[<<]Message[>>]    [<<]Author[>>]    [<<]Subject[>>]    [<<]Thread[>>]

Number   :  4518
Date     :  2003-05-03
Author   :  james sadler
Subject  :  Re: Fdisk
Size(KB) :  3


 AEFDISK from Forchuchec is worth having. Do
a goodle search for AEFDISK.exe. It will solve some
issues that Fdisk will not.
--- Kan Yabumoto  wrote:
> 
> Bob Weir wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >As a mere cloner I would welcome, as a complement
> to XXCOPY and
> >Kan's multi-boot scheme, a "Boldly Extended" FDISK
> (XFDISK?) that
> >makes it possible to set two (or up to four)
> partitions as
> >active.
> >Of course, I've no idea how much work that would
> entail for what
> >is only an occasional - but necessary - task.
> 
> I guess the concept of the active partition is
> pretty much
> a DOS legacy. Once you move on to the Win2K/XP
> world,
> all it matters is the one active partition which
> keeps
> the BOOT.INI file which lets you pick whichever
> partition
> the real system OS resides (and on which system
> directory).
> 
> It is DOS and Win9X which forces you to have only
> of its kind (e.g., you cannot easily install two
> Win9Xes
> on a system without resorting to trickery --- using
> some partition shuffler utility).
> 
> On the other hand, with the NT-class OS, you may
> install
> many instances of Windows on a system (or even on
> the
> same volume).
> 
> --------------------------------------------------
> Microsoft strongly discourages sharing the same
> volume for different instances of WinNT family
> OSes. But, if you name a different system
> directory for a distinct install, even two sets
> of WinXP can peacefully coexist in the same
> volume. In that case, it is best that you
> use the "computer name" for the system to
> keep the user environments from colliding one
> another. In the \Documents and Settings\
> directory, each logon user will have his unique
> subdirectories based upon the computer-name.
> -------------------------------------------------
> 
> Yes. The much enhanced FDISK was really new to me
> and was surprised that FDISK had all those good
> stuff
> ever since the Win95 days. Actually, had I known
> this,
> I would have used FDISK with the straight
> command-line
> invocation only without going through the ugly
> user interface.
> 
> Boldly Extended XFDISK from Pixelab? No way.
> As I just revealed my total ignorance in the recent
> evolution of the disk partitioning, it is best to
> keep
> distance from the low-level disk access as much as
> possible. I have paranoia about the MBR and Boot
> sector stuff. Reading the contents is one thing,
> but it is quite scary to mess with those key
> sectors.
> 
> Besides, there is even such thing as
> http://www.fdisk.com.
> FDISK has its aura and seems to attract some
> people's
> fascination. I think the MBR and disk partitioning
> may warrant some research, but I don't know why the
> ugly tool gets such an attention.
> 
> A Google search by "fdisk undocumented" shows
> 3170 sites!
> 
> One theory is that exactly because Microsoft kept
> some of the features "hidden", the discovery of the
> undocumented switches makes people host special
> web pages. I wonder what the "F" of FDISK really
> stands for...
> 
> Kan Yabumoto
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com



This message if part of XXCOPY's message Archive.
The archive contains all the messages posted at Yahoo!Groups: XXCOPY.