Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.laptops > #825 > unrolled thread

Partitions...

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.laptops

Contents

  Partitions... JakeD <fgdfgdfg@ghghfgh.com> - 2011-11-07 16:33 +0000
    Re: Partitions... mike <spamme9@gmail.com> - 2011-11-07 13:00 -0800
      Re: Partitions... JakeD <fgdfgdfg@ghghfgh.com> - 2011-11-08 09:52 +0000
        Re: Partitions... mike <spamme9@gmail.com> - 2011-11-08 04:04 -0800
          Re: Partitions... JakeD <fgdfgdfg@ghghfgh.com> - 2011-11-08 13:39 +0000
            Re: Partitions... BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2011-11-08 08:15 -0600
              Re: Partitions... "RnR" <rnrtexas@gmail.com> - 2011-11-08 09:38 -0600
                Re: Partitions... BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2011-11-08 10:02 -0600
            Re: Partitions... mike <spamme9@gmail.com> - 2011-11-08 12:50 -0800
              Re: Partitions... wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2011-11-09 20:31 +0000
                Re: Partitions... mike <spamme9@gmail.com> - 2011-11-09 12:49 -0800
                  Re: Partitions... wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2011-11-12 09:38 +0000
          Re: Partitions... BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2011-11-08 08:44 -0600
          Re: Partitions... wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2011-11-09 20:27 +0000
        Re: Partitions... Tazz <dmswaine@gmail.com> - 2011-11-08 15:26 -0400
          Re: Partitions... mike <spamme9@gmail.com> - 2011-11-08 12:21 -0800
            Re: Partitions... Tazz <dmswaine@gmail.com> - 2011-11-08 19:33 -0400
              Re: Partitions... mike <spamme9@gmail.com> - 2011-11-08 17:32 -0800
        Re: Partitions... wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2011-11-09 20:24 +0000

#825 — Partitions...

I'm using Gparted to create three NTFS partitions on my 160GB hard drive.

I am thinking of creating three partitions of approximately equal size:

Partition 1: for Windows XP OS and some progrmas to run on that OS
Partition 2: For Windows Vista or perhaps Windows 7, plus some programs to 
run on that OS
Partition 3: To be used for storing data files created on various programs 
on the above two partitions.

Questions:
1) Please confirm: Should I create three primary partitions, and flag the 
first two as bootable?

2) Gparted offers me the option of creating a DOS partition table. Should I 
create one? 

Many thanks

Jake

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#827

JakeD wrote:
> I'm using Gparted to create three NTFS partitions on my 160GB hard drive.
> 
> I am thinking of creating three partitions of approximately equal size:
> 
> Partition 1: for Windows XP OS and some progrmas to run on that OS
> Partition 2: For Windows Vista or perhaps Windows 7, plus some programs to 
> run on that OS
> Partition 3: To be used for storing data files created on various programs 
> on the above two partitions.
> 
> Questions:
> 1) Please confirm: Should I create three primary partitions, and flag the 
> first two as bootable?
> 
> 2) Gparted offers me the option of creating a DOS partition table. Should I 
> create one? 
> 
> Many thanks
> 
> Jake
Do you have a REAL need for two operating systems?
Yes, there are a few programs that won't run in win7 in compatibility mode.
And a slowly increasing number of programs that won't run in XP.
But, for most of us, EITHER one should suffice.
A bigger issue might be availability of hardware drivers.

Depending on your needs, and if you have win7 hardware drivers,
you may find it interesting to run XP in virtualbox under Win7.

Most interesting thing about that is that once you create a virtual
machine and activate it with M$, that image will run under virtualbox
on ANY hardware without reactivation.  Lawyers may fuss over that,
but if you have the XP image on only ONE box at a time, it'd be hard to 
prove
that you violated any TOS.

You'll be able to run both xp and win7 simultaneously.

If you already have Vista, it can be made to work, but if you're buying
a new instance, go for win7 instead.

I run win7 on one of a dozen machines and only because it was free at
a launch event.
Aside from the need for  more memory and better graphics card just
to learn that AERO is a joke, Win7 is mostly bloat
and eye candy that significantly slows the system.
If you have XP, for most of us, paying $200 for Win7 is ludicrous.

The most touted benefit of win7 is security.
Imagine that all the interior doors of your house automatically closed
and required you to enter numbers on a keypad to open them.  How long
before you tired of that and started wedging the doors open.

Took me about a microsecond to start researching ways to turn all that
crap off so I could use MY computer the way I wanted.

For people who only run a web browser and "office", and never change
anything, that's not a problem.  If you want to reduce the size of your
backups by deleting the huge amount of crap windows creates on a regular
basis, you'll be frustrated with the stock system.


With all that crap turned off, Win7 works about as well as XP.
If I'd paid $200 for the os in addition to a new video card plus
another GB of ram, I'd be pissed.
Too bad they moved the menus all around so you have to learn the
same user interface all over again.

I didn't intend for this to be a Win7 Rant...I actually like the
FREE win7 after I "fixed" it.

Back to your question.

My recommendation is not popular, but here it is.

The time to think about backing up your system is NOW, before you
partition the drive.
You want backups to be SIMPLE and quick, or you won't do 'em.

I regularly get phone calls from friends, "I installed A and B quit
working; how do I fix it?"
Stock answer is, "just restore the backup you made just before you
started mucking around with your system."
"I don't have one."
"Why?"
"Because it takes two hours and I don't have anywhere to store a file
that big."
"So, you want ME to spend my time bailing you out Grrrrrr!"

To that end, I recommend making your OS boot partitions as small as 
practical.
My XP partitions are 12GB, Win7 is 25GB, of which 15GB is used.
Different systems.  The way I dual-boot is to swap plug-in hard drives.

Anything that can be easily copied doesn't belong on your
boot partition.  Anything that requires ACTIVATION (M$ stuff) or
is deeply embedded in the registry belongs
on your boot partition.  A huge program like virtualbox belongs elsewhere.
Put all your media files, databases, ebooks, web archives, etc on a 
different partition.

Back up all the copyable files from the secondary partition ONCE.
Periodically copy changed files to your off-computer archive.

Use a free disk-vendor version of Acronis to do an image backup of your
boot partition to your secondary partition on a REGULAR basis.
My 15GB on C: drive takes 8 minutes to backup.  Until recently, it fit
on a single DVD.  Still easily fits on a thumb drive.
You can restore the entire boot partition from the same hard drive
in minutes.  Copy the image to your off-computer archive to guard
against complete hardware failure.

Yes, it's easy to come up with a situation where this is not optimum.
For most of us, it works fine and eliminates the "OH CRAP, my system
crashed and I don't have a backup" for the other 99% of us.

And it works just as well with a dual-boot system...if you must.

YMMV

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#831

mike <spamme9@gmail.com> wrote in news:j99gts$4au$1@dont-email.me:

> JakeD wrote:
>> I'm using Gparted to create three NTFS partitions on my 160GB hard
>> drive. 
>> 
>> I am thinking of creating three partitions of approximately equal
>> size: 
>> 
>> Partition 1: for Windows XP OS and some progrmas to run on that OS
>> Partition 2: For Windows Vista or perhaps Windows 7, plus some
>> programs to run on that OS
>> Partition 3: To be used for storing data files created on various
>> programs on the above two partitions.
>> 
>> Questions:
>> 1) Please confirm: Should I create three primary partitions, and flag
>> the first two as bootable?
>> 
>> 2) Gparted offers me the option of creating a DOS partition table.
>> Should I create one? 
>> 
>> Many thanks
>> 
>> Jake


Mike,
Thanks for your thoughts on this. Unfortunately much of what you touched 
on is out of my depth, as my tech savvy is limited. Although I have been 
using PCs since 1993, and have had to muddle through the usual SNAFU's, I 
am still 100% layman.

> Do you have a REAL need for two operating systems?

Not at present. However, it occurred to me that it would be nice to have 
extra partitions so that if I later decide that the addition of Vista or 
Win7 is needed, I can install it without needing to overwriting XP.

I've heard of Xbox but have never tried it. My hunch was that going the 
Xbox route would be more open to glitches and SNAFUs than using a 2nd 
partition for the secontd OS. Was that assumption incorrect? 

> To that end, I recommend making your OS boot partitions as small as 
> practical.

I thought it would make sense to have enough room on the partition for 
the programs that I'll be using under the OS on that partition, partly 
because it keeps things organised (no chance of trying to figure out 
which OS it is configured to run under, etc.

> The time to think about backing up your system is NOW, before you
> partition the drive.

OK - thankfully, I don't have anything on the drive to back up.

> You want backups to be SIMPLE and quick, or you won't do 'em.

Agreed!

>  The way I dual-boot is to swap plug-in hard
> drives. 

Why do you prefer that option above the option of having multiple 
partitions on the same internal drive?

> Use a free disk-vendor version of Acronis to do an image backup of
> your boot partition to your secondary partition on a REGULAR basis.

I tried Acronis on my previous PC. I did the backup, and trusted that all 
was working as intended. Then, when I came to do my second backup a few 
weeks later, I found I had clean forgotten how to use Acronis and had to 
re-read the manual! That's one of this disadvantages of being in my late 
50s with a memory that ain't what it used to be! Perhaps if I force 
myself to use it a THIRD time, the procedure will start to etch itself on 
my (human) memory. I don't think the procedure was that complicated, but 
I do recall that it required a certain amount of blind faith, since 
things like disc images smack of alien technology to me... :)

> And it works just as well with a dual-boot system...if you must.

What is it about dual-boot systems that you dislike?

TIA

Jake

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#832

JakeD wrote:
> mike <spamme9@gmail.com> wrote in news:j99gts$4au$1@dont-email.me:
> 
>> JakeD wrote:
>>> I'm using Gparted to create three NTFS partitions on my 160GB hard
>>> drive. 
>>>
>>> I am thinking of creating three partitions of approximately equal
>>> size: 
>>>
>>> Partition 1: for Windows XP OS and some progrmas to run on that OS
>>> Partition 2: For Windows Vista or perhaps Windows 7, plus some
>>> programs to run on that OS
>>> Partition 3: To be used for storing data files created on various
>>> programs on the above two partitions.
>>>
>>> Questions:
>>> 1) Please confirm: Should I create three primary partitions, and flag
>>> the first two as bootable?
>>>
>>> 2) Gparted offers me the option of creating a DOS partition table.
>>> Should I create one? 
>>>
>>> Many thanks
>>>
>>> Jake
> 
> 
> Mike,
> Thanks for your thoughts on this. Unfortunately much of what you touched 
> on is out of my depth, as my tech savvy is limited. Although I have been 
> using PCs since 1993, and have had to muddle through the usual SNAFU's, I 
> am still 100% layman.
> 
>> Do you have a REAL need for two operating systems?
> 
> Not at present. However, it occurred to me that it would be nice to have 
> extra partitions so that if I later decide that the addition of Vista or 
> Win7 is needed, I can install it without needing to overwriting XP.

I don't have a problem with that, but wasting 1/3 of the disk seems 
excessive.
The problem with dual boot is the boot loader.  If you understand the 
subtleties
of it, it's trivial.  If you don't, it will give you grief.
With one bootable partition, you can boot the install cd and fix up boot 
problems.
With two bootable partitions, each "fixit program" wants to repair itself
without fixing the other one.
Again, if you understand the subtleties, it's not all that hard...so I'm 
told.  I never figgered it out.
More than once, I've had to rebuild everything because I couldn't figure out
how to get the bootloader to do what I wanted...but that was GRUB.
> 
> I've heard of Xbox but have never tried it.
It's virtualbox.
  My hunch was that going the
> Xbox route would be more open to glitches and SNAFUs than using a 2nd 
> partition for the secontd OS. Was that assumption incorrect? 
The installation and use is easy.  Problem is getting hardware support 
to work correctly.  Since it's an emulator it will be slower and lack
some features of the hardware.
> 
>> To that end, I recommend making your OS boot partitions as small as 
>> practical.
> 
> I thought it would make sense to have enough room on the partition for 
> the programs that I'll be using under the OS on that partition, partly 
> because it keeps things organised (no chance of trying to figure out 
> which OS it is configured to run under, etc.

Most programs are small, so, for most people that works.  You will have 
to install programs like Office twice and pay for it twice.
Just don't put movies, etc. on the boot partition.  Most of the free
backup programs won't do incremental backups, so every backup would be 
huge.

> 
>> The time to think about backing up your system is NOW, before you
>> partition the drive.
> 
> OK - thankfully, I don't have anything on the drive to back up.
> 
>> You want backups to be SIMPLE and quick, or you won't do 'em.
> 
> Agreed!
> 
>>  The way I dual-boot is to swap plug-in hard
>> drives. 
> 
> Why do you prefer that option above the option of having multiple 
> partitions on the same internal drive?

Multiple operating systems on the same drive invite problems.
With separate drives, I have only one set of issues at a time.
It's a holdover from my past.
I RARELY swap disks any more.  Just when I'm trying something
major that I'm afraid might hoze the system.  It's easier than restoring
a backup.
If I absolutely have to have linux for something, I boot a live linux CD.
> 
>> Use a free disk-vendor version of Acronis to do an image backup of
>> your boot partition to your secondary partition on a REGULAR basis.
> 
> I tried Acronis on my previous PC. I did the backup, and trusted that all 
> was working as intended. Then, when I came to do my second backup a few 
> weeks later, I found I had clean forgotten how to use Acronis and had to 
> re-read the manual! That's one of this disadvantages of being in my late 
> 50s with a memory that ain't what it used to be! Perhaps if I force 
> myself to use it a THIRD time, the procedure will start to etch itself on 
> my (human) memory. I don't think the procedure was that complicated, but 
> I do recall that it required a certain amount of blind faith, since 
> things like disc images smack of alien technology to me... :)

It's not that difficult...just a few clicks.  Take notes as you're doing
it.
The defaults work well.  I recommend the option to split the archive up 
into 1GB chunks.  Those files can be archived on just about any media 
with most
any current format.  Huge single files limit your options.
> 
>> And it works just as well with a dual-boot system...if you must.
> 
> What is it about dual-boot systems that you dislike?
Dual boot is fine if you NEED it.
What I don't like is not being able to back up the system easily.
Splitting the disk into thirds invites the situation that you'll not
have room to create the backup and it will take so long that you won't 
do it.
I also dislike paying big bux for an operating system that you won't use.

Another thing I do is put the virtual memory file on the second partition.
Most backups ignore that file, but it still requires a LOT of space
on the C: drive.  If you put it on D: you can make C: smaller.
It can be argued that it will slow the system, but if you have enough RAM
that the virtual memory is rarely used, it's a non-issue.
> 
> TIA
> 
> Jake

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#833

mike <spamme9@gmail.com> wrote in news:j9b5rl$5gq$1@dont-email.me:

> Multiple operating systems on the same drive invite problems.

I assume you mean the same physical drive, yes?

Does it still invite problems if eash OS is on a different virtual drive 
(on a separate partition)? Isn't that effectively the same having two 
separate physical drives, (except that you can't physically separate them)?

Regards backups (say, with Acronis), I do backups to a separate drive via a 
USB cable. My assumption was that I could backup C: (the first partition) 
and then backup D: (being the second partition), and that Acronis would 
regard each as a separate drive. Is that assumption incorrect?

>>Xbox
> It's virtualbox

Sorry; my mistake. I downloaded Virtualbox onto my desktop PC once, but 
then I couldn't muster up the courage to try it! I figured it would be 
tempting fate and my system might end up fubar! I probably never thought of 
backing everything up with Acronis, beforehand - or I may have wondered if 
Acronis would actually work as proclaimed if it came to the crunch...

Jake

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#834

On 11/8/2011 7:39 AM, JakeD wrote:
> mike<spamme9@gmail.com>  wrote in news:j9b5rl$5gq$1@dont-email.me:
>
> Regards backups (say, with Acronis), I do backups to a separate drive via a
> USB cable. My assumption was that I could backup C: (the first partition)
> and then backup D: (being the second partition), and that Acronis would
> regard each as a separate drive. Is that assumption incorrect?

Yes, backup software can backup by partition, so no problems there. But 
most backup software can do it the other way too. Meaning they can 
backup by folders and files too. So there is no need to have separate 
partitions for OS, apps, and data. I also heard on giveawayoftheday.com 
that somebody mentioned that Microsoft claims that NTFS is less 
efficient if partitions are used. But they didn't list any references.

Also be very careful with Acronis and USB drives. As Acronis will backup 
to all USB that I know of all day. No problems there. The problem comes 
in during restore. Some USB drives it won't even see. So now you are 
SOL. You can test this by starting to restore by going through the 
motions without actually committing.

-- 
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#836

On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 08:15:32 -0600, BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>On 11/8/2011 7:39 AM, JakeD wrote:
>> mike<spamme9@gmail.com>  wrote in news:j9b5rl$5gq$1@dont-email.me:
>>
>> Regards backups (say, with Acronis), I do backups to a separate drive via a
>> USB cable. My assumption was that I could backup C: (the first partition)
>> and then backup D: (being the second partition), and that Acronis would
>> regard each as a separate drive. Is that assumption incorrect?
>
>Yes, backup software can backup by partition, so no problems there. But 
>most backup software can do it the other way too. Meaning they can 
>backup by folders and files too. So there is no need to have separate 
>partitions for OS, apps, and data. I also heard on giveawayoftheday.com 
>that somebody mentioned that Microsoft claims that NTFS is less 
>efficient if partitions are used. But they didn't list any references.
>


Best to at least have different OSs on separate partitions as a rule.
Sometimes they don't play well together.   Of course even better is
different HDs but that's another story.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#837

On 11/8/2011 9:38 AM, RnR wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 08:15:32 -0600, BillW50<BillW50@aol.kom>  wrote:
>
>> On 11/8/2011 7:39 AM, JakeD wrote:
>>> mike<spamme9@gmail.com>   wrote in news:j9b5rl$5gq$1@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>> Regards backups (say, with Acronis), I do backups to a separate drive via a
>>> USB cable. My assumption was that I could backup C: (the first partition)
>>> and then backup D: (being the second partition), and that Acronis would
>>> regard each as a separate drive. Is that assumption incorrect?
>>
>> Yes, backup software can backup by partition, so no problems there. But
>> most backup software can do it the other way too. Meaning they can
>> backup by folders and files too. So there is no need to have separate
>> partitions for OS, apps, and data. I also heard on giveawayoftheday.com
>> that somebody mentioned that Microsoft claims that NTFS is less
>> efficient if partitions are used. But they didn't list any references.
>
> Best to at least have different OSs on separate partitions as a rule.
> Sometimes they don't play well together.   Of course even better is
> different HDs but that's another story.

Yes indeed. Sorry I didn't mean to imply installing more than one OS in 
the same partition. While it can be done (I know I have done it before). 
But it is much like a house of cards in this state. As one little thing 
goes wrong and you can corrupt two or more OS at the same time.

Although a very basic OS like the Windows Recovery Console and Windows 
in the same partition is just fine. BartPE or WinPE and Windows in the 
same partition is ok too.

-- 
Bill
Alienware M9700 ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3
AMD Turion 64 ML37 2GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#840

JakeD wrote:
> mike <spamme9@gmail.com> wrote in news:j9b5rl$5gq$1@dont-email.me:
> 
>> Multiple operating systems on the same drive invite problems.
> 
> I assume you mean the same physical drive, yes?
> 
> Does it still invite problems if eash OS is on a different virtual drive 
> (on a separate partition)? Isn't that effectively the same having two 
> separate physical drives, (except that you can't physically separate them)?

You're mixing concepts.  partitions are not virtual drives.
Separate partitions can have different operating systems.  The problem 
is mapping drive letters.  You've got two operating systems thinking they're
in charge.  As long as they stick with their own partitions, you're fine.
If they try to tweak the partition table or the boot sector, they can 
get confused.
When it works, it works well.  When it gets
confused, you're hozed.
> 
> Regards backups (say, with Acronis), I do backups to a separate drive via a 
> USB cable. My assumption was that I could backup C: (the first partition) 
> and then backup D: (being the second partition), and that Acronis would 
> regard each as a separate drive. Is that assumption incorrect?

Yes.  BUT!!!
If you partition the drive in such a manner that there's insufficient room
on e: to backup c:, you're unable to backup locally.  That's why I'm 
suggesting you use the smallest practical partitions for the operating
systems and have more space on e: for backups.  Three equal partitions
is probably not optimal in this regard.
If you're backing up to an external usb drive, you don't have this problem.
But you still have the problem that you're backing up a huge amount of stuff
every time.  And it takes so long that you won't do it as often.

Because of all the copy protection roadblocks M$ throws in your way,
you need to back up an image of the partition.  You want this to be as
small as is reasonable for your situation.  You don't want any big stuff
in there that's easily copied...like music, movies, databases etc.

As has been stated elsewhere, you need to VERIFY that your backup works.
If you have only one physical drive, that's a problem.  If it fails
for any reason, you're installation is hozed.  That's why you should do a
minimal install, back it up, then restore it.  If it works, you're good 
to go.  If not, figger out why before you spend a lot of time installing
other stuff that will get wiped out.

I always boot from the Acronis rescue CD.  Even then, success depends
on several factors.  Different versions of Acronis have different 
abilities to
find and use external drives.  Some USB hardware is picky.
Working on one external device does not
guarantee that it works on all external devices.
I have one computer that locks up when I run acronis with a USB drive
attached.  On this one, I use linux to copy the image file before 
restoring as described below.

It may be possible to boot from an external USB device, but verify it first.

One thing I've found that always works is to boot the acronis rescue cd
and restore c: from the image stored on d:.  If the hard drive got trashed
or replaced, I boot a linux Cd and copy the backup from the off-computer
repository to the new E: partiton then reboot using the acronis rescue
cd and restore C: from the image on e:.
> 
>>> Xbox
>> It's virtualbox
> 
> Sorry; my mistake. I downloaded Virtualbox onto my desktop PC once, but 
> then I couldn't muster up the courage to try it! 

I've found virtualbox to be benign and easy to use.
But it's big.
The default configuration puts it on C:.  I tell it to install on d:.
It still puts stuff on c:, but the bulk of it and the huge image files
it creates are on d:.  My virtualbox folder is 7GB and I don't have much
there.
You can backup the image files by copying them elsewhere.  You don't want
all that stuff in every image of c:.

I figured it would be
> tempting fate and my system might end up fubar! I probably never thought of 
> backing everything up with Acronis, beforehand - or I may have wondered if 
> Acronis would actually work as proclaimed if it came to the crunch...
> 
> Jake

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#845

In article <j9c4nf$vk9$1@dont-email.me>, mike  <spamme9@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Yes.  BUT!!!
>If you partition the drive in such a manner that there's insufficient room
>on e: to backup c:, you're unable to backup locally.  That's why I'm 

	Backing up to the same drive is like hedging your investment by
buying bonds from the same company you have 50% of your stock portfolio
in.

	"Oh, the disc crashed, no problem, I'll just restore from backups,
hey, wait a minute..."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#846

the wharf rat wrote:
> In article <j9c4nf$vk9$1@dont-email.me>, mike  <spamme9@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes.  BUT!!!
>> If you partition the drive in such a manner that there's insufficient room
>> on e: to backup c:, you're unable to backup locally.  That's why I'm 
> 
> 	Backing up to the same drive is like hedging your investment by
> buying bonds from the same company you have 50% of your stock portfolio
> in.
> 
> 	"Oh, the disc crashed, no problem, I'll just restore from backups,
> hey, wait a minute..."
> 

Or, you could have read my original post in which I said,
"Copy the image to your off-computer archive to guard
against complete hardware failure.
"

But why do that when you can shoot from the hip?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#862

In article <j9ep0o$pqe$1@dont-email.me>, mike  <spamme9@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Or, you could have read my original post in which I said,

	Read the original article carefully?  No way.  It's much more
fun to indiscriminately flame people.

	If I wanted rational discussion I'd join a literary circle.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#835

On 11/8/2011 6:04 AM, mike wrote:
> The problem with dual boot is the boot loader. If you understand the
> subtleties
> of it, it's trivial. If you don't, it will give you grief.
> With one bootable partition, you can boot the install cd and fix up boot
> problems.
> With two bootable partitions, each "fixit program" wants to repair itself
> without fixing the other one.
> Again, if you understand the subtleties, it's not all that hard...so I'm
> told. I never figgered it out.
> More than once, I've had to rebuild everything because I couldn't figure
> out
> how to get the bootloader to do what I wanted...but that was GRUB.

I agree with you Mike. Although I can fix any dualboot that any program 
messed up. I still prefer having no dualboot on any drive. I rather swap 
drives to be honest with you for the reasons you mentioned. Although 
since I generally have multiple same models, this is rare to do as well.

-- 
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#844

In article <j9b5rl$5gq$1@dont-email.me>, mike  <spamme9@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The problem with dual boot is the boot loader.  If you understand the 
>subtleties of it, it's trivial.  If you don't, it will give you grief.

	I don't understand the problem.  Put windows on the first bootable
partition and if something goes south run fixmbr and start over.  

>More than once, I've had to rebuild everything because I couldn't figure out
>how to get the bootloader to do what I wanted...but that was GRUB.

	Did you try "man grub" ? :-) :-) :-) :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#838

On 08/11/2011 5:52 AM, JakeD wrote:
> mike<spamme9@gmail.com>  wrote in news:j99gts$4au$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> JakeD wrote:
>>> I'm using Gparted to create three NTFS partitions on my 160GB hard
>>> drive.
>>>
>>> I am thinking of creating three partitions of approximately equal
>>> size:
>>>
>>> Partition 1: for Windows XP OS and some progrmas to run on that OS
>>> Partition 2: For Windows Vista or perhaps Windows 7, plus some
>>> programs to run on that OS
>>> Partition 3: To be used for storing data files created on various
>>> programs on the above two partitions.
>>>
>>> Questions:
>>> 1) Please confirm: Should I create three primary partitions, and flag
>>> the first two as bootable?
>>>
>>> 2) Gparted offers me the option of creating a DOS partition table.
>>> Should I create one?
>>>
>>> Many thanks
>>>
>>> Jake
>
>
> Mike,
> Thanks for your thoughts on this. Unfortunately much of what you touched
> on is out of my depth, as my tech savvy is limited. Although I have been
> using PCs since 1993, and have had to muddle through the usual SNAFU's, I
> am still 100% layman.
>
>> Do you have a REAL need for two operating systems?
>
> Not at present. However, it occurred to me that it would be nice to have
> extra partitions so that if I later decide that the addition of Vista or
> Win7 is needed, I can install it without needing to overwriting XP.
>
> I've heard of Xbox but have never tried it. My hunch was that going the
> Xbox route would be more open to glitches and SNAFUs than using a 2nd
> partition for the secontd OS. Was that assumption incorrect?
>
>> To that end, I recommend making your OS boot partitions as small as
>> practical.
>
> I thought it would make sense to have enough room on the partition for
> the programs that I'll be using under the OS on that partition, partly
> because it keeps things organised (no chance of trying to figure out
> which OS it is configured to run under, etc.
>
>> The time to think about backing up your system is NOW, before you
>> partition the drive.
>
> OK - thankfully, I don't have anything on the drive to back up.
>
>> You want backups to be SIMPLE and quick, or you won't do 'em.
>
> Agreed!
>
>>   The way I dual-boot is to swap plug-in hard
>> drives.
>
> Why do you prefer that option above the option of having multiple
> partitions on the same internal drive?
>
>> Use a free disk-vendor version of Acronis to do an image backup of
>> your boot partition to your secondary partition on a REGULAR basis.
>
> I tried Acronis on my previous PC. I did the backup, and trusted that all
> was working as intended. Then, when I came to do my second backup a few
> weeks later, I found I had clean forgotten how to use Acronis and had to
> re-read the manual! That's one of this disadvantages of being in my late
> 50s with a memory that ain't what it used to be! Perhaps if I force
> myself to use it a THIRD time, the procedure will start to etch itself on
> my (human) memory. I don't think the procedure was that complicated, but
> I do recall that it required a certain amount of blind faith, since
> things like disc images smack of alien technology to me... :)
>
>> And it works just as well with a dual-boot system...if you must.
>
> What is it about dual-boot systems that you dislike?
>
> TIA
>
> Jake


What you could do is divide up your hdd into partitions, as far as 
Windows is concerned it will see and name them C, D, and E. Install your 
primary OS on C. When it's up and running go in the Disk Management 
section and remove the drive letter for the partition that you made for 
the future OS. So if the other OS partition was D then remove the drive 
letter. Then select the E drive and change the letter of that drive to D 
(or whatever letters you want to use).

That way you'll have your primary OS space and another partition for 
your data files. You won't see the other partition, Windows will sort of 
know it's there but it won't do anything with it.

(I haven't fully tested this next part, I'm assuming this is how it'll 
work. aka my best educated guess) If / when you do decide to install 
another OS just run the installer and it'll see all the partitions and 
you can choose what one to install it on. I would think the installer 
would then put the dual boot stuff in place.

As others have said, it's best to have OSs on separate physical drives.


-- 

</Tazz>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#839

Tazz wrote:
> On 08/11/2011 5:52 AM, JakeD wrote:
>> mike<spamme9@gmail.com>  wrote in news:j99gts$4au$1@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> JakeD wrote:
>>>> I'm using Gparted to create three NTFS partitions on my 160GB hard
>>>> drive.
>>>>
>>>> I am thinking of creating three partitions of approximately equal
>>>> size:
>>>>
>>>> Partition 1: for Windows XP OS and some progrmas to run on that OS
>>>> Partition 2: For Windows Vista or perhaps Windows 7, plus some
>>>> programs to run on that OS
>>>> Partition 3: To be used for storing data files created on various
>>>> programs on the above two partitions.
>>>>
>>>> Questions:
>>>> 1) Please confirm: Should I create three primary partitions, and flag
>>>> the first two as bootable?
>>>>
>>>> 2) Gparted offers me the option of creating a DOS partition table.
>>>> Should I create one?
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks
>>>>
>>>> Jake
>>
>>
>> Mike,
>> Thanks for your thoughts on this. Unfortunately much of what you touched
>> on is out of my depth, as my tech savvy is limited. Although I have been
>> using PCs since 1993, and have had to muddle through the usual SNAFU's, I
>> am still 100% layman.
>>
>>> Do you have a REAL need for two operating systems?
>>
>> Not at present. However, it occurred to me that it would be nice to have
>> extra partitions so that if I later decide that the addition of Vista or
>> Win7 is needed, I can install it without needing to overwriting XP.
>>
>> I've heard of Xbox but have never tried it. My hunch was that going the
>> Xbox route would be more open to glitches and SNAFUs than using a 2nd
>> partition for the secontd OS. Was that assumption incorrect?
>>
>>> To that end, I recommend making your OS boot partitions as small as
>>> practical.
>>
>> I thought it would make sense to have enough room on the partition for
>> the programs that I'll be using under the OS on that partition, partly
>> because it keeps things organised (no chance of trying to figure out
>> which OS it is configured to run under, etc.
>>
>>> The time to think about backing up your system is NOW, before you
>>> partition the drive.
>>
>> OK - thankfully, I don't have anything on the drive to back up.
>>
>>> You want backups to be SIMPLE and quick, or you won't do 'em.
>>
>> Agreed!
>>
>>>   The way I dual-boot is to swap plug-in hard
>>> drives.
>>
>> Why do you prefer that option above the option of having multiple
>> partitions on the same internal drive?
>>
>>> Use a free disk-vendor version of Acronis to do an image backup of
>>> your boot partition to your secondary partition on a REGULAR basis.
>>
>> I tried Acronis on my previous PC. I did the backup, and trusted that all
>> was working as intended. Then, when I came to do my second backup a few
>> weeks later, I found I had clean forgotten how to use Acronis and had to
>> re-read the manual! That's one of this disadvantages of being in my late
>> 50s with a memory that ain't what it used to be! Perhaps if I force
>> myself to use it a THIRD time, the procedure will start to etch itself on
>> my (human) memory. I don't think the procedure was that complicated, but
>> I do recall that it required a certain amount of blind faith, since
>> things like disc images smack of alien technology to me... :)
>>
>>> And it works just as well with a dual-boot system...if you must.
>>
>> What is it about dual-boot systems that you dislike?
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> Jake
> 
> 
> What you could do is divide up your hdd into partitions, as far as 
> Windows is concerned it will see and name them C, D, and E. Install your 
> primary OS on C. When it's up and running go in the Disk Management 
> section and remove the drive letter for the partition that you made for 
> the future OS. So if the other OS partition was D then remove the drive 
> letter. Then select the E drive and change the letter of that drive to D 
> (or whatever letters you want to use).
This is risky. The BIOS creates a map of physical partitions.
The OS maps that to drive letters. I've had several occasions where
the map got messed up and the OS starts booting from C:,but soon discovers
that it can't find c:.
I suspect/accuse that this is all the effects of copy protection.

Another wrinkle is that win7 creates a hidden partition at the beginning
of the drive.  I had all manner of backup/restore problems until I
used GPARTED to partition/format without that hidden partition.
> 
> That way you'll have your primary OS space and another partition for 
> your data files. You won't see the other partition, Windows will sort of 
> know it's there but it won't do anything with it.
> 
> (I haven't fully tested this next part, I'm assuming this is how it'll 
> work. aka my best educated guess) If / when you do decide to install 
> another OS just run the installer and it'll see all the partitions and 
> you can choose what one to install it on. I would think the installer 
> would then put the dual boot stuff in place.

I've had various degrees of luck installing win/linux dual boot.
Problems happened when I decided I didn't want dualboot any more.

M$ and hardware vendors don't want you to dualboot.  It causes support
problems.  And M$ doesn't want to help you migrate to linux.
> 
> As others have said, it's best to have OSs on separate physical drives.
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#841

<SNIP>
>> What you could do is divide up your hdd into partitions, as far as
>> Windows is concerned it will see and name them C, D, and E. Install
>> your primary OS on C. When it's up and running go in the Disk
>> Management section and remove the drive letter for the partition that
>> you made for the future OS. So if the other OS partition was D then
>> remove the drive letter. Then select the E drive and change the letter
>> of that drive to D (or whatever letters you want to use).
> This is risky. The BIOS creates a map of physical partitions.
> The OS maps that to drive letters. I've had several occasions where
> the map got messed up and the OS starts booting from C:,but soon discovers
> that it can't find c:.
> I suspect/accuse that this is all the effects of copy protection.

I haven't had any trouble that way, YET. Hmmm, I'd better make a backup.

> Another wrinkle is that win7 creates a hidden partition at the beginning
> of the drive. I had all manner of backup/restore problems until I
> used GPARTED to partition/format without that hidden partition.

Let me see if I understand this. I know Win7 makes a 100 MB or so hidden 
partition on install. Are you saying that if I backup the Win7 C drive 
and restore it to a newly formatted hdd WITHOUT the hidden partition 
that it'll still work?

>> That way you'll have your primary OS space and another partition for
>> your data files. You won't see the other partition, Windows will sort
>> of know it's there but it won't do anything with it.
>>
>> (I haven't fully tested this next part, I'm assuming this is how it'll
>> work. aka my best educated guess) If / when you do decide to install
>> another OS just run the installer and it'll see all the partitions and
>> you can choose what one to install it on. I would think the installer
>> would then put the dual boot stuff in place.
>
> I've had various degrees of luck installing win/linux dual boot.
> Problems happened when I decided I didn't want dualboot any more.

Won't fdisk /mbr fix the unwanted dualboot?


> M$ and hardware vendors don't want you to dualboot. It causes support
> problems. And M$ doesn't want to help you migrate to linux.
>>
>> As others have said, it's best to have OSs on separate physical drives.
>>

Here's my current setup.
hdd1 - 80 GB only Win7 installed. no partitions except for what Windows 
made.
hdd2 - 320 GB partitioned into 20 MB for XP and the rest for data.
There's a third encrypted hdd but it don't come into play here.

 From Windows Explorer in Win7 there was originally C (hdd1), D 
(Actually WinXP C: hdd2), and E (hdd2). From Win7 I removed  the D 
letter and renamed the E to D so I wouldn't be able to mess with the XP 
install.

In XP there was C (hdd2), D (hdd2), and E (hdd1). I removed the E drive 
letter so I couldn't mess up my Win7 install.

The D drive is common to both installs. If I put a file in a folder on D 
from Win7 the boot to XP I can use the file, and vice-versa.

One time when Win7 was new I installed incompatible software (didn't 
know it at the time), long story short I got stuck in a reboot loop when 
the software tried to run at startup. I booted into XP and assigned the 
drive a letter so I could access it. Then I renamed the offending 
program that was auto starting, removed the drive letter, rebooted to 
Win7. Surprise, it couldn't find the program. I then uninstalled it.




-- 

</Tazz>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#842

Tazz wrote:
> <SNIP>
>>> What you could do is divide up your hdd into partitions, as far as
>>> Windows is concerned it will see and name them C, D, and E. Install
>>> your primary OS on C. When it's up and running go in the Disk
>>> Management section and remove the drive letter for the partition that
>>> you made for the future OS. So if the other OS partition was D then
>>> remove the drive letter. Then select the E drive and change the letter
>>> of that drive to D (or whatever letters you want to use).
>> This is risky. The BIOS creates a map of physical partitions.
>> The OS maps that to drive letters. I've had several occasions where
>> the map got messed up and the OS starts booting from C:,but soon 
>> discovers
>> that it can't find c:.
>> I suspect/accuse that this is all the effects of copy protection.
> 
> I haven't had any trouble that way, YET. Hmmm, I'd better make a backup.
> 
>> Another wrinkle is that win7 creates a hidden partition at the beginning
>> of the drive. I had all manner of backup/restore problems until I
>> used GPARTED to partition/format without that hidden partition.
> 
> Let me see if I understand this. I know Win7 makes a 100 MB or so hidden 
> partition on install. Are you saying that if I backup the Win7 C drive 
> and restore it to a newly formatted hdd WITHOUT the hidden partition 
> that it'll still work?

My experience has been that it will NOT work using Acronis 10.  Other backup
programs may know how to figure it out.
I also had problems backing up a PATA drive and trying to restore to a 
SATA drive.  The clone function of acronis 13 did work as long as the 
partition tables
were consistent.
There are a lot of variables in play, so not at all clear what is required.
> 
>>> That way you'll have your primary OS space and another partition for
>>> your data files. You won't see the other partition, Windows will sort
>>> of know it's there but it won't do anything with it.
>>>
>>> (I haven't fully tested this next part, I'm assuming this is how it'll
>>> work. aka my best educated guess) If / when you do decide to install
>>> another OS just run the installer and it'll see all the partitions and
>>> you can choose what one to install it on. I would think the installer
>>> would then put the dual boot stuff in place.
>>
>> I've had various degrees of luck installing win/linux dual boot.
>> Problems happened when I decided I didn't want dualboot any more.
> 
> Won't fdisk /mbr fix the unwanted dualboot?
Not sure that works any more.
For XP/win7 don't you have to boot the cd and go into recovery mode?
Then you run fixboot and/or fixmbr.  I think Win7 may be able to
restore the system.  As I recall, XP just fixes itself and leaves
WIN7 and linux disconnected.  Been a long time since I messed with it.

> 
> 
>> M$ and hardware vendors don't want you to dualboot. It causes support
>> problems. And M$ doesn't want to help you migrate to linux.
>>>
>>> As others have said, it's best to have OSs on separate physical drives.
>>>
> 
> Here's my current setup.
> hdd1 - 80 GB only Win7 installed. no partitions except for what Windows 
> made.
> hdd2 - 320 GB partitioned into 20 MB for XP and the rest for data.
> There's a third encrypted hdd but it don't come into play here.
> 
>  From Windows Explorer in Win7 there was originally C (hdd1), D 
> (Actually WinXP C: hdd2), and E (hdd2). From Win7 I removed  the D 
> letter and renamed the E to D so I wouldn't be able to mess with the XP 
> install.

I've never tried changing drive letters.  I have tried plugging in
additional hard drives.  This worked in win98, but since XP I've had
all manner of grief with partition sequences moving around and causing
the OS to look in the wrong place...and crash.
I've also tried turning physical drives on/off in the BIOS. Also had grief.

I'm also dealing with older hardware.  BIOSs may have become smarter by now.
> 
> In XP there was C (hdd2), D (hdd2), and E (hdd1). I removed the E drive 
> letter so I couldn't mess up my Win7 install.
> 
> The D drive is common to both installs. If I put a file in a folder on D 
> from Win7 the boot to XP I can use the file, and vice-versa.
> 
> One time when Win7 was new I installed incompatible software (didn't 
> know it at the time), long story short I got stuck in a reboot loop when 
> the software tried to run at startup. I booted into XP and assigned the 
> drive a letter so I could access it. Then I renamed the offending 
> program that was auto starting, removed the drive letter, rebooted to 
> Win7. Surprise, it couldn't find the program. I then uninstalled it.
> 
> 
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#843

In article <Xns9F9763F5DDE60aaaalifecom@130.133.4.11>,
JakeD  <fgdfgdfg@ghghfgh.com> wrote:
>
>> You want backups to be SIMPLE and quick, or you won't do 'em.
>Agreed!

	They don't have to be simple or quick (think of some of those 
tower-of-hanoi rotation schemes) as long as they fit into your backup
time slot and...

		...they can be **AUTOMATED**

	IMHO the key to backup is automation not simplicity or even run time.

	Geez, remember mounting 9 inch tapes so the backups would run?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.laptops

csiph-web