Hi,
I am going to be upgrading my OS in order to be able to capture files larger than 2 gig and render larger than 4 gig. AKA converting my HDs to NTFS drives. So now I am going to be purchasing WinXP and was wondering should I go Pro or Home. I am on a network with about 5 other PCs but don't really need a lot of control over them. I like have control over every little feature possible and want a good stable OS. What would you recommend? Experiences, comparisons, suggestions would be greatly appriciated.

Thanks!

I'd go with XP pro. If for no other reason, the capability to grow is much better. The home edition has some serious shortcomings.

PRO, PRO, PRO, and definitely PRO!!!!

If you wanna do anything serious DV wise, always always always bypass the home editions of Windows (95, 98, ME, XP Home Edition) and go the pro route (NT, 2000, XP Pro).

While XP Home edition is a good cut above the quality of previous home edition version of windows, it still does not have the memory management, stability, and multitasking capabilities that are inherently present in PRO.

And I don't believe Home Edition can even recognize more than one processor, but I'm not sure of that.

Since you are on a network, you MUST use pro if you want to connect to a domain. Connecting peer to peer may be possible but is more difficult in home than pro. I will definitely agree with the suggestion for PRO!

<<<-- Originally posted by Imran Zaidi :

And I don't believe Home Edition can even recognize more than one processor, but I'm not sure of that. -->>>

You are correct.
Home only supports single processors.
Pro supports single, dual, or better.

Hoem Edition does not support more than one CPU, but supposedly it does recognize HyperThreaded P4 CPUs. Home has some NEtworking limitations, but if you all you do is share an occasional file or printer or internet connection among the systems then Home will work. If you can afford the Pro version I would go for it just so you don't have to deal with any limitations.

This is straight from the MS web site:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/whichxp.asp


When upgrading to the Microsoft Windows XP operating system, you have a choice between Windows XP Professional and Windows XP Home Edition. Windows XP Professional contains all the features of Windows XP Home Edition, plus extra features for business and advanced home computing. Is Windows XP Professional the best choice?

Ask yourself these five questions to find out which one is right for you:

Do you want to remotely access your computer so you can work with all your data and applications while away from your desk?
Remote Desktop, a feature found only in Windows XP Professional, lets you set up your computer for connection from any other Windows-based computer. Leave a file at home? Don't want to lug a laptop around? Remote Desktop gives you access to your computer from virtually anywhere. More about Remote Desktop.

Do you connect to a large network?
Windows XP Professional is best for people who connect to large networks, such as a school or office network, since it allows you to join and be managed by a Windows domain. More about joining networks.

Do you need to protect sensitive data in files and folders that are stored on your computer?
The Encrypting File System (EFS), found in Windows XP Professional but not Windows XP Home Edition, allows you to encrypt your files and folders for added security of sensitive data against theft or hackers. Restricted File Access, also found only in Professional, allows you to restrict access to selected files, applications, and other resources. More about EFS.

Do you need the ability to completely restore your system in the event of a catastrophic failure?
Windows XP Professional provides more robust options for backing up and restoring data than Home Edition. More about System Restore and other restore options.

Would you consider yourself a "power user"?
Windows XP Professional contains a number of incremental features too numerous to list here. Suffice it to say, users who demand the most from their computers will want to "go Pro." Some additional features found only in Windows XP Professional are:

Advanced networking for multiple PC environments
Internet Information Services (IIS), a Windows XP Professional feature that lets you host and manage personal Web sites
Support for multiple-processor systems
Support for multiple languages

Go Pro on XP, but I would advise using Win2000 Professional unless you plan to use a multiprocessor. That way you are encumbered with that pesky product authenication.

Yeah that product authenication they put in is real nasty. I have 5 computers in my house which means I have to buy 5 copies where as when I upgraded to Windows 98SE I only had to buy one! I understand their concern with product copying and stuff but now I have to pay 5 times as much to get what I would have had to pay only once for before. Thanks to everyone for all the help so far!

Yeah, I would like to add that I use Win2k on all my machines. Drivers are stabled from the manufacturers of the hardware I use, and literally, in over 3 years, I can count the times I've crashed the system on 1 finger. Maybe 2 if you count a power outage.

FWIW....I was a W2k holdout until I decided to try out WXP Pro. Despite the hassle with product validation, I will say that WXP Pro is so nice I never went back to W2k. Considering that M$ will eventually drop support of W2k, WXP pro is the only practical choice at this time. When LINUX gets fully supported, goodbye M$.

So far I find Windows XP Pro to be very stable and much of my concerns over upgrading from W2K to XP Pro have been allayed after using the newer OS for a while.

Go for the Pro version, the added features won't affect you. If you need a feature of Pro that you want when you use the Home version you would have to buy it anyway (for example, moving to a dual processor machine and Avid Xpress DV).

Many reputable online vendors sell an OEM version of XP when you buy new hardware like a hard drive. Saves you some money this way, I recommend it.

I like FreeBSD myself.

I agree with many of the assesments of XP. It has, at least through media outlets, proven to be much more stable than its predecessors. Also, many new offerings are likely only to be available on XP.

I do not oppose XP product authenication because I want to run multiple copies. I oppose it because I do not want to have to argue with MS over getting a new code, or being forced to upgrade either my hardware or software.

The risk with XP is MS cancelling support, or requiring service charges for XP. That is XP future. Once you are locked in MS does not plan to let you out and keep nickle and diming you to death. MS will solicit help from other s/w vendors by making sure only up-to-date systems will work with new s/w.

Win2K does not have that problem. At least for the short term most of the desirable s/w packages will perform on Win2K. Win2K may not be as stable as XP, but it is more than stable enough, and cheaper in the long haul (3 years).

I would suggest that Win2k is by no means less stable than XP. Like I mentioned before, 3 years and running with only 1 real system crash on Win 2k. That's over multiple computers and in varying organizations. You can't get much more stable than that.

There are numerous reasons I prefer to run my primary workstations on Win2k, some of which were just mentioned above. See http://www.winxpnews.com/ to see various real-world problems that are actually 'features' of XP that to a hacker such as myself, are obtrusive. (I'm not literally a hacker; I mean that only to suggest I'm privacy and individuality oriented).

Eventually, I will be forced to primarily use XP whereas right now XP is only my fall-back OS, but realize that Win2k is VERY FAR from being dumped from the Microsoft support world. Read around and you will find that to be true.

But getting back to the question that started this thread, regardless of all the 2k vs. XP Pro debate, XP PRO is a far cry ahead of XP Home.

Just as an example of what XP offers over W2k, consider the directshow filter mapping. Anyone who is involved with digital video production, DVD, AVI or whatever, the directshow filter graphing tool makes assembling video playback graphs incredibly easy. If you're already using MS Graphedit and an upscale player like Zoomplayer, you know what I mean. These capabilities are not available in W2000.

I'm still using Win2k. I have a shiny new holographic XP Pro CD on my desk, but I have had no urge to install it. Win2k does everything I need to right now, and has had 3 years of maturing (bug fixes, etc)

Using Win 2K here. Not a single OS crash or hang in 3 years. Have left computers running months a time.

Robert... nice to see other Win 2k users are getting the same ultra-reliable use out of their OS. Bet no Mac user can say they haven't crashed in 3 years, eh?

But let's not let that pit of vipers loose in this thread!

Just for the "authoritative" answer on proc support, here goes:

For normal (non-hyperthreaded processors):

Win2k Pro supports up to 2 processors.
XP Home supports 1 processor only.
XP Pro supports up to 2 processors.

For Hyper-Threaded processors:

Win2k Pro will support both threads, viewed as 2 processors. Since Win2k does not have HT optimization, it will not work with 2 physical HT processors when HT is on, (since that would be 4 "processors"), you would have to run HT off. HT on Win2k is not technically supported by Intel or Microsoft, but will work.

XP Home supports both threads of a single HT processor. It will look like dual processing.

XP Pro supports both threads of up to 2 HT processors. With one HT processor it will look like 2, and with 2 physical processors it will look like 4.

If you use XP with HT, it is highly recommended that you update to XPSP1.

Also notably, HT only works when you build Windows in ACPI mode. If this means nothing to you, don't worry about it, but it might tee off some hardcore sound guys.

Also, just as an extra tidbit of important information...

While the OS you use may support multiple processors, the actual real-world usage of both your processors will depend on your specific software. Some software applications are not optimized to take advantage of multiple processing, while others are. Sometimes this type of better programming is what accounts for price differences between pro software and not-so-pro software.

However, general OS functionality will work at the highest level supported by your OS, resulting in overall increased performance.

I use Vegas Video 3 which supports SMP. My realized speed increase during rendering with hyperthreading is about 10%. Hyperthreading has a potential speed increase of no more than 20-25%.

Here is another vote for Windows 2000 Professional. I have been
using it for a couple of years as well and have only had a couple
of minor problems. I use it for everything stable that I need
(my programming and video work). Really like it. My XP machine
that I use for various things feels less stable, especially with
video work. That might just be me ofcourse.

Forgot to mention that I'd probably still be on W2K (my other machines are except for a BSD one) if it wasn't for the Avid Xpress DV 3.5 requirement: XP only.

"nice to see other Win 2k users are getting the same ultra-reliable use out of their OS. Bet no Mac user can say they haven't crashed in 3 years, eh?"

I don't deal with Macs a lot. Personally, I can only recall one or two occasions when I used a Mac without hanging it. I guess I'm just cursed. Probably OS X is much improved over previous releases.

Mac or PC, it's amazing to think that you can let a computer run for several years without crashing--that a processor can run trillions and trillions of cycles, racking up the probability of failure closer and closer to certainty, almost as if defying statistics. It's testament to the field of computer engineering; we've come a long way from the days when Mauchly & Eckert had to hunt down a couple bad vacuum tubes in the ENIAC every day.

So yes, Win 2K is my preferred desktop OS. It's mature and stable and well-supported and versatile. However, I would never recommend Windows for internet server applications. It's not secure, and shows little immunity to hacks and worms. For servers I use OpenBSD, which happens to be ported to many different hardware types, both PCs and Macs.

I can't think of a good reason why Avid would write their software to run on XP but not 2K. Ditto with Corel's new release (11), which I would use (on the PC I find it much more nimble and stable vs. Adobe's Photoshop & Illustrator) if it ran on my OS. What about XP do these packages exploit? Or is lack of compatibility a marketing decision alone?

With regards to everyone's just complaints about XP's troublesome authentication: I too am concerned about convenience, privacy, anonymity, consumer's rights, etc., and the trend of obligatory software registration (and web site registration, for that matter) really looks to be getting out of hand, Microsoft being particularly guilty of data collection. (Running a firewall like ZoneAlarm is useful for watchdogging which programs attempt to access the internet or hijack server rights.) Luckily for all of us, total abandonment of Microsoft is daily a less impracticable target. In 2003 the open source movement looks to be vast, swift, and robust. I have a feeling that all the software that costs thousands of dollars in 2003 will be free and manipulatable in 2013. This is, for the most part, already true of operating systems, servers, office applications, graphics and audio standards, and simple graphics editing packages; soon it will probably also hold for larger video editing, compositing, and 3d modeling/rendering packages.

If I were Microsoft and I wanted to retain the policy of declining to take the Windows codebase open source, I would probably see two ways of maintaining hegemony in the face of the open source movement: (1) use engineering/R&D muscle to keep the OS and other programs on the cutting edge of technology, and cooperate (collude?!) with hardware manufacturers to allow Windows to take maximum advantage of processor advances (of which SMP and HT are good examples); and/or (2) use marketing muscle to exclusify products and services to Microsoft's platforms (.NET and the DRM of Windows Media 9 are good examples of this). Microsoft will doom itself in the eyes of discriminating consumers (read: computer geeks) if it puts more focus on the latter than the former (the Slashdot community is a good example of this).

But I'm rambling and off-topic. If I were wrangler of this forum I'd split off a new thread, "Utopian Software Theory"...

Nice read RKS. You may, hopefully, be right. There are, however, some market pressures you left out of your writing.

1-Remember when Radio Shack introduced the first desktop computer? It was a MAC. Why wasn't it as successful as the johnny come lately PC? Simply because Steve Jobs kept the SDK's as proprietary Apple info, so no third party could write apps without paying for a license. Is M$ now faced with the same dilemma on a more limited scale? ie Open source vs. M$ controlled?

2-Like it or not, M$ will eventually (read: soon) drop support for w2k. Of course, there will always be hangers on...how many people still use Windoze ME, or 98? If they only new what they were missing, eh? As the media apps get more and more developed, they will support WXP, exclusively. There will be no market for w2000. Face it, the people who won't pay for an OS upgrade, won't shell out the $$$'s for new software, anyway.

3-The video editting population is probably a little more technically saavy than the average Joe Consumer. The average Joe C. is still running Windoze 95!! It's so sad it's actually pitiful. They will never know the difference, anyway.

4-We live in a capitalistic society where success is measured in increasing GNP and annual profit statement. Where's the profit motive in open source? Utopian, methinks. Why aren't more commercial apps written to support Open source? No market, no profit motive. Without frontline apps, Open source will always be relegated to serverdom.

5-Bill Gates and M$ are not THAT dumb. Dumb enough to try for .NET...smart enough to try to stack the deck in their favor. I grew up beleiving in the White Hat always wins over the black hat philosophy. I'm not so sure that it's a practical beleif system I had.

6-The true facts are that ALL of the spyware that M$ has loaded into wXP can be easily defeated. Open source software like XP-Antispy really simplify the registry mods for those not daring enuff to venture into the registry. Product validation is simple aanonymous, and innocuous, albeit a damn nuisance.

Hi Scott,

all have expounded the virtues of XP Pro and the file limit size of NTFS is an obvious good reason for change.

However, I have a post in the Canopus forum where I question the speed of NTFS. I am running W2k and since converting my drives to NTFS have seen a 25% drop in disk speed according to Raptest. I must confess that it is an upgrade fro 98SE so may not be that efficient. Will try a clean install soon to see if it make a difference. Would be curious to see how your drive speed checks out, before and after.

The concencus seems to be that NTFS is faster, this is not my experience.

Cheers
Andrew

There have been numerous benchmarks that show that usually FAT32 is faster under NT/W2K/XP than NTFS. NTFS is far more reliable and scalable and robust, but that all comes with a slight amount of overhead. That being said I have been using NTFS for years, never had a bad or corrput disk cluster due to the journaling/logging of NTFS even when the OS does crash on occasion. Remember the days of lost or bad clusters in FAT, that carries over to FAT32, although not as common. The performance differnce between the 2 should be negligible with todays fast systems and disks.

You will also see that a clean install of an NTFS system will be light years faster than an 'upgraded' version, that was upgraded from Fat32 to NTFS. Upgraded OSes are always slower than a cleanly installed one.

Yeah I was planning on doing a clean install. Getting a new HD and installing to that and then transferring my files over to the new HD. The only down side to doing it this way is that you have to reinstall all your software. But that's OK, I like starting fresh every so often on my computer. And thanks to all for the great suggestions and advice. I am sure these posts will be of use to many other people than just me. Thanks!

Hi,

O.K. this is is starting to make more sense. I was confused by a statement that NTFS is "much faster". I was unable to get my drives faster when I converted now I know why. I can trade a bit of speed for stability.

I have on the occasion had crosslinked files, will NTFS help remove this problem?

Cheers
Andrew

Andrew,

Indeed. With NTFS you should not have any more cross linked
files. Or lost clusters (files/directories). Or corrupt files if your
computer decides to crash (yes, this can still happen, especially
with buggy drivers)...

NTFS is meant to be more stable. I've never seen a problem
with NTFS in the years that I'm using it now. Ofcourse I've had
problems with the OS or programs (that might corrupt a file) but
never with the filesystem any longer!

I'm an XP Pro user, and I must say that it's not the best OS if you don't have lots of RAM that you don't need.

What I mean is that XP Pro (Have not tried home) is a memory hog of death. I haven't installed SP1 yet though, so those problems might be fixed in that, but XP Pro as it is, is not a good OS, memory wise.

If you're gonna use the machine as a work machine only, I suggest going with Win2k.

I've got two comps at home right now, one which will serve as my "work machine", as soon as I can get my hands on a nice HD, somewhere in the 160GB range ;)
That machine is running, and will continue to run, Win2k. It's far superior with memory management in my experience, as opposed to the other comp, which runs WinXP Pro. I play my games on that, and so WinXP is better suited for it than Win2k (2k has support for a lot of games, but far from all) but I see a huge difference in memory management.

[/ramble]

Anyway, what I was getting at was this:

Unless you can afford a -lot- of ram memory (For optimal performance DDR is preferred, but if you have SDR, go double what you would if you had SDR. So if something runs fine with 512DDR, you'd need 1024SDR to achieve the same, or close to)

Then of course, your memory needs will change depending on what apps you want to run. But with WinXP Pro, I wouldn't run with anything less than 512DDR if I wanted to use "heavy" apps, like NLE applications.

Tomas is correct that WinXP needs a lot more memory. But then
memory is pretty cheap now-a-days. I still prefer Win2K prof. for
my own video work but that is a personal thing.

The ever increasing problem with all OSes as they get prettier, with better interfaces, is that they require more juice. It's just the nature of the industry. But what's also the nature of the industry is dropping prices... So it evens out. :)

Right now, at this very moment, it's not even enough for me to spend cash on more RAM in order to have WinXP pro on both machines ;)

In WinXP, it's more or less a demand that you have DDR, with Win2k, you can get by with SDR. Of course, bigger, badder, faster, more expensive is always better, but it's not always that you can afford bigger and badder.

Edit

Almost forgot to make another point here.

When DDR is as cheap as SDR, then I will say that the need for memory and the prices evens it out, but not until then.

Been Using Win2k sp3 ...been on my system for about a year and it has not crashed yet......768 megs of mem, but it ran fine on 512....but the xtra ram lets me keep more fat apps open, and Adobe apps are mem hogs......using a MSI K7T turbo 2, which is still being made.....about the only board out there that will take PC133 SDR...very stable board, will run a 2400+ Athlon with bios upgrade to 3.60.....you can find the board for about $80 on the internet.....soon it will be down to $49, the way things are going

Sure XP uses memory, but not that much more than W2K. I run Pro on a system with 1GB RAM and rarely does the system ever come close to using 512MB. I urge people looking at XP to typically go 256MB for normal use, if they do anything stressful, like video work or hard gaming them I suggest 512MB. 1GB is overkill for almost anything, my next system willprobably only have 512MB, but of course as cheap as RAM is getting you never know. DDR is the preferred RAM type unless you can afford RDRAM. With Intal and nvlide Dual Channel DDR boards you can now get RDRAM performance without having to buy RDRAM. Problme with Intel chipset for dual channel is those boards typically cost over $225!

That have preview to ram options will pee through however much ram you can throw at them.

Boris, Vegas, Discreet products allow you to ram preview and the more you have, the better.

I have a gig of pc2100 ddr and it ain't enough.

Oh well

I'm wondering Tomas why you say XP needs DDR memory. I'v
run XP on more non DDR systems than the other way around and
it runs fine. In one of my systems I even have old 100 mhz
memory and XP runs just fine!

I would go with (at least) 512 MB for video work. I myself do
editing on "only" 256 MB (I'm using 2K prof. for that and it runs
find with that amount of memory). My XP machine has 768 MB
mainly because memory was cheap and I just put it in (1 year
ago) and also because apps and games etc. "need" more and
more.

Well, I have upgraded. This post is from my new Windows XP Professional Computer with a 200 gb hard drive. I am just working on restoring all my files and installing all my old software. Thanks for all your help! So far so good with XP Pro (and the 200 GB hard drive is very nice!).

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : I'm wondering Tomas why you say XP needs DDR memory. I'v
run XP on more non DDR systems than the other way around and
it runs fine. In one of my systems I even have old 100 mhz
memory and XP runs just fine!

I would go with (at least) 512 MB for video work. I myself do
editing on "only" 256 MB (I'm using 2K prof. for that and it runs
find with that amount of memory). My XP machine has 768 MB
mainly because memory was cheap and I just put it in (1 year
ago) and also because apps and games etc. "need" more and
more. -->>>

Right, I'm running WinXP at home with 384MB SDR ram right now, and it works. Sure it does. I can run Photoshop even, and I can play all my games (not on super quality and not super fast though).
But, I don't want to get serious with doing anything on it until I get my replacement kit (ordered and on the way) for the comp.

WinXP runs with 128MB SDR ram. However, you can do sweet naff all when it comes to heavier applications and newer games.

That's why I said you should not even think about SDR when running WinXP. Especially not for video editing.

And then it's a question of speed as well. You might have 4 gigs of memory, but if it runs at 30mhz it will do you no good.

Guys,

For the last several months I have been having fairly regular freezeups on my PC. Sometimes it's while running an app, sometimes while sitting there. I defragged shortly after this started to happen, and it didn' t help a bit. I'm getting tired of it, and looking for a fairly inexpensive fix.

Still running Win 98SE. This machine is a both my regular PC and my video editing machine (not worth it now to buy a separate one for editing).

What's that you say? Reformat and reinstall? No! I just tried to back up the entire C drive to my firewire drive, and came across some sort of "file cannot be copied, sharing violation" at some point, so that option is out. I'm not losing all my stuff.

How this relates to this thread is that you mention XP Pro and Win2k Professional are stable systems, and I'm wondering if possibly installing one of them could solve my problem? Even the reputedly uncrashable Vegas Video 3 has crashed/froze several times on me. I'm at my wit's end.

Well I am on WinXP Pro now (was on 98SE like you) and I have had a few crashes. A couple in Premiere 6 and a couple in Widows Explorer. I upgraded because of the NTFS problem not for a more stable system. But let me say this: I believe there is no such thing as a computer that doesn't crash. Every Mac, every PC, every OS, and every video game console I have used has one time or another crashed on me. Some people may have better experiences but crashes are inevitable.

Yeah but the frequency of mine has multiplied exponentially in the last few months.

Josh,
Upgrade the system. Turn it into a paperweight.

Seriously, I would consider going XPPro, but I don't know what the rest of your system looks like. If you are upgrading the os, and adding ram, and maybe a hard drive, or a new card...

You are building a new system.

Time to do a cost benefit analysis.

Regards

Well, here's the other specs: 1 gig of RAM, an AMD 1600 XP+ processor. Anything else?

Josh,

You cannot simply file-copy your C drive. Why? Because when
Windows (any version of it) is running it will LOCK certain files
it has in use (system files, swap file etc.). These cannot be copied
and your explorer will stop copying (instead of giving you an
option to ignore the ones it can't copy). You can do an ignore
copy with the DOS command XCOPY, but I don't know how good/
familiair you are with DOS.

In any regard, you will just need to backup the following:

- your programs settings
- your data (don't forget your favorite internet links etc.)

After that you can just wipe the drive clean, install the same or
another OS, re-install your applications and restore your settings/
data.

I keep all my data on another drive so that I do not have to do
this. Ofcourse I still need to backup my Internet Explorers favorite
list, my e-mail, etc. etc.

Good luck!

Thanks, but I've pretty much given up on the idea. I also don't have the Window 98SE CD anymore (well, I do, but it's scratched and simply won't work), and the whole thing seems like it could cause more trouble than not. I don't mean to sound dense, but what do you mean by data? Program settings? Isn't data everything that isn't in the C/windows directory? I guess you mean projects created from various programs?

Where data (programs settings, projects, AVI files, text files etc.)
can be located almost everywhere. It depends on:

- what OS you are running
- where an application decides to put it (by default)
- where you have put it yourself
- settings can even be in the registry (a special settings database)

Data is more or less everything you use and create (documents,
DV footage, pictures etc.). Settings are more like how you have
setup your programs and these usually can just be written down
and re-entered when installing/running again. Data is the thing
you must be real carefull about!

If you have the option of buying a new computer, or borrowing a a friend's computer (that has enough free space on its hard drive), consider using an ethernet crossover cable and setting up a direct connection between the two. With a 10 Mbps connection you should be able to back up all your data, even all your video data, in just a few hours (versus spending lots of money and hassle burning CDs, etc.).

If one of the computers doesn't have an ethernet card, you can buy one for ~$15 and install it; if you don't want to do that you can set up a maximum 4 Mbps connection between the two computers with a ~$75 parallel port transfer cable from Parallel Technologies (http://www.lpt.com/).

Just some suggestions from a guy who's been there and had to do it all before....

Two potential backup solutions that I use:
1-perform a second installation of your OS on another partition. Install only the basic OS with no fancy add ons. By logging into the backup OS, you can easily copy the ENTIRE contents of your main OS partition anywhere you like....like to CDROM or DVD. This becomes a perfect source to copy back to the primary partition in case you corrupt your installation. Copying back must be done thru this backup OS installation. Be sure to copy all the hidden system files if backing up your primary partition. This works...I do it a lot, without admitting to how I fubar my primary installation...hehehehe.

2-buy a copy of Norton Ghost. Ghost will allow complete hard drive copying or just partition copying. This, too works very well. In fact the time to copy your hard drive is much faster than via method 1, above.