Incorrect Partition Capacity reported by Windows XP after resizing

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

A client recently used Partition Commander to resize 2 partitions on their
hard drive. The process went wrong and created a third partition making one
of the original 2 partitions unavailable. After reversing the process (per
Partition Commander Tech Support instructions), everything was back to
normal. However, the client still wanted to resize the partitions from the
original size of C: = 16 GB and D: = 140GB to roughly 80GB each. I used
Symantec's Partition Magic to resize the partitions. All appeared to go well
and both partitions are accessible.

The problem is that the capacity of the C: partition is incorrectly stated
in Windows Explorer and in the Disk Defragmenter module. Both report the C:
partition as 40GB instead of 80GB. The strange this is that Disk Management
correctly reports the size of the C: partition as does the BIOS... AND... in
Disk Defragmenter the capacity of the C: partition is reported as 40GB but
the available space is reported as 61GB!

What's causing this and how do I correct it?

I've thought of uninstalling Partition Magic or perhaps using it to reverse
the original resizing and starting from scratch. However, I don't want to do
this for fear of messing up the data and applications on this system (it's
the work system for a Bookkeeper!).

Anyone ever run into this before and, if so, how did you resolve it? I've
Googled every possible phrase that I can think of referring to this as well
as looked in the MS Knowledgebase, both with no real results.
 
Hi,
I used partition magic once but it dident turn out too good.

Anyway, I have a similar problen, in that, I imaged my 4.5gig drive using
reread/rawwrite and re-installed on an 80gig drive , only to find out that it
still sees the origianl partition size in explorer and in every other app'.
The bios sees it as an 80gig drive.

I,m looking for a solution to this too!!
Let me know if you get any useful tips

regards,

Rich
 
I have a similar problem. My 40GB crashed. I replaced it with a 160GB.
Partition Magic says it see a 130GB and one partition. Windows only sees it
as a 40GB and defrag tells me I'm low on free space. Norton Speeddisk also
sees only 40GB. But Disk Management says I've got a 127GB partition and it's
primary and takes the whoile drive. Not only that but when I installed the
new drive I used DriveImage to restore the backup of the old 40GB drive,
which worked perfectly but it seems that now all Windows recognizes is the
parameters as the old drive was (40GB versus 130GB). But this new drive,
according to Fry's, and the Maxtor label is a 160GB drive. Help???
 
Clem P.
In our experience using two (or more!) different partition managers on the
same system is frequently a recipe for disaster. It's not unusual that doing
such introduces all sorts of incompatibilities which the OS simply cannot
effectively cope with. Whether that's at the root of your problem I don't
know, but that may be the case.

There is, however, a possibility that the problem is one of cosmetics since
DM is reporting the correct size of the two partitions - 80 GB each. (I'm
assuming, since you didn't say, that the second partition is being also
correctly reported by DM) and that the drive is functional. But what do you
mean when you say the BIOS is correctly reporting the size of that C:
partition? The BIOS would ordinarily report the *total* capacity of the
disk, not individual partitions.

Since the drive is being utilized in a work environment and obviously
accessing its data is crucial to its owner, the first thing I would do is,
using a disk imaging program, e.g., Ghost, Acronis True Image, etc., clone
the contents of the drive to another internal HD and then work with that
"cloned" HD in trying to resolve the problem, perhaps along the lines you're
contemplating. Under *no* circumstances at this point would I further
manipulate that original HD using any partition manager (or for that matter,
any other software program). Frankly, in this case, given the importance of
the original HD's data, it would have been prudent to create a clone of the
HD *prior* to the initial re:partitioning operation. But what's done, is
done of course. So you'll have to work with what you've got.

But if you're unable to fully resolve the problem re different facets of the
OS reporting varying disk/partition capacities but the drive appears
otherwise functional in all respects, you should strongly advise the owner
to routinely & systematically clone the contents of the drive, or at the
least, frequently backup its data.
Anna
 
Back
Top