Radboy,
I admire the skill with which you managed to fill up two whole browser pages and consume many bytes of bandwidth with a pair of posts that, under careful review, have nothing new to say about this topic, and further, are so riddled with old issues raised and dismissed days ago that they constitute absolutely nothing of substance besides more inept, desperate personal attacks.
Still, the chaff must be separated from the. . . uh. . . crud.
<<I apologize for not reading your entire post>>
No need for an apology: just leave. If you can't even bring yourself to read a sensible argument and give an intelligent reply, you don't belong here.
<<Words like 'supposedly' & 'probably' are used by people who don't *know*.>>
No, those words are used by people who, unlike yourself, prefer not to make blanket statements. After all, few things are absolutely certain. Besides, I was speaking in that post about the time it takes the average person to complete a process, which of course will vary from person to person.
<<You never answered my Q how many images you've created & restored.>>
It was a stupid, irrelevant question. One need not eat twenty tunafish sandwiches to recognize their taste and explain it to others. But for your information, I've made and restored dozens of disk images over the years. Only a fool would keep count.
<<I could pick apart you last post, but I honestly don't know where to start.>>
Translation: "I have no solid answer to the arguments raised, so I'll just pretend I'm too wise and tired to participate."
<<Not that it really matters, but it looks like you don't know that Ghost can do that too.>>
Do what? Write images directly to CDRW? Yes, I was aware that Symantec recently incorporated this feature. It only strengthens the argument against partitioning, because now, those who for some reason feel the need to spend time constantly imaging their hard drive instead of saving that time for a proper clean installation, will be able to do so without the need for added partitions. But what Ghost doesn't support is DriveImage's Image File Editor, a feature that single-handedly obliterates any need for a small OS partition, as the drive image is now selective as opposed to blind, allowing users to, with a single click, only image/restore their complete OS folder.
<<Have you used DI4? Do you actually use the method you propose for others?>>
Have you? I suppose you always own, use, and disect a personal copy of any software or hardware before you recommend it to some one? Nonsense. I didn't need to use the Microstar K7T-Pro-2A to know it was the most stable motherboard in the past year, nor do I need to purchase the latest copy of DriveImage to know how good it is -- that's what the Net is for.
<<Re: your 'image file editor' bit .. what happens if you pick the wrong files? That would suk, wouldn't it? And I can see you now, going thru everyone of a hundred thousand files .. yes, no, yes this one, no that one.>>
[Drive] C:
*click*
[Folder] WINDOWS
*click*
Done.
<<ome on, Modus. That would take a week. And that's not even what that feature is for.>>
Quite ammusing how desparate you are to discredit such a simple, elegant, easy-to-use piece of time saving software, simply because it makes your partitioning hobby obsolete. I'm sorry if you don't feel as macho as you once did with your endless partitions and library of redundant Ghost images, but things change. Perhaps you could order a Harley and some hair in a can to compensate for your lost manhood.
<<Hopefully, you realize that a registry back-up, altho a good idea, is not nearly as good as an image>>
Actually, it is nearly as good: in the vast majority of Windows crashes, a simple turn-back-the-clock of the Windows registry will bring you back to square one. Sure, you'll loose whatever settings you've made in the meantime, as you would with a Ghost image, but at least you won't destroy any interim files as you would with a traditional (non DriveImage 4 Pro) image restoration.
Still, with DI4, there's no reason not to have your cake and eat it too: one big, simple partition
and the ability to construct backup OS images. The best of both worlds.
<<You never got back to me about the leading edge of the drive offering better performance.>>
Oh yes I did. You're just so arrogant you assumed I'd write a special reply solely for you, even though the issue had been beaten to death and dismissed much further back in the thread than you had the attention span to read.
<<Are you saying that performance at the begining of the drive is not better than that at the end of the drive?>>
*sigh* No, McFly, that's obviously not what I said. Of course the
raw throughput at the beginning of the drive is better than elsewhere. Unfortunately, as any good drive reviewer will acknowledge, access time is far more important than transfer rate. So grouping your OS and swap file deliberately at the beginning of the drive (where they'll likely end up in a big partition anyway), yields no measurable benefit in real world tests, because
normal multitasking usage involves constant seeks back and forth between OS, swap, application, and user files. This is where the performance needs the most improvement, not in long, sustained transfers from the OS and swap file, which rarely come into play.
Your argument is akin to saying that if we double the speed at which the Greyhound driver checks our tickets, we can significantly shorten the length of the trip. Obviously, the ticket checking (sustained throughput) is not the bottleneck here, it's the actual driving (random seeks) that take the time.
I don't care if you still can't grasp this, just don't keep bringing it up when it's already been dismissed, unless you have something new to bring to the table like actual real world tests proving your point (which of course don't exist).
<<And what's your answer to the guy who doesn't partition, cuz you write a novel that says he shouldn't, and later he wants to try dual-booting with W2K?>>
By all means, partition away. If you had actually read my "novel", you would understand that multiple operating systems is one situation where it is demonstrably beneficial to partition.
LOL, a novel, I like that
Though coming from you, it's hardly a compliment; one who can't even bring himself to read the entire text of the post he's replying to is not likely to be a good judge of literature. You calling my inital post a novel is like a flea calling a fly large.
<<Takes far longer to format than partition>>
A true breakthrough. Bravo! And some further brilliant insights from RadBoy, the drive management genius:
"It takes far longer to format a drive than it does to quickformat one."
"It is usually better to delete an unwanted file than to delete its parent folder."
"Most hard drives are not water resistant."
"IDE cables tend to be grey. Though beware, they sometimes appear in a deceptive shade of white."
"Takes longer to RMA than partition."
<<After 100+ posts - in this thread alone - I seriously doubt anyone is going change their partitioning practices. Why? Cuz I learned a long time ago that partitioning is a *personal* thing .. (and people take personal things personally).>>
Whether it's a personal choice or not is irrelevant. We're not picking out toothpaste here. Partitioners mistakenly claim the practice provides practical benefits for the majority of people capable of it. Others have learned better.
<<For example, one quote I read here said (something like), ".. and many programs will not run correctly if they're not on the C drive.">>
I'm not sure which post that quote is from or how badly you mangled it, but some programs
do malfunction or function unpredictably when not installed in their default folder, which tends to be on the C drive. If you haven't personally seen any examples of this, it just illustrates your lack of experience. The phenonmenon is slowly declining, but well documented.
<<Are you saying that there is *no* space lost by making larger partitions (8GB vs 60GB) or are you saying that the waste is insignificant. . . You're not saying that you don't waste a single byte, are you?>>
You're not saying larger partition tables don't waste a single byte, are you?
Look, cluster slack is dead. Smaller FAT32 clusters, combined with comparably huge modern digital media files, have combined to push Elvis out of the building. Let him go already.
<<. . . it's sad to see when someone doesn't have the ballz to admit when they're wrong.>>
Well put, Radboy
Modus
Facebook
Twitter