HD Format Query

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by KiwiBrian, Oct 1, 2005.

  1. KiwiBrian

    KiwiBrian Guest

    I have just partitioned and formatted the two Hard Drives on a new Desktop
    PC.
    I have finished up with Drive 0 having my desired two partitions, C and D.
    Both showing as 'Primary Partitions'.
    OK so far.
    My second HD has three partions as intended, but I note that E is a Primary
    Partition, while F and G are shown in Disk Management as Logical Drives.
    What is the significance of them being Logical Drives, and is this a cause
    for concern?
    I thought that I had created all three in the same manner, using Partition
    Magic, so I am confused as to how and why it happpened, and the possible
    implications.
    TIA
    Brian Tozer
     
    KiwiBrian, Oct 1, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "KiwiBrian" <> wrote:

    >I have just partitioned and formatted the two Hard Drives on a new Desktop
    >PC.
    >I have finished up with Drive 0 having my desired two partitions, C and D.
    >Both showing as 'Primary Partitions'.
    >OK so far.
    >My second HD has three partions as intended, but I note that E is a Primary
    >Partition, while F and G are shown in Disk Management as Logical Drives.
    >What is the significance of them being Logical Drives, and is this a cause
    >for concern?


    Are you quite certain that C and D are on drive 0? It's quite possible
    that C and E are on drive 0, and D, F and G are on the second drive.
     
    Steve Marshall, Oct 1, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. KiwiBrian

    Gordon Guest

    On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:22:35 +1200, KiwiBrian wrote:

    > I have just partitioned and formatted the two Hard Drives on a new Desktop
    > PC.
    > I have finished up with Drive 0 having my desired two partitions, C and D.
    > Both showing as 'Primary Partitions'.
    > OK so far.
    > My second HD has three partions as intended, but I note that E is a Primary
    > Partition, while F and G are shown in Disk Management as Logical Drives.
    > What is the significance of them being Logical Drives, and is this a cause
    > for concern?


    My money is on Just Get Over It, (tm) Otago Universtity ad., your concern
    ie. Your machine will know what is where and all will be fine. Try it out,
    copy a few files from and hether and see if all is as the *GUI* says it is.

    > I thought that I had created all three in the same manner, using Partition
    > Magic, so I am confused as to how and why it happpened, and the possible
    > implications.


    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. ;-)
     
    Gordon, Oct 1, 2005
    #3
  4. KiwiBrian

    Peter Guest

    Gordon wrote:
    > Yes, who thought this idea of primary and logical partitions and drives
    > should be shot by history. ;-)


    It is ancient history.
    Initially you could only have 4 partitions on a disk. In the 1980s, logical
    partitions were introduced (DOS 3 ?), where one primary partition could
    contain a number of logical partitions.
    Most modern OS can handle both primary and logical partitions (except some
    of the older Windos versions need to have their c: drive on the first
    primary partition IIRC).


    HTH

    Peter
     
    Peter, Oct 1, 2005
    #4
  5. KiwiBrian

    Enkidu Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > Gordon wrote:
    >
    >> Yes, who thought this idea of primary and logical partitions
    >> and drives should be shot by history. ;-)

    >
    > It is ancient history.
    > Initially you could only have 4 partitions on a disk. In the
    > 1980s, logical partitions were introduced (DOS 3 ?), where
    > one primary partition could contain a number of logical

    partitions.
    >
    > Most modern OS can handle both primary and logical partitions
    > (except some of the older Windos versions need to have their
    > c: drive on the first primary partition IIRC).
    >

    In the usual terminology, the 'primary' partition that holds
    logical partitions is more correctly an 'extended' partition.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    Barzoomian the Martian - http://barzoomian.blogspot.com
     
    Enkidu, Oct 1, 2005
    #5
  6. In article <>,
    Gordon <> wrote:

    >I think I am right in saying that each *phyiscal* HD requres at least on
    >primary paritition.


    Not necessarily. On many *nix systems, you can format and mount an
    entire disk as a single volume without partitioning it.

    On Linux, for example, if a disk is named "hda", then its partitions, if
    any, will be named "hda1", "hda2" etc. But you can just forget the
    partitions and format and mount the whole thing as "hda", which means
    there is no partition table, no MBR--nothing on the disk but the one
    filesystem.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 1, 2005
    #6
  7. KiwiBrian

    Brendan Guest

    On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 16:22:35 +1200, KiwiBrian wrote:

    > I have just partitioned and formatted the two Hard Drives on a new Desktop
    > PC.
    > I have finished up with Drive 0 having my desired two partitions, C and D.
    > Both showing as 'Primary Partitions'.
    > OK so far.
    > My second HD has three partions as intended, but I note that E is a Primary
    > Partition, while F and G are shown in Disk Management as Logical Drives.
    > What is the significance of them being Logical Drives, and is this a cause
    > for concern?
    > I thought that I had created all three in the same manner, using Partition
    > Magic, so I am confused as to how and why it happpened, and the possible
    > implications.
    > TIA
    > Brian Tozer


    OS please Brian.

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

    --

    .... Brendan

    #328464 +(4373)- [X]

    SparTacus () has joined #santcuary
    *SparTacus is now known as Betty_Guns
    wacko Jacko () has joined #santcuary
    <wacko_Jacko>ok spartacus just came n here i know it. which one of you is
    that loser?
    <hunney> I am spartacus
    <ji_pper>no im spartacus
    <Betty_Guns>I am spartacus
    <mistr andersn>I¢m spartacus
    <wacko_Jacko>ur all freaks thats what u r


    Note: All my comments are copyright 1/10/2005 8:26:57 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
     
    Brendan, Oct 1, 2005
    #7
  8. In article <>,
    Brendan <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 16:22:35 +1200, KiwiBrian wrote:
    >
    >> I have just partitioned and formatted the two Hard Drives on a new Desktop
    >> PC.
    >> I have finished up with Drive 0 having my desired two partitions, C and D.
    >> Both showing as 'Primary Partitions'.
    >> OK so far.
    >> My second HD has three partions as intended, but I note that E is a Primary
    >> Partition, while F and G are shown in Disk Management as Logical Drives.
    >> What is the significance of them being Logical Drives, and is this a cause
    >> for concern?
    >> I thought that I had created all three in the same manner, using Partition
    >> Magic, so I am confused as to how and why it happpened, and the possible
    >> implications.
    >> TIA
    >> Brian Tozer

    >
    >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"? Please be specific
    to avoid having your comments misconstrued as somehow referring to
    actual OSes in general.

    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>.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 1, 2005
    #8
  9. KiwiBrian

    Brendan Guest

    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.

    >Please be specific
    > to avoid having your comments misconstrued as somehow referring to
    > actual OSes in general.


    No, if it was linux or something all the linux guys would jump in.

    > 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.

    Under NTFS.

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

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

    --

    .... Brendan

    #111338 +(8672)- [X]

    <JonJonB> Purely in the interests of science, I have replaced the word
    "wand" with "wang" in the first Harry Potter Book
    <JonJonB> Let's see the results...

    <JonJonB> "Why aren't you supposed to do magic?" asked Harry.
    <JonJonB> "Oh, well -- I was at Hogwarts meself but I -- er -- got
    expelled, ter tell yeh the truth. In me third year. They snapped me wang in
    half an' everything

    <JonJonB> A magic wang... this was what Harry had been really looking
    forward to.

    <JonJonB> "Yes, yes. I thought I'd be seeing you soon. Harry Potter." It
    wasn't a question. "You have your mother's eyes. It seems only yesterday
    she was in here herself, buying her first wang. Ten and a quarter inches
    long, swishy, made of willow. Nice wang for charm work."
    <JonJonB> "Your father, on the other hand, favored a mahogany wang. Eleven
    inches. "

    <JonJonB> Harry took the wang. He felt a sudden warmth in his fingers. He
    raised the wang above his head, brought it swishing down through the dusty
    air and a stream of red and gold sparks shot from the end like a firework,
    throwing dancing spots of light on to the walls

    <JonJonB> "Oh, move over," Hermione snarled. She grabbed Harry's wang,
    tapped the lock, and whispered, 'Alohomora!"

    <JonJonB> The troll couldn't feel Harry hanging there, but even a troll
    will notice if you stick a long bit of wood up its nose, and Harry's wang
    had still been in his hand when he'd jumped - it had gone straight up one
    of the troll's nostrils.

    <JonJonB> He bent down and pulled his wang out of the troll's nose. It was
    covered in what looked like lumpy gray glue.

    <JonJonB> He ran onto the field as you fell, waved his wang, and you sort
    of slowed down before you hit the ground. Then he whirled his wang at the
    dementors. Shot silver stuff at them.

    <JonJonB> Ok
    <JonJonB> I have found, definitive proof
    <JonJonB> that J.K Rowling is a dirty DIRTY woman, making a fool of us all
    <JonJonB> "Yes," Harry said, gripping his wang very tightly, and moving
    into the middle of the deserted classroom. He tried to keep his mind on
    flying, but something else kept intruding.... Any second now, he might hear
    his mother again... but he shouldn't think that, or he would hear her
    again, and he didn't want to... or did he?
    <melusine > O_______O
    <JonJonB> Something silver-white, something enormous, erupted from the end
    of his wang

    <JonJonJonB> Then, with a sigh, he raised his wang and prodded the silvery
    substance with its tip.

    <JonJonJonB> 'Get - off - me!' Harry gasped. For a few seconds they
    struggled, Harry pulling at his uncles sausage-like fingers with his left
    hand, his right maintaining a firm grip on his raised wang.


    Note: All my comments are copyright 1/10/2005 9:07:41 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
     
    Brendan, Oct 1, 2005
    #9
  10. KiwiBrian

    KiwiBrian Guest

    "Brendan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 1 Oct 2005 16:22:35 +1200, KiwiBrian wrote:
    >
    >> I have just partitioned and formatted the two Hard Drives on a new
    >> Desktop
    >> PC.
    >> I have finished up with Drive 0 having my desired two partitions, C and
    >> D.
    >> Both showing as 'Primary Partitions'.
    >> OK so far.
    >> My second HD has three partions as intended, but I note that E is a
    >> Primary
    >> Partition, while F and G are shown in Disk Management as Logical Drives.
    >> What is the significance of them being Logical Drives, and is this a
    >> cause
    >> for concern?
    >> I thought that I had created all three in the same manner, using
    >> Partition
    >> Magic, so I am confused as to how and why it happpened, and the possible
    >> implications.
    >> TIA
    >> Brian Tozer

    >
    > 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
     
    KiwiBrian, Oct 1, 2005
    #10
  11. In article <>,
    Brendan <> 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.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 1, 2005
    #11
  12. KiwiBrian

    Brendan Guest

    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.
     
    Brendan, Oct 1, 2005
    #12
  13. KiwiBrian

    Brendan Guest

    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.
     
    Brendan, Oct 1, 2005
    #13
  14. KiwiBrian

    AD. Guest

    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
     
    AD., Oct 2, 2005
    #14
  15. In article <5l9by9fq5tbg$>,
    Brendan <> 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...
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 2, 2005
    #15
  16. KiwiBrian

    Brendan Guest

    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 fucking 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.
     
    Brendan, Oct 2, 2005
    #16
  17. In article <nop82if1ntng$>,
    Brendan <> 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?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 3, 2005
    #17
  18. KiwiBrian

    Brendan Guest

    On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 22:03:36 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In article <nop82if1ntng$>,
    > Brendan <> 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.
     
    Brendan, Oct 3, 2005
    #18
  19. Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In article <nop82if1ntng$>,
    > Brendan <> 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.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Oct 3, 2005
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Guan Foo Wah

    NTFS quick format and normal format

    Guan Foo Wah, May 1, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    19,941
    Steven Howes
    May 9, 2004
  2. david

    when is a format not a format.

    david, Dec 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    389
    Ditoa
    Dec 20, 2004
  3. mike
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    1,173
    Fred McKenzie
    Jul 7, 2005
  4. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    10,965
    ASAAR
    Nov 21, 2005
  5. Ockerr

    Format procedure to Format Drive that has XP

    Ockerr, Jan 5, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    6,308
    Gordon
    Jan 6, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page