🚀 go-pugleaf

Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote in message
news:7pm705$rn9$1@mochi.lava.net...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote
> >> Rod Speed wrote in message ...
> >>> Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote
> >>>> Rod Speed wrote
> >>>>> Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote
> >>>>>> Hyper wrote
> >>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote

all your silly stuff flushed. Well, most of it anyway, still plenty retained.

>>> The hardest part was explaining to them that they ran out of drive space.

>> Even harder if the boot drive has multiple partitions, explaining
>> why there is free space on the drive, which aint in the partition you
>> are trying to add something to. Doesnt happen if there is a single
>> partition on the boot drive, there is either free space or there aint.

>>> With multiple partitions, I might run out of space on one of
>>> them, although I haven't ever ran out of space.  But if I did,
>>> it would only be on one drive, like G: Games, or H: Apps.
>>> I still can install other programs to another drive, and there is
>>> no problem with Windows working, because drive C: is not full.

>> Just as true with a single partition on that drive.

> Sorry, I forgot to draw the diagram for the slow one.

Pathetic really. You really should work on your bullshitting 'skills'

> If I have many partitions, and one fills up, I know that my drive
> is getting full,  before it makes it impossible to boot the computer.

And with a single partition used on that particular drive
instead, you'll notice a problem with not being able to
install something, long before the system cant boot.

Or the system will complain about a lack of free space on
the boot drive and offer to clean up what can be deleted etc.

> I said earlier, I have had  many customers that had
> drive at was so full that Windows would not function.

I said earlier, that will happen even sooner with multiple partitions.

> Sometimes it might boot, but programs would not work, other
> times it would be OK.  If they had multiple partitions, and knew
> how to use them, they would have been able to take action earlier,

If they have a single partition, and know how to use it, the drive will run
out of free space later, because the free space aint scattered around
the multiple partitions, and they can just let Win9x delete whats deletable
or have it complain that there aint enough room for a particular install.

> especially since some of them were losing money,
> because their business machine wouldn't work.

It might not be a bad idea to educate them on that free space question,
or get real radical and have the free space checked auto at boot time with
an unambiguous warning that the system is getting short of free space.

Mad to be using multple partitions instead.

> Now stop talking about how fast one small
> partition will fill up faster than one large partition.

Stop trying to order me about.

> That is a given, if the person lets it.

Just as true of a single partition for the whole drive except that will happen
much later, when there is not enough free space on the physical drive.

> But wouldn't it be nice to have the warning before it gets that bad?

There is.

> Especially for people who are not at aware of this as us "experts"?

There is for them too.

> And stop bringing in a Primary Dos partition as an arguement,

Stop trying to order me about.

> new drives don't have them unless some idiot adds it.

Nothing idiotic about having one on a new boot drive and it usually
makes no sense to be adding a new drive as a second drive.

> Is that why you are stuck on that point, do you always put a primary partition
> on second drives, so you can tell your friends/coworkers/customers
> about the evil of multiple FAT16 partitions?

I already told you why that that situation arises when you do the
sensible thing, install the new drive as the boot drive because its
normally the faster drive just because its the newer larger drive.

If you cant manage to understand that even now, it goes a long way toward
explaining why you never did manage to work out how to use doskey.

>>>> If you put another hard drive in the system, all the partitions on the
>>>> boot drive will have their letters changed apart form the C drive when
>>>> the second hard drive has a primary dos partition. Total pain in the arse.

>>> You said it, "when the second hard drive has a primary
>>> dos partition." So don't have a second dos partition.

>> Easier said than done with some situations. If you are upgrading the main
>> boot drive to a larger one, the simplest approach for those who dont have
>> a large capacity backup device is to install the new drive, do a clean install
>> of Win and the apps for the cleanup of the registry etc that produces, with
>> the original drive not connected for the safety of your data. Then put the
>> original drive back in so you can copy all the stuff like data and shortcuts
>> and favorites and toolbars and log files etc etc etc to the new drive.
>> But its inevitably got a primary dos partition on it so if you installed the
>> new hard drive with multiple partitions on it, all the drive letters change
>> except for the C drive. Which means you cant conveniently run for a few
>> weeks just copying stuff you find you didnt remember like toolbars or log
>> files from the original drive while using the new drive, and with the original
>> drive as protection against infant mortality of the new drive. And as a
>> quick backup destination for the data you care about after that etc.

> Right, so install the new drive, with multiple partitions (insert cheesy
> b-movie sound effects here), install windows, hook up the old drive,

Whoops, the drive letters of the multiple partitions have all just changed.

> copy everything you need to the new drive.

> Why unhook the old drive to install apps?

I told you why, its safer to not have the original drive in the
system at that stage if you havent got it fully backed up.

> If you are going to have it hooked up anyway, it won't
> matter if it's installed while you install apps to the new drive.

Sure will when you decide that the new drive isnt going to die after a
few weeks and you take the original drive out of that system and move
it another system where its bigger than what that second system has.

> Personally, I would leave the old drive unhooked from both data and
> power cables so that the data is there in case the new drive messes up.

And when you hook it up so you can copy the data off it onto the
new drive, all the drive letter on the new drive except the C will
change. They wont if you have a single partition on the new drive.

> If it is that important, why risk it.

Indeed.

> Just copy everything over to an available area of the new drive,
> there will be enough room for it, unless you buy another 2GB drive.

It aint necessarily that easy to work out what needs to be copied.
There are plenty of examples of individual toolbars, log files, etc that
you keep discovering you havent copied off the old drive for a while
in that situation, so its most convenient to have the old drive in the
system for a while so you can copy those when you need them.

> I'm not saying that this is the only way, I'm saying that
> your way is not the only way.  Too bad you can't see that.

I never said anything about only one way. I listed the advantages
and disadvantages of both approaches. Too bad you can't see that.

>>>> You're stuck with remembering which drive letter has which use with
>>>> your approach. With trees under a directory in the root instead, you
>>>> can have meaningful names that dont require you to remember anything.

>>> Except the name of the directory that the program is in.

>> Its obviously gunna be a lot easier to remember a
>> name like Games than E and Application Data than F.

>>> I said that my drive are labeled according to what is in them.  G: is
>>> labeled GAMES. Guess where Starcraft is loaded.  On drive G: GAMES.

>> And what was being discussed originally was 2-3
>> partitions, where there aint gunna be no G drive.

>>> My encyclopedia and movie/music guides are on D: REFERENCE.

>> It would make a lot more sense to have that D: Data.

>> But you cant have A: Apps or P: Programs.

> Sorry, I didn't explain it so well I guess.  Drive G: is labeled GAMES
> because that is what drive I was on when I made the label.  As I also
> said drive H: is APPS.  The volume label does not have to start with
> the letter of the drive it is on.  I didn't mean to imply that is my strategy.

So your 'strategy' requires you to remember the
drive letter used and thats often not even guessable.

>>> Why is this not as easy as using the same directory names on one drive.

>> You've gotta remember that D is Reference.
>> Hardly as easy as a Reference directory name.

> When I am in Windows Explorer or My Computer,
> there is not need to remember what a drive is labeled.
> The volume labels are shown plain as day.

And plenty dont use explorer like that. If you are looking at the folder
view, there aint no drive label visible. The directory name is visible.

> Besides, even thought I have many things that I do need to
> memorize to exist and work in this world, the volume labels of a
> few more drives will not the be straw that broke the camel's back.

No one ever said a word about any broken camel's back, just whats
more convenient. Its obviously more convenient not having to remember
what is in which drive letters with mutiple partitions.

And much more convenient to be able to do a find over a single partition
when you havent got a clue about where a particular file has got to etc.
Or just where something is choosing to put its log or status file.

>>>>> I find it easier to find stuff this way, because
>>>>> I know which drive I have certain things on.

>>>> Just as true of trees under a single directory in the root

> Not when the typical computer has a few dozen directories in the root,

Most dont anymore. Nothing like typical now. The world's moved on on that too.

> but I only have drives C: thru I:, and only have to remember four of
> those anyway.  C: only has system stuff, and I: is for virtual memory.
> And F: is for Daggerfall, have the entire game on the drive so I don't
> have to use that slow CD.  So I have to remember D:, E:, G:, and H:,

And you dont have to remember a thing with a
meaningful name for the root directory name.

> which, again, have the volume labels clearly and distinctly
> displayed in My Computer and Windows Explorer.

And plenty dont use either of those when accessing a particular
file. The directory name is visible with Find and the folder view
and the  popup in the app, the volume label aint necessarily.

> That is not true of "a single directory in the
> root" which contains 50 other directories.

Very untypical today. And obviously it makes no sense to adopt that approach.
It makes a lot of sense to have one for each of the partitions you have.

>>>>> Rather than having another level of subdirectories,
>>>>> I use the different drives.  So simple.

>>>> So much more limited.

>>> Other than having sizes of drives set right, what is limited?

>> A single letter for the drive is obviously much more limited
>> than a meaningful name like Reference or Program Files.

> A volume label like REFERENCE is more limited
> that a directory named REFERENCE.

It is indeed, and isnt even possible with Application Data etc.

> And water boils faster if you are using a Celcius thermometer,
> because it only has to get to 100 degrees instead of 212.

Careful you dont go blind now.

>> And you cant have a hierarchy like \Program Files\Reference either.

> Thank God I don't have more than one \Program Files folder
> on my computer.  Thanks for making that point for me.

Pathetic really.

>>> At the DOS prompt,

>> Hardly anyone uses the DOS prompt anymore. Dinosaur stuff.

> Only because most new people are only able to use
> Windows, and can't figure out how to use the DOS prompt.

And dont want to have anything to do with the DOS prompt
because they can do what they want to do without it.

And you couldnt 'figure out' how to use doskey.

> This isn't a jab at anyone, just a fact.

Ditto.

> And if it is a dinosaur, why is MS adding it to
> Win2k/WinNT 5.0, after not having it in WinNT 4.0.

Lots of dinosaury stuff in Win of any flavor.
Tracert and Ping with Win9x for example.

> Obviously many computer experts explained
> to Uncle Bill why that would be a good idea.

Or maybe its got SFA to do with Bill.

> So just because you don't use it, don't assume that it's useless.

I never said it was useless and you dont even know that I dont use it.

I'm certainly not silly enough to use it for routine
file manipulation on a working Win9x system.

>>> I can go from a directory three levels deep on one
>>> drive, to a directory five levels deep on another drive.
>>> I can go back and forth just by typing the drive letter.

>> And its even easier with shortcuts etc. The world's moved on.

> What shortcuts do you use at the DOS prompt to change
> from one folder in one drive to another folder in another drive?

Two separate instances of the explorer in folder
view. Change between them with a mouse click.

>>> With one drive, you have to continuously retype in
>>> the entire path for which directory you are going to.

>> No one with any sense types stuff like that anymore.

> Until your machine won't boot to the nice pretty, mouse-clickable
> desktop, and you have to go in to retrieve files, or fix something.

In that particular situation you wont be 'continuously retyping in the
entire path for which directory you are going to' and anyone with
any sense uses doskey where there is much retyping involved.

> Then you will know why you should have play with the DOS prompt more often.

Nope, I dont forget that stuff and even
managed to work out how to use doskey too.

> If the machine will power on and read the
> drive, the DOS prompt can save your ass,

I dont actually have a donkey so it cant be saved. I do know
of some donkeys and dont give a FRF if they are saved or not.

> and your job as well.

Got absolutely nothing to do with that silly stuff about 'continuously
retype in the entire path for which directory you are going to'

> If anyone besides us two were actually reading this, someone
> would be able to tell of just this happening to them.

Says SFA about whether it makes any sense to be furiously
bashing away at the keyboard at the dos prompt in a Win9x
system thats working fine. At least TRY to keep up.

>>> I have had to do this, don't ask why, I don't remember specificly, but this
>>> was a great benefit.  Sure, limited use of it, but better than the alternative.

>> Nope, not better than a single partition
>> with meaningful names and shortcuts etc.

> Sorry, I thought my paragraph was about using the DOS
> prompt, and here you are back at partitions and names.

Because that was about the advantages of a single drive letter at the
dos prompt when using multiple partitions.  At least TRY to keep up.

>>>>> Two points, I have two hard drives, so there would be C: and D: anyway,

>>>> Yes, but at least the letters the partitions on the boot drive
>>>> get dont change if you remove the second hard drive.

>>> They don't anyway, there is no primary dos partition on my second hard disk.

>> Not always possible, most obviously with that hard drive upgrade
>> situation. When most dont have full backups anymore, its by far
>> the safest way to upgrade the boot drive to a bigger one.

> Yes, then unhook the old drive to keep it and its data
> safe, just in case it is needed if the new drive dies,

Then you cant copy stuff off the old drive you noticed you need later so conveniently.

> or even get a bad virus.

Makes a lot more sense to use other approaches to ensuring you dont get one.

> If that old drive is my only backup, I'm not about to risk it by having it hooked up.

It aint the only copy of the data that matters.

>>>>> If I had FAT32, maybe I would have a larger C: drive

>>>> Thats what was being discussed, how to do the C drive when using FAT32.

>>> Which when dual booting WinNT 4.0, you need FAT16,
>>> and many small drives if you want WinNT to see them.

>> We werent discussing how to do the boot drive when running NT.

> Yes, but you kept throwing in that 'Primary
> DOS partition' line, so I thought what the hell.

I already said that you can certainly make a case
for multiple partitions when running multiple OSs.

> I'll not follow the thoughts of the paragraph this time, just throw
> out an irrelevant argument to bug you this time. Annoying isn't it.

Nope, doesnt 'bug' me a bit. Annoying isn't it ?

I've flushed reams of equally silly stuff from you.

>>>>> And trying to get an RMA number from Maxtor was a lot easier
>>>>> when I explained that I used Scandisk in both Windows and booting
>>>>> up to the command prompt, and tried to format the drive.  The
>>>>> person on the phone didn't want to admit that the drive _might_
>>>>> be defective, but he had no choice when I let him know this.

>>>> Its completely silly to be deciding on how to partition a drive based
>>>> on what a single Maxtor employee may or may not have done.

>>>> And it aint their option to refuse to issue an RMA anyway.

>>> You have so much experience with getting RMA numbers from companies?

>> Yep. And with a hard drive failure relatively recently too.

> One?

Nope.

>>> They can refuse if they want, providing they have sufficient cause.

>> And they dont with a hard drive that has bad sectors.

> And how do you prove it has bad sectors?

If you dont even know that....

> They have rules that the customer must follow to get
> an RMA.  It isn't a given that they have to issue one.

There is the tiny matter of the law on warranty claims.

>> And they cant refuse an RMA anyway,

> yes they can

Wrong.

>> they can only return the drive claiming that it doesnt have a fault.

> Nope.  Since they have to pay their tech the time he or she
> spend looking at it, and have to pay shipping to return it if there
> is not defect, they have the right to refuse to issue the RMA, if
> they can show that the customer is responsible for the damage.

And they cant do that when yacking to you on the phone.

And failing a format doesnt prove that the customer isnt responsible for the fault.

Keep digging.

> Imagine if you were the company, and someone called in to
> say that his drive won't work anymore, and all that happened
> was that his power supply had blown up, with smoke coming out
> of it.  He had a repair shop replace the power supply, but the drive
> is inoperable. Are you going to issue an RMA to him for that drive?

Got absolutely nothing to do with your claim about
a format failing proving anything about the fault not
being the customer responsible for the damage.

> Or are you going to say that the damage from the power
> supply is the reason the drive died?  If he wants to send
> the drive in anyway, and pay for a replacement, then fine,
> he gets the RMA.  If he says thats not fair, why should he have
> to pay for a new drive, he's not going to pay you,  then no RMA.

Got absolutely nothing to do with your claim about
a format failing proving anything about the fault not
being the customer responsible for the damage.

>>> I just eliminated most of their possible causes.

>> Taint the only way to do that.

> As I said, I didn't take it to the wizard for the spell
> "Detection of Bad Sectors or Physical Defects"

As I said, careful you dont go blind now.

>>> Of course it wasn't like I would confess
>>> dropping a drive on the floor, not that I did.

>> And the droid cant just refuse to issue you with an RMA by
>> proclaiming to you over the phone that you must have dropped
>> it. And even if you had dropped it, the fact that it fails the
>> format proves SFA about you having dropped it anyway.

> If I stated over the phone that I had dropped the drive,
> they would certainly be able to deny giving me the RMA.

Got SFA to do with your claims about the format failure proving
anything about the customer not being responsible for the failure.

> Same as if you tell one that your laptop fell in the toilet
> and is dead, they will say, "Sorry that is not covered."

Got SFA to do with your claims about the format failure proving
anything about the customer not being responsible for the failure.

> Sure, if you want to pay them to fix it, they will issue an RMA
> number, but they don't have to if they can determine over the
> phone that it is the customer's fault that the unit is inoperational.

Got SFA to do with your claims about the format failure proving
anything about the customer not being responsible for the failure.

>>> But if that happened to someone, and they called for the
>>> RMA number, and for some reason mentioned that they
>>> had dropped the drive, I doubt they would get an RMA.

>> Yes. But thats just true regardless of whether it fails a
>> format or not, so your partition so you can do one on part
>> of the drive would be completely useless in that situation.

> ????  So I can do one what on part of the drive????

One partition that is less than the whole drive.
Commonly known as part of the physical drive.

>>> By the way, I have been on the phone with several companies a
>>> couple dozen time for RMAs where I worked.  It is like pulling teeth
>>> with some of them.  I like to have a little Novacaine to use on them.

>> Makes a lot more sense to deal with operations which
>> dont operate like that than it does to use multiple partitions
>> on your hard drive so you can get RMAs out of those.

>> And multiple partitions wont help anyway, as should
>> be obvious from the dropped hard drive situation.

> That was an example I used to refute your blanket statement
> that the company has no right to refuse to issue an RMA.

It was your silly claim that using multiple partitions on a
drive has anything to do with making it easier to get an RMA.

> It is not in any way connected to my partitions.

How odd that you brought the RMA up and your multiple partitions.

> Multi-partitions != RMA
> Dropped drive != RMA
> Bad sectors = RMA

Keep digging.

This crap is going absolutely no where. Feel free to have the last word
if thats what turns you on. I wont be bothering with your response.