Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > HD Format Query

Reply
Thread Tools

HD Format Query

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Brendan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 20:50:27 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>>>OS please Brian.
>>>
>>>NTFS capable os's do not suffer the same limitations as FAT based systems.
>>>This includes drive lettering schemes.

>>
>> By "os's" you are referring to "versions of Windows"?

>
>No.


But it is only Windows that has to worry about drive-lettering schemes.
More modern OSes do not.

>> As for whether Windows does or does not have limitations when it comes
>> to the need for drive lettering, I'm still trying to get to the bottom
>> of this <http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz.comp/msg/5eebf0aa701c68a3>.

>
>That has nothing to do with limitations. It's to do with partitions and
>filesystem extensions.
>
>For example, if you had more than 27 drives, you could add the extras as
>directories off an existing drive. E.g. c:\stuff\ is redirected to an extra
>partition.


But only if you had more than 27 volumes? You couldn't do it with as few
as 2 or 3, so everything is always part of a single namespace based off
the C: drive?

>Under NTFS.
>
>Also, hard links allow a similar thing but with more flexibility.


Hard links don't work across filesystems. UNIX/Linux achieves it all
without hard links.

>Additionally, NTFS partitions can be re-lettered arbitrarily - except the
>system drive (unless at install time).


But under Windows you still have the limitation of only having so many
letters, no matter how you juggle them.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Brendan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2005
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 23:16:45 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

>>> By "os's" you are referring to "versions of Windows"?

>>
>>No.

>
> But it is only Windows that has to worry about drive-lettering schemes.
> More modern OSes do not.


If the answer was other that an NT derived OS, I'd have referred him to the
linux guys.

Don't know what you are soo tricky on the subject for... What's it to you
how I direct the logistics of my messages ?

>>For example, if you had more than 27 drives, you could add the extras as
>>directories off an existing drive. E.g. c:\stuff\ is redirected to an extra
>>partition.

>
> But only if you had more than 27 volumes?


No, and neither did I say so. Stop trying to pick a fight.

>You couldn't do it with as few
> as 2 or 3, so everything is always part of a single namespace based off
> the C: drive?


Of course you can. What are you trying to prove ? Did it occur to you I did
not go into such things for the sake of brevity, and also metering my
response to the receipent ? Why blind him with science ? My aim is to help
him, not prove I know it all and he doesn't.

>>Under NTFS.
>>
>>Also, hard links allow a similar thing but with more flexibility.

>
> Hard links don't work across filesystems. UNIX/Linux achieves it all
> without hard links.


Great for you. Big sloppy kiss and a gold star.

We are dealing with XP however.

>>Additionally, NTFS partitions can be re-lettered arbitrarily - except the
>>system drive (unless at install time).

>
> But under Windows you still have the limitation of only having so many
> letters, no matter how you juggle them.


You could have one drive (c:\ ) and hang several tens or hundreds of
thousands of drives off it. Assuming you had the hardware. It is
essentially simular to how linux handles them, just a little less elegant.

But then linux is a little less elegant in how it handles drives than was
AmigaDOS - which allowed you to have arbitary drive names aplied to
partitions or directories.

Anyway I think I have wasted enough time sparring with you. Please restrict
yourself to useful conversation.

--

.... Brendan

#4278 +(4603)- [X]

<BombScare> i beat the internet
<BombScare> the end guy is hard


Note: All my comments are copyright 1/10/2005 11:43:38 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Brendan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2005
On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 23:00:40 +1200, KiwiBrian wrote:

>> OS please Brian.
>>
>> NTFS capable os's do not suffer the same limitations as FAT based systems.
>> This includes drive lettering schemes.

>
> Oops. I should have stated that it is XP SP2.
> Brian


The significance is nothing great for you. Logical partitions are not
necessary for NTFS, but they should not hurt too much.

If you are using FAT under XP, stop. Turn it to ntfs, unless there are some
ancient DOS style programs you are using that hit the hardware and require
FAT.

There is not practical benefit to using FAT except if you are a computer
technician or afore mentioned DOS user.

--

.... Brendan

#352172 +(3726)- [X]

<NHBoy> I broke my G-string while fingering a minor
<rycool> ...
<NHBoy> I was trying to play Knocking on Heaven's Door.
<NHBoy> Oh well, time to buy new strings.


Note: All my comments are copyright 1/10/2005 11:39:49 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2005
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 17:57:04 +1200, Gordon wrote:

> A *phyical* HD may have *up to* 4 primary partitions. These come first,
> before any logical drives.
>
> I think I am right in saying that each *phyiscal* HD requres at least on
> primary paritition.
>
> Now we have Dr Spock's (of StarTrek not childcare) partitions and drives,
> the logical ones. These exist in the logical partition. Have as many
> as you need.
>
> To my way of thinking one primary partition and rest logical
> space/partitions/drives. For in many ways this is logical ;_)
>
> Yes, who thought this idea of primary and logical partitions and drives
> should be shot by history.


And with W2K* and later you can use dynamic disks that don't have all the
old DOS primary/extended/logical partition type distinctions and
limitations.

* Or is that just with the server editions? I forget

--
Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2005
In article <5l9by9fq5tbg$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Brendan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 23:16:45 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>>>> By "os's" you are referring to "versions of Windows"?
>>>
>>>No.

>>
>> But it is only Windows that has to worry about drive-lettering schemes.
>> More modern OSes do not.

>
>>>For example, if you had more than 27 drives, you could add the extras as
>>>directories off an existing drive. E.g. c:\stuff\ is redirected to an extra
>>>partition.

>>
>> But only if you had more than 27 volumes? You couldn't do it with as few
>> as 2 or 3, so everything is always part of a single namespace based off
>> the C: drive?

>
>Of course you can.


And yet the person with the original request that I responded to
<http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz.comp/msg/5eebf0aa701c68a3> didn't
seem able to do such a thing. And nobody suggested that he could.

>>>Under NTFS.
>>>
>>>Also, hard links allow a similar thing but with more flexibility.

>>
>> Hard links don't work across filesystems. UNIX/Linux achieves it all
>> without hard links.

>
>We are dealing with XP however.


You didn't make that clear until I pressed you. Remember you said "os's"
to begin with.

>>>Additionally, NTFS partitions can be re-lettered arbitrarily - except the
>>>system drive (unless at install time).

>>
>> But under Windows you still have the limitation of only having so many
>> letters, no matter how you juggle them.

>
>You could have one drive (c:\ ) and hang several tens or hundreds of
>thousands of drives off it. Assuming you had the hardware. It is
>essentially simular to how linux handles them, just a little less elegant.
>
>But then linux is a little less elegant in how it handles drives than was
>AmigaDOS - which allowed you to have arbitary drive names aplied to
>partitions or directories.


So does the old MacOS, which I'm using to write this. And it has
"aliases" that work across filesystems, and continue to work even when
the target item is moved and renamed.

But enough nostalgia...

>Anyway I think I have wasted enough time sparring with you. Please restrict
>yourself to useful conversation.


I am ruthless with wishy-washy thinking. It raises a stink that I just
cannot ignore. You know the old saying: if you can't stand the heat, get
out of the kitchen...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Brendan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2005
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 17:59:01 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> And yet the person with the original request that I responded to
> <http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz.comp/msg/5eebf0aa701c68a3> didn't
> seem able to do such a thing. And nobody suggested that he could.


I am not responsible for what others think or omit.

> You didn't make that clear until I pressed you. Remember you said "os's"
> to begin with.


When I said that, that fact was unknown. Hence I asked.

> I am ruthless with wishy-washy thinking. It raises a stink that I just
> cannot ignore. You know the old saying: if you can't stand the heat, get
> out of the kitchen...


There was no wishy-washy thinking on my part. Your interpretation of my
comments was wishy-washy though, and this is something you should fix.

Also, the psychological implications of your pedantry (which you probably
mistake for perfectionism, and even that is bad enough) are also something
to investigate.

Now, go and play with someone else please.

--

.... Brendan

#185361 +(4536)- [X]

<Fenris> My mom found me perusing bash.org and looking up quotes about
incest, and was like OMG!
<Fenris> Now she actually goes there regularly to make sure there aren't
any new text words that have been searched for
<Fenris> I saw her looking at the site yesterday, and was like, "WTF??"
<Fenris> And she said she was just checking to see what kind of stuff I
look at online.
<Fenris> I swear, someday I'm just going to rape that bitch.
<ctone> ...
<ctone> now theres a quote for bash.org
<Fenris> Don't you ****ing dare.


Note: All my comments are copyright 2/10/2005 10:58:57 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2005
In article <nop82if1ntng$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Brendan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 17:59:01 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> And yet the person with the original request that I responded to
>> <http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz.comp/msg/5eebf0aa701c68a3> didn't
>> seem able to do such a thing. And nobody suggested that he could.

>
>I am not responsible for what others think or omit.


And yet the fact that nobody in that thread made the suggestion that
you're offering, leads to one of the following conclusions:

1) you know something they didn't
2) they knew something you don't.

Which, I wonder, is more likely?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Brendan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2005
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 22:03:36 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> In article <nop82if1ntng$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Brendan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 17:59:01 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> And yet the person with the original request that I responded to
>>> <http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz.comp/msg/5eebf0aa701c68a3> didn't
>>> seem able to do such a thing. And nobody suggested that he could.

>>
>>I am not responsible for what others think or omit.

>
> And yet the fact that nobody in that thread made the suggestion that
> you're offering, leads to one of the following conclusions:
>
> 1) you know something they didn't
> 2) they knew something you don't.
>
> Which, I wonder, is more likely?


Why don't you restate the original question in a clear and concise way.

--

.... Brendan

#329292 +(4352)- [X]

<Batty> Euch, rap is just missing one letter. c.
<zeep> rapc?
<Batty> ...
<Batty> Crap you idiot. you put the c on the other end
<zeep> oic
<Batty> Though you could also say it's missing an e
<zeep> wtf is erap?
* Batty bangs his head repeatedly against a wall


Note: All my comments are copyright 3/10/2005 10:46:55 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2005
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In article <nop82if1ntng$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Brendan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 17:59:01 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And yet the person with the original request that I responded to
>>><http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz.comp/msg/5eebf0aa701c68a3> didn't
>>>seem able to do such a thing. And nobody suggested that he could.

>>
>>I am not responsible for what others think or omit.

>
>
> And yet the fact that nobody in that thread made the suggestion that
> you're offering, leads to one of the following conclusions:
>
> 1) you know something they didn't
> 2) they knew something you don't.
> Which, I wonder, is more likely?


It can be done, so I guess it is "2"

--
http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ASP.NET won't retrieve query results that depend on union query Eric Nelson ASP .Net 5 02-04-2009 10:51 PM
Trying to query the Address table data of AdventureWorks database from Query Analyzer - need help! Learner ASP .Net 1 01-30-2006 08:58 PM
Build dynamic sql query for JSTL <sql:query> Anonymous Java 0 10-13-2005 10:01 PM
xpath query query David Gordon XML 2 05-18-2005 03:33 PM
CAML Query: Multiple Query Fields Issue Jon F. ASP .Net Web Services 0 05-12-2004 08:19 PM



Advertisments