Initialize / format 500 GB Momentus XT to make bootable clone

[AndyHancock]

I have a Toshiba Satellite A660 PSAW3C-047017 running Windows 7
Professional 64-bit.

I bought a 500 GB Momentus XT in December so that I can clone to it
(bootable clone, not recoverable image). I just bought and installed
Norton Ghost 15, but it can't see the drive, which is connected to the
laptop via eSATA. Disk Management says I need to initialize the
disk. I can't find an explanation of what exactly initialization
means. What exactly does it do?

Various forum threads say conflicting things about the end effect of
initialization (whether it destroys data):

http://superuser.com/questions/283930/will-initializing-disk-make-data-unrecoverable
http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/29199-hard-drive-initialization-question.html
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080214215647AAYFNGS

Since it's a new HDD, I guess I don't have to worry about that?

Should I choose MBR (Master Boot Record) or GPT (GUID Partition
Table)?

Finally, this may be a bit Seagate-specific for a non-Seagate thread,
but I'll put it out there in case anyone can chime in. I've read that
the Momentus XT has some intelligence built in to prevent performance-
degrading alignment problems with partition boundaries when Advanced
Format is used. It also advertises built-in intelligence to keep most
frequently accessed content in the SDD part of the HDD. Will any of
these be "messed up" by initialization, or the wrong partition style?
What about formatting, is there anything to be careful about?

[Rod Speed]

AndyHancock wrote:

> I have a Toshiba Satellite A660 PSAW3C-047017
> running Windows 7 Professional 64-bit.

> I bought a 500 GB Momentus XT in December so that I can
> clone to it (bootable clone, not recoverable image). I just
> bought and installed Norton Ghost 15, but it can't see the drive,

Yeah, thats one downside with Ghost, it can be a bit stupid.

Mainly because it does stuff at the Win level.

> which is connected to the laptop via eSATA. Disk Management
> says I need to initialize the disk. I can't find an explanation of
> what exactly initialization means. What exactly does it do?

Partitions and formats the drive.

> Various forum threads say conflicting things about the
> end effect of initialization (whether it destroys data):

Yeah, thats the downside I mentioned with various forums.

Yes, the data on the drive is lost.

> http://superuser.com/questions/283930/will-initializing-disk-make-data-unrecoverable
> http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/29199-hard-drive-initialization-question.html
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080214215647AAYFNGS

> Since it's a new HDD, I guess I don't have to worry about that?

Correct.

> Should I choose MBR (Master Boot Record) or GPT (GUID Partition Table)?

MBR. The drive isnt big enough to need GPT and will be what the current drive uses.

> Finally, this may be a bit Seagate-specific for a non-Seagate thread,
> but I'll put it out there in case anyone can chime in. I've read that
> the Momentus XT has some intelligence built in to prevent performance-
> degrading alignment problems with partition boundaries when Advanced
> Format is used. It also advertises built-in intelligence to keep most
> frequently accessed content in the SDD part of the HDD. Will any of
> these be "messed up" by initialization, or the wrong partition style?

Should be fine. It should warn you if that can be a problem.

> What about formatting, is there anything to be careful about?

Nope. It will be replaced by the cloning anyway.

[AndyHancock]

Thanks again, Rod. It now shows up. Now surfing to get smart about
partitioning.

[Rod Speed]

AndyHancock wrote:

> Thanks again, Rod. It now shows up.
> Now surfing to get smart about partitioning.

You dont need to worry about that, whatever partitioning is
on the drive will be replaced when you clone the original drive.

[AndyHancock]

It's not a blind copy of the whole HDD...the target HDD is smaller, so
partition 2 (of 4), which is a mostly-empty C-drive, will need to be
shrunk on the fly. Ghost will do this, but I suspect that I need to
do one partition at a time in order to shrink partition 2.

Assuming that I'm right (correct me if I'm wrong), then I need to
create partitions on the target drive before cloning. Ghost's Copy
Drive shows a list of HDDs & their partitions for the user to specify
the target. So I've read up on partitioning, and it's pretty easy
using the partitioning wizard in diskmgmt.msc. I just ensure that I
choose the option not to format the drive, since I expect cloning to
clone the format.

[Rod Speed]

AndyHancock wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> AndyHancock wrote:

>>> Thanks again, Rod. It now shows up.
>>> Now surfing to get smart about partitioning.

>> You dont need to worry about that, whatever partitioning is
>> on the drive will be replaced when you clone the original drive.

> It's not a blind copy of the whole HDD...the target HDD is smaller, so partition
> 2 (of 4), which is a mostly-empty C-drive, will need to be shrunk on the fly.

Yes, but any decent cloner will just replace what partitioning
is on the target drive with the new partitioning, with the size
of that particular partition being adjusted as you specify.

> Ghost will do this, but I suspect that I need to do
> one partition at a time in order to shrink partition 2.

You dont with True Image, you just specify that partition 2 will be
smaller than on the original drive and it will just replace whatever
partition is on the target drive with the partitioning on the original
drive, with the size of that partition being shrunk as the only difference.

> Assuming that I'm right (correct me if I'm wrong), then I
> need to create partitions on the target drive before cloning.

Even if you do, you just need to specify the partitioning on the original\
drive with the exception of the size of the partition that will be shrunk.

> Ghost's Copy Drive shows a list of HDDs & their partitions for the user to specify the target.

You just specify the physical drive which will be the target with True
Image and specify that the drive which will be shrunk new size.

> So I've read up on partitioning, and it's pretty easy
> using the partitioning wizard in diskmgmt.msc.

Its even easier in disk management with Win7.

> I just ensure that I choose the option not to format
> the drive, since I expect cloning to clone the format.

Yes, that is correct.

[Mike Tomlinson]

In article <7296016e-979e-44d7...@ck5g2000vbb.googlegroup
s.com>, AndyHancock <andymh...@gmail.com> writes

>It's not a blind copy of the whole HDD...the target HDD is smaller

You'll make things much easier and reduce the chances of an error
causing data loss if you clone onto the same size, or larger HDD.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

[Arno]

You can also clone to a larger 3.5" hdd first, reduce size there
and then clone to the target. But in principle cloning to same
size or larger is the only reasonable thing to do.

Arno
--
Arno Wagner, Dr. sc. techn., Dipl. Inform., CISSP -- Email: ar...@wagner.name
GnuPG: ID: 1E25338F FP: 0C30 5782 9D93 F785 E79C 0296 797F 6B50 1E25 338F
----
Cuddly UI's are the manifestation of wishful thinking. -- Dylan Evans

[AndyHancock]

On Jan 12, 3:34 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> AndyHancock wrote

>> It's not a blind copy of the whole HDD...the target HDD is smaller,
>> so partition 2 (of 4), which is a mostly-empty C-drive, will need
>> to be shrunk on the fly.
>
> Yes, but any decent cloner will just replace what partitioning is on
> the target drive with the new partitioning, with the size of that
> particular partition being adjusted as you specify.
>
>> Ghost will do this, but I suspect that I need to do one partition
>> at a time in order to shrink partition 2.
>
> You dont with True Image, you just specify that partition 2 will be
> smaller than on the original drive and it will just replace whatever
> partition is on the target drive with the partitioning on the
> original drive, with the size of that partition being shrunk as the
> only difference.

I already bought Norton....I should try to make it work. I've already
returned an app that didn't fit the need.

I got some feedback on the vendor forum. I don't have to partition
the target HDD, I should ensure that it is all unallocated space. I
can clone partition 1 (boot) and partition 2 (c-drive). Since the
addition of the c-drive partition would exceed the HDD capacity, it
will be shrunk. I can further shrink it to make room for partitions 3
and 4. Not quite as elegant as what you described for Acronis True
Image.

>> Assuming that I'm right (correct me if I'm wrong), then I need to
>> create partitions on the target drive before cloning.
>
> Even if you do, you just need to specify the partitioning on the
> original drive with the exception of the size of the partition that
> will be shrunk.

It's pretty well a selection of source partition from a list. My
impression is that it will clone to a same-size partition if there is
room, otherwise, it shrinks the partition to fit. You can further
shrink the cloned partition after cloning.

>> Ghost's Copy Drive shows a list of HDDs & their partitions for the
>> user to specify the target.
>
> You just specify the physical drive which will be the target with
> True Image and specify that the drive which will be shrunk new size.

Do you mean specify the *partition* that will be shrunk?

That sound very elegant.

>> So I've read up on partitioning, and it's pretty easy using the
>> partitioning wizard in diskmgmt.msc.
>
> Its even easier in disk management with Win7.

Yes, I really should refer to it as Disk Management. Diskmgmt.msc is
just the command-line method of accessing it. I forgot what brought
on the requirement for command-line access, but I have found it so
much faster than navigating the GUI. (I'm formerly from a unix
environment).

>> I just ensure that I choose the option not to format the drive,
>> since I expect cloning to clone the format.
>
> Yes, that is correct.

Cool. Thanks.

[AndyHancock]

On Jan 13, 12:08 pm, Arno <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage Mike Tomlinson
> <m...@jasper.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <7296016e-979e-44d7-8f4e-b1626fe10...@ck5g2000vbb.googlegroup
>> s.com>, AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> writes

>>>It's not a blind copy of the whole HDD...the target HDD is smaller
>>
>> You'll make things much easier and reduce the chances of an error
>> causing data loss if you clone onto the same size, or larger HDD.
>
> You can also clone to a larger 3.5" hdd first, reduce size there and
> then clone to the target. But in principle cloning to same size or
> larger is the only reasonable thing to do.

I certainly agree...however, I took into consideration the following.
I only have one computer and one 500GB auxiliary HDD to serve as a
clone for a 640 GB resident HDD. It is too late to return the
auxiliary HDD. The user data on the resident HDD is a mere tens of
GB's. To get a larger auxiliary HDD, I'd have to move to 750 GB (640
GB seems rare, and doesn't provide much in the way of choice). Most
of the 750 GB will be unused, and it will cost in the order of $240 in
my country. I figure it's worthwhile figuring out how to clone to the
smaller HDD as long as I verify the clone.

I can boot up on the clone, but is there a way to compare the content
of the clone with the original? I suspect not, because the moment I
start using the computer, the original starts to change.

[Rod Speed]

AndyHancock wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> AndyHancock wrote

>>> It's not a blind copy of the whole HDD...the target HDD
>>> is smaller, so partition 2 (of 4), which is a mostly-empty
>>> C-drive, will need to be shrunk on the fly.

>> Yes, but any decent cloner will just replace what partitioning
>> is on the target drive with the new partitioning, with the size
>> of that particular partition being adjusted as you specify.

>>> Ghost will do this, but I suspect that I need to do one partition
>>> at a time in order to shrink partition 2.

>> You dont with True Image, you just specify that partition 2 will be
>> smaller than on the original drive and it will just replace whatever
>> partition is on the target drive with the partitioning on the original
>> drive, with the size of that partition being shrunk as the only difference.

> I already bought Norton....I should try to make it work.
> I've already returned an app that didn't fit the need.

> I got some feedback on the vendor forum. I don't have to partition
> the target HDD, I should ensure that it is all unallocated space. I
> can clone partition 1 (boot) and partition 2 (c-drive). Since the
> addition of the c-drive partition would exceed the HDD capacity, it
> will be shrunk. I can further shrink it to make room for partitions 3
> and 4. Not quite as elegant as what you described for Acronis True
> Image.

Yeah, thats the main problem with Norton's some stuff is quite awkard to do.

>>> Assuming that I'm right (correct me if I'm wrong), then I
>>> need to create partitions on the target drive before cloning.

>> Even if you do, you just need to specify the partitioning on the
>> original drive with the exception of the size of the partition that
>> will be shrunk.

> It's pretty well a selection of source partition from a list.
> My impression is that it will clone to a same-size partition
> if there is room, otherwise, it shrinks the partition to fit.

I'd be surprised if it does operate like that.

> You can further shrink the cloned partition after cloning.

>>> Ghost's Copy Drive shows a list of HDDs & their partitions for the
>>> user to specify the target.

>> You just specify the physical drive which will be the target with
>> True Image and specify that the drive which will be shrunk new size.

> Do you mean specify the *partition* that will be shrunk?

Yes. You specify the size of the partitions on the target drive,
specifying which ones to leave the same size, which ones to
shrink and which to make bigger.

> That sound very elegant.

Yes, thats the best way to do it IMO.

>>> So I've read up on partitioning, and it's pretty easy using the
>>> partitioning wizard in diskmgmt.msc.

>> Its even easier in disk management with Win7.

> Yes, I really should refer to it as Disk Management. Diskmgmt.msc is
> just the command-line method of accessing it. I forgot what brought
> on the requirement for command-line access, but I have found it so
> much faster than navigating the GUI.

I dont find that myself, its a lot easier to just right mouse click
on the unallocated space and tell it to partition and format that.

You dont have to navigate the GUI with Win7, just type disk into the box and click on that.

> (I'm formerly from a unix environment).

I'm formerly from a DEC CLI environment but prefer a well designed GUI.

[Rod Speed]

AndyHancock wrote
> Arno <m...@privacy.net> wrote
>> Mike Tomlinson <m...@jasper.org.uk> wrote
>>> AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote

>>>> It's not a blind copy of the whole HDD...the target HDD is smaller

>>> You'll make things much easier and reduce the chances of an error
>>> causing data loss if you clone onto the same size, or larger HDD.

>> You can also clone to a larger 3.5" hdd first, reduce size there and
>> then clone to the target. But in principle cloning to same size or
>> larger is the only reasonable thing to do.

> I certainly agree...

I dont on that last. And decent cloner will both shrink and expand a partition its
cloning, no reason why only ever expanding is the only reasonable thing to do.

> however, I took into consideration the following.
> I only have one computer and one 500GB auxiliary HDD to serve
> as a clone for a 640 GB resident HDD. It is too late to return the
> auxiliary HDD. The user data on the resident HDD is a mere tens of
> GB's. To get a larger auxiliary HDD, I'd have to move to 750 GB (640
> GB seems rare, and doesn't provide much in the way of choice). Most
> of the 750 GB will be unused, and it will cost in the order of $240 in
> my country. I figure it's worthwhile figuring out how to clone to the
> smaller HDD as long as I verify the clone.

You dont need to verify it with a decent cloner, if it boots fine and if it
does the restore ops fine, you can be confident that its cloned properly.

The main question mark isnt so much because of the size difference,
its more whether the cloner will end up with fangs in its bum because
the new drive is a hybrid hard drive/SSD.

> I can boot up on the clone, but is there a way to
> compare the content of the clone with the original?

Compare in what sense ? You can obviously compare
the directory listings of the original and the clone, but
that doesnt prove anything about the file contents.

You cant do a binary compare if the sizes arent the same.

> I suspect not, because the moment I start using
> the computer, the original starts to change.

You can obviously boot a linux live CD and do the comparison that way.

[Arno]

You can compare files. For OS files it would be tricky to
determine what was changed legitimately and what not. The only
way there is to compare before either HDD installation has been
booted, i.e. from a 3rd system.

I normally do this on Linux and "tar" is all you need there.
I have done something like this once or twice on Windows with
"FreeFileSync" (http://sourceforge.net/projects/freefilesync/)
which has a binary comparison feature. It is a bit non-intuitive,
but gets the job done.

[AndyHancock]

Lord, I wasn't prepared to embark on yet another journey of ramping up
in new territory yet. I haven't yet finished cloning all 4 partition
in my current problem. Also, the laptop is still running Windows 7
when the cloning is being done, so all the files are being altered in
real time. I had hoped that a kind of diff'ing utility (without
having to get smart about Linux CD's) might reveal minimal differences
that are easily to recognize as inconsequential. I will try booting
off the clone once I've researched the safety measures against a
hazard that exist when both source & clone partitions are visible to
the machine during a reboot.

The restore ops won't work yet because they reside in partitions 3 &
4, which I haven't yet cloned.

By the way, how would you recognize fangs in the bum?

[AndyHancock]

On Jan 14, 1:37 pm, Arno <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

Thanks, Arno. I've yet to clone the recovery content in partitions 3
& 4 (that's the way Toshiba organizes their laptop HDDs), and then
I'll do the simplest test of booting from the clone. There is a
hazard with having both the source and target HDD visible to the
machine during reboot, but once I'll figure that out. After doing
that, I'll look int the windows utility you mentioned. I don't think
i should get into linux yet because that's just too much new territory
at once.

[Rod Speed]

AndyHancock wrote

Its not that bad when a basic compare and it booting fine on the new cloned
partition give you a good level of confidence that the clone worked fine.

If the clone didnt work properly, you likely wont be able to boot it.

> Also, the laptop is still running Windows 7 when the cloning
> is being done, so all the files are being altered in real time.

Yes, but if you are just running the cloner, not too much will have been changed.

> I had hoped that a kind of diff'ing utility (without having
> to get smart about Linux CD's) might reveal minimal
> differences that are easily to recognize as inconsequential.

I havent noticed any Win ute that will do that, but I dont bother to do that
sort of compare myself, I just see if it boots and everything works fine.

> I will try booting off the clone once I've researched the safety
> measures against a hazard that exist when both source &
> clone partitions are visible to the machine during a reboot.

All you have to do is physically remove the original
so the first boot of the clone cant see the original.

> The restore ops won't work yet because they
> reside in partitions 3 & 4, which I haven't yet cloned.

> By the way, how would you recognize fangs in the bum?

You can usually feel it and if you feel some pain there, check for bleeding.

Corse that can be a problem if you suffer from haemorrhoids.

Normally it wont boot the clone with the original physically removed from the system.

[AndyHancock]

On Jan 15, 4:37 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> AndyHancock wrote

>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote

>>> The main question mark isnt so much because of the size
>>> difference, its more whether the cloner will end up with fangs in
>>> its bum because the new drive is a hybrid hard drive/SSD.
>>>

>>> <...snip...>

> <...snip...>

>
> Normally it wont boot the clone with the original physically removed
> from the system.

OK, running into a few complications that are complicating the picture
a bit.

Toshiba Canada says that changing the HDD doesn't void the warranty,
but they are not allowed to provide it in writing. Seems fishy. So
I'm seeking a way to verify the booting off the clone without removing
the native HDD. I can change the boot sequence so that it boots off
of eSATA-connected auxiliary drive (residing in an enclosure), but I'm
told that unless I actually remove the native drive, there is a risk
that the laptop will see both boot partitions and modify the registry
so that one or both HDDs can't be booted from. I need to dig deeper
so that I'm not gambling with my HDDs. Of course, if there is no
other solution, I guess the only course of action is to remove the
native HDD. :(

Now, about Linux, I have zero experience with it, so what I did was
resort to my Cygwin install. That requires that I mount the
partitions as posix paths (I'm assuming), but the partitions are not
letter drives. Some people have suggested using fdisk or accessing
the partitions through /dev/sda (a folder which doesn't exist for
me). Also, fdisk assumes that file systems are at /dev/sda. So I
have a bit more of a journey determining if non-letter-drives
partitions can be mounted. I likely depends on the file system, but
Toshiba doesn't actually provide any official info on their
partitioning. There are vague educated guesses on forums.

All this to say that I may not try booting for some time, and I likely
won't be diff'ing for significantly longer. Ah well. I feel myself
getting smarter.

[Rod Speed]

Yes, thats the legal situation.

> but they are not allowed to provide it in writing. Seems fishy.

Nar, just some fool who doesnt allow the minions to put stuff like that in writing.

> So I'm seeking a way to verify the booting off the clone without removing the native HDD.

Thats very undesirable indeed with Win.

> I can change the boot sequence so that it boots off of
> eSATA-connected auxiliary drive (residing in an enclosure),
> but I'm told that unless I actually remove the native drive, there
> is a risk that the laptop will see both boot partitions and modify
> the registry so that one or both HDDs can't be booted from.

And that is correct. In fact its not only a risk its a certainty.

> I need to dig deeper so that I'm not gambling with my HDDs.

You arent gambling if you are careful about removing the original drive.

> Of course, if there is no other solution, I guess the
> only course of action is to remove the native HDD. :(

Yes, that is your only option and legally unless you do something
really stupid mechanically, that will not void your warranty and they
wont even be able to work out that you have removed it in the very
unlikely situation where it does die coincidentally with you removing it.

> Now, about Linux, I have zero experience with it,

Its just another flavor of unix.

> so what I did was resort to my Cygwin install. That requires that I
> mount the partitions as posix paths (I'm assuming), but the partitions
> are not letter drives. Some people have suggested using fdisk or
> accessing the partitions through /dev/sda (a folder which doesn't
> exist for me). Also, fdisk assumes that file systems are at /dev/sda.
> So I have a bit more of a journey determining if non-letter-drives
> partitions can be mounted. I likely depends on the file system, but
> Toshiba doesn't actually provide any official info on their partitioning.
> There are vague educated guesses on forums.

I wouldnt bother with comparing the parttions myself, I would
just see if you can boot with the original drive physically removed.

The worst that can happen is that you find that you cant and you can just
put the original drive back in the laptop again and carry on regardless.

> All this to say that I may not try booting for some time, and I likely won't
> be diff'ing for significantly longer. Ah well. I feel myself getting smarter.

That usually results in tears before bedtime when it turns out to have been an illusion.

[AndyHancock]

On Jan 16, 4:14 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> AndyHancock wrote

>> OK, running into a few complications that are complicating the
>> picture a bit. Toshiba Canada says that changing the HDD doesn't
>> void the warranty,
>
> Yes, thats the legal situation.
>
>> but they are not allowed to provide it in writing. Seems fishy.
>
> Nar, just some fool who doesnt allow the minions to put stuff like
> that in writing.

That's a lot of minions. It seems to be a company wide policy.

>> So I'm seeking a way to verify the booting off the clone without
>> removing the native HDD.
>
> Thats very undesirable indeed with Win.
>
>> I can change the boot sequence so that it boots off of
>> eSATA-connected auxiliary drive (residing in an enclosure), but I'm
>> told that unless I actually remove the native drive, there is a
>> risk that the laptop will see both boot partitions and modify the
>> registry so that one or both HDDs can't be booted from.
>
> And that is correct. In fact its not only a risk its a certainty.

Now that's a very valuable tidbit. Thanks!

>> I need to dig deeper so that I'm not gambling with my HDDs.
>
> You arent gambling if you are careful about removing the original
> drive.
>
>> Of course, if there is no other solution, I guess the only course
>> of action is to remove the native HDD. :(
>
> Yes, that is your only option and legally unless you do something
> really stupid mechanically, that will not void your warranty and
> they wont even be able to work out that you have removed it in the
> very unlikely situation where it does die coincidentally with you
> removing it.

I'll try not to let it get to that.

>> Now, about Linux, I have zero experience with it,
>
> Its just another flavor of unix.

I know...I meant all the klag about versions, install, packages,
mapping different file systems and security models, etc. Once I get
to a bash command line, I'm happy. My experience with Cygwin reveals
that a lot has to go on behind the dashboard to give the illusion of
unix's when dealing with Windows and its file system. The user isn't
always insulated from those things.

>> so what I did was resort to my Cygwin install. That requires that
>> I mount the partitions as posix paths (I'm assuming), but the
>> partitions are not letter drives. Some people have suggested using
>> fdisk or accessing the partitions through /dev/sda (a folder which
>> doesn't exist for me). Also, fdisk assumes that file systems are
>> at /dev/sda. So I have a bit more of a journey determining if
>> non-letter-drives partitions can be mounted. I likely depends on
>> the file system, but Toshiba doesn't actually provide any official
>> info on their partitioning. There are vague educated guesses on
>> forums.
>
> I wouldnt bother with comparing the parttions myself, I would just
> see if you can boot with the original drive physically removed.
>
> The worst that can happen is that you find that you cant and you can
> just put the original drive back in the laptop again and carry on
> regardless.

You know, with all the unknowns, I have considered that more than
once. If only the Toshiba partitions were like normal, with one SRP
and one C-drive. However, they have 2 additional partitions for
recovery purposes. I'm now all too clear on how they break down, but
I believe that the purposes covered of those additional partitions
are: (1) to make the recovery discs, and (2) to enable restoration to
factory state in the absence of recovery discs ("HDD recovery").

I would like to see if I can preserve all the partitions and their
functionality, but it's not clear how to check additional partitions.
Just booting probably won't do it, so the measures I can take to check
the clone are to: (1) compare the content with the original, (2) go
through the motions of making recovery discs, (3) do HDD recovery, and
(4) restore to factory settings using the recovery discs made in #2.
I don't know if I have the will power to go through all of these
measures, so I'm trying my luck with #1.

>> All this to say that I may not try booting for some time, and I
>> likely won't be diff'ing for significantly longer. Ah well. I
>> feel myself getting smarter.
>
> That usually results in tears before bedtime when it turns out to
> have been an illusion.

The very fact that I'm trying to do this may actually show that I'm
getting dumber.

[Rod Speed]

AndyHancock wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> AndyHancock wrote

>>> OK, running into a few complications that are complicating the picture a bit.
>>> Toshiba Canada says that changing the HDD doesn't void the warranty,

>> Yes, thats the legal situation.

>>> but they are not allowed to provide it in writing. Seems fishy.

>> Nar, just some fool who doesnt allow the minions to put stuff like that in writing.

> That's a lot of minions.

Not really. There arent that many involved directly with the public.

> It seems to be a company wide policy.

Sure, but obviously set by some particular fool.

>>> So I'm seeking a way to verify the booting off
>>> the clone without removing the native HDD.

>> Thats very undesirable indeed with Win.

>>> I can change the boot sequence so that it boots off of
>>> eSATA-connected auxiliary drive (residing in an enclosure), but I'm
>>> told that unless I actually remove the native drive, there is a
>>> risk that the laptop will see both boot partitions and modify the
>>> registry so that one or both HDDs can't be booted from.

>> And that is correct. In fact its not only a risk its a certainty.

> Now that's a very valuable tidbit. Thanks!

OK.

>>> I need to dig deeper so that I'm not gambling with my HDDs.

>> You arent gambling if you are careful about removing the original drive.

>>> Of course, if there is no other solution, I guess the only course
>>> of action is to remove the native HDD. :(

>> Yes, that is your only option and legally unless you do something
>> really stupid mechanically, that will not void your warranty and they
>> wont even be able to work out that you have removed it in the very
>> unlikely situation where it does die coincidentally with you removing it.

> I'll try not to let it get to that.

You dont have any control over that.

Its very unllikely tho.

>>> Now, about Linux, I have zero experience with it,

>> Its just another flavor of unix.

> I know...I meant all the klag about versions, install, packages,
> mapping different file systems and security models, etc. Once
> I get to a bash command line, I'm happy. My experience with
> Cygwin reveals that a lot has to go on behind the dashboard to
> give the illusion of unix's when dealing with Windows and its file
> system. The user isn't always insulated from those things.

Yep, that isnt even possible.

>>> so what I did was resort to my Cygwin install. That requires that
>>> I mount the partitions as posix paths (I'm assuming), but the
>>> partitions are not letter drives. Some people have suggested using
>>> fdisk or accessing the partitions through /dev/sda (a folder which
>>> doesn't exist for me). Also, fdisk assumes that file systems are
>>> at /dev/sda. So I have a bit more of a journey determining if
>>> non-letter-drives partitions can be mounted. I likely depends on
>>> the file system, but Toshiba doesn't actually provide any official info
>>> on their partitioning. There are vague educated guesses on forums.

>> I wouldnt bother with comparing the parttions myself, I would just
>> see if you can boot with the original drive physically removed.

>> The worst that can happen is that you find that you cant and you can just
>> put the original drive back in the laptop again and carry on regardless.

> You know, with all the unknowns, I have considered that more than once.
> If only the Toshiba partitions were like normal, with one SRP and one C-drive.
> However, they have 2 additional partitions for recovery purposes. I'm now all
> too clear on how they break down, but I believe that the purposes covered of
> those additional partitions are: (1) to make the recovery discs, and (2) to enable
> restoration to factory state in the absence of recovery discs ("HDD recovery").

> I would like to see if I can preserve all the partitions and their
> functionality, but it's not clear how to check additional partitions.

A binary compare of the partitions should do that and you can
check if the recovery operations work with the cloned drive too.

> Just booting probably won't do it,

Yes.

> so the measures I can take to check the clone are to: (1) compare the
> content with the original, (2) go through the motions of making recovery
> discs, (3) do HDD recovery, and (4) restore to factory settings using the
> recovery discs made in #2.

Yep.

> I don't know if I have the will power to go through all
> of these measures, so I'm trying my luck with #1.

That wont tell you if the recovery ops will work.

There isnt that much involved with doing 2-4 with a clone of the original.

>>> All this to say that I may not try booting for some time,
>>> and I likely won't be diff'ing for significantly longer.
>>> Ah well. I feel myself getting smarter.

>> That usually results in tears before bedtime when it turns out to have been an illusion.

> The very fact that I'm trying to do this may actually show that I'm getting dumber.

Hard to say when we dont know how you operated previously.

[AndyHancock]

On Jan 16, 4:14 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> AndyHancock wrote

>> I can change the boot sequence so that it boots off of
>> eSATA-connected auxiliary drive (residing in an enclosure),
>> but I'm told that unless I actually remove the native drive, there
>> is a risk that the laptop will see both boot partitions and modify
>> the registry so that one or both HDDs can't be booted from.
>
> And that is correct. In fact its not only a risk its a certainty.
>
>> I need to dig deeper so that I'm not gambling with my HDDs.
>
> You arent gambling if you are careful about removing the original drive.

Hi, Rod,

Apparently, if you've booted off of the clone drive once, you no
longer run the risk of making both drives unbootable if you happen to
have both drives connected during boot time. Is this something you're
familiar with?

If so, would you know if booting off the clone when it is in the eSATA
enclosure qualifies as having booted once?

What about if you boot once when the clone is in the eSATA enclosure,
then boot a 2nd time when it is in the laptop...during that 2nd time,
would the clone be already out of the danger zone? If so, it means
that I can have another bootable HDD in the eSATA enclosure (for
example, the source HDD) during bootup.

[Rod Speed]

AndyHancock wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> AndyHancock wrote

>>> I can change the boot sequence so that it boots off of
>>> eSATA-connected auxiliary drive (residing in an enclosure),
>>> but I'm told that unless I actually remove the native drive, there
>>> is a risk that the laptop will see both boot partitions and modify
>>> the registry so that one or both HDDs can't be booted from.

>> And that is correct. In fact its not only a risk its a certainty.

>>> I need to dig deeper so that I'm not gambling with my HDDs.

>> You arent gambling if you are careful about removing the original drive.

> Hi, Rod,

> Apparently, if you've booted off of the clone drive once,
> you no longer run the risk of making both drives unbootable
> if you happen to have both drives connected during boot time.

Yes, that is correct.

> Is this something you're familiar with?

Yes, I have said that in here myself in the past.

> If so, would you know if booting off the clone when it is
> in the eSATA enclosure qualifies as having booted once?

Yes it does.

> What about if you boot once when the clone is in the eSATA
> enclosure, then boot a 2nd time when it is in the laptop...during
> that 2nd time, would the clone be already out of the danger zone?

Yes it is.

> If so, it means that I can have another bootable HDD in the
> eSATA enclosure (for example, the source HDD) during bootup.

Not during the first boot of the clone after the clone has been created.

[AndyHancock]

Thanks for clarifying the danger, Rod.

[AndyHancock]

On Feb 16, 11:50 pm, AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 12:10 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> AndyHancock wrote

>>> Apparently, if you've booted off of the clone drive once, you no
>>> longer run the risk of making both drives unbootable if you happen
>>> to have both drives connected during boot time.
>>
>> Yes, that is correct.
>>

>>> ...would...booting off the clone when it is in the eSATA enclosure

>>> qualifies as having booted once?
>>
>> Yes it does.
>>
>>> What about if you boot once when the clone is in the eSATA
>>> enclosure, then boot a 2nd time when it is in the laptop...during
>>> that 2nd time, would the clone be already out of the danger zone?
>>
>> Yes it is.
>>
>>> If so, it means that I can have another bootable HDD in the eSATA
>>> enclosure (for example, the source HDD) during bootup.
>>
>> Not during the first boot of the clone after the clone has been
>> created.
>
> Thanks for clarifying the danger, Rod.

Actually, I have one more variation on the above scenarios that I'd
appreciate your expertise on.

Say one of the two HDDs acts as a target for weekly cloning of the
other HDD, and that both HDDs undergone their virgin booting. Say the
weekly cloning consists only of cloning the C-drive (partition 2 of
Toshiba's 4-partition setup). Does cloning only partition 2 put the
target HDD back into its virgin state of never having been booted from
before, thus re-introducing the problem of making both HDDs unbootable
if both are connected during a bootup?

As well, is there a web page that describes why this hazard exists?
I'm sure it's very technical, so the more layman the better. Of
course, I will take what I can get.

Thanks again.

[Rod Speed]

AndyHancock wrote
> AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote

>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> AndyHancock wrote

>>>> Apparently, if you've booted off of the clone drive once, you
>>>> no longer run the risk of making both drives unbootable if you
>>>> happen to have both drives connected during boot time.

>>> Yes, that is correct.

>>>> ...would...booting off the clone when it is in the eSATA
>>>> enclosure qualifies as having booted once?

>>> Yes it does.

>>>> What about if you boot once when the clone is in the eSATA
>>>> enclosure, then boot a 2nd time when it is in the laptop...during
>>>> that 2nd time, would the clone be already out of the danger zone?

>>> Yes it is.

>>>> If so, it means that I can have another bootable HDD in the eSATA
>>>> enclosure (for example, the source HDD) during bootup.

>>> Not during the first boot of the clone after the clone has been created.

>> Thanks for clarifying the danger, Rod.

> Actually, I have one more variation on the above scenarios that I'd
> appreciate your expertise on.

> Say one of the two HDDs acts as a target for weekly cloning of the other HDD,

It doesnt really make a lot of sense to clone for backup like that.

It makes a lot more sense to backup instead of clone, both
because of that is much quicker than cloning with incremental
backups and because you dont have this problem with the
first boot of the clone after the clone has been done.

> and that both HDDs undergone their virgin booting.

You've mangled that considerably. The only time that virgin booting
config matters is when booting the clone. You dont actually boot the
clone if you are cloning for backujp, you just keep booting the source.

When you boot the source, it doesnt matter that the clone is visible
at the time the source is booted after the clone has been done.

The only thing you have to be careful about is booting the
clone for the first time with the source visible to the clone.

> Say the weekly cloning consists only of cloning the C-drive (partition
> 2 of Toshiba's 4-partition setup). Does cloning only partition 2 put the
> target HDD back into its virgin state of never having been booted from
> before, thus re-introducing the problem of making both HDDs unbootable
> if both are connected during a bootup?

No, there is never a problem with booting the source. The problem
only every arises when booting the clone for the first time. When
you boot the clone for the first time, the source must not be visible.

> As well, is there a web page that describes why this hazard exists?

Likely there is, but I havent looked for one.

> I'm sure it's very technical,

It isnt actually.

> so the more layman the better. Of course, I will take what I can get.

I havent had a look at what is available.

> Thanks again.

No problem.

[AndyHancock]

On Feb 17, 8:58 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> AndyHancock wrote
>> AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> AndyHancock wrote

>>>>> What about if you boot once when the clone is in the eSATA
>>>>> enclosure, then boot a 2nd time when it is in the laptop...during
>>>>> that 2nd time, would the clone be already out of the danger zone?
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>
>>>>> If so, it means that I can have another bootable HDD in the eSATA
>>>>> enclosure (for example, the source HDD) during bootup.
>>>>
>>>> Not during the first boot of the clone after the clone has been created.
>>

>> Actually, I have one more variation on the above scenarios that I'd
>> appreciate your expertise on.
>> Say one of the two HDDs acts as a target for weekly cloning of the other HDD,
>
> It doesnt really make a lot of sense to clone for backup like that.
>
> It makes a lot more sense to backup instead of clone, both
> because of that is much quicker than cloning with incremental
> backups and because you dont have this problem with the
> first boot of the clone after the clone has been done.

I intend to explore that avenue...for now, I just want to be able to
drop in a replacement if the source HDD gets so bad that any restored
image is not trustworthy (if the source HDD even works, that is).

>> and that both HDDs undergone their virgin booting.
>
> You've mangled that considerably. The only time that virgin booting
> config matters is when booting the clone. You dont actually boot the
> clone if you are cloning for backujp, you just keep booting the source.

Perhaps I did mangle it...but the risk factors I'm being careful about
are that in order to control the boot sequence, I have to enter the
BIOS. It's easy to miss the window of opportunity for doing that.
Granted, I expect the typical BIOS setup to put the internal HDD ahead
of an external eSATA drive, but I have no experience on which I can
conclude that this is the case most of the time (in fact, *all* of the
time would be what I'm after for something with such a huge
consequence).

I can't plug in the clone HDD (in eSATA enclosure) after the booting
because it is not hot-swappable. So far as I've tried, I haven't
found a way to make it visible to the laptop other than to have it
connected during boot time. This means I have to remove the source
HDD, unless I want to take my chances and catch the time window for
entering the BIOS. Most of the time, I make it, but not always.

Also, I've read that making clones and backups aren't much good unless
they are tested. So I will have to test the clone to ensure that it
boots. It's what I do now, but I'm seeking a more convenient way of
preventing the clone from getting a wrong drive letter.

> When you boot the source, it doesnt matter that the clone is visible
> at the time the source is booted after the clone has been done.
>
> The only thing you have to be careful about is booting the
> clone for the first time with the source visible to the clone.

Understood, and thanks for that clarification. My challenge above is
to ensure that I boot from the source.

>> Say the weekly cloning consists only of cloning the C-drive (partition
>> 2 of Toshiba's 4-partition setup). Does cloning only partition 2 put the
>> target HDD back into its virgin state of never having been booted from
>> before, thus re-introducing the problem of making both HDDs unbootable
>> if both are connected during a bootup?
>
> No, there is never a problem with booting the source. The problem
> only every arises when booting the clone for the first time. When
> you boot the clone for the first time, the source must not be visible.
>
>> As well, is there a web page that describes why this hazard exists?
>
> Likely there is, but I havent looked for one.
>
>> I'm sure it's very technical,
>
> It isnt actually.
>
>> so the more layman the better. Of course, I will take what I can get.

Someone posted this on another forum:

http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.shtml The first section,
"Fixing Windows 2000/XP Drive Letters"

I found it quite helpful.

[Rod Speed]

AndyHancock wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> AndyHancock wrote
>>> AndyHancock <andymhanc...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> AndyHancock wrote

>>>>>> What about if you boot once when the clone is in the eSATA
>>>>>> enclosure, then boot a 2nd time when it is in the laptop...during
>>>>>> that 2nd time, would the clone be already out of the danger zone?

>>>>> Yes it is.

>>>>>> If so, it means that I can have another bootable HDD in the eSATA
>>>>>> enclosure (for example, the source HDD) during bootup.

>>>>> Not during the first boot of the clone after the clone has been created.

>>> Actually, I have one more variation on the above scenarios that I'd
>>> appreciate your expertise on.

>>> Say one of the two HDDs acts as a target for weekly cloning of the
>>> other HDD,

>> It doesnt really make a lot of sense to clone for backup like that.

>> It makes a lot more sense to backup instead of clone, both
>> because of that is much quicker than cloning with incremental
>> backups and because you dont have this problem with the
>> first boot of the clone after the clone has been done.

> I intend to explore that avenue...for now, I just want to be able to
> drop in a replacement if the source HDD gets so bad that any restored
> image is not trustworthy (if the source HDD even works, that is).

OK.

>>> and that both HDDs undergone their virgin booting.

>> You've mangled that considerably. The only time that virgin booting
>> config matters is when booting the clone. You dont actually boot the
>> clone if you are cloning for backujp, you just keep booting the source.

> Perhaps I did mangle it...but the risk factors I'm being careful about
> are that in order to control the boot sequence, I have to enter the
> BIOS. It's easy to miss the window of opportunity for doing that.
> Granted, I expect the typical BIOS setup to put the internal HDD ahead
> of an external eSATA drive, but I have no experience on which I can
> conclude that this is the case most of the time (in fact, *all* of the time
> would be what I'm after for something with such a huge consequence).

It isnt really that huge a consequence. The worst that can happen is
that you do somehow manage to boot the clone without intending to
do that, and the worst that can do is end up with a clone that wont
boot without the source drive being visible to the clone when booting.

The only thing you have to do then is to just reclone the source again.

Just a nuisance in the very unlikely even that you do manage to boot
the clone accidentally somehow.

> I can't plug in the clone HDD (in eSATA enclosure) after
> the booting because it is not hot-swappable. So far as
> I've tried, I haven't found a way to make it visible to the
> laptop other than to have it connected during boot time.

You can usually make it visible just by gettng the system to
rescan for devices in the device manageer.

> This means I have to remove the source HDD, unless I want to take my chances and
> catch the time window for entering the BIOS. Most of the time, I make it, but not always.

You dont have to remove the source HDD, you can just rely on the system
to boot the source HDD and not the clone, even if you do leave the clone
connected to the system on the boot after the clone has been done.

> Also, I've read that making clones and backups
> aren't much good unless they are tested.

You do have to test that the clone is bootable when you first do a clone.

But you dont have to boot the clone every time you do a weekly reclone for backup.

> So I will have to test the clone to ensure that it boots.

Not every time you reclone for backup, every week.

> It's what I do now, but I'm seeking a more convenient way
> of preventing the clone from getting a wrong drive letter.

Just dont bother to boot the clone after every reclone for backup.

If you are really paranoid, you clould try booting the clone
every couple of months, but I wouldnt bother personally.

>> When you boot the source, it doesnt matter that the clone is visible
>> at the time the source is booted after the clone has been done.

>> The only thing you have to be careful about is booting the
>> clone for the first time with the source visible to the clone.

> Understood, and thanks for that clarification. My
> challenge above is to ensure that I boot from the source.

I'd just rely on the bios to not change the boot drive until you change that manually.

The worst that can happen if it does manage to change the drive it boots off
without you telling it to do that is that you have to reclone again. Just a nuisance.

>>> Say the weekly cloning consists only of cloning the C-drive
>>> (partition 2 of Toshiba's 4-partition setup). Does cloning only
>>> partition 2 put the target HDD back into its virgin state of never
>>> having been booted from before, thus re-introducing the problem of
>>> making both HDDs unbootable if both are connected during a bootup?

>> No, there is never a problem with booting the source. The problem
>> only every arises when booting the clone for the first time. When
>> you boot the clone for the first time, the source must not be visible.

>>> As well, is there a web page that describes why this hazard exists?

>> Likely there is, but I havent looked for one.

>>> I'm sure it's very technical,

>> It isnt actually.

>>> so the more layman the better. Of course, I will take what I can get.

> Someone posted this on another forum:

> http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.shtml
> The first section,"Fixing Windows 2000/XP Drive Letters"

> I found it quite helpful.

The problem isnt actually with drive letters. If you boot the clone after
a clone has been done with the source still visible, it boots fine with
the drive letters the way you expect them to be. The problem is that
once its booted, you will find that if you remove the source drive, you
cant boot anymore. The reason you cant is because the boot of the
clone uses files on the source drive and they arent visible anymore.

[AndyHancock]

On Feb 19, 6:55 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> AndyHancock wrote

>> ...the risk factors I'm being careful about are that in order to

>> control the boot sequence, I have to enter the BIOS. It's easy to
>> miss the window of opportunity for doing that. Granted, I expect
>> the typical BIOS setup to put the internal HDD ahead of an external
>> eSATA drive, but I have no experience on which I can conclude that
>> this is the case most of the time (in fact, *all* of the time would
>> be what I'm after for something with such a huge consequence).
>
> It isnt really that huge a consequence. The worst that can happen is
> that you do somehow manage to boot the clone without intending to do
> that, and the worst that can do is end up with a clone that wont
> boot without the source drive being visible to the clone when
> booting.
>
> The only thing you have to do then is to just reclone the source
> again.
>
> Just a nuisance in the very unlikely even that you do manage to boot
> the clone accidentally somehow.

So based on that, I assume that the C-drive content on the source HDD
won't be modified during the clone bootup in any consequential way?
By consequential, I mean in ways that could mess up any future bootups
from the source HDD.

The reason why this question comes to mind is that, according to the
webpage I cited, the registry of the clone specifies paths to the C-
drive. I never really got familiar with the registry, since there's
always warnings that mistakes can put your system into a coma. So I'm
not sure what is done with the C-drive paths in the registry during
bootup.

>> I can't plug in the clone HDD (in eSATA enclosure) after the
>> booting because it is not hot-swappable. So far as I've tried, I
>> haven't found a way to make it visible to the laptop other than to
>> have it connected during boot time.
>
> You can usually make it visible just by gettng the system to rescan
> for devices in the device manageer.

That was one of the first things I tried when I was first attempted
cloning to the Toshiba replacement HDD (which was placed into the
eSATA housing). Did all sorts of variations until there was nothing
left to try. It didn't work then, but it works now. I wonder if it
has anything to do with the fact that all 4 partitions are present
now. I wouldn't expect so, but heck, I'm still getting to know the
nuances. I'm pretty sure that I also tried plugging in the USB cables
before the eSATA cable, and vice-versa. This time, when it works, it
was the USB cables before eSATA cables. I suspect that the USB cables
are for power (documentation for the enclosure is skimpy). Anyway,
since I don't know what caused the failure before, I'm hopeful but not
confident that rescanning will make the auxiliary HDD visible in the
future. Fingers crossed.

>> This means I have to remove the source HDD, unless I want to take
>> my chances and catch the time window for entering the BIOS. Most
>> of the time, I make it, but not always.
>
> You dont have to remove the source HDD, you can just rely on the
> system to boot the source HDD and not the clone, even if you do
> leave the clone connected to the system on the boot after the clone
> has been done.

From my limited experience with arranging the order of boot devices,
it seems that this is controlled in the boot order in the BIOS. What
I wasn't sure about were the rules or heuristics determining the boot
order when a new device is introduced into the system. The auxiliary
HDD disappears from the list when it isn't connected, so every time it
is connected, it might look like a new device.

>> Also, I've read that making clones and backups aren't much good
>> unless they are tested.
>
> You do have to test that the clone is bootable when you first do a
> clone.
>
> But you dont have to boot the clone every time you do a weekly
> reclone for backup.
>
>> So I will have to test the clone to ensure that it boots.
>
> Not every time you reclone for backup, every week.
>
>> It's what I do now, but I'm seeking a more convenient way of
>> preventing the clone from getting a wrong drive letter.
>
> Just dont bother to boot the clone after every reclone for backup.
>
> If you are really paranoid, you clould try booting the clone every
> couple of months, but I wouldnt bother personally.

Well, it *is* a pain...it's just that I've read accounts of what can
happen when someone didn't. He found that his safety net wasn't there
after he found that he needed it.

>> My challenge above is to ensure that I boot from the source.
>
> I'd just rely on the bios to not change the boot drive until you
> change that manually.

That's exactly the unknown from my perspective (which admittedly isn't
one of an expert). Since the auxiliary HDD disappears from the boot-
order list, there is no boot order for the bios to maintain, at least
as it pertains to the auxiliary HDD. So when I plug it in and boot,
I'm not sure that the internal HDD will have precedence in the boot
order.

If Disk Management's rescan works consistently, I don't have to worry
about connecting the auxiliary drive prior to booting.

> The worst that can happen if it does manage to change the drive it
> boots off without you telling it to do that is that you have to
> reclone again. Just a nuisance.

True. As I mentioned, I just wasn't sure whether the C-drive content
would be changed in any consequential way by the booting of the
clone. I'm assuming from your answer that it wouldn't be.

>>>> As well, is there a web page that describes why this hazard
>>>> exists?

>> Someone posted this on another forum:
>> http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.shtml The first
>> section,"Fixing Windows 2000/XP Drive Letters" I found it quite
>> helpful.
>
> The problem isnt actually with drive letters. If you boot the clone
> after a clone has been done with the source still visible, it boots
> fine with the drive letters the way you expect them to be. The
> problem is that once its booted, you will find that if you remove
> the source drive, you cant boot anymore. The reason you cant is
> because the boot of the clone uses files on the source drive and
> they arent visible anymore.

I guess it is a matter of perspective. The clone's registry info is
meant to point at its own drive. It will work if it points to the
source partition, but that's not how things were meant to be set up.
This dependence creates a very nonrobust situation. Plus, as I said,
I'm not familiar with what registry things might point to the source
HDD, and I'm not familiar with whether the booting process actually
writes to the locations being pointed to. I'm assuming from your
answers that there is no risk of the clone-booting process doing
writes to the source HDD's C-drive in a way that would creates
problems for the booting of the source HDD.

Thanks again for the added insight.

[Rod Speed]

AndyHancock wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> AndyHancock wrote

>>> ...the risk factors I'm being careful about are that in order to
>>> control the boot sequence, I have to enter the BIOS. It's easy to
>>> miss the window of opportunity for doing that. Granted, I expect
>>> the typical BIOS setup to put the internal HDD ahead of an external
>>> eSATA drive, but I have no experience on which I can conclude that
>>> this is the case most of the time (in fact, *all* of the time would
>>> be what I'm after for something with such a huge consequence).

>> It isnt really that huge a consequence. The worst that can happen is
>> that you do somehow manage to boot the clone without intending to
>> do that, and the worst that can do is end up with a clone that wont
>> boot without the source drive being visible to the clone when booting.

>> The only thing you have to do then is to just reclone the source again.

>> Just a nuisance in the very unlikely even that you do manage to boot
>> the clone accidentally somehow.

> So based on that, I assume that the C-drive content on the source HDD
> won't be modified during the clone bootup in any consequential way?

Correct.

> By consequential, I mean in ways that could mess up any future bootups
> from the source HDD.

Correct.

> The reason why this question comes to mind is that, according to the
> webpage I cited, the registry of the clone specifies paths to the C- drive.

Yes, but the registry on the source drive wont be affected
even if you boot the clone with the source visible.

> never really got familiar with the registry, since there's always
> warnings that mistakes can put your system into a coma.

All they are really saying when they say that is that any manual changes need to be done carefully.

> So I'm not sure what is done with the C-drive paths in the registry during bootup.

Nothing with the registry on the source drive when booting the clone even with the source drive visible.

>>> I can't plug in the clone HDD (in eSATA enclosure) after the
>>> booting because it is not hot-swappable. So far as I've tried,
>>> I haven't found a way to make it visible to the laptop other
>>> than to have it connected during boot time.

>> You can usually make it visible just by gettng the system
>> to rescan for devices in the device manageer.

> That was one of the first things I tried when I was first attempted
> cloning to the Toshiba replacement HDD (which was placed into
> the eSATA housing). Did all sorts of variations until there was
> nothing left to try. It didn't work then, but it works now.

It can get a bit confused if you dont try things in the right order.

You really need to reboot with the drive not connected between trys.

> I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that all 4 partitions are present now.

Nope.

> I wouldn't expect so, but heck, I'm still getting to know the nuances.

> I'm pretty sure that I also tried plugging in the USB
> cables before the eSATA cable, and vice-versa.

You shouldnt need to have them all connected, just the ones you want to use.

Likely thats what confused it.

> This time, when it works, it was the USB cables before eSATA cables.
> I suspect that the USB cables are for power

Nope, not with a 3.5" drive.

> (documentation for the enclosure is skimpy). Anyway,
> since I don't know what caused the failure before, I'm
> hopeful but not confident that rescanning will make the
> auxiliary HDD visible in the future. Fingers crossed.

Should do, it shouldnt be variable in the sense that the same
sequence should work reliably.

>>> This means I have to remove the source HDD, unless I want
>>> to take my chances and catch the time window for entering
>>> the BIOS. Most of the time, I make it, but not always.

>> You dont have to remove the source HDD, you can just rely on the
>> system to boot the source HDD and not the clone, even if you do
>> leave the clone connected to the system on the boot after the clone
>> has been done.

> From my limited experience with arranging the order of boot devices,
> it seems that this is controlled in the boot order in the BIOS.

Correct.

> What I wasn't sure about were the rules or heuristics determining
> the boot order when a new device is introduced into the system.

It wont normally go to the head of the boot order with an external drive.

On the other hand, if you specify the external drive at the top of the boot order,
it should fall thru to booting the internal drive when the external drive isnt there,
and still boot the external drive when you later add an external drive and reboot.

> The auxiliary HDD disappears from the list when it isn't connected,
> so every time it is connected, it might look like a new device.

Yes, but it shouldnt got to the head of the boot order unless you
specify it as the first one to boot, and then later reboot with the
external visible to the system. That isnt a new drive, its just the
external being visible again at boot time.

>>> Also, I've read that making clones and backups aren't much good
>>> unless they are tested.

>> You do have to test that the clone is bootable when you first do a clone.

>> But you dont have to boot the clone every time you do a weekly reclone for backup.

>>> So I will have to test the clone to ensure that it boots.

>> Not every time you reclone for backup, every week.

>>> It's what I do now, but I'm seeking a more convenient way of
>>> preventing the clone from getting a wrong drive letter.

>> Just dont bother to boot the clone after every reclone for backup.

>> If you are really paranoid, you clould try booting the clone every
>> couple of months, but I wouldnt bother personally.

> Well, it *is* a pain...it's just that I've read accounts of what can
> happen when someone didn't. He found that his safety net wasn't there
> after he found that he needed it.

Yes, but thats checking that it is bootable, not doing that after every clone.

>>> My challenge above is to ensure that I boot from the source.

>> I'd just rely on the bios to not change the boot drive until you
>> change that manually.

> That's exactly the unknown from my perspective (which admittedly isn't
> one of an expert). Since the auxiliary HDD disappears from the boot-
> order list, there is no boot order for the bios to maintain, at least as it
> pertains to the auxiliary HDD. So when I plug it in and boot, I'm not sure
> that the internal HDD will have precedence in the boot order.

Its trivial to test.

> If Disk Management's rescan works consistently, I don't have
> to worry about connecting the auxiliary drive prior to booting.

Correct.

>> The worst that can happen if it does manage to change
>> the drive it boots off without you telling it to do that is
>> that you have to reclone again. Just a nuisance.

> True. As I mentioned, I just wasn't sure whether the C-drive content
> would be changed in any consequential way by the booting of the
> clone. I'm assuming from your answer that it wouldn't be.

Correct, it wont be.

>>>>> As well, is there a web page that describes why this hazard exists?

>>> Someone posted this on another forum:
>>> http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.shtml
>>> The first section,"Fixing Windows 2000/XP Drive Letters" I found it quite helpful.

>> The problem isnt actually with drive letters. If you boot the clone
>> after a clone has been done with the source still visible, it boots
>> fine with the drive letters the way you expect them to be. The
>> problem is that once its booted, you will find that if you remove
>> the source drive, you cant boot anymore. The reason you cant is
>> because the boot of the clone uses files on the source drive and
>> they arent visible anymore.

> I guess it is a matter of perspective. The clone's registry info
> is meant to point at its own drive. It will work if it points to the
> source partition, but that's not how things were meant to be set up.

The problem with the boot config when you boot the clone for the
first time with the source visible doesnt involve the registry. Thats part
of the very early part of the boot phase, before the registry is used.

> This dependence creates a very nonrobust situation. Plus, as I said,
> I'm not familiar with what registry things might point to the source
> HDD, and I'm not familiar with whether the booting process actually
> writes to the locations being pointed to. I'm assuming from your
> answers that there is no risk of the clone-booting process doing
> writes to the source HDD's C-drive in a way that would creates
> problems for the booting of the source HDD.

Correct.

> Thanks again for the added insight.

No problem, thats what these technical groups are for.

[AndyHancock]

On Feb 20, 4:12 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> AndyHancock wrote

>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> ...The worst that can happen is that you do somehow manage to boot

>>> the clone without intending to do that, and the worst that can do
>>> is end up with a clone that wont boot without the source drive
>>> being visible to the clone when booting.
>>>
>>> The only thing you have to do then is to just reclone the source
>>> again. Just a nuisance in the very unlikely even that you do
>>> manage to boot the clone accidentally somehow.
>>
>> So based on that, I assume that the C-drive content on the source
>> HDD won't be modified during the clone bootup in any consequential

>> way? By consequential, I mean in ways that could mess up any

>> future bootups from the source HDD.
>
> Correct.
>
>> The reason why this question comes to mind is that, according to
>> the webpage I cited, the registry of the clone specifies paths to
>> the C- drive.
>
> Yes, but the registry on the source drive wont be affected even if
> you boot the clone with the source visible.
>

>> ...I'm not sure what is done with the C-drive paths in the registry

>> during bootup.
>
> Nothing with the registry on the source drive when booting the clone
> even with the source drive visible.

Understood. The registry on the source HDD isn't changed.

Would you know if some of the registry entries (duplicated in the
source and target HDDs) pointing to the C-drive are file paths that
are written to?

>>>> I can't plug in the clone HDD (in eSATA enclosure) after the
>>>> booting because it is not hot-swappable. So far as I've tried, I
>>>> haven't found a way to make it visible to the laptop other than
>>>> to have it connected during boot time.
>>> You can usually make it visible just by gettng the system to
>>> rescan for devices in the device manageer.
>> That was one of the first things I tried when I was first attempted
>> cloning to the Toshiba replacement HDD (which was placed into the
>> eSATA housing). Did all sorts of variations until there was
>> nothing left to try. It didn't work then, but it works now.
>
> It can get a bit confused if you dont try things in the right order.
>
> You really need to reboot with the drive not connected between trys.

Now that's a pain.

>> I'm pretty sure that I also tried plugging in the USB cables before
>> the eSATA cable, and vice-versa.
>
> You shouldnt need to have them all connected, just the ones you want
> to use. Likely thats what confused it.
>
>> This time, when it works, it was the USB cables before eSATA
>> cables. I suspect that the USB cables are for power
>
> Nope, not with a 3.5" drive.

The drive doesn't light up or make any noises without the USB cables.
It also doesn't show up on the laptop, even if connected via eSATA
(only) at boot time. I'm sure the USB cables are for power -- I just
wasn't sure that's all they're for. Nothing shows up in the USB
devices, but that's no guarantee that they're not using the cables for
more than just power. After all, an iPod Touch doesn't show up as a
USB device either.

>> (documentation for the enclosure is skimpy). Anyway, since I don't
>> know what caused the failure before, I'm hopeful but not confident
>> that rescanning will make the auxiliary HDD visible in the future.
>> Fingers crossed.
>
> Should do, it shouldnt be variable in the sense that the same
> sequence should work reliably.

I would hope so, but since the same sequence didn't make the auxiliary
HDD visible after a rescan, it might be the system getting confused,
as you suggested.

>>> Just dont bother to boot the clone after every reclone for backup.
>>> If you are really paranoid, you clould try booting the clone every
>>> couple of months, but I wouldnt bother personally.
>>
>> Well, it *is* a pain...it's just that I've read accounts of what
>> can happen when someone didn't. He found that his safety net
>> wasn't there after he found that he needed it.
>
> Yes, but thats checking that it is bootable, not doing that after
> every clone.

Alright, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks.

>>>> My challenge above is to ensure that I boot from the source.
>>>
>>> I'd just rely on the bios to not change the boot drive until you
>>> change that manually.
>>
>> That's exactly the unknown from my perspective (which admittedly
>> isn't one of an expert). Since the auxiliary HDD disappears from
>> the boot- order list, there is no boot order for the bios to
>> maintain, at least as it pertains to the auxiliary HDD. So when I
>> plug it in and boot, I'm not sure that the internal HDD will have
>> precedence in the boot order.
>
> Its trivial to test.

Here's the result from my test. The auxiliary HDD is listed last on
the boot list. If I move it up to the top, it is remembered after I
shut down. I can disconnect the auxiliary HDD and reconnect it, and
it will still remain at the top. However, if I boot once without the
auxiliary HDD, it will have lost its place in the boot list. Next
time I reconnect and boot, it will show up last again. Thanks for the
push to characterize that.

>>>>>> ...is there a web page that describes why this hazard

>>>>>> exists?
>>>>
>>>> Someone posted this on another forum:
>>>> http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.shtml The first
>>>> section,"Fixing Windows 2000/XP Drive Letters" I found it quite
>>>> helpful.
>>>
>>> The problem isnt actually with drive letters. If you boot the
>>> clone after a clone has been done with the source still visible,
>>> it boots fine with the drive letters the way you expect them to
>>> be. The problem is that once its booted, you will find that if you
>>> remove the source drive, you cant boot anymore. The reason you
>>> cant is because the boot of the clone uses files on the source
>>> drive and they arent visible anymore.
>>
>> I guess it is a matter of perspective. The clone's registry info
>> is meant to point at its own drive. It will work if it points to
>> the source partition, but that's not how things were meant to be
>> set up.
>
> The problem with the boot config when you boot the clone for the
> first time with the source visible doesnt involve the registry.
> Thats part of the very early part of the boot phase, before the
> registry is used.

OK, looks like either the website didn't tell the whole story, or I
didn't quit understand it. I thought it meant that there are C-drive
paths in the cloned registry, so when someone takes away the source C-
drive, then the corresponding files won't be available to the clone.

[Rod Speed]

Dont understand the question.

>>>>> I can't plug in the clone HDD (in eSATA enclosure) after the
>>>>> booting because it is not hot-swappable. So far as I've tried, I
>>>>> haven't found a way to make it visible to the laptop other than
>>>>> to have it connected during boot time.
>>>> You can usually make it visible just by gettng the system to
>>>> rescan for devices in the device manageer.
>>> That was one of the first things I tried when I was first attempted
>>> cloning to the Toshiba replacement HDD (which was placed into the
>>> eSATA housing). Did all sorts of variations until there was
>>> nothing left to try. It didn't work then, but it works now.

>> It can get a bit confused if you dont try things in the right order.

>> You really need to reboot with the drive not connected between trys.

> Now that's a pain.

Yep.

>>> I'm pretty sure that I also tried plugging in the USB cables before
>>> the eSATA cable, and vice-versa.

>> You shouldnt need to have them all connected, just the ones you want
>> to use. Likely thats what confused it.

>>> This time, when it works, it was the USB cables before eSATA
>>> cables. I suspect that the USB cables are for power

>> Nope, not with a 3.5" drive.

> The drive doesn't light up or make any noises without the USB cables.
> It also doesn't show up on the laptop, even if connected via eSATA
> (only) at boot time. I'm sure the USB cables are for power --

Thats unlikely with a 3.5" drive.

Thats correct, it doesnt, particularly with the early boot phase before
the registry is even relevant.

> or I didn't quit understand it. I thought it meant that there are C-drive
> paths in the cloned registry, so when someone takes away the source

> C-drive, then the corresponding files won't be available to the clone.

[AndyHancock]

On Feb 21, 4:20 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> AndyHancock wrote

>> Would you know if some of the registry entries (duplicated in the source
>> and target HDDs) pointing to the C-drive are file paths that are written to?
>
> Dont understand the question.

In the post that I last responded to, you mentioned twice that booting
off the clone won't affect the registry on the source HDD. You also
confirmed twice (rather than explicitly mentioning) that booting the
clone won't change the source C-drive content in a consequential way
i.e. by affecting booting of the source. The latter is a little
different from the former. I wonder if you meant the same thing as
the former, though. It's easy to overlook the nuance if you're
replying quickly (not that you necessarily are!), especially if you're
just confirming or denying rather than writing out the statement. Why
do I want to confirm this? Because the registry on the clone contains
paths to the source C-drive. I'm not sure if the booting process uses
such file paths as targets for writing.

>> The drive doesn't light up or make any noises without the USB cables.
>> It also doesn't show up on the laptop, even if connected via eSATA
>> (only) at boot time. I'm sure the USB cables are for power --
>
> Thats unlikely with a 3.5" drive.

It might be the enclosure. All I know is that without the pair of USB
connectors plugged in, the enclosure shows no sign of life.

>>> The problem with the boot config when you boot the clone for the
>>> first time with the source visible doesnt involve the registry.
>>> Thats part of the very early part of the boot phase, before the
>>> registry is used.
>>
>> OK, looks like either the website didn't tell the whole story,
>
> Thats correct, it doesnt, particularly with the early boot phase before
> the registry is even relevant.

OK, a bit more rampup required on my part. Thanks again.

[Rod Speed]

AndyHancock wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> AndyHancock wrote

>>> Would you know if some of the registry entries
>>> (duplicated in the source and target HDDs) pointing
>>> to the C-drive are file paths that are written to?

>> Dont understand the question.

> In the post that I last responded to, you mentioned twice that
> booting off the clone won't affect the registry on the source HDD.

Yes.

> You also confirmed twice (rather than explicitly mentioning)
> that booting the clone won't change the source C-drive content
> in a consequential way i.e. by affecting booting of the source.

Yes.

> The latter is a little different from the former.

Not really.

> I wonder if you meant the same thing as the former, though.

Yes I did.

> It's easy to overlook the nuance if you're replying quickly
> (not that you necessarily are!), especially if you're just
> confirming or denying rather than writing out the statement.

> Why do I want to confirm this? Because the registry
> on the clone contains paths to the source C-drive.

It contains paths to the C drive, yes.

Not to the SOURCE C drive tho.

> I'm not sure if the booting process uses such file paths as targets for writing.

No it does not in the sense that they are paths to the SOURCE C drive.

They are actually paths to the C drive on the clone.

>>> The drive doesn't light up or make any noises without the USB cables.
>>> It also doesn't show up on the laptop, even if connected via eSATA
>>> (only) at boot time. I'm sure the USB cables are for power --

>> Thats unlikely with a 3.5" drive.

> It might be the enclosure.

Yes. Name it again so I dont have to look it up in the thread, if you did name it there.

> All I know is that without the pair of USB connectors
> plugged in, the enclosure shows no sign of life.

Yeah, but that doesnt necessarily mean its getting power for the 3.5" drive from the USB cables.

That would be unusual, USB cables dont have enough power for 3.5" drives.

>>>> The problem with the boot config when you boot the clone for
>>>> the first time with the source visible doesnt involve the registry.

>>>> Thats part of the very early part of the boot phase, before the
>>>> registry is used.

>>> OK, looks like either the website didn't tell the whole story,

>> Thats correct, it doesnt, particularly with the early boot phase
>> before the registry is even relevant.

> OK, a bit more rampup required on my part. Thanks again.

No problem.

[GMAN]

In article <5059cb06-e80b-4c36...@w1g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, AndyHancock <andymh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 21, 4:20 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> AndyHancock wrote
>>> Would you know if some of the registry entries (duplicated in the source
>>> and target HDDs) pointing to the C-drive are file paths that are written to?
>>
>> Dont understand the question.
>
>In the post that I last responded to, you mentioned twice that booting
>off the clone won't affect the registry on the source HDD. You also
>confirmed twice (rather than explicitly mentioning) that booting the
>clone won't change the source C-drive content in a consequential way
>i.e. by affecting booting of the source. The latter is a little
>different from the former. I wonder if you meant the same thing as
>the former, though. It's easy to overlook the nuance if you're
>replying quickly (not that you necessarily are!), especially if you're
>just confirming or denying rather than writing out the statement. Why
>do I want to confirm this? Because the registry on the clone contains
>paths to the source C-drive. I'm not sure if the booting process uses
>such file paths as targets for writing.
>
>>> The drive doesn't light up or make any noises without the USB cables.
>>> It also doesn't show up on the laptop, even if connected via eSATA
>>> (only) at boot time. I'm sure the USB cables are for power --
>>
>> Thats unlikely with a 3.5" drive.
>
>It might be the enclosure. All I know is that without the pair of USB
>connectors plugged in, the enclosure shows no sign of life.
>

That sounds like an external pocket sized hard drive with two usb cables to
provide enought power to run the drive.

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote:
> AndyHancock wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> AndyHancock wrote

>>>> The drive doesn't light up or make any noises without the USB
>>>> cables. It also doesn't show up on the laptop, even if connected
>>>> via eSATA (only) at boot time. I'm sure the USB cables are for
>>>> power --

>>> Thats unlikely with a 3.5" drive.

Whoops, my brain fart there. I was forgetting that its
a laptop and that its a 2.5" drive, not a 3.5" drive.

Ignore what I said there, its clearly using the USB cables for power.

[AndyHancock]

I just looked it up...yes, it's 2.5". Thanks!

[AndyHancock]

On Feb 22, 3:34 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> AndyHancock wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> AndyHancock wrote
>>>> Would you know if some of the registry entries (duplicated in the
>>>> source and target HDDs) pointing to the C-drive are file paths
>>>> that are written to?
>>> Dont understand the question.
>> In the post that I last responded to, you mentioned twice that
>> booting off the clone won't affect the registry on the source HDD.

>> You also confirmed twice (rather than explicitly mentioning) that
>> booting the clone won't change the source C-drive content in a

>> consequential way i.e. by affecting booting of the source. The

>> latter is a little different from the former.
>
> Not really.
>
>> I wonder if you meant the same thing as the former, though.
>
> Yes I did.
>
>> It's easy to overlook the nuance if you're replying quickly (not
>> that you necessarily are!), especially if you're just confirming or
>> denying rather than writing out the statement. Why do I want to
>> confirm this? Because the registry on the clone contains paths to
>> the source C-drive.
>
> It contains paths to the C drive, yes.
>
> Not to the SOURCE C drive tho.
>
>> I'm not sure if the booting process uses such file paths as targets
>> for writing.
>
> No it does not in the sense that they are paths to the SOURCE C
> drive.
>
> They are actually paths to the C drive on the clone.

I believe we were discussing why it isn't such a big disaster for the
clone to do its virgin boot with the source HDD still visible.
Basically, the clone can be remade. However, I was wondering if the
process of booting the clone could lead to disk-writes to the source
HDD. After all, the clone gets a drive letter other than C-drive, but
its registry still contains paths to the C-drive file system (which is
the source HDD). Does the boot process use the paths stored in its
registry in any way that could result in a write to a file in one of
those paths? This is not the same as whether the boot process writes
to the registry in the source HDD, which is what I assumed you were
talking about.

For that matter, what if someone hypothetically booted off the clone
and failed to notice it (not that I or anyone else would do that).
Would the routine use of windows cause writes to files whose paths are
contained in the registry? Some of those paths are paths to the C-
drive.

[Rod Speed]

Yes.

> However, I was wondering if the process of booting
> the clone could lead to disk-writes to the source HDD.

No they dont.

> After all, the clone gets a drive letter other than C-drive,

No it doesnt. The clone gets the drive letter C

> but its registry still contains paths to the C-drive file system

Yes.

> (which is the source HDD).

Nope. The clone becomes the C drive and so the registry entrys
still point to the clone.

> Does the boot process use the paths stored in its registry in any
> way that could result in a write to a file in one of those paths?

Yes, but since the clone gets the letter C, that doesnt affect the source.

> This is not the same as whether the boot process writes to the registry in the source HDD,

That only happens if you boot the source.

> which is what I assumed you were talking about.

> For that matter, what if someone hypothetically booted off the clone
> and failed to notice it (not that I or anyone else would do that).

Then if the source is visible on the first boot of the clone, you end up
with a boot that is normal but you will find that if you then remove the
source, and boot again, you cant boot anymore because the early boot
phase uses files on the source which isnt there anymore, so the boot fails.

> Would the routine use of windows cause writes
> to files whose paths are contained in the registry?

Yes.

> Some of those paths are paths to the C- drive.

Yes. But the clone is the C drive if you boot the clone, evein if the source
is visible to the clone on the first boot after the clone has been made.

[AndyHancock]

On Feb 23, 4:04 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> AndyHancock wrote

>> I believe we were discussing why it isn't such a big disaster for
>> the clone to do its virgin boot with the source HDD still visible.
>> Basically, the clone can be remade.
>
> Yes.
>
>> However, I was wondering if the process of booting the clone could
>> lead to disk-writes to the source HDD.
>
> No they dont.
>
>> After all, the clone gets a drive letter other than C-drive,
>
> No it doesnt. The clone gets the drive letter C

OK, I think this is where I get lost. According to
http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.shtml :

"do not let new-XP see the old-XP partition the first time it boots.
If new-XP sees old-XP, it won't reuse the original drive letter when
it assigns a drive letter to itself."

I realize that this is XP whereas I'm using Windows 7, and I recall
that you said that the article was not entirely accurate. Is this one
of the facts that are wrong?

[Rod Speed]

AndyHancock wrote

> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> AndyHancock wrote

>>> I believe we were discussing why it isn't such a big
>>> disaster for the clone to do its virgin boot with the source
>>> HDD still visible. Basically, the clone can be remade.

>> Yes.

>>> However, I was wondering if the process of booting
>>> the clone could lead to disk-writes to the source HDD.

>> No they dont.

>>> After all, the clone gets a drive letter other than C-drive,

>> No it doesnt. The clone gets the drive letter C

> OK, I think this is where I get lost. According to
> http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.shtml :

> "do not let new-XP see the old-XP partition the first time
> it boots. If new-XP sees old-XP, it won't reuse the original
> drive letter when it assigns a drive letter to itself."

> I realize that this is XP whereas I'm using Windows 7,
> and I recall that you said that the article was not entirely
> accurate. Is this one of the facts that are wrong?

Yep, and its trivial to test whether its wrong or not.

[AndyHancock]

On Feb 23, 11:58 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> AndyHancock wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> AndyHancock wrote
> >>> I believe we were discussing why it isn't such a big
> >>> disaster for the clone to do its virgin boot with the source
> >>> HDD still visible. Basically, the clone can be remade.
> >> Yes.
> >>> However, I was wondering if the process of booting
> >>> the clone could lead to disk-writes to the source HDD.
> >> No they dont.
> >>> After all, the clone gets a drive letter other than C-drive,
> >> No it doesnt. The clone gets the drive letter C
> > OK, I think this is where I get lost.  According to
> >http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.shtml:
> > "do not let new-XP see the old-XP partition the first time
> > it boots. If new-XP sees old-XP, it won't reuse the original
> > drive letter when it assigns a drive letter to itself."
> > I realize that this is XP whereas I'm using Windows 7,
> > and I recall that you said that the article was not entirely
> > accurate.  Is this one of the facts that are wrong?
>
> Yep, and its trivial to test whether its wrong or not.

I know you said that it's not disastorous, but I'd rather take your
word on that than to test it (at least not deliberately).

Hope you understand.

[Rod Speed]

Its completely trivial to backup the source completely so that
you can always just restore that if it does turn out to get modified.

> Hope you understand.

[AndyHancock]

True. I just don't want to get another HDD to do that though. I'm
living with minimal stuff.