«

DeMoN LaG wrote:
> "TV Slug" <> wrote in
> news:FNo2c.19611 $:
>
>> Going beyond the
>> primary partition always has a slight cost to it.
>
> Explain to me how there is a longer seek time for a hard drive when
> it's accessing a partition other than the primary one on the disk
> please. Also, explain what happens if there is no primary partition,
> just an extended partition with logical drives. Do you have any idea
> what you are talking about?

"Logical" partitions add lookup overhead. Run some timings and discover it.

And just WHAT is your problem anyhow? You just like to cut single lines
from other people's posts just to start a dispute? How about MAKING a
suggestion of your own after taking your MAOI.

"TV Slug" <> wrote in
newsGu2c.50561$:

> "Logical" partitions add lookup overhead. Run some timings and
> discover it.
>

"lookup overhead"? Where are you finding this from? There is no such
thing. Why cut single lines? Because it wastes resources quoting an
entire article to respond to one statement inside of it.

--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 01:12:53 GMT, "TV Slug"
<> wrote:

>DeMoN LaG wrote:
>> "TV Slug" <> wrote in
>> news:FNo2c.19611 $:
>>
>>> Going beyond the
>>> primary partition always has a slight cost to it.
>>
>> Explain to me how there is a longer seek time for a hard drive when
>> it's accessing a partition other than the primary one on the disk
>> please. Also, explain what happens if there is no primary partition,
>> just an extended partition with logical drives. Do you have any idea
>> what you are talking about?
>
>"Logical" partitions add lookup overhead. Run some timings and discover it.
>
>And just WHAT is your problem anyhow? You just like to cut single lines
>from other people's posts just to start a dispute? How about MAKING a
>suggestion of your own after taking your MAOI.
>

He's got a bug up his ass tonight. Happens to him occasionally. lol


Have a nice week...

Trent

Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!

Trent© wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 01:12:53 GMT, "TV Slug"
> <> wrote:
>
>> DeMoN LaG wrote:
>>> "TV Slug" <> wrote in
>>> news:FNo2c.19611 $:
>>>
>>>> Going beyond the
>>>> primary partition always has a slight cost to it.
>>>
>>> Explain to me how there is a longer seek time for a hard drive when
>>> it's accessing a partition other than the primary one on the disk
>>> please. Also, explain what happens if there is no primary
>>> partition, just an extended partition with logical drives. Do you
>>> have any idea what you are talking about?
>>
>> "Logical" partitions add lookup overhead. Run some timings and
>> discover it.
>>
>> And just WHAT is your problem anyhow? You just like to cut single
>> lines from other people's posts just to start a dispute? How about
>> MAKING a suggestion of your own after taking your MAOI.
>>
>
> He's got a bug up his ass tonight. Happens to him occasionally. lol
>
>
> Have a nice week...
>

Thanks for the warning. Sounds like work/girlfriend problems.

"DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
news:Xns94A48A01B1627Wobbly@208.42.66.156...
> "colin" <> wrote in
> news:c2ci1e$1rm4bh$:
>
> > ie: if your os crashes, and you`ve previously installed, and directed
> > data files (email, downloads,system drive backup) to another
> > partition.
> >
>
> I fail to see how this aids in getting data back any easier, quite frankly

With XP it's probably preferable to have another partition on a system with
only one hard drive. When XP breaks, oftentimes the only solution is to
reinstall and if you have the OS on a separate partition, it is easier to
just format that partition, reinstall and then bring back over data from the
second partition. In most cases, that's certainly faster that having to deal
with your backup media. AT least you don't have to start rotating out CD's.
The more data you have on your partition, the more sense it makes. This does
not preclude one from making backups though!

"Michael-NC" <> wrote in
newsBF2c.80348$. com:

> With XP it's probably preferable to have another partition on a system
> with only one hard drive. When XP breaks, oftentimes the only solution
> is to reinstall and if you have the OS on a separate partition, it is
> easier to just format that partition, reinstall and then bring back
> over data from the second partition. In most cases, that's certainly
> faster that having to deal
>

Why is reformatting a requirement of reinstalling Windows XP? When I end
up with a corrupt copy of XP on a machine, I boot to a recovery console,
rename c:\windows to c:\windows.bak, reboot back off the CD again and
install like normal. What advantage do you have with reformatting? Also,
how do you decide how large to make your partitions? What happens if you
give too much space for data and run out of room for programs?

--
website: http://www.demonlag.com
AIM: FrznFoodClerk

"DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
news:Xns94A57FE7B7504Wobbly@208.42.66.156...
> "Michael-NC" <> wrote in
> newsBF2c.80348$. com:
>
> > With XP it's probably preferable to have another partition on a system
> > with only one hard drive. When XP breaks, oftentimes the only solution
> > is to reinstall and if you have the OS on a separate partition, it is
> > easier to just format that partition, reinstall and then bring back
> > over data from the second partition. In most cases, that's certainly
> > faster that having to deal
> >
>
> Why is reformatting a requirement of reinstalling Windows XP?

Corrupted partition table, master file or virus attack. If you do run your
OS on one partition, it's just easier to delete the partition and start
anew, rather than rename windows, then delete the folder after the new
install. Your strategy is not appropriate for a system with a separate OS
partition, it's just another way of doing things.

>When I end
> up with a corrupt copy of XP on a machine, I boot to a recovery console,
> rename c:\windows to c:\windows.bak, reboot back off the CD again and
> install like normal. What advantage do you have with reformatting? Also,
> how do you decide how large to make your partitions? What happens if you
> give too much space for data and run out of room for programs?

A- Get a bigger hard drive.
B- Get it right the first time.
C- If you play with partitions, get partition magic or learn how to use the
free version out there.


More than just one to do things.

"Michael-NC" <> wrote in message
news:UNK2c.82937$. com...
>
> "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
> news:Xns94A57FE7B7504Wobbly@208.42.66.156...
> > "Michael-NC" <> wrote in
> > newsBF2c.80348$. com:
> >
> > > With XP it's probably preferable to have another partition on a system
> > > with only one hard drive. When XP breaks, oftentimes the only solution
> > > is to reinstall and if you have the OS on a separate partition, it is
> > > easier to just format that partition, reinstall and then bring back
> > > over data from the second partition. In most cases, that's certainly
> > > faster that having to deal
> > >
> >
> > Why is reformatting a requirement of reinstalling Windows XP?
>
> Corrupted partition table, master file or virus attack. If you do run your
> OS on one partition, it's just easier to delete the partition and start
> anew, rather than rename windows, then delete the folder after the new
> install. Your strategy is not appropriate for a system with a separate OS
> partition, it's just another way of doing things.

Corruption to the partition is pretty much the exception not the rule when
it comes to the likelihood of what problems someone will encounter which
necessitate a reinstall of the OS. Most often, windows itself is simply
hosed, there is no file system or partition corruption, and no reason
whatsoever to wipe the entire drive clean. Backing up data is always a must,
but the advantage in not wiping the entire drive, but rather just renaming
the old screwed up windows folder, is that you don't have to restore your
data back to the drive afterward. At most you just need to reinstall the
host applications that use it (which you would need to do anyway). Saves
quite a bit of time. I nearly always do it that way.

"Thor" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Michael-NC" <> wrote in message
> news:UNK2c.82937$. com...
> >
> > "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
> > news:Xns94A57FE7B7504Wobbly@208.42.66.156...
> > > "Michael-NC" <> wrote in
> > > newsBF2c.80348$. com:
> > >
> > > > With XP it's probably preferable to have another partition on a
system
> > > > with only one hard drive. When XP breaks, oftentimes the only
solution
> > > > is to reinstall and if you have the OS on a separate partition, it
is
> > > > easier to just format that partition, reinstall and then bring back
> > > > over data from the second partition. In most cases, that's certainly
> > > > faster that having to deal
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why is reformatting a requirement of reinstalling Windows XP?
> >
> > Corrupted partition table, master file or virus attack. If you do run
your
> > OS on one partition, it's just easier to delete the partition and start
> > anew, rather than rename windows, then delete the folder after the new
> > install. Your strategy is not appropriate for a system with a separate
OS
> > partition, it's just another way of doing things.
>
> Corruption to the partition is pretty much the exception not the rule when
> it comes to the likelihood of what problems someone will encounter which
> necessitate a reinstall of the OS. Most often, windows itself is simply
> hosed, there is no file system or partition corruption, and no reason
> whatsoever to wipe the entire drive clean. Backing up data is always a
must,
> but the advantage in not wiping the entire drive, but rather just renaming
> the old screwed up windows folder, is that you don't have to restore your
> data back to the drive afterward. At most you just need to reinstall the
> host applications that use it (which you would need to do anyway). Saves
> quite a bit of time. I nearly always do it that way.

The thread is discussing the different options in systems that have a
separate partition for the OS VS those that do not. In a case where the OS
is on a partition holding data that you'd like to hold on to, of course
formatting is not an option.