"Noel Paton" > wrote in message
...
> Ah - finally found something on the Symantec site, that prodded a
> braincell----
> what's the cluster size on that partition/drive? PM allowed the bad
practice
> of creating partitions greater than 8GB with a 4KB cluster size - with the
> result that scandisk and defrag would run out of steam (not sure whether
the
> Win2k defragger is also affected or not)
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q229154/
>
>
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>
> "Walterius" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The only possible difference I can find between the drive that does not
> > defragment in WME and the drive that does is that I originally formatted
> > the
> > recalcitrant drive in NTFS and later converted it to FAT32 in Partition
> > Magic.
> >
> > All your other questions have been answered, most more than once, in my
> > previous posts. All parameters including VM are normal.
> >
> > At this point, unless some other kind poster has new information, I give
> > up.
> >
> >
>
>

[Rick T]

Copy contents to C:, reFDISK it, reFormat it, copy stuff back.


Rick


Walterius wrote:
> The 19.5 GB partition that does *not* defrag has 512 byte clusters.
>
> The 19.8 GB partition that *does* defragment has 4k clusters.
>
> According to the KB article (thanks!) " This configuration [won't defrag]
> may occur if you use a third-party disk tool [PM8] to create a partition on
> a hard disk that is larger than 8 GB and that has a cluster size that is
> smaller than 8 KB."
>
> Progress at last! Now what do I do?
>
> "Noel Paton" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Ah - finally found something on the Symantec site, that prodded a
>>braincell----
>>what's the cluster size on that partition/drive? PM allowed the bad
>
> practice
>
>>of creating partitions greater than 8GB with a 4KB cluster size - with the
>>result that scandisk and defrag would run out of steam (not sure whether
>
> the
>
>>Win2k defragger is also affected or not)
>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q229154/
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>>
>>Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>>http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>>
>>Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>>
>>"Walterius" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>The only possible difference I can find between the drive that does not
>>>defragment in WME and the drive that does is that I originally formatted
>>>the
>>>recalcitrant drive in NTFS and later converted it to FAT32 in Partition
>>>Magic.
>>>
>>>All your other questions have been answered, most more than once, in my
>>>previous posts. All parameters including VM are normal.
>>>
>>>At this point, unless some other kind poster has new information, I give
>>>up.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Noel Paton]

Hmmm - theory is right - practice could be difficult on the ME box, due to
in-use files, etc. I'd suggest doing this from your Win2k box, after
deleting the contents of the temporary folders, and the swapfile
(Win386.swp). make a standard full backup also (I assume you have backup
software? - whose??- you may be able to use that, instead of a file-copy).

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Rick T" > wrote in message
...
> Copy contents to C:, reFDISK it, reFormat it, copy stuff back.
>
>
> Rick
>
>
> Walterius wrote:
>> The 19.5 GB partition that does *not* defrag has 512 byte clusters.
>>
>> The 19.8 GB partition that *does* defragment has 4k clusters.
>>
>> According to the KB article (thanks!) " This configuration [won't defrag]
>> may occur if you use a third-party disk tool [PM8] to create a partition
>> on
>> a hard disk that is larger than 8 GB and that has a cluster size that is
>> smaller than 8 KB."
>>
>> Progress at last! Now what do I do?
>>
>> "Noel Paton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Ah - finally found something on the Symantec site, that prodded a
>>>braincell----
>>>what's the cluster size on that partition/drive? PM allowed the bad
>>
>> practice
>>
>>>of creating partitions greater than 8GB with a 4KB cluster size - with
>>>the
>>>result that scandisk and defrag would run out of steam (not sure whether
>>
>> the
>>
>>>Win2k defragger is also affected or not)
>>>http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q229154/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>>>
>>>Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>>>http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>>>
>>>Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>>>
>>>"Walterius" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>The only possible difference I can find between the drive that does not
>>>>defragment in WME and the drive that does is that I originally formatted
>>>>the
>>>>recalcitrant drive in NTFS and later converted it to FAT32 in Partition
>>>>Magic.
>>>>
>>>>All your other questions have been answered, most more than once, in my
>>>>previous posts. All parameters including VM are normal.
>>>>
>>>>At this point, unless some other kind poster has new information, I give
>>>>up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

[Rick T]

Noel Paton wrote:
> Hmmm - theory is right - practice could be difficult on the ME box, due to
> in-use files, etc. I'd suggest doing this from your Win2k box, after
> deleting the contents of the temporary folders, and the swapfile
> (Win386.swp). make a standard full backup also (I assume you have backup
> software? - whose??- you may be able to use that, instead of a file-copy).
>

from a previous OP post:

Free space on C: 21.5 GB (4.5 GB used)
Free space on non-defragging drive: 13 GB (6.5 GB used)

C: is OK, it's D: that's causing problems because he's gone FAT32 > NTFS
> FAT32 and ended up with that horrible freakin' useless 512b cluster size.

If he's put system files/directories on D: then he knows that he has to
shift them back over to C: anyways (or he does now).

Walterius, is there anything on D: except .mp3s sort of thing ?



Rick

[Noel Paton]

I think they're different boxes, Rick


--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Rick T" > wrote in message
...
> Noel Paton wrote:
>> Hmmm - theory is right - practice could be difficult on the ME box, due
>> to in-use files, etc. I'd suggest doing this from your Win2k box, after
>> deleting the contents of the temporary folders, and the swapfile
>> (Win386.swp). make a standard full backup also (I assume you have backup
>> software? - whose??- you may be able to use that, instead of a
>> file-copy).
>>
>
> from a previous OP post:
>
> Free space on C: 21.5 GB (4.5 GB used)
> Free space on non-defragging drive: 13 GB (6.5 GB used)
>
> C: is OK, it's D: that's causing problems because he's gone FAT32 > NTFS
> > FAT32 and ended up with that horrible freakin' useless 512b cluster
> > size.
>
> If he's put system files/directories on D: then he knows that he has to
> shift them back over to C: anyways (or he does now).
>
> Walterius, is there anything on D: except .mp3s sort of thing ?
>
>
>
> Rick

[Walterius]

They are all on an Athlon 2000 computer with two hard drives and four
partitions.

"Noel Paton" > wrote in message
...
> I think they're different boxes, Rick
>
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>
> "Rick T" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Noel Paton wrote:
> >> Hmmm - theory is right - practice could be difficult on the ME box, due
> >> to in-use files, etc. I'd suggest doing this from your Win2k box, after
> >> deleting the contents of the temporary folders, and the swapfile
> >> (Win386.swp). make a standard full backup also (I assume you have
backup
> >> software? - whose??- you may be able to use that, instead of a
> >> file-copy).
> >>
> >
> > from a previous OP post:
> >
> > Free space on C: 21.5 GB (4.5 GB used)
> > Free space on non-defragging drive: 13 GB (6.5 GB used)
> >
> > C: is OK, it's D: that's causing problems because he's gone FAT32 > NTFS
> > > FAT32 and ended up with that horrible freakin' useless 512b cluster
> > > size.
> >
> > If he's put system files/directories on D: then he knows that he has to
> > shift them back over to C: anyways (or he does now).
> >
> > Walterius, is there anything on D: except .mp3s sort of thing ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Rick
>
>

[Walterius]

Rick,

The partition that won't defrag contains an elaborate, experimental Win2K
system. It was born to be played with and then wiped out, but it is
otherwise working well and I have not finished my experimentation.

The two hard drives contain four partitions: WinME, a normal and an
experimental Win2K system, and the My Documents partition.

I may be faced with blowing away the experimental system and starting over
after reformatting it. I don't think Partition Magic 8 can change the
cluster size and leave the system alone, but I will check that after posting
this.

Noel,

The backup software I have is that which comes with Win2K and that, if any,
which comes with WinME.

"Rick T" > wrote in message
...
> Noel Paton wrote:
> > Hmmm - theory is right - practice could be difficult on the ME box, due
to
> > in-use files, etc. I'd suggest doing this from your Win2k box, after
> > deleting the contents of the temporary folders, and the swapfile
> > (Win386.swp). make a standard full backup also (I assume you have backup
> > software? - whose??- you may be able to use that, instead of a
file-copy).
> >
>
> from a previous OP post:
>
> Free space on C: 21.5 GB (4.5 GB used)
> Free space on non-defragging drive: 13 GB (6.5 GB used)
>
> C: is OK, it's D: that's causing problems because he's gone FAT32 > NTFS
> > FAT32 and ended up with that horrible freakin' useless 512b cluster
size.
>
> If he's put system files/directories on D: then he knows that he has to
> shift them back over to C: anyways (or he does now).
>
> Walterius, is there anything on D: except .mp3s sort of thing ?
>
>
>
> Rick

[Walterius]

Partition Magic 8 changed the cluster size from 512 bytes to 4 kb (in an
hour or so!) and the partition then defragged without problem.

Many thanks, Noel, for your help. :)

Walterius

[Rick T]

Walterius wrote:
> Partition Magic 8 changed the cluster size from 512 bytes to 4 kb (in an
> hour or so!) and the partition then defragged without problem.
>
> Many thanks, Noel, for your help. :)
>
> Walterius
>
>

bizarre, PM should know that 9x Defrag won't work on a 512b cluster size.

Rick

[Noel Paton]

.....agreed, but PM does what you tell it to - it just doesn't put
appropriate warnings along the way!!

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Rick T" > wrote in message
...
> Walterius wrote:
>> Partition Magic 8 changed the cluster size from 512 bytes to 4 kb (in an
>> hour or so!) and the partition then defragged without problem.
>>
>> Many thanks, Noel, for your help. :)
>>
>> Walterius
>>
>>
>
> bizarre, PM should know that 9x Defrag won't work on a 512b cluster size.
>
> Rick

[Walterius]

I quite agree that PM screwed up, but that's the first time. I find the
program bends over backwards to be helpful and to caution users against
incorrect decisions. In addition, and this is why I love it, it has never
cost me any data.

"Noel Paton" > wrote in message
...
> ....agreed, but PM does what you tell it to - it just doesn't put
> appropriate warnings along the way!!
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>
> "Rick T" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Walterius wrote:
> >> Partition Magic 8 changed the cluster size from 512 bytes to 4 kb (in
an
> >> hour or so!) and the partition then defragged without problem.
> >>
> >> Many thanks, Noel, for your help. :)
> >>
> >> Walterius
> >>
> >>
> >
> > bizarre, PM should know that 9x Defrag won't work on a 512b cluster
size.
> >
> > Rick
>
>

[Noel Paton]

With respect, although PM offered the option, it was you who pressed the
'Go' button without understanding the implications.
Somewhere here I have a copy of the PM5 manual, which explained the perils
of improper cluster-sizes - so the information is/was there, if you looked
for it, despite the (undeniable) fact that PM doesn't specifically flag it
as being 'dangerous' at the time (there are a few worse things that can
happen in such cases - you're lucky the drive was still so empty!!).
I must admit that I would have assumed that by v8 they would have learned a
lesson - but maybe by that time Symantec's mentality had taken over?

In short - PM is past it's (very good) best, and has been overtaken by
others in both the functionality and value stakes - and it's current owners'
reputation leaves an awful lot to be desired. If I were you, I'd look at
alternatives. Personally, I use BootItNG (half the price of PM, last I
heard - and it's a lifetime licence with unlimited upgrades!)

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Walterius" > wrote in message
...
>I quite agree that PM screwed up, but that's the first time. I find the
> program bends over backwards to be helpful and to caution users against
> incorrect decisions. In addition, and this is why I love it, it has never
> cost me any data.
>
> "Noel Paton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ....agreed, but PM does what you tell it to - it just doesn't put
>> appropriate warnings along the way!!
>>
>> --
>> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>>
>> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>> http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>>
>> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>>
>> "Rick T" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Walterius wrote:
>> >> Partition Magic 8 changed the cluster size from 512 bytes to 4 kb (in
> an
>> >> hour or so!) and the partition then defragged without problem.
>> >>
>> >> Many thanks, Noel, for your help. :)
>> >>
>> >> Walterius
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > bizarre, PM should know that 9x Defrag won't work on a 512b cluster
> size.
>> >
>> > Rick
>>
>>
>
>

[Walterius]

Well, there you go. In any event, the problem is solved, and I learned
something (painlessly), and those are what count to me.

Take care, and thanks again.

[Mart]

I would generally concur with your comments, Noel - although as yet, I've
not gone down the BootItNG route (far too much messing to pay/register (in
the UK)for the amount of times that I would ever need this utility these
days - in spite of its reputation, can't (yet) justify the hassle)

Further, with XP, I've not had the need (nor inclination) to partition my
HDD(s) and tend to let NTFS (<spit>) take care of itself (Sorry Chris Q, if
your watching - I strongly agree that NTFS is a PITA - but for some OEM
installations, you don't even get a choice)

Regarding Walterius' final comments (elsewhere on 02/08/2005 @ 22.37 BST) -
Learning something, especially 'painlessly', has to be worth more than money
can buy.

Mart


"Noel Paton" > wrote in message
...
> With respect, although PM offered the option, it was you who pressed the
> 'Go' button without understanding the implications.
> Somewhere here I have a copy of the PM5 manual, which explained the perils
> of improper cluster-sizes - so the information is/was there, if you looked
> for it, despite the (undeniable) fact that PM doesn't specifically flag it
> as being 'dangerous' at the time (there are a few worse things that can
> happen in such cases - you're lucky the drive was still so empty!!).
> I must admit that I would have assumed that by v8 they would have learned
> a lesson - but maybe by that time Symantec's mentality had taken over?
>
> In short - PM is past it's (very good) best, and has been overtaken by
> others in both the functionality and value stakes - and it's current
> owners' reputation leaves an awful lot to be desired. If I were you, I'd
> look at alternatives. Personally, I use BootItNG (half the price of PM,
> last I heard - and it's a lifetime licence with unlimited upgrades!)
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>
> "Walterius" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I quite agree that PM screwed up, but that's the first time. I find the
>> program bends over backwards to be helpful and to caution users against
>> incorrect decisions. In addition, and this is why I love it, it has never
>> cost me any data.
>>
>> "Noel Paton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> ....agreed, but PM does what you tell it to - it just doesn't put
>>> appropriate warnings along the way!!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>>>
>>> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
>>> http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>>>
>>> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to
>>> NG's
>>>
>>> "Rick T" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > Walterius wrote:
>>> >> Partition Magic 8 changed the cluster size from 512 bytes to 4 kb (in
>> an
>>> >> hour or so!) and the partition then defragged without problem.
>>> >>
>>> >> Many thanks, Noel, for your help. :)
>>> >>
>>> >> Walterius
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > bizarre, PM should know that 9x Defrag won't work on a 512b cluster
>> size.
>>> >
>>> > Rick
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Noel Paton]

Points taken - 'live and learn' is the essence of these groups, after all!

You're welcome, and good luck.

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Walterius" > wrote in message
...
> Well, there you go. In any event, the problem is solved, and I learned
> something (painlessly), and those are what count to me.
>
> Take care, and thanks again.
>
>

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 00:25:19 +0100, "Mart" >

>Further, with XP, I've not had the need (nor inclination) to partition my
>HDD(s) and tend to let NTFS (<spit>) take care of itself (Sorry Chris Q, if
>your watching - I strongly agree that NTFS is a PITA - but for some OEM
>installations, you don't even get a choice)

What I do in those OEM cases is not buy that brand of OEMware.

What I do in cases where that brand of OEMware has been bought, is:
- drop HD into my "slurping system"
- image HD to the "slurping system" using BING
- within the "slurping system" OS, de-bulk the HD
- HD goes back to OEM-crippled system
- BING used to shrink partition
- BING used to create extended, logicals to taste
- HD back to "slurping system", bulk back to new volumes

Commonly after this sort of thing, the systerm won't boot, even though
you resisted the temptation to do the resize on the "slurping system"
that might have a different BIOS HD geometry logic. If that problem
persists after the usual boot record code massages, then resizing the
C: smaller, then back again, usually fixes. Actually, this problem
really only arises after an image graft without resizing.

As to the perils of NTFS, one of two problems is improving. Thanks to
Bart's PE, it's now becoming easier to formally manage active malware
on NTFS, and to evacuate data from a healthy NTFS volume.

But we are still stuck with poor tools to manage a bent NTFS volume.
AutoChk is lethal, as it's not undoable and doesn't query before
"fixing" things. Even when that's disabled, the problem remains that
there's no interactive file system repair tool for NTFS, that prompts
on problems the way that Scandisk does.

Further, there's no equivalent of Norton DiskEdit to edit raw disk
through an UI that understands NTFS file system logic. All we have
are automagical recovery tools that might find a "lost" partition, but
can't cope if the innards of that partition are bent.

So while it's less onerous to be stuck with an installation on an NTFS
C: (as you can at least av-scan it from a Bart-booted CDR), it's still
risky to keep data on NTFS, especially the same NTFS C: that the OS,
temp, pagefile etc. are constantly hammering away on.



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

[Mart]

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:49:43 +0200 "cquirke" (MVP Windows shell/user)
wrote:-

>>Further, with XP, I've not had the need (nor inclination) to partition my
>>HDD(s) and tend to let NTFS (<spit>) take care of itself (Sorry Chris Q,
>>if
>>your watching - I strongly agree that NTFS is a PITA - but for some OEM
>>installations, you don't even get a choice)
>
> What I do in those OEM cases is not buy that brand of OEMware.

Wasn't an option <g>

> What I do in cases where that brand of OEMware has been bought, is:
> - drop HD into my "slurping system"
> - image HD to the "slurping system" using BING
> - within the "slurping system" OS, de-bulk the HD
> - HD goes back to OEM-crippled system
> - BING used to shrink partition
> - BING used to create extended, logicals to taste
> - HD back to "slurping system", bulk back to new volumes
>
> Commonly after this sort of thing, the systerm won't boot, even though
> you resisted the temptation to do the resize on the "slurping system"
> that might have a different BIOS HD geometry logic. If that problem
> persists after the usual boot record code massages, then resizing the
> C: smaller, then back again, usually fixes. Actually, this problem
> really only arises after an image graft without resizing.
>
> As to the perils of NTFS, one of two problems is improving. Thanks to
> Bart's PE, it's now becoming easier to formally manage active malware
> on NTFS, and to evacuate data from a healthy NTFS volume.

Sounds good and makes sense (subject to my proviso re: hassle obtaining
BING) and I will review your Bart's PE advice.

> But we are still stuck with poor tools to manage a bent NTFS volume.
> AutoChk is lethal, as it's not undoable and doesn't query before
> "fixing" things. Even when that's disabled, the problem remains that
> there's no interactive file system repair tool for NTFS, that prompts
> on problems the way that Scandisk does.
>
> Further, there's no equivalent of Norton DiskEdit to edit raw disk
> through an UI that understands NTFS file system logic. All we have
> are automagical recovery tools that might find a "lost" partition, but
> can't cope if the innards of that partition are bent.
>
> So while it's less onerous to be stuck with an installation on an NTFS
> C: (as you can at least av-scan it from a Bart-booted CDR), it's still
> risky to keep data on NTFS, especially the same NTFS C: that the OS,
> temp, pagefile etc. are constantly hammering away on.

However, when faced with an 'unbootable' OS and no tools and time being of
the essence (day before xmas eve), the simplest 'solution' (for me) was to
dump the contents of the 'suspect' HDD - via a USB-IDE adapter - onto
another (XP) machine and salvage the data at leisure (most was already
backed-up anyway). Then re-format and re-install OEM package (NTFS of
course, Duh!)

Then tried to MaxBlast it to an identical HDD - which didn't work, on
hindsight, probably due to the "common" reasons you expounded earlier.

Does MaxBlast let you image and 'slurp' from NTFS to FAT32? - Must
investigate!!

As it was a 'one-off', it did me a favour because it gave me the excuse not
to re-install all the crxp I'd gathered over the previous couple of years.
So I'm left with the C: drive as NTFS and the D: as FAT32 with my back-ups
on my D: and/or CD and DVD media and I can live with the NTFS issues - but
will investigate the Barts PE option

Thanks for your ideas, they're appreciated.

Mart

>
>
>>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Tip Of The Day:
> To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
>>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

[Mike M]

Mart,

> Sounds good and makes sense (subject to my proviso re: hassle
> obtaining BING) and I will review your Bart's PE advice.

Don't quite understand the hassle you seem to be having in purchasing
BING. Things must have changed somewhat as I did this in the same way as
I make any other internet purchase and received my key by return e-mail.
Of the three vendor sites mentioned I used SWEG and got charged in UKP.
Current price appears to be £20.51 although it seems as if RegNow are
cheaper at £20.08.

Incidentally I think that you can legally use BING for 30 days without a
licence and I shouldn't say this but I think after then it is only a nag
screen and delayed load if you have BING installed as a boot manager and
haven't licensed it. I don't think there is a nag screen if using BING
from a floppy or CD for partition work, only if installed as a boot
manager and the 30 days is up.
--
Mike


Mart > wrote:


<snip>

[Mart]

Mike wrote :-

> Don't quite understand the hassle you seem to be having in purchasing
> BING. Things must have changed ....

You may well be correct, Mike - I seem to recall PayPal was involved at some
point in time or site I tried. But after a 'nasty experience' with PP, I've
never bothered since. I'll re-visit and see if things look better - just
checked and can't see any mention of PP, so will reconsider <g>

Thanks Mike, for the extra info. too.

Mart


"Mike M" > wrote in message
...
> Mart,
>
>> Sounds good and makes sense (subject to my proviso re: hassle
>> obtaining BING) and I will review your Bart's PE advice.
>
somewhat as I did this in the same way as
> I make any other internet purchase and received my key by return e-mail.
> Of the three vendor sites mentioned I used SWEG and got charged in UKP.
> Current price appears to be £20.51 although it seems as if RegNow are
> cheaper at £20.08.
>
> Incidentally I think that you can legally use BING for 30 days without a
> licence and I shouldn't say this but I think after then it is only a nag
> screen and delayed load if you have BING installed as a boot manager and
> haven't licensed it. I don't think there is a nag screen if using BING
> from a floppy or CD for partition work, only if installed as a boot
> manager and the 30 days is up.
> --
> Mike
>
>
> Mart > wrote:
>
>
> <snip>

[Mike M]

Mart,

I understand if PayPal was involved. I know that when I purchased using
the SWEG vendor link I paid using my debit card but assume I could have
used a credit card if I had wanted. Your problem might have been that you
used a link to Terabyte sales rather than one of the vendor links but I'm
only guessing here.

I can quite definitely recommend using a product such as BING or one of
its stable mates if you decide to do any testing. I used an old version
of Ghost when testing Win Me )a version from Binary Research before
Symantec bought Ghost) but today am happy to use BING although every so
often wonder whether to splash out for a copy of their Image For Windows
(IFW).

Cheers,
--
Mike


Mart > wrote:

> You may well be correct, Mike - I seem to recall PayPal was involved
> at some point in time or site I tried. But after a 'nasty experience'
> with PP, I've never bothered since. I'll re-visit and see if things
> look better - just checked and can't see any mention of PP, so will
> reconsider <g>
> Thanks Mike, for the extra info. too.

[Noel Paton]

IIRC, my purchase of BING was using a UK Debit Card (in fact it must have
been, since I've had it for a couple of years, and only got my PayPal
account for a different purpose about 18 months ago.....
I'd have to hunt for the access data - mind you, I was so impressed that the
last time I lost the key, I decided not to wait for them to respond to an
emailed request,, and just bought another copy...... the response arrived
within 24hrs.

I'm a happy Double-BING camper!<g>


--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Mike M" > wrote in message
...
> Mart,
>
> I understand if PayPal was involved. I know that when I purchased using
> the SWEG vendor link I paid using my debit card but assume I could have
> used a credit card if I had wanted. Your problem might have been that you
> used a link to Terabyte sales rather than one of the vendor links but I'm
> only guessing here.
>
> I can quite definitely recommend using a product such as BING or one of
> its stable mates if you decide to do any testing. I used an old version
> of Ghost when testing Win Me )a version from Binary Research before
> Symantec bought Ghost) but today am happy to use BING although every so
> often wonder whether to splash out for a copy of their Image For Windows
> (IFW).
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Mike
>
>
> Mart > wrote:
>
>> You may well be correct, Mike - I seem to recall PayPal was involved
>> at some point in time or site I tried. But after a 'nasty experience'
>> with PP, I've never bothered since. I'll re-visit and see if things
>> look better - just checked and can't see any mention of PP, so will
>> reconsider <g>
>> Thanks Mike, for the extra info. too.
>

[Joan Archer]

<lol> Now that's just being greedy <g>
Joan


Noel Paton wrote:
>
> I'm a happy Double-BING camper!<g>
>
>
>

[Noel Paton]

#bing-bing#
:)

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Joan Archer" > wrote in message
...
> <lol> Now that's just being greedy <g>
> Joan
>
>
> Noel Paton wrote:
>>
>> I'm a happy Double-BING camper!<g>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Walterius]

What's BING?

[Heather]

I was wondering what in heck it was too......or is it that Bootitng program
you guys use instead of Partition Magic??

From the Colonies.

"Walterius" > wrote in message
...
> What's BING?
>
>

[Noel Paton]

Correct - BootItNG, AKA BING - www.terabyteunlimited.com or www.bootitng.com

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Heather" > wrote in message
...
>I was wondering what in heck it was too......or is it that Bootitng program
> you guys use instead of Partition Magic??
>
> From the Colonies.
>
> "Walterius" > wrote in message
> ...
>> What's BING?
>>
>>
>
>

[Walterius]

$35 seems a bit pricey?

"Noel Paton" > wrote in message
...
> Correct - BootItNG, AKA BING - www.terabyteunlimited.com or
www.bootitng.com
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>
> "Heather" > wrote in message
> ...
> >I was wondering what in heck it was too......or is it that Bootitng
program
> > you guys use instead of Partition Magic??
> >
> > From the Colonies.
> >
> > "Walterius" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> What's BING?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

[Mike M]

Pricey? You jest - BING is a most versatile product and knocks spots off
the likes of Ghost and the former Drive Image.
--
Mike Maltby



Walterius > wrote:

> $35 seems a bit pricey?

[Mike M]

Oh and I forgot to mention the excellent support provided through the
Terabyte newsgroups by both Terabyte staff and many of its users.
--
Mike Maltby



Mike M > wrote:

> Pricey? You jest - BING is a most versatile product and knocks spots
> off the likes of Ghost and the former Drive Image.
>
>> $35 seems a bit pricey?

[Walterius]

I slink into a corner and eat humble pie. I was also unaware of all the cool
characteristics of BING. :(

I prefer freeware myself, but even I accept that *some* S/W has to be paid
for.

"Mike M" > wrote in message
...
> Oh and I forgot to mention the excellent support provided through the
> Terabyte newsgroups by both Terabyte staff and many of its users.
> --
> Mike Maltby
>
>
>
> Mike M > wrote:
>
> > Pricey? You jest - BING is a most versatile product and knocks spots
> > off the likes of Ghost and the former Drive Image.
> >
> >> $35 seems a bit pricey?
>

[Mike M]

No need to eat humble pie. <g>

BING is an excellent Boot Manager, Partition Manager and Imaging
application and an almost essential tool for those who multi boot between
multiple operating systems and/or beta or otherwise test such systems.
US$35 is I feel excellent value for such a universal tool that has allowed
me to bail out from major problems both quickly and without loss of my
system.

Cheers,
--
Mike Maltby



Walterius > wrote:

> I slink into a corner and eat humble pie. I was also unaware of all
> the cool characteristics of BING. :(
>
> I prefer freeware myself, but even I accept that *some* S/W has to be
> paid for.

[Walterius]

My question then becomes: since I live on Social Security, and already have,
and extensively use. Partition Manager 8 (I am one of the few who love it),
and I do want to try Linux, is it worth it to scrimp for BING, when PM
claims it can do everything you listed?

"Mike M" > wrote in message
...
> No need to eat humble pie. <g>
>
> BING is an excellent Boot Manager, Partition Manager and Imaging
> application and an almost essential tool for those who multi boot between
> multiple operating systems and/or beta or otherwise test such systems.
> US$35 is I feel excellent value for such a universal tool that has allowed
> me to bail out from major problems both quickly and without loss of my
> system.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Mike Maltby
>
>
>
> Walterius > wrote:
>
> > I slink into a corner and eat humble pie. I was also unaware of all
> > the cool characteristics of BING. :(
> >
> > I prefer freeware myself, but even I accept that *some* S/W has to be
> > paid for.
>

[Mike M]

Why not try it for yourself and let this help make your own mind up? You
can download for free and use for 30 days without having to register after
which you will see nag screens and delays if you have installed it as a
boot manager. There is also no requirement to have purchased BING before
using their newsgroups, many users post queries there when contemplating
purchasing BING.

Not having used either Partition Magic or Boot Magic for some years I feel
unwilling to comment on their suitability. I used to use Ghost for drive
imaging but as with PM and BM no longer use this.
--
Mike Maltby



Walterius > wrote:

> My question then becomes: since I live on Social Security, and
> already have, and extensively use. Partition Manager 8 (I am one of
> the few who love it), and I do want to try Linux, is it worth it to
> scrimp for BING, when PM claims it can do everything you listed?

[Noel Paton]

One other point....
AFAIK, BING gives free upgrades for life - for PM, you have to pay for every
version upgrade.

$35 for a program that will last for (so far, and totally updated) 3 years,
vs. (YIKES!!! _ get this!!) $69.95 for the initial purchase (and ' a
discount of up to 70%' to upgrade) for PM v8.

Looks like a no-brainer to me??


--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Mike M" > wrote in message
...
> Why not try it for yourself and let this help make your own mind up? You
> can download for free and use for 30 days without having to register after
> which you will see nag screens and delays if you have installed it as a
> boot manager. There is also no requirement to have purchased BING before
> using their newsgroups, many users post queries there when contemplating
> purchasing BING.
>
> Not having used either Partition Magic or Boot Magic for some years I feel
> unwilling to comment on their suitability. I used to use Ghost for drive
> imaging but as with PM and BM no longer use this.
> --
> Mike Maltby
>
>
>
> Walterius > wrote:
>
>> My question then becomes: since I live on Social Security, and
>> already have, and extensively use. Partition Manager 8 (I am one of
>> the few who love it), and I do want to try Linux, is it worth it to
>> scrimp for BING, when PM claims it can do everything you listed?
>

[Walterius]

sounds most excellent. i will use my brand new (a couple of hours ago) DSL
connection, download the little sucker, and try it. tnx.
"Mike M" > wrote in message
...
> Why not try it for yourself and let this help make your own mind up? You
> can download for free and use for 30 days without having to register after
> which you will see nag screens and delays if you have installed it as a
> boot manager. There is also no requirement to have purchased BING before
> using their newsgroups, many users post queries there when contemplating
> purchasing BING.
>
> Not having used either Partition Magic or Boot Magic for some years I feel
> unwilling to comment on their suitability. I used to use Ghost for drive
> imaging but as with PM and BM no longer use this.
> --
> Mike Maltby
>
>
>
> Walterius > wrote:
>
> > My question then becomes: since I live on Social Security, and
> > already have, and extensively use. Partition Manager 8 (I am one of
> > the few who love it), and I do want to try Linux, is it worth it to
> > scrimp for BING, when PM claims it can do everything you listed?
>

[Walterius]

but i already own PM8. O'wise, no brainer for sure. I will give the trial
version a shot.

"Noel Paton" > wrote in message
...
> One other point....
> AFAIK, BING gives free upgrades for life - for PM, you have to pay for
every
> version upgrade.
>
> $35 for a program that will last for (so far, and totally updated) 3
years,
> vs. (YIKES!!! _ get this!!) $69.95 for the initial purchase (and ' a
> discount of up to 70%' to upgrade) for PM v8.
>
> Looks like a no-brainer to me??
>
>
> --
> Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)
>
> Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
> http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6oztj
>
> Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's
>
> "Mike M" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Why not try it for yourself and let this help make your own mind up?
You
> > can download for free and use for 30 days without having to register
after
> > which you will see nag screens and delays if you have installed it as a
> > boot manager. There is also no requirement to have purchased BING
before
> > using their newsgroups, many users post queries there when contemplating
> > purchasing BING.
> >
> > Not having used either Partition Magic or Boot Magic for some years I
feel
> > unwilling to comment on their suitability. I used to use Ghost for
drive
> > imaging but as with PM and BM no longer use this.
> > --
> > Mike Maltby
> >
> >
> >
> > Walterius > wrote:
> >
> >> My question then becomes: since I live on Social Security, and
> >> already have, and extensively use. Partition Manager 8 (I am one of
> >> the few who love it), and I do want to try Linux, is it worth it to
> >> scrimp for BING, when PM claims it can do everything you listed?
> >
>
>

[Noel Paton]

Good luck!
The learning curve can be a little steep, if you're not used to DOS (or DOS
GUI's), but it's well worth it

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm

http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm on how to post messages to NG's

"Walterius" > wrote in message
...
> sounds most excellent. i will use my brand new (a couple of hours ago) DSL
> connection, download the little sucker, and try it. tnx.
> "Mike M" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Why not try it for yourself and let this help make your own mind up? You
>> can download for free and use for 30 days without having to register
>> after
>> which you will see nag screens and delays if you have installed it as a
>> boot manager. There is also no requirement to have purchased BING before
>> using their newsgroups, many users post queries there when contemplating
>> purchasing BING.
>>
>> Not having used either Partition Magic or Boot Magic for some years I
>> feel
>> unwilling to comment on their suitability. I used to use Ghost for drive
>> imaging but as with PM and BM no longer use this.
>> --
>> Mike Maltby
>>
>>
>>
>> Walterius > wrote:
>>
>> > My question then becomes: since I live on Social Security, and
>> > already have, and extensively use. Partition Manager 8 (I am one of
>> > the few who love it), and I do want to try Linux, is it worth it to
>> > scrimp for BING, when PM claims it can do everything you listed?
>>
>
>