Partition Manager

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dreamer
  • Start date Start date
D

Dreamer

Hello!

Exists some Partition Manager like Acronis, Paragon, etc, that Windows Vista
has supported?

Thanks!
 
if you only need basic functionality, vista has a builtin "shrink"
functionality now which lets you take a volume and create empty space on it
which can then be turned into a new partition/drive
 
Chad, I don't see any info there that says it supports
Vista. The last version says 2.44 released in 2002.

-Michael
 
I just did a search to find Vista compatibility for Ranish and I know I had
read it, but I was sure from the site (I thought it was) and now I see it's
hard to find anything but anecdotal mentions with Vista doing searches.

Sorry.

If I were going to use it with Vista, I'd use the latest Beta which is what
has been mentioned on sites but not Ranish's.

CH
 
I know, but anecdotally on many sites people have endorsed the latest Ranish
"Beta" which is pretty stable and gets decent reviews for Vista. I'll be on
the lookout for some that go into detail. It's just one free alternative.
I've not had to partition *on Vista yet, and PM works well for me otherwise.
If you have a lot of folders on a drive it's going to take proportional
time. There are a number of free alternatives out there, and I was looking
for the best one. Some of the other free ones I found, I've just not seen
much about how well they work let alone on Vista.

http://www.thefreecountry.com/utilities/backupandimage.shtml

CH
 
Up until Vista, I've been happily using PM, myself. Too bad Symantec
bought it just to let it die.
 
MICHAEL said:
Chad, I don't see any info there that says it supports
Vista. The last version says 2.44 released in 2002.
Click to expand...

Michael:

Ranish Partition Manager, like the similar but much more sophisticated
BootIt NG, only installs outside any OS. It is essentially a "mini-OS"
installed in its own partition. So it does not need to be modified to be
compatible with Vista.

When used as a boot manager, Ranish works with Vista because the Vista
MBR code is essentially the same as in every other version of Windows --
it just transfers control to the boot sector of the active partition.
Ranish puts its own code in the MBR, so the machine boots to Ranish.
When the user selects the OS to boot, Ranish re-writes the partition
table in the MBR (in particular selecting the active partition), and
then transfers control to the boot sector of the active partition (just
as the MBR did previously). It works exactly the same for all Windows
OS's, and for Linux also (provided GRUB or LILO is installed to the boot
sector of the root partition, not to the MBR).

Ranish is free, but BootIt NG is inexpensive, and much much better, IMHO.

David Wilkinson
 
David thanks for the info.

CH

David Wilkinson said:
Michael:

Ranish Partition Manager, like the similar but much more sophisticated
BootIt NG, only installs outside any OS. It is essentially a "mini-OS"
installed in its own partition. So it does not need to be modified to be
compatible with Vista.

When used as a boot manager, Ranish works with Vista because the Vista MBR
code is essentially the same as in every other version of Windows --
it just transfers control to the boot sector of the active partition.
Ranish puts its own code in the MBR, so the machine boots to Ranish. When
the user selects the OS to boot, Ranish re-writes the partition table in
the MBR (in particular selecting the active partition), and then transfers
control to the boot sector of the active partition (just as the MBR did
previously). It works exactly the same for all Windows OS's, and for Linux
also (provided GRUB or LILO is installed to the boot sector of the root
partition, not to the MBR).

Ranish is free, but BootIt NG is inexpensive, and much much better, IMHO.

David Wilkinson
Click to expand...
 
When used as a boot manager, Ranish works with Vista because the Vista
MBR code is essentially the same as in every other version of Windows --
it just transfers control to the boot sector of the active partition.


David:

Note the following MS response to my query re: to Vista's changes to the
MBR:
"Functional MBR changes included:
- Trusted Computing Group (TCG) compliance [measured boot leveraged by
bitlocker].
- Default to using LBA addressing over CHS [CHS still supported].
- Obtain drive number from BIOS instead of from partition table.
- Enable the A20 gate [workaround for buggy TCG BIOSes]"

Also note an earlier post by me:
I did some testing to see if Vista does change the MBR.
On a Vista/Win XP dual boot computer, I ran fdisk /mbr from a Win98 SE
bootable floppy.

Results:
1) Vista's dual boot menu displayed in normal manner
2) Vista op system had a short prompt re: installing some drivers (could not
find what they they were about)
3) Vista's EventMgr did not have any relevant error messages
4) Vista ran in normal manner

5) When I selected "Other op systems" from the Vista dual boot menu, I
received an error message re: "ntldr" was missing, and the usual boot.ini
type of menu did not display

6) What I learned: The BCD store had been changed (note the "device
unknown" lines below)

Windows Boot Manager
--------------------
identifier {bootmgr}
device unknown
description Windows Boot Manager
locale en-US
inherit {globalsettings}
default {current}
resumeobject {50c73d4d-e6b3-11da-bc73-d30cdb1ce216}
displayorder {ntldr}
{current}
toolsdisplayorder {memdiag}
timeout 30

Windows Legacy OS Loader
------------------------
identifier {ntldr}
device unknown
path \ntldr
description Earlier version of Windows

Windows Boot Loader
-------------------
identifier {current}
device partition=C:
path \Windows\system32\winload.exe
description Microsoft Windows
locale en-US
inherit {bootloadersettings}
osdevice partition=C:
systemroot \Windows
resumeobject {50c73d4d-e6b3-11da-bc73-d30cdb1ce216}
nx OptIn

7) What I did to correct the problem: ran the following two cmds via Vista
Safe Mode boot:
Bcdedit /set {bootmgr} device partition=D:
Bcdedit /set {ntldr} device partition=D:

8) Summary:
I now have a computer dual booting Vista and Win XP via a Win98 SE MBR
 
CZ said:
Note the following MS response to my query re: to Vista's changes to the
MBR:
"Functional MBR changes included:
- Trusted Computing Group (TCG) compliance [measured boot leveraged by
bitlocker].
- Default to using LBA addressing over CHS [CHS still supported].
- Obtain drive number from BIOS instead of from partition table.
- Enable the A20 gate [workaround for buggy TCG BIOSes]"
Click to expand...

CZ:

I'm not sure I understand all these issues (in fact I know I don't). All
I know is that I have used BootIt NG to successfully boot all the MS
operating systems on the same machine (with a single big hard drive).
From what I know of Ranish, Ranish could do it also.

The way I use BootIt NG, there is only one partition in the MBR for each
operating system, and only the selected OS is on that partition. Any
Microsoft multi-booting mechanisms are completely sidestepped.

David Wilkinson
 
When used as a boot manager, Ranish works with Vista because the Vista
MBR code is essentially the same as in every other version of Windows --
it just transfers control to the boot sector of the active partition

David:

The purpose of my post (see below) was:
1) to list the changes made to the MBR by Vista per a MS person's post

2) to illustrate that the Vista MBR is not "essentially" the same as in
previous Windows versions. If it was, I would not have had the problem that
I had after installing the Win98 SE MBR.



My post:
David:

Note the following MS response to my query re: to Vista's changes to the
MBR:
"Functional MBR changes included:
- Trusted Computing Group (TCG) compliance [measured boot leveraged by
bitlocker].
- Default to using LBA addressing over CHS [CHS still supported].
- Obtain drive number from BIOS instead of from partition table.
- Enable the A20 gate [workaround for buggy TCG BIOSes]"

Also note an earlier post by me:
I did some testing to see if Vista does change the MBR.
On a Vista/Win XP dual boot computer, I ran fdisk /mbr from a Win98 SE
bootable floppy.

Results:
1) Vista's dual boot menu displayed in normal manner
2) Vista op system had a short prompt re: installing some drivers (could not
find what they they were about)
3) Vista's EventMgr did not have any relevant error messages
4) Vista ran in normal manner

5) When I selected "Other op systems" from the Vista dual boot menu, I
received an error message re: "ntldr" was missing, and the usual boot.ini
type of menu did not display

6) What I learned: The BCD store had been changed (note the "device
unknown" lines below)

Windows Boot Manager
--------------------
identifier {bootmgr}
device unknown
description Windows Boot Manager
locale en-US
inherit {globalsettings}
default {current}
resumeobject {50c73d4d-e6b3-11da-bc73-d30cdb1ce216}
displayorder {ntldr}
{current}
toolsdisplayorder {memdiag}
timeout 30

Windows Legacy OS Loader
------------------------
identifier {ntldr}
device unknown
path \ntldr
description Earlier version of Windows

Windows Boot Loader
-------------------
identifier {current}
device partition=C:
path \Windows\system32\winload.exe
description Microsoft Windows
locale en-US
inherit {bootloadersettings}
osdevice partition=C:
systemroot \Windows
resumeobject {50c73d4d-e6b3-11da-bc73-d30cdb1ce216}
nx OptIn

7) What I did to correct the problem: ran the following two cmds via Vista
Safe Mode boot:
Bcdedit /set {bootmgr} device partition=D:
Bcdedit /set {ntldr} device partition=D:

8) Summary:
I now have a computer dual booting Vista and Win XP via a Win98 SE MBR
 
CZ said:
MBR code is essentially the same as in every other version of Windows --
it just transfers control to the boot sector of the active partition

David:

The purpose of my post (see below) was:
1) to list the changes made to the MBR by Vista per a MS person's post

2) to illustrate that the Vista MBR is not "essentially" the same as in
previous Windows versions. If it was, I would not have had the problem
that I had after installing the Win98 SE MBR.
Click to expand...

CZ:

I guess I should have said that the "most essential feature" of
transferring control to the boot sector of the active partition is the
same in Vista as in other Microsoft OS's

I have to say I am confused by your experience because "ntldr missing"
might seem to be related to what is on the active partition rather than
what is in the MBR.

In my multi-booting setup, BootIt NG is tricking each OS into believing
that it is on a single boot machine. I seem to be able to install OS's
in any order (actually, I have only done this with XP and Vista, so
possibly now installing Windows 98 would cause problems).

David Wilkinson
 
Back
Top