Diskpar vs. Diskpart - It may matter for 32-bit XP & "Error Loading Operating System"

[Savage1701]

I know it's popular to use the Vista recovery disk to get an aligned partition and maximize the performance of any SSD. I also agree with the necessity to align an SSD, especially under XP.

 

That being said, people should consider using Diskpar, and NOT Diskpart, to align their SSD's under XP. Diskpart rounds up whereas Diskpar provides more exact control of the offset. This can matter under XP.

 

I am new to this forum, but I have only found one thread in one other SSD forum that points this out.

 

It can be tempting to use Diskpart since it's on the Vista Recovery CD that is so popular and easy to use. It may also work with your MB's setup, so it's worth a try.

 

I just throw it out as an FWIW for those of you using XP. Alignment matters, although the bigger the RAM cache the better the mitigation. I've worked with aligned and unaligned partitions and I can tell a huge difference even when the synthetics say they are close.

 

LBA issues can also arise, especially on the newer MB's that try to be all things to everyone and do tricks they ought not to. I have an old Supermicro board that I can align a mechanical or SSD drive to in any way I want with XP. Move those drives to some Asus boards on my test beds, and all I get is "error loading operating system" with any offset except the default of 63. The sole exception is using ICH7R SATA drivers. I can get a 64 offset then with Asus, and the difference is real and substantial. Let's just say I've never seen a 5400RPM laptop drive go so fast in my life.

 

Just an FWIW when working with XP. Your actual mileage may vary.

[RAM GUY]

Great information, but It would help if you provide some links to what you are talking about and if you have time some how to's would be most helpful for others.