🚀 go-pugleaf

Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>
>Tom MacIntyre <tmacinty@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:37be8bd1.41615386@news1.ns.sympatico.ca...
>> Rod Speed <rodspeed@ozemail.com.au> wrote
>
>>>> I recently had to look at a laptop computer which had a defective
>>>> video circuit, and was a write-off (no display on its own or external
>>>> VGA port). I was able to get a directory printout and back up some
>>>> files to floppy using DOS... with Windows 3 or 95/98 it would have
>>>> been just about impossible, but with DOS it was easy.
>
>>> Got SFA to do with what was being discussed, the
>>> partitioning of the boot drive and how that suits dos
>>> prompt ops. It would be completely mad to be partitioning
>>> the hard drive so that sort of rare stuff is more convenient.
>
>>>> It's starting to look like you're so blinded by the opposition
>>>> you've gotten to some of your ideas that you're lashing out
>>>> without even considering what you're lashing out at.
>
>>> Its been obvious all along that you cant manage to grasp what was
>>> being discussed, how to partition the boot drive for FAT32 Win9x.
>
>> Hmmm...this thread has moved on,
>
>Nope. No one ever said that DOS ops arent useful
>for techs that are dealing with recalcitrant systems.

As usual you change the subject.

>
>ALL I said was that only dinosaurs do much at the DOS prompt in a
>working FAT32 Win9x system so it is completely pointless partitioning
>the boot drive in a way that makes that particular use more convenient.

FAT32 has nothing to do with using DOS!!!

>
>> and yet you don't want to,
>
>I'm quite happy to discuss whether DOS is any use when dealing
>with a system that cant boot etc. I have never ever said that doing
>that is a dinosaur approach. Even if you cant manage to grasp that.

The only one who can't grasp is you.

>
>> but still criticise others for not "moving on" from DOS...
>
>When using a FAT32 Win9x system thats working fine. At least TRY to keep
up.

I got lost, where were we?

>
>> you're content to discuss DOS until you have no reply,
>
>You dont know that either.

He's absolutely correct.

>
>> whereupon you hide behind the original discussion.
>
>I rub your nose in the fact that you are raving on about what wasnt being
discussed.

Thus proving what he said is true.

>
>> I think you argue in absolutes a bit too much...
>
>You already know what I think of what you 'think'.

We all wish you would get a clue.

>
>> ok, here...if I was putting together a new system, AND didn't
>> have some of the constraints/circumstances that I currently
>> have, I probably would go with a single FAT32 partition myself.
>
>And thats all I ever said in this pathetic excuse for a thread.
>I never even said that anyone else should do that, just said
>that thats what *I* would do in a specific situation.

Fine, then shut up already.

>
>> The problem is, my computer is the result of a process of evolution, and
>> is also a family computer, and so I have partitions, to accomodate
reality.
>
>You dont need partitions to accomodate reality. Its just one way to do
that.

You don't need a newsgroup to replace reality.

>
>> The rest of the family is free to simply learn what they can/will
>> while using the PC, because Dad's here to wrestle with any serious
>> problems...and I usually can, despite the fact that I can't convince
>> you that I'm capable of grasping the notion of partitions and FAT32.
>
>I've never ever said anything remotely resembling that either.

Nor should you.

>
>
>