🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1993Jan7.223127.10171@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> larry@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Larry Maturo) writes:

>In article <1993Jan4.223742.11978@rei.com> fox@rei.com (Fuzzy Fox) writes:
>>john.will@satalink.com (John Will)  writes:
>>
>>>FJ>If you have let Stacker 'swap' the drives, so that your 390 MB stacked
>>>FJ>drive is seen as C, you are simply asking for trouble (IMHO).
>>
>>>You keep saying that, but I see absolutely no rational reasoning 
>>>associated with your caution.
>>
>>The reason is that many configuration management software programs (such
>>as less-than-immediately-recent versions of QEMM's OPTIMIZE, install
>>programs such as WINDOWS, etc.) can become extremely confused when the
>>boot drive is not drive C: but actually D:.  SSWAP does some interesting
>>magic in order to try to circumvent the confusion, but it is not always
>>successful, and this can lead to confusion if the user is not completely
>>up on what's going on.
>>
>>Further, confused software can install its drivers on a compressed drive
>>which will not be available yet when the driver is loaded, and other
>>nasty things.  While refraining from SSWAP won't solve every problem, it
>>can generally be guaranteed that if you don't use it, anything placed on
>>drive C: will be the real thing which is always available at any time
>>during boot, and nothing will need to be copied around in order to make
>>the boot succeed.
>>
>>These reasons (and others) are why I recommend that users who are not
>>closely familiar with the computer's operation should stay away from
>>SSWAP.  However, I do recognize that there is a class of users who have
>>a use for SSWAP.  Users who have a LARGE amount of software installed
>>may enjoy the convenience of not having to reconfigure the software.
>>Users who rarely (if ever) change their configuration or install new
>>software which requires driver updates will probably never run into
>>problems with SSWAP.  SSWAP does not cause many problems when your
>>configuration stays the same, but in the future when you might decide
>>to change it, then it can well cause many unforseen problems.
>>
>>-- 
>>#ifdef TRUE        | Fuzzy Fox (a.k.a. David DeSimone)       fuzzy@netcom.com
>>#define  TRUE   0  |
>>#define  FALSE  1  |  "911 Emercency Rescue Service - Can you hold, please?"
>>#endif             |


>There is also an advantage to using SSWAP.  I bet not many viruses know how to
>install themselves in a non-bootable, non-existent disk.  Seriously, have you
>actually run into one of these problems or are they only theoritical?  I have
>actually run into a few programs that refuse to run on anything but the C drive
>making SSAWP a necessity if you want to use Stacker.  Also, as you point out, it
>is a lot more convient to swap.

I've personally seen people have these problems, so it is a great deal
more than 'theoritical'.  Why is it that so many people have so much
trouble understanding and believing this?  If you want to use SSWAP,
by all means use it.  I (and a couple of others) are merely warning
you that it CAN cause problems -- so you should be aware of that if
you want to use it.

Personally, I still recommendd against it.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.