D
dbr
I am trying to examine the partition(s) on one of my drives and I cannot
find the FDISK command. Where does XP keep this file?
Bob
find the FDISK command. Where does XP keep this file?
Bob
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
X
xe77
You can use the Disk Administrator from:
Start > Control Panel > Administrative Tools > Computer
Management > Disk Administrator.
Start > Control Panel > Administrative Tools > Computer
Management > Disk Administrator.
S
S.Sengupta
Hi,
Fdisk command is not supported in XP. Use the diskpart command, which
enables you to manage disks, partitions, or volumes.
see:-
A Description of the Diskpart Command-Line Utility
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;300415
To create a partition or logical drive
Control Panel>Administrative Tools>Computer Management>Disk Management
Right-click an unallocated region of a basic disk, and then click New
Partition, or right-click free space in an extended partition, and then
click New Logical Drive.
In the New Partition wizard, click Next, click Primary partition,
Extended partition, or Logical drive, and then follow the instructions
on your screen.
regards,
ssg MS-MVP
pronetworks.org
regards,
ssg MS-MVP
pronetworks.org
Fdisk command is not supported in XP. Use the diskpart command, which
enables you to manage disks, partitions, or volumes.
see:-
A Description of the Diskpart Command-Line Utility
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;300415
To create a partition or logical drive
Control Panel>Administrative Tools>Computer Management>Disk Management
Right-click an unallocated region of a basic disk, and then click New
Partition, or right-click free space in an extended partition, and then
click New Logical Drive.
In the New Partition wizard, click Next, click Primary partition,
Extended partition, or Logical drive, and then follow the instructions
on your screen.
regards,
ssg MS-MVP
pronetworks.org
regards,
ssg MS-MVP
pronetworks.org
C
Chazz
Start > Control Panel > Reformance and Maintenance >
Administrative Tools > Computer Management > Disk
Management
Is that what you want? Hope that helps...
Chazz
MCP, MOS
Be Clear In Your Message; GOD Listens.
Administrative Tools > Computer Management > Disk
Management
Is that what you want? Hope that helps...
Chazz
MCP, MOS
Be Clear In Your Message; GOD Listens.
S
S.Sengupta
Hi,
FDISK is no longer supported in XP.Try diskpart command.
A Description of the Diskpart Command-Line Utility
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;300415
To create or resize a partition:-
Control panel>Administrative Tools>
Computer Management>Storage>Disk Management
Right-click an unallocated region of a basic disk, and then click New
Partition, or right-click free space in an extended partition, and then
click New Logical Drive.
In the New Partition wizard, click Next, click Primary partition,
Extended partition, or Logical drive, and then follow the instructions
on your screen.
regards,
ssg MS-MVP
pronetworks.org
FDISK is no longer supported in XP.Try diskpart command.
A Description of the Diskpart Command-Line Utility
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;300415
To create or resize a partition:-
Control panel>Administrative Tools>
Computer Management>Storage>Disk Management
Right-click an unallocated region of a basic disk, and then click New
Partition, or right-click free space in an extended partition, and then
click New Logical Drive.
In the New Partition wizard, click Next, click Primary partition,
Extended partition, or Logical drive, and then follow the instructions
on your screen.
regards,
ssg MS-MVP
pronetworks.org
D
dbr
Thanks to all who answered. I sure wish things with XP were as simple as
they were with DOS. I guess this is "intuitive improvement" or something.
Bob
they were with DOS. I guess this is "intuitive improvement" or something.
Bob
B
Bruce Chambers
Greetings --
FDisk is an old MS-DOS utility that is not available in WinXP.
Right-click My Computer > Manage > Disk Management.
Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH
FDisk is an old MS-DOS utility that is not available in WinXP.
Right-click My Computer > Manage > Disk Management.
Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH
D
dbr
Bruce Chambers said:Greetings --
FDisk is an old MS-DOS utility that is not available in WinXP.
Right-click My Computer > Manage > Disk Management.
Bruce Chambers
The disk management utility doesn't appear to have been written for the
common man. My intent is to configure and use my computer, not to spend my
life in a programming course. Thus my interest in the easy to use FDISK
command. Microsoft just can't seem to get things on track. As soon as the
consumer learns how to use a command, they change it to something else.
Bob
A
Alex Nichol
dbr said:I am trying to examine the partition(s) on one of my drives and I cannot
find the FDISK command. Where does XP keep this file?
It is not part of XP - it is a DOS program for FAT partitions only.
In XP Control Panel - Admin Tools - Computer Management, select Disk
Management and look lower right for the graphic of the drive.
That will tell you, and a r-click on a partition provides for deletion
or change of letter - r-click in Free or Unallocated space allows
creation of a new one
B
Bruce Chambers
Greetings --
Actually, I should think that most people, particularly those
without any previous CLI experience, would find the Disk Management
graphical interface easier to use than FDisk's sometimes cryptic
command-line menu choices. (I certainly do, and I "cut my teeth" on
pre-MSDOS operating systems. Anyone remember CP/M? I moved on to a
GUI OS only reluctantly with the advent of Win95.) I do understand
that "ease-of-use" is often dependent upon one's early learning
experiences, but there's certainly no programming ability required to
use the disk manager's point & click method.
Your comment raises an interesting point here. I'm not trying to
be argumentative or offensive here, but I really don't understand how
or why so many people expect any software manufacturer, not just
Microsoft, to carry forward the functionality of obsolete operating
systems and applications onto new products into perpetuity. Times and
needs change, and operating systems and applications must also change
and progress. After all, does the distributor of a 1957 Chevrolet
Belaire work in a 2001 Monte Carlo SS? Does your CD player also
accept 8-track cartridges? And why doesn't my DVD player also play
LaserDiscs?
As technology progresses, backwards compatibility can only
reasonably be expected to go so far. Progress almost always involves
changing or abandoning the "old ways." This was never more true than
when technology is involved.
Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH
dbr said:The disk management utility doesn't appear to have been written for the
common man. My intent is to configure and use my computer, not to spend my
life in a programming course. Thus my interest in the easy to use FDISK
command.
Actually, I should think that most people, particularly those
without any previous CLI experience, would find the Disk Management
graphical interface easier to use than FDisk's sometimes cryptic
command-line menu choices. (I certainly do, and I "cut my teeth" on
pre-MSDOS operating systems. Anyone remember CP/M? I moved on to a
GUI OS only reluctantly with the advent of Win95.) I do understand
that "ease-of-use" is often dependent upon one's early learning
experiences, but there's certainly no programming ability required to
use the disk manager's point & click method.
Microsoft just can't seem to get things on track. As soon as the
consumer learns how to use a command, they change it to something else.
Bob
Your comment raises an interesting point here. I'm not trying to
be argumentative or offensive here, but I really don't understand how
or why so many people expect any software manufacturer, not just
Microsoft, to carry forward the functionality of obsolete operating
systems and applications onto new products into perpetuity. Times and
needs change, and operating systems and applications must also change
and progress. After all, does the distributor of a 1957 Chevrolet
Belaire work in a 2001 Monte Carlo SS? Does your CD player also
accept 8-track cartridges? And why doesn't my DVD player also play
LaserDiscs?
As technology progresses, backwards compatibility can only
reasonably be expected to go so far. Progress almost always involves
changing or abandoning the "old ways." This was never more true than
when technology is involved.
Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH
K
Ken Blake, MVP
In
Do not assume that XP always uses the same command name as
Windows 9X did. This is one of the several examples of where it
does not.
There is no FDISK; the XP equivalent is called DISKPART.
dbr said:I am trying to examine the partition(s) on one of my drives and I
cannot find the FDISK command. Where does XP keep this file?
Do not assume that XP always uses the same command name as
Windows 9X did. This is one of the several examples of where it
does not.
There is no FDISK; the XP equivalent is called DISKPART.
K
Ken Blake, MVP
In
I agree with you, at least in part. I think consistency in
nomenclature is very important and Microsoft does nobody a
service by changing it. There was no need to use the name "FDISK"
in one operating system and "DISKPART" in another. The same is
true of "SCANDISK" and "CHKDISK." Even if were necessary to
change the functionality, it wasn't necessary to change the name.
I feel the same way about the change from the name "directory" to
"folder." In my view, it doesn't matter which is the better name;
it's more important to stay with what people know.
But on the other hand, there are only a few examples of such name
changes, and it's not terribly difficult to learn and become
accustomed to them. And when it comes to partitioning, it's
certainly easier to do it with Windows graphic interface than the
old command-oriented FDISK way.
It's certainly not true that "as soon as the consumer learns how
to use a command, they change it to something else." As I said
above, there are actually very few examples of this. The great
majority of commands work exactly or almost exactly as they did
before.
dbr said:The disk management utility doesn't appear to have been written for
the common man. My intent is to configure and use my computer, not to
spend my life in a programming course. Thus my interest in the easy
to use FDISK command. Microsoft just can't seem to get things on
track. As soon as the consumer learns how to use a command, they
change it to something else.
I agree with you, at least in part. I think consistency in
nomenclature is very important and Microsoft does nobody a
service by changing it. There was no need to use the name "FDISK"
in one operating system and "DISKPART" in another. The same is
true of "SCANDISK" and "CHKDISK." Even if were necessary to
change the functionality, it wasn't necessary to change the name.
I feel the same way about the change from the name "directory" to
"folder." In my view, it doesn't matter which is the better name;
it's more important to stay with what people know.
But on the other hand, there are only a few examples of such name
changes, and it's not terribly difficult to learn and become
accustomed to them. And when it comes to partitioning, it's
certainly easier to do it with Windows graphic interface than the
old command-oriented FDISK way.
It's certainly not true that "as soon as the consumer learns how
to use a command, they change it to something else." As I said
above, there are actually very few examples of this. The great
majority of commands work exactly or almost exactly as they did
before.
A
Alex Nichol
I feel the same way about the change from the name "directory" to
"folder." In my view, it doesn't matter which is the better name;
it's more important to stay with what people know.
On that one, there is a reason. 'Folder' is a wider thing, bringing in
other constructs that look the same, but are not directories - things
like Control Panel; Printers and Faxes; Network Connections and so on
These reflect structures in the registry - not directories of files on
disk. Even Temporary Internet files is not a directory, but a
structure on disk containing several directories under it
K
Ken Blake, MVP
In
Yes, "folder" is probably a better name; I agree. But my view is
that it's almost always better to stay with an existing name,
rather than a newer better one. The advantage of the more precise
name is tiny compared to the amount of confusion that name
changes cause.
Alex Nichol said:On that one, there is a reason. 'Folder' is a wider thing, bringing
in other constructs that look the same, but are not directories -
things like Control Panel; Printers and Faxes; Network Connections
and so on
Yes, "folder" is probably a better name; I agree. But my view is
that it's almost always better to stay with an existing name,
rather than a newer better one. The advantage of the more precise
name is tiny compared to the amount of confusion that name
changes cause.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.