Computer help forum: Hard Drive Clone Failed - Need Directions Out of Hell.

FAT32 has a 2 TB true limit, per everything I read on-line before applying the 50 GB partitions.

MSFT simply didn't write Format for DOS or XP to permit larger FAT32 partitions. Their choice, not a limit of the technology. They'd already invested heavily in NT. Why not use its file structure? Its supposed to be faster, and if you work at Microsoft, you work for the people willing to shell out money for the latest and greatest, not the rest of us.

Other reasons for restricting Format to 32 GB? Don't know. MSFT is a software company. They're publicly traded. Windows98 did have an unusually long life span relative to MSFT support. Hard to sell new software if the old stuff is considered to be "good enough" from the perspectives of many home users. Making it impossible to expand partitions beyond 32 GB, to remain consistent with larger drives in more common use (with 200 GB certainly not that large by today's terabyte standards), might have had some commercial appeal. NTFS was the default under Windows.

The specific error I get is a complaint that HAL.dll in the "windows root" directory is corrupt or not functioning, but only when I make the new, larger hard drive, active as the slave drive. The original hard drive is what makes it possible for me to send this response. The original boots fine as the sole drive on the system.

I am in the weeds, as you put it, but not because of any technical specification that limits FAT32 to 32 GB. (I appreciate your insight, but you might want to check that out for your own benefit.)

I tried to image then install three partitions from my original drive to the the larger drive. On the second partition installation, the one with Windows XP, I got the "HAL.DLL is corrupt or missing" in "Windows root" directory error. I don't know how to get back to the point at which I can have both drives running and ready to accept data again, which is necessary for any new formatting or other activity. I can't seem to get the Windows XP CD to do any more than let me access the troubled, new hard drive when it is installed as the sole master. I just reformatted what comes up with it as the sole master as the D: partition. I left the C: partition, which would have been the Windows 98SE system, alone. I'm wondering re-formatting the c: partition would nuke the "Windows root" directory, and overcome this corrupt DLL file, which I am surprised is even an issue on the slave (new) drive, because Windows XP doesn't load from there. (I was advised of some "partition" management software on the XP CD by a local shop, but they must be thinking of a later version of Windows. There's no partition management software accessible from a CD boot on the Windows XP CD, just an "administrator" access to the Windows directory. Since I was able to format D:, I presume I could format C: again, to erase the root of the new drive, and hopefully eliminate any issues. (I probably should have done it while I had the jumper on the new drive to set it as the slave, but I was hoping that merely re-formatting the D: drive would deal with any Windows XP issues. I don't see how activities that should not have affected the original drive would cause me a problem with the Windows root directory of the original drive, from which I can boot just as before.)

I'm still confused, but thanks for the finger pointing. A reformat of the C: drive using Microsoft's Format (producing an NTFS partition) might eliminate a faulty restoration of the C: data to the new drive's base partition, since I didn't "confirm" the new installation's conformance with the old one, due to time issues, although I suspect there's some XP factor at work that is looking at the system in order to protect XP from being pirated, although I've been advised otherwise by a local PC shop today.

Hopefully someone will provide some more experienced insight.

Thanks anyhow.

Got it. You want to wallow in self-pity and not actually solve the problem. That's your choice, just as it's my choice not to facilitate self-destructive behavior. When you've had your fill of half-baked (if we're being generous) conspiracy theories and self-pity, if you're lucky someone will still be around to help you. It just won't be me.

I checked Microsoft's help file. I found "Diskpart clean [all]", booted from my XP disk via the CD-ROM with the new drive as the sole drive and master, then wiped the new drive clean. I saw CNET rated USEASE software rather well last year, so I was considering downloading it.

Does Clonezilla have a better, real world track record?

Other Notes:
1. Were I inclined to wallow in self-pity, I would not have made the progress already indicated.
2. Microsoft's investment in NT was legendary. Their desire to exploit and sell its technologies was clearly well founded, given what was originally a limited, NT user base with Windows 98SE very popular for quite some time after NT was introduced. That is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. How they'd recoup that investment was an issue when NT was released that was discussed by computer and software journalists.
3. Bill Gates is now involved elsewhere in an institution that empowers his world view through gifts, and is no longer CEO of Microsoft, but perceptions related to his stock ownership and power to influence MSFT stock may be the basis for belief in his ongoing link to Microsoft by many, if not his decades leaving his imprint on its choice of executives, its policies, and his personal stature in that corporation. This type of influence is also quite factual.
4. Making FAT32 more difficult to use for partitions larger than 32 GB via Format reduces the value of software that requires it (Windows 98 generation software) even more than the software's age for home use, among casual users, like myself, particularly when FAT32 is applicable to drives up to 2 TB. (Of course, any point, however reasonable, is arguable.) Given the recent, protracted economic upheaval globally and anticipation of reduced incentives for software purchases prior to that as long as Windows 98(SE) was active and viable, making old software as obsolete as possible as soon as possible seems to make sense for any software wholesaler. (Even hardware obsolescence is becoming a point of angst for many.) Microsoft's history is a march toward planned obsolescence of operating systems as a basis for their profit model, a self-evident fact for a corporation once convicted in a federal court of monopolistic behavior in the marketplace (or was that also a conspiracy theory?)

Clonezilla is what I use.

I wonder why you want to chat about federal court and not the issue you need to solve?
Bob