HDD Mystery

I got two HDDs, one has 160GBs and the other 250GBs. Both are bi-partitioned (50-50) and for some reason, Windows 2000 ordered them as follow:

Disk1_Vol1 as C
Disk2_Vol1 as D
Disk1_Vol2 as E
Disk2_Vol2 as F

Drive E holds the Windows 2000 system files and is of NTFS format while all others are FAT32.

My problem is that Windows 2000 is screwing up Drive F; it reports the correct disc comsuption, but all files are on the root folder can't be read and all folders are empty.

If I boot the computer in Windows 98 SE mode, it doesn't even "see" Drive F.

Could this be because there's a NTFS-formatted drive before the FAT32 one? And is there a way to recover my files or there's no salvation short of formatting Drive F to NTFS (which will erase all files)?

If it were me I would switch the hard drives around in the case because I am a retard and don't know shit about partitioned hard drives. Thats just me though.

that's strange
explain the situation a little, what were you doing right before you noticed this happened?

it's probably possible to recover your files if you do not write to the partition, assuming it's that severe, so don't save any files on it. 

The system has two OSs: 98SE and 2000SP4. To avoid problems with the Program Files folder, 98SE is on drive C while 2000SP4 (FAT32) is on Drive E (NTFS).

Last thing done to drive F was running diagnostic tools and executing eMule (which uses drive F as dumping folder for completed files).

Drive F has about 115GB, 27 of which are already used; of that, 7GB are files stored on the root folder (F:\). Now, these CAN be "seen" but not used (MP3 files won't play on Winamp, ZIP files accuse that the file is corrupted or damaged, AVI files won't play and so on...).

But all other folders (F:\SOMETHING, F:\BACKUP) won't show their contents.

I won't be able to test this drive on another system until Tuesday but my guess is that Windows 2000 can't "see" drive F because of "E" having a NTFS file system. I can't think of any other reason.

It is a mystery

>>4
go into your administrative tools -> computer management -> disk management and see what it actually says for the partition

Too bad this an entirely-text board ... Anyways, it reads:

Disk 0             Disk2_Vol1 (C:)             Disk2_Vol2 (E:)
Basic              75.72GB FAT32               73.33GB NTFS
149.05GB           Healthy (System)            Healthy (Boot)
Online

Disk 1             Disk2_Vol1 (D:)             Disk2_Vol2 (F:)
Basic              117GB FAT32                 115GB FAT32
232.88GB           Healthy (Active)            Healthy
Online

E and F are green- and light blue-colored, indicating they are extended partitions and logical drives; C and D are colored as primary partitions.

Oh yeah, and the table above this section reads all drives and categorizes them as "Partition" layout and "Basic" type.

if you want u can rename the drives - assign them the proper drive letters, but if i were you, id back everything up, and pick one OS (win 2k) and install, and rewrite everything NTFS - it manages large volumes better.

>> 8

In this case, that's not an option. That's why we really, really *need* a way to get that drive's contents.

After that's done with, we might consider rewriting to NTFS.

this is drastic, but it might be worth a shot:

- run chkdsk /f on the volume (start menu -> run -> cmd.exe -> chkdsk f: /f

- if it doesn't fix it, get a program called Restoration or any other file undelete utility and run it and see if it recovers your files.  (Restoration is freeware)

>> 10 and all previous ...

Fortunately, my speculation was correct. I switched the HDD out to another computer and voila, worked like usual. So I transferred all critical files and reformatted it to NTFS.

Turns out my hypothesis about Windows (2000, 98SE and XP) not being able to read a FAT32 partition past a NTFS one was correct.

I'll archive this case for future reference, just in case ... Thanks everyone! Thanks 4chan!

>>11
that's bs because my computer has a fat32 right after an ntfs:

these partitions are in the order they appear:
Disk 0
(C:) 6.00 GB Fat32 (system)
(G:) 12.00 GB Fat32
(New Volume) 6.00 GB ntfs
(E:) 32.00 GB Fat32
(F:) 18.54 GB ntfs (boot)
my drive letters aren't in order because i reassigned some of them for compatibility with my WinME partition (which is on C:, XP on F:)

it's probably something to do with primary and extended partitions or something like that.

Why would you use WinMe?!?!? Win98SE would be better.

Just a thought.. but did you ever check to see if Win2k or your PC Supported 250GB drives?

When I installed XP on one of my computers all the files on my 200GB drive were completely unreadable. I could see them but I could not access it. Pretty much the same thing you described. Apparently, XP without either SP1 or SP2 didn't support such a big drive. The moment I updated to SP2 I was able to access all my files again.

I dont know if this applies to Win2k or not but you might want to look into it.

>>13
desire enhanced tcp/ip stack of winme

i've never had the multitude of problems with winme that i've heard others have.

My uncle has to use WinME cos its the minimum requirement OS for his pentax digital camera and software.. doesnt work in 98SE or lower.. sucks.. :(

>>16
It should work with XP/2k. Use those exclusively. They do anything that ME does. Including handling NTFS.

Why the fuck is anybody using Win9x/ME? Get a real Windows OS for fuck's sake.

And if you're fucking using Win9x/ME, why the fuck are you using WinME? Use Win98 for fuck's sake.

>>18
i have a dual boot system that has both winxp and winme on it.

winme runs MAME faster.

>>19
Ummm...
If you don't have shit hardware, I imagine 2k/XP shouyld run MAME just fine. What do you mean "faster"? Better framerates? If your machine can't handle MAME, you should get some combination of:
more RAM
Better CPU
Better video card



Seriously.
There is NO, I repeate NO excuse to run ME. Ever. If someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to run Win ME, fight them to the death. NT based OSs are superior to Win9x/ME

>>20
mame does run well on my system under winxp for most games, however, i get better framerates (slightly) with certain games under winme, such as mtlchamp, mk, mk3, kikaioh, etc.  a lot of my old dos games (quake 1, for example) work better under winme too.

but i suppose i do need to get a video card soon, i just built this computer and haven't bought a video card yet.

methinks though i should upgrade from my crappy amd duron ...

>> 18

In my case, the computer with the HDD problem is a part of a business, with custom-tailored software. I don't know the details, except that the company that made the software went defunct and they don't have the time or money to spare on a new, W2K-customized program.

... They made it quite clear that my job was to make those files safe and accessible again. I did it, I got paid, that's good enough for me.