Hard Drive Partitioner: Which One Should You Choose

A few days ago, someone told me that the hard disk partition he just bought has problem. I found it very strange, as the situation of the newly bought hard drive goes to wrong is very rare. After listening to his narrative, I think it is other aspects went wrong. It turns out that the man actually use DOS to the hard disk partition, so it is not amazing he comes across to the problem.
Rather than other hard drive data recovery, I suggest he should use the re-sub-partitioning tool that comes with WIN XP. But some people do not agree, they prefer to recommend the PQ partition, dynamic partition under WINDOWS, even suggested that the re-zoning to ensure that you can use with DM.
In the end which is better? Let’s look at the concentration of the popular partitioning methods:

1. An old-fashioned – the FDISK
First introduced is the DOS FDISK partition, this partition although the old-fashioned way, but there are still people. The FDISK drawback is that only support a finite partition, not the correct partition can not be recognized by the system.
In today’s hard drive times, I don’t strongly recommend this partition! Unless you have special purpose. When it comes to DM software, many people may have never heard. This is a long-standing low under DOS hard drive formatting and partitioning software. Hard drives from different manufacturers, the DM software is not universal, are now universal version replaced.
DM software involved in the underlying operation of the hard drive, very dangerous, of course, this feature can be a lot of other software do not, such as the recovery partition functions, with DM software is seen as a prerequisite to proficient in the hard disk. Put down the senior operations aside, let some of the old computer to support large capacity hard disk partitioning DM, which is actually quite practical functionality. But worse is the DM itself also has a large hard disk limit, generally more than 120GB of hard disk DM not know, and the DM does not support NTFS partition no WINDOS NT.
Given the risks and limitations of DM, we still do not recommend the use of the DM.
2. The risk tool – the PQ MAGIC
The PQ MAGIC of its functionality is very powerful. It uses a graphical user interface, can be manipulated with the mouse. PQ support dynamic partitioning, which means that even if you have been divided into many areas, it is not the loss of which data re-partition; It also carried out various partition formats lossless conversion from WINDOWS to UNIX support, showing that its function. In addition to the dynamic partitioning, PQ features are plenty, but most users rarely take full advantage of its capabilities.
At first glance PQ is very good, can be regarded as the best partitioning software. But otherwise, behind the powerful function of the PQ is the great crisis – the partition is unstable, often losing data! But luckily you can recover data from hard drive mac here. Therefore, the PQ is good, but if it has no special circumstances, it is recommended that we should not use it to do Partition in our computers.
3. The best – WIN XP
In my opinion the best partitioning software is the most common for WINDOWS XP hidden in the system installed XP partition software with the easy-to-use and clear interface. You only need a new hard drive to create an active partition on it. Also XP has many options that let you use the quick format a partition, and very time-saving (recommended to use NTFS). In addition, if you have installed WIN 98 or WIN 2000, XP automatically install multi-boot menu, no need to multi-system startup software!
More important is the XP partition is safe, reliable, and do not have to worry about partitioning a sudden collapse.
Moreover, the XP partition function allows the old motherboard to identify a large hard disk. Based on the above software, WINDOWS XP partition function is the most powerful, but the most simple, practical, stable and reliable partition software. It is the best choice for the general user!

Processing your request, Please wait....

Leave a Reply