How can I format laptop harddrive when dos format commands fails?

[rw409168]

Greetings,

My friend has a Dell laptop running Vista which has a dodgy hard drive.

I had planned to reinstall vista on the laptop, formatting the drive (2 partitions) via the included Dell vista recovery cd.

However it fails when choosing the option to format the partitions, hard drive error.

I then rebooted and choose to run the command prompt -> format c: from the boot up disk.

One partition formatted without a problem the other is stuck at 1 percent completed and has been running for 5hrs+

Are there any options for me to format the drive in another way?

Thanks
Rob

 

[rclarke250]

search for ultimate boot cd and make the cd, use the tools to test the hdd, if it fails, the drive will need to be replaced. If it passes, then use the tools to delete the partitions, and try to format from the included tools.

 

[rw409168]

Thanks for the advice, I'm searching for it now

 

[goombawaho]

Are you using the same (dodgy) hard drive???? You didn't mention replacing it, so I'm wondering. Don't bother formatting or installing anything if the drive is having a physical problem. You'll just have a crash in no time.

 

[SkipCox]

What goombawaho said; replace the drive.

Skip

 

[edfair]

Although I concur with the suggestions to scrap a dodgey hard drive you could use partitioning tools to use just good areas of the drive and possibly get some more time out of it.

Just be aware that the part you are planning on using can fail at any time.

Ed Fair
Give the wrong symptoms, get the wrong solutions.

 

[goombawaho]

EdFair - You would waste your precious time to format/reload a computer that is doomed to failure in a short period of time? Not to mention your data that might be at risk if it go boom.

That to me is a lack of judgment in terms of preserving your time and data.

 

[edfair]

In the right circumstances, yes. Elapsed time for an install is maybe 10 minutes. If there is no critical data, what would be the loss, other than having to repeat the install?





Ed Fair
Give the wrong symptoms, get the wrong solutions.

 

[goombawaho]

Elapsed time for an install is maybe 10 minutes."

Tell me WHAT install is going to take 10 minutes - not windows for sure.

 

[kjv1611]

Maybe edfair's referring mostly to time spent with the computer for the install, assuming you just walk away during parts.... or maybe he is referring to an image restore?

 

[edfair]

Actual hands on time. I'll do a test on the one sitting on the bench and post back. Granted that it takes around an hour to complete but I'm not one for sitting there watching the progress bar. With eyesight going away, the longest part is getting the key code entered right.

Ed Fair
Give the wrong symptoms, get the wrong solutions.

 

[edfair]

On a Syntax board, samuel chip, installing XPH2 hands on time for the install was closer to 6 minutes, including the extra required to clean out the extended, 3 logical, and the previous primary to use the full drive.

I didn't activate, register, or take the tour.

Ed Fair
Give the wrong symptoms, get the wrong solutions.

 

[kjv1611]

Yeah, that sounds pretty accurate for actual hands-on time. Of course, I suppose it ought to be, since you just did it and timed it.

 

[goombawaho]

That time is utterly irrelevant other than to a bunch of geeks that are concerned about "hand on time". I'm talking real world time.

Think of it this way: you start to reload XP and a customer is waiting (paying) during that time. Elapsed time = 35 minutes or more + updates + software installation + data copy back.

 

[kjv1611]

No, it's definitely relevant. There are plenty of folks who just do their own stuff - to them, it's relevant. Besides that, I know it's relevant to me, not just b/c I'm a geek who wants to know. It's relevant, b/c when I give estimates for my work (on the side), I based it on how much time I expect to actually be sitting in front of the machine. I aint gonna charge 8 hours for running dban, for instance.

 

[goombawaho]

I still think that way of timing it is irrelevant except for a geeky academic analysis of how many minutes you actually spend touching the computer.

For those of us in the real world that are on-site somewhere working, ACTUAL time needed to complete the task is the only thing we care about. We can't run home or have a latte between "time to touch the computer again" moments.

And even if you're doing the work for yourself and you're doing it in the basement at home (for example), it's a mighty big pain in the rear to press a button and then run upstairs, chase the girlfriend around, then wait 20 minutes and then go back down, press another button, go find girlfriend, etc., etc.

Here's the clincher: quote somebody a price based on the above method and the client will be pretty mad when you're done. If you bill using that method, you'll pretty mad ....... and poor.

 

[edfair]

Granted that you can't go out in the field and bill for 6 minutes for the 2 hours you are onsite. But if you are already there billing for something else you can't bill the 2 hours that it would take if that was the only item.

If it gets down to billing philosophy I can only say that you treat your customer fairly, or you won't have them. I can relate that kept one from 1974 to 2005 and the one I spent 1 1/2 hours with today dates from 1978. And not on windows, but Unix, the last rebuild on a spare 2 weeks ago will be billed at 2 hours, even though it was about 6 hours start to finish.

It generally isn't a move from machine to machine on those on the bench, just a button push on the KVM.

Ed Fair
Give the wrong symptoms, get the wrong solutions.

 

[goombawaho]

I understand your point completely, but it's just a matter of when you answer the question: "how long will it take?" - that answer is not the one that you calculate.

It depends on what the meaning of IS is.

 

[kjv1611]

[LOL] @ is

Yeah, I didn't think about the time for when your "on site". If the person just has the one computer to fix, then yeah, you'd have to charge for the full time, b/c your time is worth something.

However, that's why I recommend 90% of the time that I take the machine to my house, work on it there, so that I can get other things done when I'm waiting on that one. I always tell them there is no way I'm going to stay at their location to do a full install of Windows, configuration, etc. And if I were going to, they wouldn't want to pay for that much time. ;p

And then, in that sense, my time there is more valuable to me anyway, since I already work a 40 hour job. Anything else I do just takes more time from family matters. It's a necessary evil, but still..

Anyhow, interesting talk.

rw409168,

Did you ever get your issue fully resolved?

 

[goombawaho]

Take computer to your house: Ha ha. From Craig's List posting - BEST OF

"Does your computer not work as well as it used it, but you are scared to bring it to someone to get it fixed because you don't want anyone seeing what you've downloaded?
I fix computers for under $100. Completely confidential, i don't even look at your files. I just wipe out the hard drive and and reinstall windows. Your computer will be as good as new.

Here's my take on off site repair and how it can add up to trouble.

1. Liability for the PC and contents. What if somebody steals their identity at some point - you would be a prime suspect. Not that you're NOT liable on site, but there's nothing hidden while you're sitting next to them.
2. Looking at personal data (owner's nudie photos or tax returns). Can you resist the urge to poke around?? Will they think you did even if you didn't.
3. People are more likely to pin something on you that was never an issue because they can say "you took it off site and now it doesn't work the same". Tough to argue with them.

Just sayin' - be careful when you take a PC off site. You should write down the brand, model, serial number, operating system and have the customer sign off that you are taking it off site. If you don't, at the worst, they could claim you stole it. You can't trust people.