fdisk, where can i downlaod it?

[DDRFREAK1030]

i know there are likefreeware utilities but i dont knoe where i can gert fdisk

i have windows xp and i think it don have it is why

my friends want it

aite peace

teacehr pissed off

[Samurai]

bootdisk.com

[Entity101]

http://www.bootdisk.com/bootdisk.htm

For example, the Windows 98 SE bootdisk contains it.

[peat moss]

Just a thought , but mabey the ultimate bootdisk would fit the bill! Some great programs included . Two or three Fdisk tools aswell .

Link: http://ubcd.sourceforge.net/

[Samurai]

I've tried everything to get my 200GB Western Digital HDD to come up as such but it's only showing up as 137GB.

I know that it's XP's fault, but I have SP1 and the registry key 'EnableBigLba' has been entered etc... anyone know a fix?

Data Lifeguard Tools does NOT work, by the way.

[SaYiaN]

perhapes u created partitions in that hd when u loaded the win os.

[Samurai]

perhapes u created partitions in that hd when u loaded the win os.

No. It's a well known problem with XP, but I'm having a hard time solving this puzzle. I've flashed my BIOS, inserted registry keys and tried WD's FAQ but nothing's worked so far. Even a BIOS update still doesn't recognise my HDD as 200GB although I can see it is in fact 200GB in my Device Manager. :huh:

[peat moss]

Have you installed XP Service Pack 1? XP, without SP1, has a drive size limitation of 137GB. :

Edit: Thats were I would start ,download sp2 see if that works.



Link: http://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=816942&page=6

[Samurai]

SP1 is installed. SP2 is a load of crap (limits your connections), so had to use a third party patch to override it. However, the same problem was present on SP2.

The link you posted has already been read by myself. Just type in Google 'Windows XP 137GB' and you'll see what I mean.

It looks like I'm never gonna see my 63GB that's been MIA since I bought the damn thing!

[peat moss]

SP1 is installed. SP2 is a load of crap (limits your connections), so had to use a third party patch to override it. However, the same problem was present on SP2.

The link you posted has already been read by myself. Just type in Google 'Windows XP 137GB' and you'll see what I mean.

It looks like I'm never gonna see my 63GB that's been MIA since I bought the damn thing!


Can you not return it ? :)

[Virtualbody1234]

although I can see it is in fact 200GB in my Device Manager. :huh:
Device Manager or Disk Management?. You must have partitoned it without SP1 and then installed the service pack(s).

Delete all partitions and start over.

[Samurai]

There are no partitions. I'll post pictures tomorrow as I'm off to bed. Night.

[uNz[i]]

There are no partitions...
<nitpick>
There is always at least one partition.
You can't install an OS or create a file system (FAT32 or NTFS) without partitioning the drive first.
Even if C: occupies the entire hard disk, it'll still use a partition. :)
</nitpick>

Edit: Have you tried looking in computer management?
Right click on My Computer and select Manage from the context menu.

The Computer Management console will open.
On the left, you'll see a section called Storage. Click on the subsection called Disk Management.

On the right, you will now be able to see how much of your disk is active (formatted) and how much is unallocated (blank).
You can format the unallocated space as a new partition by right clicking on it and choosing format. You'll also be asked if you want to use NTFS or FAT 32.
The new partition should now appear as another drive in My Computer.

Hope that helps.

[fkdup74]

I've tried everything to get my 200GB Western Digital HDD to come up as such but it's only showing up as 137GB.

I know that it's XP's fault, but I have SP1 and the registry key 'EnableBigLba' has been entered etc... anyone know a fix?

Data Lifeguard Tools does NOT work, by the way.

congrats on the hijack samurai :p :lol:
make sure windows is up to date on patches....
make sure you have the latest DataLifeGuard from WD....
it takes a little more to set up a 137+ GB HDD
but those two should help get ya goin
(you can also try going into windows disc management and partitioning,
say, two 100 GB drives, may work)
but i dont think windows disc manager will let you resize,
you may have to delete then reformat the current partition
or get acronis partition expert....
or use the WD data lifeguard tools

-edit- just saw the rest of your post :lol:
ok, so WD's shit didnt do it
try acronis or windows disc management

[fkdup74]

']<nitpick>
There is always at least one partition.
You can't install an OS or create a file system (FAT32 or NTFS) without partitioning the drive first.
Even if C: occupies the entire hard disk, it'll still use a partition. :)
</nitpick>

<anti-nitpick>not if its a slave drive :P</anti-nitpick>

-edit-
hey samurai, if you want the acronis boot disk, lemme know,
we can work something out i'm sure ;)
or get the ultimate boot disk like peat said, its trick :)

[Samurai]

Pics attached.

It's definately a 200GB HDD. Windows will not recognise it as anything other than 137GB, and is apparently a well known problem. Western Digital's FAQ did not help, and Data Lifeguard Tools v11 did nothing but add more space to my drive. It only includes information on installing the drive, and how to set it up etc... nothing about fixing the 137GB barrier.

http://www.myimgs.com/data/samuraii3/HDD001.jpg

http://www.myimgs.com/data/samuraii3/HDD002.jpg

http://www.myimgs.com/data/samuraii3/HDD003.jpg

http://www.myimgs.com/data/samuraii3/HDD004.jpg

FKDUP74 - Unless the Acronis boot disk will help me with this barrier, I don't know if it's going to do any good. I've tried nearly everything I can on bootdisk.com but no joy :huh:

:helpsmili

[Entity101]

If it shows up as 200GB in Disk Management then it detects it ok.

As virtualbody said, remove all existing partitions and logical drives. Then use Disk Management to re-partition it.

Things are screwed up a bit now because you partitioned it with a 137GB limit.


There also exist a (linux) fdisk tool that handles large drives better. I think it is called gdisk.

[Samurai]

Thanks I'll check them out. If I re-partition it, would I lose all my data currently on my HDD?

[Virtualbody1234]

Yes you'll lose the data... So backup anything you want to keep.

Have you gone into Disk Management to see what shows up there?

------

And about the first topic of this thread... Try: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=download+fdisk&meta=

[fkdup74]

FKDUP74 - Unless the Acronis boot disk will help me with this barrier, I don't know if it's going to do any good. I've tried nearly everything I can on bootdisk.com but no joy :huh:

:helpsmili

it might, because you can resize your current partition
(which i dont think windows lets you do)
and its a boot disk, so windows is out of the equation
i say its worth a shot, either acronis or the ultimate boot disk
otherwise you have to reformat and lose it all
(and no, resizing wont kill any data)

[Samurai]

Yes you'll lose the data... So backup anything you want to keep.

Have you gone into Disk Management to see what shows up there?

------

And about the first topic of this thread... Try: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=download+fdisk&meta=

Oooh shows 58.32gb unallocated, with an option to partition. if i do this will i lose any data on my original partition?

[Smurfette]

]
<nitpick>
There is always at least one partition.
You can't install an OS or create a file system (FAT32 or NTFS) without partitioning the drive first.
Even if C: occupies the entire hard disk, it'll still use a partition.
</nitpick>

<anti-nitpick>not if its a slave drive :P</anti-nitpick>

How does that change things? If you single-partition a HDD as a boot drive, then a year later move it and make it a slave, does that mean that it's not partitioned any more?

[Virtualbody1234]

Oooh shows 58.32gb unallocated, with an option to partition. if i do this will i lose any data on my original partition?
Great news!

No you won't lose data if you add a partiton in that unallocated space. Go for it.

[Samurai]

Great news!

No you won't lose data if you add a partiton in that unallocated space. Go for it.


Thank you for all your help VB. Appreciated :beerchug:

[fkdup74]

How does that change things? If you single-partition a HDD as a boot drive, then a year later move it and make it a slave, does that mean that it's not partitioned any more?

it was a brand new fucking drive,
read before you make an ass outta yourself
can you not fresh install a salve and have it unallocated? ;)
hey , or any drive for that matter,
they dont format em at the factory last i checked

anyway, glad ya got it sorted samurai :)

[Smurfette]

it was a brand new fucking drive,
read before you make an ass outta yourself
can you not fresh install a salve and have it unallocated? ;)
hey , or any drive for that matter,
they dont format em at the factory last i checked
Hey, I'll tell you what, why don't you answer the question before talking unrelated shit you brainless fuckwit?

Here, have another go...


]<nitpick>
There is always at least one partition.
You can't install an OS or create a file system (FAT32 or NTFS) without partitioning the drive first.
Even if C: occupies the entire hard disk, it'll still use a partition.
</nitpick>

<anti-nitpick>not if its a slave drive </anti-nitpick>
How does that change things? If you single-partition a HDD as a boot drive, then a year later move it and make it a slave, does that mean that it's not partitioned any more?

[Virtualbody1234]

About this [NITPICK] argument...

A drive that is new or Master or Slave has nothing to do with partition(s).

Any drive needs at least 1 partition before data can be stored on it.


------------
I'm glad it's sorted, Samurai.

[Samurai]

anyway, glad ya got it sorted samurai :)


I'm glad it's sorted, Samurai.


Thank you both ;)

[fkdup74]

Hey, I'll tell you what, why don't you answer the question before talking unrelated shit you brainless fuckwit?
had it been a half ass intelligent question...
i may have
why dont you STFU and go back to smurfland ;)

[Smurfette]

had it been a half ass intelligent question...
i may have
why dont you STFU and go back to smurfland ;)

<nitpick>
It's half-assed ;)
</nitpick>
Perhaps I should've used shorter sentences then...


@VB:
It's not an argument - fuckedup would need to actually argue for that.

[uNz[i]]

About this [NITPICK] argument...

A drive that is new or Master or Slave has nothing to do with partition(s).

Any drive needs at least 1 partition before data can be stored on it.
...

Exactly the point I'd already made... and Windows was already installed on the disk according to Samurai, it just wasn't showing the entire disk's capacity. Therefore it was partioned, even if it was done incorrectly.

@ FKDUP74:
Windows always calls the boot drive C. If you go take a look at the first of Samurai's screenshots (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showpost.php?p=920462&postcount=16), you'll see he is in fact talking about his C: drive.
Therefore, the disk being discussed is partitioned and is the boot device, which just proves your slave drive argument nonsense in the context of this topic.

QED. :01:

@ Samurai: Am I invisible to you or something? I was the one who posted your fix (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showpost.php?p=920159&postcount=13).
Methinks someone else besides VB deserves a thankyou... :rolleyes:

[whiterook-2]

(edit)
I"m so far behind, I thought I was in front

[fkdup74]

']which just proves your slave drive argument nonsense in the context of this topic.

'k, if you read back....
you will notice i posted before samurai made the screeny
and if anyone noticed also...
there was a >>>>> :P <<<<<< next to my comment
after that smurfette just started talkin outta his(her?) ass
and it all went downhill from there :lol:

@VB....yes i know data cant be stored on an unpartitioned drive ;)

[Virtualbody1234]

']@ Samurai: Am I invisible to you or something? I was the one who posted your fix (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showpost.php?p=920159&postcount=13).
Methinks someone else besides VB deserves a thankyou... :rolleyes:
Yes. You deserve credit for the answer. I only reminded Samurai to look there. I guess I can only take credit for the reminder? :unsure:

Edit:
[New nitpick] On second thought... I posted about Disk Management before you: Here (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showpost.php?p=920133&postcount=11).[/New nitpick]

:rolleyes:

[uNz[i]]

@ FKDUP74: Okay... nuff said. I'm not here to play Flame Warrior anyway. :)


...
Edit:
[New nitpick] On second thought... I posted about Disk Management before you: Here (http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showpost.php?p=920133&postcount=11).[/New nitpick]

:rolleyes:

:lol: /me loves a good nitpick. :D

Yes, you did mention it VB, but going by the screenshots posted, and the talk that followed your post, one gets the impression that Samurai just took what you were saying to mean device manager... which as we both know is another animal altogether.

That's why I showed the guy how to open up Disk Management and what to do once he was there. Worthy of partial credit is all I was saying... ;)

[Samurai]

Ahhh FFS, I love you all equally :lol:

You all helped me out, and for that I'm greatful. I was kinda tired that night if that helps any.


Now go and help me with my other problem in hardware world relating to my Linksys Modem/Router :D

[Smurfette]

after that smurfette just started talkin outta his(her?) ass
and it all went downhill from there :lol::lol: indeed. ;)
You slag me off without actually explaining your comment and now you accuse me of talking shit right before you...

@VB....yes i know data cant be stored on an unpartitioned drive ;)...debunk the not if it's a slave comment I was talking about.
That is true genuis. :no:

[Virtualbody1234]

']That's why I showed the guy how to open up Disk Management and what to do once he was there. Worthy of partial credit is all I was saying... ;)
Absolutely!