English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Support > support.Apps

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 08 June 2018, 16:42   #1
512k
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Creatures Land
Posts: 18
hdtoolbox partition method

ok time to simplfly the question asked

1.when it come to partitioning a cf do people stick to the default setting given by the read configration

for 16gb - 32gb cards

2. when it comes to the vampire method where you see a user tying in the secotrs and cylinders
is this a more advanced - pro method

which one would you choose and why or trust?

Last edited by 512k; 08 June 2018 at 21:25. Reason: simplify the bloddy question
512k is offline  
Old 08 June 2018, 21:48   #2
-Acid-
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: South Shields
Posts: 568
I set them myself and type into the cylinders box to set the size. If you're using an old 3.x HDToolBox then using the slider past 4GB is a waste of time as the program gets confused.
-Acid- is offline  
Old 11 June 2018, 12:56   #3
Daedalus
Registered User

Daedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dublin, then Glasgow
Posts: 3,158
Just to clarify, the sizes above 4GB need to be entered manually when using HDToolbox from 3.0 or 3.1 - the version of HDToolbox supplies with 3.5 and 3.9 fully supports drives above 4GB, and partitions can be properly set up using the graphical indicators.

Personally I've used 3.9 for so long that I can't remember the last time I used the direct cylinder entry method. But it was probably around 20 years ago...
Daedalus is online now  
Old 11 June 2018, 21:51   #4
thomas
Registered User
thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daedalus View Post
Just to clarify, the sizes above 4GB need to be entered manually when using HDToolbox from 3.0 or 3.1
No, that's not true. The values determined by HDToolbox are totally correct. Only the size displayed is wrong because the calculation overflows. And that does not change if you manually enter different values.
thomas is offline  
Old 12 June 2018, 10:05   #5
Daedalus
Registered User

Daedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dublin, then Glasgow
Posts: 3,158
Hmmmm, I have quite distinct memories of having to enter the start and end cylinders of partitions on large drives because they couldn't be set using the slider bar display. Is there some other method of setting partition sizes that I don't know about? Or some other reason I couldn't use the bar display, other than incompatibility with the larger drives?
Daedalus is online now  
Old 12 June 2018, 21:49   #6
thomas
Registered User
thomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,681
It seems I misread your post. The original topic of this thread is about the cylinders/heads/sectors/blocks per track values in the "install drive" section of HDToolbox. This was what I talked about. These values are ok, they should be let alone.

Yes, depending on the drive size, the slider below the partition diagram becomes quite fuzzy if not completely unusable. So entering cylinder numbers is a better choice. I do this anyway because I prefer round numbers.
thomas is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Same name for HDToolbox Drive Type, Partition and Volume NOT a problem? Foebane support.Apps 24 14 March 2018 21:21
CD32 Swap method Cobe project.CD32 Conversion 74 08 April 2016 12:31
Control Method? seuden HOL suggestions and feedback 1 13 October 2010 14:32
New imaging method? Pheonix request.Apps 2 27 August 2009 05:41
Best capture method DJ_OXyGeNe_9 project.Amiga Demo DVD 16 11 May 2009 23:28

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Page generated in 0.06500 seconds with 15 queries