«

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote
in news:gqj3n7$4o5$:

<SNIP>

> I would think that XP would use more ram than 98SELite.

So would I! But in my case it didn't. It IS 98SELite and it WAS
TinyXP Platinum (ahem but still... XP is XP, isn't it?

>>> I would imagine breaking a 40GB drive into 16 partitions
>>> wastes a lot of space.
>>
>> Care to explain what that means??? I do NOT see how it
>> wastes any (it may waste a few hundred bytes for
>> structuring/directory tracking purposes, like the MBR). In
>> either case, the benefits would FAR outweigh such "waste".
>
> Yes, bytes for structuring, probably more. Non-benefits
> would include increased backup rigors

WHY? It's simpler to know what to backup, in fact if I HAD
anything worth backing up, I would designate a single partition
JUST for that and once it got filled up to 700 MB I'd back it
up. That is NOT increased backup rigors, it is MAJOR
simplification. And the system stays the same. Imaged.

> and .. deciding if
> partition X is big enough, has enough free space, to
> contain 'this' file.

I have yet to use a file bigger than 700MB - which was a
RealVideo rip of a horror movie, It fit on a standard 80 min CD.
I do not DL DVD's, and do NOT have a DVD drive. (I DO have 2 DVD
players which I use 99.5% for mp3 playback via a real stereo
systems and I own "Complete Seinfeld" and two Pet Shop Boys
DVD's. That's IT.)

And if one DOES dl DVD rips from the Usenet, all they have to do
is make bigger partitions - the benefits will ALWAYS be there.
My moron friend (who I have HAD it with BTW) who used to run XP
on a 10+ year old 266MHz with 256MB of RAM FINALLY had a new
machine assembled. The idiot had a 40GB drive before which he
never ever filled. He had a 2 year old DVD drive which in that
time burned 5 CD-R's and 1 DVD (and 4 of the CD-R's were for me
and the DVD was burned /for him/ by a tech guy as backup).

He had perfectly working speakers, keyboard, mouse, floppy, etc.
All he needed to change was the MB, processor, RAM. He didn't
even HAVE to get a new HD.

So this moron, who does not tip in restaurants ("why should I
subsidize their paycheck?"), gets a completely new machine
(except for the monitor - 3 years ago I sold him a rebranded
(Dell) Philips M990 19", beautiful monitor, VERY highly rated
when they came out, still a perfect image) with a ****ing
wireless keyboard and mouse and those stupid little speakers
with 2 silver cones each.

Needless to say, he also got XP64bit - and he does not even know
what it means or why he doesn't need it (all he does is struggle
with his memoirs in Excel and endures the format incompatibility
problems thanks to MS's "policies" because he doesn't know he
can do better with ANY decent text editor).

AND he gets a 250GB internal HD with - guess what - ONE
partition, and a 160GB external HD. He has NO friends - I was
his only friend (seriously) and after I suggested he is making a
big mistake having a 250GB C partition, we got into an argument
and I am no longer his friend. (There's a LOT more to it but
that was the last straw.)

He does /not/ record movies or even music. He doesn't know what
Usenet is. He installs and uninstalls (or he THINKS he
uninstalls) various vintages of MS Office and Open Office all
the time because the formats are incompatible. In ONE week since
he's had this machine he has installed and uninstalled about 10
programs already - on his ONE 250GB partition. He will be in
deep excrement in 6 months if not 6 weeks but I won't be there
to hold his ****ing hand anymore.

Sorry about the rant, stupidity REALLY ****es me off. And since
HE was my ONLY local friend as well, I have NO ONE to bitch to
now.

>>> And it should not take long to defrag two gigabytes of
>>> likely rarely changed data.

Read what I said about defragmentation in my previous post. I am
not making it up, you know.

Still, maybe in YOUR case it won't but surely you have read
hundreds of posts to the tune of "I try to defrag, it starts,
does something for 5 hours, and then it hangs, and I have to
start again. I've spent 3 days doing this. Help me!"

All MY partitions defrag in 15-120 seconds, no matter WHAT I've
been doing.

>> Just starting a windows session and opening three programs
>> and doing NOTHING with them fragments files you don't even
>> know exist (so to speak). Try it. Defrag, reboot, and
>> defrag again - watching the little rectangles AKA "show
>> details". Astonishing. Then defrag, reboot, spend ten
>> minutes with on the web, reboot, defrag with details.
>> Scary.
>
> I'm sorry, I can't do that. My operating system does not
> require defragging, so I'll just have to take your word for
> it that it does in your Windows.

You THINK it does not require defragging. I will bet that if you
ran crackup or something like that it would tell you it is at
least 1-5% fragmented, if not 30%.

I agree fragmentation is not nearly the problem is used to be,
and in fact SOME claim that with the speeds of today's
processors and hard drives, it is unnecessary AFA performance,
but anal-retentives like me like to defrag anyway


--
"Who knows what the OP is talking about?"
(about thanatoid)

thanatoid wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> I would think that XP would use more ram than 98SELite.
>
> So would I! But in my case it didn't. It IS 98SELite and it WAS
> TinyXP Platinum (ahem but still... XP is XP, isn't it?

Not in this case to make an argument such as you did. TinyXP is not XP.
You said, "98SELite and XP uses the exact same amount of RAM", without
stipulating this was not *Microsoft* XP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TinyXP
"TinyXP is a potentially copyright infringing modification of the
Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 3 operating system."

<snip bunch>

>> I'm sorry, I can't do that. My operating system does not require
>> defragging, so I'll just have to take your word for it that it does
>> in your Windows.
>
> You THINK it does not require defragging. I will bet that if you ran
> crackup or something like that it would tell you it is at least 1-5%
> fragmented, if not 30%.

Crackup? I found a program named that, which says it "is a pretty
simple, pretty secure remote backup solution." What's that have to do
with defragging?

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows

William Poaster <> wrote in
news:
>>> Even assuming you could get all your hardware set up properly and
>>> replacement versions of the software your use - the windows ones
>>> *won't* work of course except with some doing at *best*, you still
>>> would have to learn a different way of doing things as well.
>>
>> Hogwash.
>>
>> Nearly everything the average home user needs is included by default
>> in, say, an Ubuntu installation.. and 20,000 more - free - programs are
>> available at the click of a mouse. They work exactly like "Windows"
>> programs. Many, like Firefox, Thunderbird, Opera, The GIMP, Google
>> Earth, and tons more, are cross-platform and so are *identical* on any
>> operating system.
>>
>> Note I am using a Windows-only newsreader, which took about five
>> minutes to install in Wine, the Linux Windows emulator.
>>
>>> None of the above is anywhere *near* as easy with linux as with MS
>>> Windows.
>>
>> Double Hogwash.
>
> It's funny to see how these windows users like Chucktard, like to show
> their ignorance & that they haven't got one single *clue* about Linux.
> Well except for Linux being "a completely different OS" that is.

Well if you believe idiot trolls, you'll believe anything. I've been using
and manually updating linux since 94. I don't *do* distributions - I
compile my own code and merge it into the OS. What are *your*
qualifications?



--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:08:54 +0000, chuckcar wrote:

>> It's funny to see how these windows users like Chucktard, like to show
>> their ignorance & that they haven't got one single *clue* about Linux.
>> Well except for Linux being "a completely different OS" that is.

> Well if you believe idiot trolls, you'll believe anything. I've been
> using and manually updating linux since 94. I don't *do* distributions -
> I compile my own code and merge it into the OS. What are *your*
> qualifications?

Really?

> User-Agent: Xnews/2006.08.24

I didn't realize there was an Xnews for Linux...

Oh, that's right. There isn't.

Yeah, I know you're gonna tell me you run it under wine... Riiiighhht.
No serious Linux user would do such an idiotic thing.

You're a poser, and a Win-droid. Bugger off.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
Need help?: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/ubuntu.jpg
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Ahhhhhhhh!: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/relieve.jpg

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:08:54 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
wrote:
>Well if you believe idiot trolls,

I for one don't..

>you'll believe anything. I've been using
>and manually updating linux since 94. I don't *do* distributions - I
>compile my own code and merge it into the OS.

I don't believe you.

>What are *your* qualifications?

Wow. You're a liar AND a idiot.
--
To reply via e-mail, remove The Obvious from my e-mail address.

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote
in news:gqjvt2$q2k$:

> thanatoid wrote:
>
>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>> I would think that XP would use more ram than 98SELite.
>>
>> So would I! But in my case it didn't. It IS 98SELite and
>> it WAS TinyXP Platinum (ahem but still... XP is XP,
>> isn't it?
>
> Not in this case to make an argument such as you did.
> TinyXP is not XP. You said, "98SELite and XP uses the exact
> same amount of RAM", without stipulating this was not
> *Microsoft* XP.

Oh God, is the Ghost Of Terhune back with "98 SE Lite is NOT
Windows"?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TinyXP
> "TinyXP is a potentially copyright infringing modification
> of the Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 3 operating
> system."

Yes, Tiny XP 3.
Tiny XP Platinum goes only to SP2 and only removes the stupidest
things. All the basics HAVE to be there. It's NOT a 30MB
install, damnit!

<snip bunch>
>
>>> I'm sorry, I can't do that. My operating system does not
>>> require defragging, so I'll just have to take your word
>>> for it that it does in your Windows.
>>
>> You THINK it does not require defragging. I will bet that
>> if you ran crackup or something like that it would tell
>> you it is at least 1-5% fragmented, if not 30%.
>
> Crackup? I found a program named that, which says it "is a
> pretty simple, pretty secure remote backup solution."
> What's that have to do with defragging?

That's not the one. Want me to post it for you somewhere? Tiny
"need to defrag?" analyzer. Old, may not run on XP, who knows (I
assume you use XP). But it should, it's simple.



--
"Who knows what the OP is talking about?"
(about thanatoid)

thanatoid wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote
> in news:gqjvt2$q2k$:
>
>> thanatoid wrote:
>>
>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>>> I'm sorry, I can't do that. My operating system does not
>>>> require defragging, so I'll just have to take your word
>>>> for it that it does in your Windows.
>>>
>>> You THINK it does not require defragging. I will bet that
>>> if you ran crackup or something like that it would tell
>>> you it is at least 1-5% fragmented, if not 30%.
>>
>> Crackup? I found a program named that, which says it "is a
>> pretty simple, pretty secure remote backup solution."
>> What's that have to do with defragging?
>
> That's not the one. Want me to post it for you somewhere? Tiny
> "need to defrag?" analyzer. Old, may not run on XP, who knows (I
> assume you use XP). But it should, it's simple.

I daresay Mr Shagnasty runs a decent OS that uses a proper filesystem -
Linux of some variant (I recall mention of him running 40tude in
'Wine').

No defragmenting required, thanks (yes, really.)

Andy.

--
Registered Linux User #478766
Join the Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org/

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:39:17 +0000, above the shrieking & whining of the
trolls, Andy was heard to say:

> thanatoid wrote:
>
>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in
>> news:gqjvt2$q2k$:
>>
>>> thanatoid wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>>>> I'm sorry, I can't do that. My operating system does not require
>>>>> defragging, so I'll just have to take your word for it that it does
>>>>> in your Windows.
>>>>
>>>> You THINK it does not require defragging. I will bet that if you ran
>>>> crackup or something like that it would tell you it is at least 1-5%
>>>> fragmented, if not 30%.
>>>
>>> Crackup? I found a program named that, which says it "is a pretty
>>> simple, pretty secure remote backup solution." What's that have to do
>>> with defragging?
>>
>> That's not the one. Want me to post it for you somewhere? Tiny "need to
>> defrag?" analyzer. Old, may not run on XP, who knows (I assume you use
>> XP). But it should, it's simple.
>
> I daresay Mr Shagnasty runs a decent OS that uses a proper filesystem -
> Linux of some variant (I recall mention of him running 40tude in 'Wine').

He does.

> No defragmenting required, thanks (yes, really.)

Yes, Linux filesystems do *not* require defragging.

> Andy.

thanatoid wrote:
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> thanatoid wrote:
>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>>> I would think that XP would use more ram than 98SELite.
>>> So would I! But in my case it didn't. It IS 98SELite and
>>> it WAS TinyXP Platinum (ahem but still... XP is XP,
>>> isn't it?
>>
>> Not in this case to make an argument such as you did.
>> TinyXP is not XP. You said, "98SELite and XP uses the exact
>> same amount of RAM", without stipulating this was not
>> *Microsoft* XP.
>
> Oh God, is the Ghost Of Terhune back with "98 SE Lite is NOT
> Windows"?

No, you confuse my statement that said you shouldn't be comparing "ram
used" and stating it as fact without mentioning that you are not using a
Redmond version of XP.

>>>> [defragging]
>>>> I'm sorry, I can't do that. My operating system does not
>>>> require defragging, so I'll just have to take your word
>>>> for it that it does in your Windows.
>>>
>>> You THINK it does not require defragging. I will bet that
>>> if you ran crackup or something like that it would tell
>>> you it is at least 1-5% fragmented, if not 30%.
>>
>> Crackup? I found a program named that, which says it "is a
>> pretty simple, pretty secure remote backup solution."
>> What's that have to do with defragging?
>
> That's not the one. Want me to post it for you somewhere? Tiny
> "need to defrag?" analyzer. Old, may not run on XP, who knows (I
> assume you use XP). But it should, it's simple.

"Old, may not run on" a Linux computer. You assume incorrectly if you
think I use XP (or Windows); I thought it might seem obvious from my
conversation that I don't use any flavor of Windows. (Ubuntu 8.04,
actually, to confirm what Andy and William suggest). I'll use
Thunderbird for this reply, which should show you a Linux-version User
Agent string in the headers.

There is no need to defrag. Unless you use Windows.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows

Dan C <> wrote in
news:

> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:08:54 +0000, chuckcar wrote:
>
>>> It's funny to see how these windows users like Chucktard, like to show
>>> their ignorance & that they haven't got one single *clue* about Linux.
>>> Well except for Linux being "a completely different OS" that is.
>
>> Well if you believe idiot trolls, you'll believe anything. I've been
>> using and manually updating linux since 94. I don't *do* distributions
>> - I compile my own code and merge it into the OS. What are *your*
>> qualifications?
>
> Really?
>
*Another* idiot troll, sorry this is all you get,
I see no need to justify myself to someone as laughably
stupid as you:

Message-ID: <>

Like *you* know anything.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )