3 ms·

I've used it migrating from MBR/SATA to GPT/NVMe and I still have nightmares about it. That and Dell's truly atrocious UEFI.

tyingq 5y ago
I've not used it to move from one physical drive to another. Just in-place migration. It's worked fine that way several times.
- shadilay 5y ago
  Nothing ever works as it should. I've also had several GPT->MBR automatic downgrades borking the install.
  - fuzzfactor 5y ago
    There really shouldn't be a need for mbr2gpt.exe except as an instructional aid to see how they accomplish the deed. Keep in mind that using an MBR-layout HDD (SSD) is specified to be fully supported by UEFI. No need for a GPT-layout HDD to begin with except on some screwy sub-specification UEFI firmware on a number of crummy things like tablets which have no Legacy CSM and which for a while were too defective to even recognize an MBR-layout USB device for booting. Recently worked out the latest reference implementation of a dual-boot Windows/Ubuntu HDD that boots on "any" x86_64 hardware whether BIOS or UEFI, using the most recent W10 21H1 and Ubuntu 21.04 released over the last few months. There's never been a reason to settle for less than a HDD which will boot on the widest variety of PCs that you might need to quickly physically transfer the HDD hardware over to. Just in case the PC fries in the middle of an important session and the HDD is still good, you need to be able to just remove the HDD and place it into whichever backup PC you might have available. In this type emergency you really need a HDD layout that can accomodate the widest variety of new & vintage PC hardware, just in case. Nothing less is an option. Unless you want to admit that you haven't really tried to get maximum reliability out of fundamental hardware & software to begin with. For partition 1 it still works great to have a plain ordinary FAT32 volume (which is preferred by UEFI and still works the regular old way for Legacy BIOS boot) and for that a 32GB size is the traditional maximum amount that is really comfortable for Windows98SE (and the FAT32+DOS it was based on). So I can actually boot to a W98SE DOS floppy if I needed to and (re)format partiton 1. This is a bog-standard boot partition layout on the HDD, which will be used by both BIOS or UEFI, whichever one you need at the time. At this point the HDD is so conventional that you can even install W98SE or at least its underlying DOS version if you tried but it will only boot with UEFI+LegacyCSM (or a real BIOS mainboard), and you may have to use IDE mode for the HDD to load W98 (like often needed with WXP), plus maybe even more changes to BIOS settings. DOS alone still works OK in SATA mode, and DOS can also handle USB drives recognized by the BIOS if they are plugged into the PC before you boot to DOS. No need for trying to load USB hardware drivers in DOS unless you need to plug in USB drives after you have booted the DOS PC. DOS handles FAT format volumes only, and not even NTFS. And this is on a high-performance layout for improved reliability operating the latest Windows (plus dual-boot Linux to boot) for current mainboards at the same time. But normally you don't need DOS or W98 so I just make the first partition 30GB in size and format it FAT32 using Windows 10 or using the command line when booted to the W10 setup media. Backward-compatibility in so many ways, exactly along these lines is the main thing that makes Windows worthwhile, without it why bother? Last time I checked, mbr2gpt would only handle about a 1GB FAT32 boot volume, so if I did want a quick conversion that would seem helpful, but I have tested this app for reliability well within this limitation and it failed miserably even on simple layouts like I am posting here (using a much smaller FAT32 volume for testing). There is also another comment about failed conversion on what is probably a regular Dell business machine. Not good enough for general use as can be seen. So might as well treat your HDD, Windows, Linux and youself to the roomy & useful 30GB FAT32 volume of your '90's dreams. Even if all we're really going to put there are some non-sizable boot files & folders, I still would use the full 30GB unless the HDD is smaller than about 120GB. Then any night you want to in the future you could actually party like it's 1999 if you get a wild hair. Could also add a bootable live Linux distribution right there on the FAT32 volume independently of the Linux which will be fully installed to its own EXT-formatted volume later. Live distributions usually boot on FAT32-formatted USB sticks anyway. This would be another optional OS you don't really need on the (functionally hidden) FAT32 boot volume of the basic Windows/Ubuntu dual-boot HDD, unless the installed Ubuntu itself turns out to be unsatisfactory for something. So none of that at this point either, no extra distribution(s), no W98, nor DOS. Just a regular valid binary Master Boot Record with its accompanying partition table stored in sector 0. The partition table which defines a 32GB or less Actively Marked partition1, and this boot partition has been formatted FAT32 and has the appropriate Volume Boot Record for either Windows or Linux bootability under Legacy BIOS. On the FAT32 volume, boot files and all accompanying boot folders readable from the filesystem for both Windows and Linux, supporting BIOS and UEFI booting for either OS. Concentrated in this particular choice of default locations, all the boot files for everything can easily be backed up, restored, or manually modified even when booted to an OS as simple as ordinary DOS if perhaps that might be needed as a last resort or something. If needed the entire FAT32 partiton can easily & quickly be reformatted and the boot files & folders replaced from backup. Without ever touching anything on the main Windows or Ubuntu partitions, each of which simply stand by waiting to be booted to from some appropriate boot files of some kind, whether bootfiles are executed by BIOS or UEFI. To support both Windows and Ubuntu for either BIOS or UEFI that makes a total of four complete sets of independent boot files on the Active bootable FAT32 volume. The same partition table which is also defining an NTFS partition2 and an EXT partiton3 in addition to FAT32 partition1. Windows ends up on NTFS partition2 except for its boot files and maybe the Recovery console folder on partition1. Ubuntu gets completely installed to EXTx partition3 except for its boot files on partition1. No separate /swap, /usr, none of that. Works like a charm and in Windows 10 the defects which could cause difficulties when physically moving the HDD to a different PC have been largely overcome. You may need to go into safe mode when including IDE mainboards or jumping to way different graphics, but usually any new drivers needed are autoloaded and you can do what you were doing as long as the alternative mainboard is not lacking some unique showstopping hardware your apps need. Both Ubuntu and Windows are continuously improving the relability of physical HDD relocation, and Windows actually seems to be pulling ahead of Linux in this respect, but it's still neck & neck. Of course this is only a fundamental layout for a full stand-alone PC without any dependence on web access or even networking to install, boot and be fully functional. Taking this into consideration in your approach when it comes to file management and things like that, you can join networks and webs to taste while maintaining full functionality during times when ethernet and wifi are disconnected, whether the disconnection is intentional or not. I actually enjoy plugging & unplugging my ethernet cord without any hesitation all the time. That's how I got completely comfortable leaving it unplugged almost always when in Windows except when I really need it. There is a stepwise outline and a full installation procedure to build the Windows/Ubuntu HDD if there is any interest.

tyingq 5y ago

I've not used it to move from one physical drive to another. Just in-place migration. It's worked fine that way several times.

shadilay 5y ago
Nothing ever works as it should. I've also had several GPT->MBR automatic downgrades borking the install.
- fuzzfactor 5y ago
  There really shouldn't be a need for mbr2gpt.exe except as an instructional aid to see how they accomplish the deed. Keep in mind that using an MBR-layout HDD (SSD) is specified to be fully supported by UEFI. No need for a GPT-layout HDD to begin with except on some screwy sub-specification UEFI firmware on a number of crummy things like tablets which have no Legacy CSM and which for a while were too defective to even recognize an MBR-layout USB device for booting. Recently worked out the latest reference implementation of a dual-boot Windows/Ubuntu HDD that boots on "any" x86_64 hardware whether BIOS or UEFI, using the most recent W10 21H1 and Ubuntu 21.04 released over the last few months. There's never been a reason to settle for less than a HDD which will boot on the widest variety of PCs that you might need to quickly physically transfer the HDD hardware over to. Just in case the PC fries in the middle of an important session and the HDD is still good, you need to be able to just remove the HDD and place it into whichever backup PC you might have available. In this type emergency you really need a HDD layout that can accomodate the widest variety of new & vintage PC hardware, just in case. Nothing less is an option. Unless you want to admit that you haven't really tried to get maximum reliability out of fundamental hardware & software to begin with. For partition 1 it still works great to have a plain ordinary FAT32 volume (which is preferred by UEFI and still works the regular old way for Legacy BIOS boot) and for that a 32GB size is the traditional maximum amount that is really comfortable for Windows98SE (and the FAT32+DOS it was based on). So I can actually boot to a W98SE DOS floppy if I needed to and (re)format partiton 1. This is a bog-standard boot partition layout on the HDD, which will be used by both BIOS or UEFI, whichever one you need at the time. At this point the HDD is so conventional that you can even install W98SE or at least its underlying DOS version if you tried but it will only boot with UEFI+LegacyCSM (or a real BIOS mainboard), and you may have to use IDE mode for the HDD to load W98 (like often needed with WXP), plus maybe even more changes to BIOS settings. DOS alone still works OK in SATA mode, and DOS can also handle USB drives recognized by the BIOS if they are plugged into the PC before you boot to DOS. No need for trying to load USB hardware drivers in DOS unless you need to plug in USB drives after you have booted the DOS PC. DOS handles FAT format volumes only, and not even NTFS. And this is on a high-performance layout for improved reliability operating the latest Windows (plus dual-boot Linux to boot) for current mainboards at the same time. But normally you don't need DOS or W98 so I just make the first partition 30GB in size and format it FAT32 using Windows 10 or using the command line when booted to the W10 setup media. Backward-compatibility in so many ways, exactly along these lines is the main thing that makes Windows worthwhile, without it why bother? Last time I checked, mbr2gpt would only handle about a 1GB FAT32 boot volume, so if I did want a quick conversion that would seem helpful, but I have tested this app for reliability well within this limitation and it failed miserably even on simple layouts like I am posting here (using a much smaller FAT32 volume for testing). There is also another comment about failed conversion on what is probably a regular Dell business machine. Not good enough for general use as can be seen. So might as well treat your HDD, Windows, Linux and youself to the roomy & useful 30GB FAT32 volume of your '90's dreams. Even if all we're really going to put there are some non-sizable boot files & folders, I still would use the full 30GB unless the HDD is smaller than about 120GB. Then any night you want to in the future you could actually party like it's 1999 if you get a wild hair. Could also add a bootable live Linux distribution right there on the FAT32 volume independently of the Linux which will be fully installed to its own EXT-formatted volume later. Live distributions usually boot on FAT32-formatted USB sticks anyway. This would be another optional OS you don't really need on the (functionally hidden) FAT32 boot volume of the basic Windows/Ubuntu dual-boot HDD, unless the installed Ubuntu itself turns out to be unsatisfactory for something. So none of that at this point either, no extra distribution(s), no W98, nor DOS. Just a regular valid binary Master Boot Record with its accompanying partition table stored in sector 0. The partition table which defines a 32GB or less Actively Marked partition1, and this boot partition has been formatted FAT32 and has the appropriate Volume Boot Record for either Windows or Linux bootability under Legacy BIOS. On the FAT32 volume, boot files and all accompanying boot folders readable from the filesystem for both Windows and Linux, supporting BIOS and UEFI booting for either OS. Concentrated in this particular choice of default locations, all the boot files for everything can easily be backed up, restored, or manually modified even when booted to an OS as simple as ordinary DOS if perhaps that might be needed as a last resort or something. If needed the entire FAT32 partiton can easily & quickly be reformatted and the boot files & folders replaced from backup. Without ever touching anything on the main Windows or Ubuntu partitions, each of which simply stand by waiting to be booted to from some appropriate boot files of some kind, whether bootfiles are executed by BIOS or UEFI. To support both Windows and Ubuntu for either BIOS or UEFI that makes a total of four complete sets of independent boot files on the Active bootable FAT32 volume. The same partition table which is also defining an NTFS partition2 and an EXT partiton3 in addition to FAT32 partition1. Windows ends up on NTFS partition2 except for its boot files and maybe the Recovery console folder on partition1. Ubuntu gets completely installed to EXTx partition3 except for its boot files on partition1. No separate /swap, /usr, none of that. Works like a charm and in Windows 10 the defects which could cause difficulties when physically moving the HDD to a different PC have been largely overcome. You may need to go into safe mode when including IDE mainboards or jumping to way different graphics, but usually any new drivers needed are autoloaded and you can do what you were doing as long as the alternative mainboard is not lacking some unique showstopping hardware your apps need. Both Ubuntu and Windows are continuously improving the relability of physical HDD relocation, and Windows actually seems to be pulling ahead of Linux in this respect, but it's still neck & neck. Of course this is only a fundamental layout for a full stand-alone PC without any dependence on web access or even networking to install, boot and be fully functional. Taking this into consideration in your approach when it comes to file management and things like that, you can join networks and webs to taste while maintaining full functionality during times when ethernet and wifi are disconnected, whether the disconnection is intentional or not. I actually enjoy plugging & unplugging my ethernet cord without any hesitation all the time. That's how I got completely comfortable leaving it unplugged almost always when in Windows except when I really need it. There is a stepwise outline and a full installation procedure to build the Windows/Ubuntu HDD if there is any interest.