Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Partitioning Help Please
7 views
Skip to first unread message
The Old Bloke
Jul 25, 2013, 11:18:50 AM7/25/13
to
Hi,
A friend of mine who is not well informed re PCs has a problem that he
has ask for help
The PC is an i3 Windows 7 64b PC with about 12 G of RAM. It was
bought from Dell,and in the state of its arrival it had C: with a 50G
partition.
When I looked at it using TeamViewer, I found that, CP, Administration
Tools showed this
http://s283.photobucket.com/user/Oldbloke49/media/stuff/Microsoft.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
For my understanding D: is on it own physical drive of 1.8T and C: is
on a partitioned of a total of approx 63G !, with C: allocated about
56G!. After maybe 2 years they have run out of space on C: I had
originally assumed that C: and D: would be partitions on one physical
disk and I thought it would be easily using something like Easeus
Partition Manager.
Easeus Partition Manager shows exactly the same as Microsoft, CP,
Admin Tools, etc. ie Disk 0 is 1.8T and disk 1 is 63G
The easy thing would be for the owners to open the PC and see what
physical disks are installed, but given their experience they are
reluctant to do this. I am too disabled to travel to them or even open
a PC theses days; getting old is a bastard.
Using Teamviewer and Easeus was able to get a few Gs from the
"Recovery" partition, but not enough to really help.
So, Disk 0 shows as 1.8G and C: + shows 63G.
I really can't believe one of the disks is a mere 60G.When the PC was
delivered 1 - 2 years ago they noted this and complained to Dell. Just
what exactly was I don't know but they say Dell said that they had
ordered 2T of disk space and that is what they have, and they should
live with it.
Please, can anyone tell me what Dell has set up here? Can there be
two physical disks, one of 1.8 T and one of 63G??
I know how to incorporate C: into D: as a bootable drive, but I am
very reluctant to try this using Teamviewer.
Any help, please?
A friend of mine who is not well informed re PCs has a problem that he
has ask for help
The PC is an i3 Windows 7 64b PC with about 12 G of RAM. It was
bought from Dell,and in the state of its arrival it had C: with a 50G
partition.
When I looked at it using TeamViewer, I found that, CP, Administration
Tools showed this
http://s283.photobucket.com/user/Oldbloke49/media/stuff/Microsoft.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
For my understanding D: is on it own physical drive of 1.8T and C: is
on a partitioned of a total of approx 63G !, with C: allocated about
56G!. After maybe 2 years they have run out of space on C: I had
originally assumed that C: and D: would be partitions on one physical
disk and I thought it would be easily using something like Easeus
Partition Manager.
Easeus Partition Manager shows exactly the same as Microsoft, CP,
Admin Tools, etc. ie Disk 0 is 1.8T and disk 1 is 63G
The easy thing would be for the owners to open the PC and see what
physical disks are installed, but given their experience they are
reluctant to do this. I am too disabled to travel to them or even open
a PC theses days; getting old is a bastard.
Using Teamviewer and Easeus was able to get a few Gs from the
"Recovery" partition, but not enough to really help.
So, Disk 0 shows as 1.8G and C: + shows 63G.
I really can't believe one of the disks is a mere 60G.When the PC was
delivered 1 - 2 years ago they noted this and complained to Dell. Just
what exactly was I don't know but they say Dell said that they had
ordered 2T of disk space and that is what they have, and they should
live with it.
Please, can anyone tell me what Dell has set up here? Can there be
two physical disks, one of 1.8 T and one of 63G??
I know how to incorporate C: into D: as a bootable drive, but I am
very reluctant to try this using Teamviewer.
Any help, please?
Rod Speed
Jul 25, 2013, 7:03:38 PM7/25/13
to
"The Old Bloke" <le0pa...@Xgmail.com> wrote in message
news:o8e2v8hhjkiqbc0k8...@4ax.com...
http://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/everest_free_edition.html
Its very unlikely that there is more than one physical drive.
keithr
Jul 26, 2013, 1:07:00 AM7/26/13
to
management. When the new window opens, select disk management under
storage, it will show all physical devices and their partitions
Clocky
Jul 26, 2013, 3:03:29 AM7/26/13
to
You can easily check is there is more than one physical drive by going
into the BIOS setup and seeing what is detected and showing.
Bet it's only one physical drive though.
Sandgroper
Jul 26, 2013, 4:41:27 AM7/26/13
to
Disk 0 = 180 Gb
Non bootable data disk - 1 primary partition.
Disk D: - DataPart1 (NTFS) Drive D: = 180 Gb
Disk 1 = 64 Gb.
Contains 3 primary partitions
Partition 1 = Hidden boot partition used with Bitlocker security = 110
Megabytes
Partition 2 = Recovery disk = 7.12 Gb ( hidden partition )
Partition 3 = OS - Disk C (NTFS) = 55.79 Gb
63.2 Gb of the 64 Gb HDD is used ( 7.12 Gb + 55.79 Gb = 63.2 Gb )
Free space = 800 megabytes.
What it appears to be is that Disk 1 was the original disk and later on
Disk 0 was added as a data disk.
Because the disks are SATA drives , the new HDD was just plugged into a
spare SATA port and it appears that the the HDDs wasn't configured to
reflect the boot drive as Disk 0 and the data drive as Disk 1
So you now have Disk 1 as the boot drive and Disk 0 as the data disk.
What it appears is that Disk 1 contains the a inaccessible hidden boot
partition , the Recovery partition and the OS partition that contains
Windows and system files and program files as well as user data files.
So basically Disk 0 is just mostly used for the OS to use and program
files that has quickly filled up the space.
Disk 1 is the data disk that contains any of the user accumulated files
as well as quite possibly the program/application files as well as the
page file system .
The size of the disk is 180 Gb , not 2 Tb , so Dell didn't put in the
right size disk or that somebody has got their Gb and Tb mixed up.
Most laptop manufactures do try to cut corners to make laptops cheaper ,
so what you have here with Dell is that the original model laptop was
shipped with a smaller 64 Gb HDD to make it look like a bargain and then
because of the size of a lot of applications , the drive quickly filled
up and then Dell put in a data disk to fix the limitation of the
original smaller disk.
What you need to do with this laptop is to :
1) Move any user data file from Drive C: to Drive D
2) Remove any unwanted programs by using the Window Add/Remove Application
3) Run the DiskClean Up utility to remove any unwanted/obsolete files
4) Defrag Drive C
Since HDDs are reasonably cheap these days , the it would probably be
better take the laptop to a computer store and get them to remove the
180 Gb Disk 0 and replace it with a 500 Gb HDD , the drive itself will
only cost about $80 .
--
Sandgroper
--------------------------------------------
Save planet Earth !
It's the only place that has Pizza and Beer
annily
Jul 26, 2013, 6:34:36 AM7/26/13
to
--
Lifelong resident of Adelaide, South Australia
annily
Jul 26, 2013, 6:35:23 AM7/26/13
to
Damian
Jul 26, 2013, 10:54:13 AM7/26/13
to
"annily" <ann...@annily.invalid> wrote in message
news:51f250bd$0$49503$862e...@ngroups.net...
specially from Dell.
The computer management screenshot looks bit odd.
It's not likely Dell would setup a single hard drive with a stuff up like
that.
As Sandgroper suggested, moving some operating system non-critical data from
C to D may clear up some space for the cluttered C drive.
Sandgroper
Jul 26, 2013, 11:02:06 AM7/26/13
to
On 26-Jul-13 6:34 PM, annily wrote:
>
> No, you didn't read the link properly. It says 1800.00 GB.
>
180 Gb or 1800 Gb HDD, it doesn't matter , it still doesn't change the
>
> No, you didn't read the link properly. It says 1800.00 GB.
>
set up with the disks or the partitioning.
Bob Milutinovic
Jul 26, 2013, 12:08:12 PM7/26/13
to
"The Old Bloke" <le0pa...@Xgmail.com> wrote in message
news:o8e2v8hhjkiqbc0k8...@4ax.com...
news:o8e2v8hhjkiqbc0k8...@4ax.com...
marketed to buggery at the time they bought it) and a 2Tb (yes, 1800Gb = 2Tb
in HDD manufacturer marketing speak - they view 1Kb as 1000 bytes, 1Mb as
1000Kb, and so on) mechanical drive to store data.
*60Gb SSD = 64Gb, with 4Gb reserved for "spare" blocks.
You have two solutions open to you; the first is by far the easier of the
two, and will preserve the performance benefits the SSD currently offers
them.
1. Shift applications and user data onto the secondary drive.
1a. Uninstall all (or as many as possible, depending on availability of
installation sources) non-system applications.
1b. Create "D:\Program Files"
1c. Re-install the previously-removed applications, choosing the "custom"
option in the installation process for each one and
specifying "D:\Program Files" as the destination. Note that this procedure
will need to be followed for all applications
installed in the future - they'll need to choose the "custom" installation
method and specify the destination path.
1d. Create "D:\Documents" "D:\Music" "D:\Pictures" "D:\Videos"
1e. Open Windows Explorer. For each entry in the library ("Documents,"
"Music," "Pictures," "Videos"), right-click and choose "Properties," then
click "Include a Folder" and choose the appropriate destination folder on
drive D:, then click the original folder in the list
(C:\Users\<username>\<foldername>) and click "Remove" (this will prevent
future data saves from defaulting to the original location, and will instead
default to the new location).
1f. Physically move all contents of the above-mentioned library folders from
the user directory on drive C:, to the appropriate folders on drive D:.
2. Shift the entire machine to the mechanical drive.
2a. Back up any data already on drive D:
2b. Format drive D:.
2c. Boot from Acronis boot CD.
2d. Use Acronis to perform a disc image backup of drive C: onto an external
(USB) drive.
2e. Use Acronis's "restore anywhere" function to restore drive C:'s data to
D:, instructing it to stretch the second partition to fit all available
space.
2f. Physically disconnect the SSD.
As an alternative to steps 2c-2e, you can use CloneZilla and UBCD to shift
the data over and re-size the second partition.
--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom
Damian
Jul 26, 2013, 1:05:23 PM7/26/13
to
"Bob Milutinovic" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ksu6hj$tn6$1...@dont-email.me...
Rod Speed
Jul 26, 2013, 7:46:03 PM7/26/13
to
"Damian" <damian...@y7mail.com> wrote in message
news:ksu9t6$ht9$1...@dont-email.me...
> I would prefer the solution 2.
If he really does have an SSD, that makes no sense at all.
annily
Jul 26, 2013, 11:22:23 PM7/26/13
to
On 27.07.13 00:32, Sandgroper wrote:
> On 26-Jul-13 6:34 PM, annily wrote:
>
>>
>> No, you didn't read the link properly. It says 1800.00 GB.
>>
>
> 180 Gb or 1800 Gb HDD, it doesn't matter , it still doesn't change the
> set up with the disks or the partitioning.
>
I didn't imply that it would. It just negates one of your conclusions, viz.
> On 26-Jul-13 6:34 PM, annily wrote:
>
>>
>> No, you didn't read the link properly. It says 1800.00 GB.
>>
>
> 180 Gb or 1800 Gb HDD, it doesn't matter , it still doesn't change the
> set up with the disks or the partitioning.
>
"The size of the disk is 180 Gb , not 2 Tb , so Dell didn't put in the
right size disk or that somebody has got their Gb and Tb mixed up."
Rod Speed
Jul 27, 2013, 12:22:45 AM7/27/13
to
The Old Bloke <le0pa...@Xgmail.com> wrote
> A friend of mine who is not well informed re PCs has a problem that he
> has ask for help
> The PC is an i3 Windows 7 64b PC with about 12 G of RAM. It was
> bought from Dell,and in the state of its arrival it had C: with a 50G
> partition.
> When I looked at it using TeamViewer, I found that, CP, Administration
> Tools showed this
> http://s283.photobucket.com/user/Oldbloke49/media/stuff/Microsoft.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
That looks very suspicious indeed, particularly the fact that it claims
> has ask for help
> The PC is an i3 Windows 7 64b PC with about 12 G of RAM. It was
> bought from Dell,and in the state of its arrival it had C: with a 50G
> partition.
> When I looked at it using TeamViewer, I found that, CP, Administration
> Tools showed this
> http://s283.photobucket.com/user/Oldbloke49/media/stuff/Microsoft.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
that disk 0 is a nice tidy 1800GB. I am not aware of any physical disk
that is that size. And it isnt a 2TB drive being reported in GBis either,
those show as 1863GB in the disk management display you are using.
And since what yours claims is disk 1 is claimed to be 63GB, its MUCH
more likely that Dell has set up a single physical 2TB drive so that it
looks to disk management like two physical drives when its not.
Its very unlikely indeed that you have a 60GB SSD, both because of
of the exact size reported, and because its very unlikely indeed that
Dell would be stupid enough to put the recovery partition on one.
> For my understanding D: is on it own physical drive of 1.8T
> and C: is on a partitioned of a total of approx 63G !,
> with C: allocated about 56G!. After maybe 2 years
> they have run out of space on C:
> I had originally assumed that C: and D:
> would be partitions on one physical disk
> and I thought it would be easily using something like Easeus Partition
> Manager.
drives when they are not in fact on separate physical drives at all.
> Easeus Partition Manager shows exactly the same as Microsoft,
> CP, Admin Tools, etc. ie Disk 0 is 1.8T and disk 1 is 63G
> The easy thing would be for the owners to open the PC and
> see what physical disks are installed, but given their experience
> they are reluctant to do this. I am too disabled to travel to them
> or even open a PC theses days; getting old is a bastard.
Tho its certainly possible that it will be fooled too.
But you should be able to see what it says about
the drive model number and see what size that is
from the model number and I bet it's a 2TB drive.
> Using Teamviewer and Easeus was able to get a few Gs
> from the "Recovery" partition, but not enough to really help.
> So, Disk 0 shows as 1.8G and C: + shows 63G.
> I really can't believe one of the disks is a mere 60G.
> When the PC was delivered 1 - 2 years ago they noted this
> and complained to Dell. Just what exactly was I don't know
> but they say Dell said that they had ordered 2T of disk space
> and that is what they have,
> and they should live with it.
> Please, can anyone tell me what Dell has set up here?
> Can there be two physical disks, one of 1.8 T and one of 63G??
> I know how to incorporate C: into D: as a bootable drive,
> but I am very reluctant to try this using Teamviewer.
Dell should be able to tell you how to do that,
and its likely its spelt out on the net too.
> Any help, please?
Damian
Jul 27, 2013, 3:36:53 AM7/27/13
to
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5gg23...@mid.individual.net...
SSD drive(if the D drive is an SSD) the boot drive?!
I think he can benefit from a complete reinstall regardless of which
mechanical drive he chooses to make the boot drive.
Yeah, I would make the SSD boot drive if the 63 Gig one happens to be a one.
Then you gota make sure, not to put any application files in that drive.
The user appears to be computer not savvy. For him, I reckon it's better the
single mechanical drive(if it's 2TB) chosen as the boot drive.
The reason I prefer the solution 2 is that all the time I would spend on
transferring the program files from D to C would be more than a clean
installation.
It's likely both system and program files have cluttered the D drive, enough
to make the system slow, regardless of whether the D drive is full or not.
Damian
Jul 27, 2013, 3:51:00 AM7/27/13
to
news:b5h08v...@mid.individual.net...
or computer management mmc stuff up?!!!
>
>> For my understanding D: is on it own physical drive of 1.8T
>
> No, that's what it is saying, but see above.
>
>> and C: is on a partitioned of a total of approx 63G !,
>> with C: allocated about 56G!. After maybe 2 years
>> they have run out of space on C:
>
> Yeah, its too small for the boot drive IMO.
Not if his housekeeping is good. The data and program files could be saved
in the larger drive/partition.
Usually I don't make boot drive any bigger than 40 Gig or so.
But, it may not be suitable for average Joe though, since he might fill the
boot drive with crap in no time.
>
>> I had originally assumed that C: and D:
>> would be partitions on one physical disk
>
> They are.
I think that's the case.
>
>> and I thought it would be easily using something like Easeus Partition
>> Manager.
>
> No, because Dell has made it appear that they are on separate physical
> drives when they are not in fact on separate physical drives at all.
>
>> Easeus Partition Manager shows exactly the same as Microsoft,
>> CP, Admin Tools, etc. ie Disk 0 is 1.8T and disk 1 is 63G
>
> Because they are both being fooled by the way Dell has set the drive up.
How would Dell do that?!! Their own proprietry applications?!!
>
>> The easy thing would be for the owners to open the PC and
>> see what physical disks are installed, but given their experience
>> they are reluctant to do this. I am too disabled to travel to them
>> or even open a PC theses days; getting old is a bastard.
>
> I already told you how to use Everest to check that.
> Tho its certainly possible that it will be fooled too.
I'm still wondering how on earth Dell manage to do that and for what earthly
purpose??!!
I didn't think Everest can be fooled that easily!!!
> But you should be able to see what it says about
> the drive model number and see what size that is
> from the model number and I bet it's a 2TB drive.
>
>> Using Teamviewer and Easeus was able to get a few Gs
>> from the "Recovery" partition, but not enough to really help.
>
>> So, Disk 0 shows as 1.8G and C: + shows 63G.
>
>> I really can't believe one of the disks is a mere 60G.
>
> That is certainly possible with a SSD. But I don't believe it has one.
>
>> When the PC was delivered 1 - 2 years ago they noted this
>> and complained to Dell. Just what exactly was I don't know
>> but they say Dell said that they had ordered 2T of disk space
>> and that is what they have,
>
> He's right.
Then it must be due to a limitation on Dell's BIOS??!!
Though I'm not aware of a way to use BIOS to fool the OS and applications to
think the drive as two separate drives.
But, it's possible, I believe.
>
>> and they should live with it.
>
>> Please, can anyone tell me what Dell has set up here?
>
> They have setup a single 2TB drive that way.
>
>> Can there be two physical disks, one of 1.8 T and one of 63G??
>
> Its theoretically possible, but it isnt what has happened.
>
>> I know how to incorporate C: into D: as a bootable drive,
>
> I doubt you do actually with the way Dell has configured the drive.
Yes, easily said than done, specially if there's no clean installation
involved.
> The Old Bloke <le0pa...@Xgmail.com> wrote
>
>> A friend of mine who is not well informed re PCs has a problem that he
>> has ask for help
>
>> The PC is an i3 Windows 7 64b PC with about 12 G of RAM. It was
>> bought from Dell,and in the state of its arrival it had C: with a 50G
>> partition.
>
>> When I looked at it using TeamViewer, I found that, CP, Administration
>> Tools showed this
>
>> http://s283.photobucket.com/user/Oldbloke49/media/stuff/Microsoft.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
>
> That looks very suspicious indeed, particularly the fact that it claims
> that disk 0 is a nice tidy 1800GB. I am not aware of any physical disk
> that is that size. And it isnt a 2TB drive being reported in GBis either,
> those show as 1863GB in the disk management display you are using.
>
> And since what yours claims is disk 1 is claimed to be 63GB, its MUCH
> more likely that Dell has set up a single physical 2TB drive so that it
> looks to disk management like two physical drives when its not.
>
> Its very unlikely indeed that you have a 60GB SSD, both because of
> of the exact size reported, and because its very unlikely indeed that
> Dell would be stupid enough to put the recovery partition on one.
Yeah, I don't think there's an SSD there. I think it's a TeamViewer stuff up
>
>> A friend of mine who is not well informed re PCs has a problem that he
>> has ask for help
>
>> The PC is an i3 Windows 7 64b PC with about 12 G of RAM. It was
>> bought from Dell,and in the state of its arrival it had C: with a 50G
>> partition.
>
>> When I looked at it using TeamViewer, I found that, CP, Administration
>> Tools showed this
>
>> http://s283.photobucket.com/user/Oldbloke49/media/stuff/Microsoft.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
>
> That looks very suspicious indeed, particularly the fact that it claims
> that disk 0 is a nice tidy 1800GB. I am not aware of any physical disk
> that is that size. And it isnt a 2TB drive being reported in GBis either,
> those show as 1863GB in the disk management display you are using.
>
> And since what yours claims is disk 1 is claimed to be 63GB, its MUCH
> more likely that Dell has set up a single physical 2TB drive so that it
> looks to disk management like two physical drives when its not.
>
> Its very unlikely indeed that you have a 60GB SSD, both because of
> of the exact size reported, and because its very unlikely indeed that
> Dell would be stupid enough to put the recovery partition on one.
or computer management mmc stuff up?!!!
>
>> For my understanding D: is on it own physical drive of 1.8T
>
> No, that's what it is saying, but see above.
>
>> and C: is on a partitioned of a total of approx 63G !,
>> with C: allocated about 56G!. After maybe 2 years
>> they have run out of space on C:
>
> Yeah, its too small for the boot drive IMO.
in the larger drive/partition.
Usually I don't make boot drive any bigger than 40 Gig or so.
But, it may not be suitable for average Joe though, since he might fill the
boot drive with crap in no time.
>
>> I had originally assumed that C: and D:
>> would be partitions on one physical disk
>
> They are.
>
>> and I thought it would be easily using something like Easeus Partition
>> Manager.
>
> No, because Dell has made it appear that they are on separate physical
> drives when they are not in fact on separate physical drives at all.
>
>> Easeus Partition Manager shows exactly the same as Microsoft,
>> CP, Admin Tools, etc. ie Disk 0 is 1.8T and disk 1 is 63G
>
> Because they are both being fooled by the way Dell has set the drive up.
>
>> The easy thing would be for the owners to open the PC and
>> see what physical disks are installed, but given their experience
>> they are reluctant to do this. I am too disabled to travel to them
>> or even open a PC theses days; getting old is a bastard.
>
> I already told you how to use Everest to check that.
> Tho its certainly possible that it will be fooled too.
purpose??!!
I didn't think Everest can be fooled that easily!!!
> But you should be able to see what it says about
> the drive model number and see what size that is
> from the model number and I bet it's a 2TB drive.
>
>> Using Teamviewer and Easeus was able to get a few Gs
>> from the "Recovery" partition, but not enough to really help.
>
>> So, Disk 0 shows as 1.8G and C: + shows 63G.
>
>> I really can't believe one of the disks is a mere 60G.
>
> That is certainly possible with a SSD. But I don't believe it has one.
>
>> When the PC was delivered 1 - 2 years ago they noted this
>> and complained to Dell. Just what exactly was I don't know
>> but they say Dell said that they had ordered 2T of disk space
>> and that is what they have,
>
> He's right.
Though I'm not aware of a way to use BIOS to fool the OS and applications to
think the drive as two separate drives.
But, it's possible, I believe.
>
>> and they should live with it.
>
>> Please, can anyone tell me what Dell has set up here?
>
> They have setup a single 2TB drive that way.
>
>> Can there be two physical disks, one of 1.8 T and one of 63G??
>
> Its theoretically possible, but it isnt what has happened.
>
>> I know how to incorporate C: into D: as a bootable drive,
>
> I doubt you do actually with the way Dell has configured the drive.
involved.
Rod Speed
Jul 27, 2013, 5:47:43 AM7/27/13
to
news:ksvsva$fh$1...@dont-email.me...
Yes, that�s the whole point of them.
> And currently it's the SSD drive(if the D drive is an SSD) the boot
> drive?!
No, I don�t believe it has an SSD at all.
> I think he can benefit from a complete reinstall regardless of which
> mechanical drive he chooses to make the boot drive.
No, that won't make any difference to the real problem, the size of the C
> Then you gota make sure, not to put any application files in that drive.
> The user appears to be computer not savvy. For him, I reckon it's better
> the single mechanical drive(if it's 2TB) chosen as the boot drive.
That�s all there is.
> The reason I prefer the solution 2 is that all the time I would spend on
> transferring the program files from D to C would be more than a clean
> installation.
But that would be a stupid approach if it had a SSD.
> It's likely both system and program files have cluttered the D drive,
> enough to make the system slow, regardless of whether the D drive is full
> or not.
No, the problem is that the C drive is too small.
> And currently it's the SSD drive(if the D drive is an SSD) the boot
> drive?!
> I think he can benefit from a complete reinstall regardless of which
> mechanical drive he chooses to make the boot drive.
drive.
> Yeah, I would make the SSD boot drive if the 63 Gig one happens to be a
> one.
There is no SSD.
> Yeah, I would make the SSD boot drive if the 63 Gig one happens to be a
> one.
> Then you gota make sure, not to put any application files in that drive.
> The user appears to be computer not savvy. For him, I reckon it's better
> the single mechanical drive(if it's 2TB) chosen as the boot drive.
> The reason I prefer the solution 2 is that all the time I would spend on
> transferring the program files from D to C would be more than a clean
> installation.
> It's likely both system and program files have cluttered the D drive,
> enough to make the system slow, regardless of whether the D drive is full
> or not.
Rod Speed
Jul 27, 2013, 5:56:44 AM7/27/13
to
news:ksvtpp$3gi$1...@dont-email.me...
makes it appear that its two physical drives to those utes and has
made the C drive too small with no easy way to increase the size of it.
They should have had just a single partition apart from the recovery
partition.
>>> For my understanding D: is on it own physical drive of 1.8T
>> No, that's what it is saying, but see above.
>>> and C: is on a partitioned of a total of approx 63G !,
>>> with C: allocated about 56G!. After maybe 2 years
>>> they have run out of space on C:
>> Yeah, its too small for the boot drive IMO.
> Not if his housekeeping is good.
It makes no sense to require any housekeeping at all with a 2TB drive.
> The data and program files could be saved in the larger drive/partition.
There should be just one partition for Win 7.
> Usually I don't make boot drive any bigger than 40 Gig or so.
More fool you.
> But, it may not be suitable for average Joe though, since he might fill
> the boot drive with crap in no time.
It isnt crap that�s the problem, its what is installed.
>>> I had originally assumed that C: and D:
>>> would be partitions on one physical disk
>> They are.
> I think that's the case.
I know that's the case.
>>> and I thought it would be easily using something like Easeus Partition
>>> Manager.
>> No, because Dell has made it appear that they are on separate physical
>> drives when they are not in fact on separate physical drives at all.
>>> Easeus Partition Manager shows exactly the same as Microsoft,
>>> CP, Admin Tools, etc. ie Disk 0 is 1.8T and disk 1 is 63G
>> Because they are both being fooled by the way Dell has set the drive up.
> How would Dell do that?!!
It isnt hard to do that.
> Their own proprietry applications?!!
No, just the config of the drive.
>>> The easy thing would be for the owners to open the PC and
>>> see what physical disks are installed, but given their experience
>>> they are reluctant to do this. I am too disabled to travel to them
>>> or even open a PC theses days; getting old is a bastard.
>> I already told you how to use Everest to check that.
>> Tho its certainly possible that it will be fooled too.
> I'm still wondering how on earth Dell manage to do that
Most manufacturers do that with laptops
and other systems with recovery partitions.
> and for what earthly purpose??!!
Basically to make it harder to wipe out the recovery
partition without the user intending to do that.
> I didn't think Everest can be fooled that easily!!!
We don�t know that it can be yet because he
hasn�t reported what it claims to be able to see.
>> But you should be able to see what it says about
>> the drive model number and see what size that is
>> from the model number and I bet it's a 2TB drive.
>>> Using Teamviewer and Easeus was able to get a few Gs
>>> from the "Recovery" partition, but not enough to really help.
>>> So, Disk 0 shows as 1.8G and C: + shows 63G.
>>> I really can't believe one of the disks is a mere 60G.
>> That is certainly possible with a SSD. But I don't believe it has one.
>>> When the PC was delivered 1 - 2 years ago they noted this
>>> and complained to Dell. Just what exactly was I don't know
>>> but they say Dell said that they had ordered 2T of disk space
>>> and that is what they have,
>> He's right.
> Then it must be due to a limitation on Dell's BIOS??!!
Nope.
> Though I'm not aware of a way to use BIOS to fool the OS and applications
> to think the drive as two separate drives.
Its very easy to do.
> But, it's possible, I believe.
I know it is.
>
> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b5h08v...@mid.individual.net...
>> The Old Bloke <le0pa...@Xgmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> A friend of mine who is not well informed re PCs has a problem that he
>>> has ask for help
>>
>>> The PC is an i3 Windows 7 64b PC with about 12 G of RAM. It was
>>> bought from Dell,and in the state of its arrival it had C: with a 50G
>>> partition.
>>
>>> When I looked at it using TeamViewer, I found that, CP, Administration
>>> Tools showed this
>>
>>> http://s283.photobucket.com/user/Oldbloke49/media/stuff/Microsoft.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
>>
>> That looks very suspicious indeed, particularly the fact that it claims
>> that disk 0 is a nice tidy 1800GB. I am not aware of any physical disk
>> that is that size. And it isnt a 2TB drive being reported in GBis either,
>> those show as 1863GB in the disk management display you are using.
>>
>> And since what yours claims is disk 1 is claimed to be 63GB, its MUCH
>> more likely that Dell has set up a single physical 2TB drive so that it
>> looks to disk management like two physical drives when its not.
>>
>> Its very unlikely indeed that you have a 60GB SSD, both because of
>> of the exact size reported, and because its very unlikely indeed that
>> Dell would be stupid enough to put the recovery partition on one.
> Yeah, I don't think there's an SSD there. I think it's a TeamViewer stuff
> up or computer management mmc stuff up?!!!
No, Dell has configured the single 2TB physical drive in a way that
> "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b5h08v...@mid.individual.net...
>> The Old Bloke <le0pa...@Xgmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> A friend of mine who is not well informed re PCs has a problem that he
>>> has ask for help
>>
>>> The PC is an i3 Windows 7 64b PC with about 12 G of RAM. It was
>>> bought from Dell,and in the state of its arrival it had C: with a 50G
>>> partition.
>>
>>> When I looked at it using TeamViewer, I found that, CP, Administration
>>> Tools showed this
>>
>>> http://s283.photobucket.com/user/Oldbloke49/media/stuff/Microsoft.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0
>>
>> That looks very suspicious indeed, particularly the fact that it claims
>> that disk 0 is a nice tidy 1800GB. I am not aware of any physical disk
>> that is that size. And it isnt a 2TB drive being reported in GBis either,
>> those show as 1863GB in the disk management display you are using.
>>
>> And since what yours claims is disk 1 is claimed to be 63GB, its MUCH
>> more likely that Dell has set up a single physical 2TB drive so that it
>> looks to disk management like two physical drives when its not.
>>
>> Its very unlikely indeed that you have a 60GB SSD, both because of
>> of the exact size reported, and because its very unlikely indeed that
>> Dell would be stupid enough to put the recovery partition on one.
> Yeah, I don't think there's an SSD there. I think it's a TeamViewer stuff
> up or computer management mmc stuff up?!!!
makes it appear that its two physical drives to those utes and has
made the C drive too small with no easy way to increase the size of it.
They should have had just a single partition apart from the recovery
partition.
>>> For my understanding D: is on it own physical drive of 1.8T
>> No, that's what it is saying, but see above.
>>> and C: is on a partitioned of a total of approx 63G !,
>>> with C: allocated about 56G!. After maybe 2 years
>>> they have run out of space on C:
>> Yeah, its too small for the boot drive IMO.
> Not if his housekeeping is good.
> The data and program files could be saved in the larger drive/partition.
> Usually I don't make boot drive any bigger than 40 Gig or so.
> But, it may not be suitable for average Joe though, since he might fill
> the boot drive with crap in no time.
>>> I had originally assumed that C: and D:
>>> would be partitions on one physical disk
>> They are.
> I think that's the case.
>>> and I thought it would be easily using something like Easeus Partition
>>> Manager.
>> No, because Dell has made it appear that they are on separate physical
>> drives when they are not in fact on separate physical drives at all.
>>> Easeus Partition Manager shows exactly the same as Microsoft,
>>> CP, Admin Tools, etc. ie Disk 0 is 1.8T and disk 1 is 63G
>> Because they are both being fooled by the way Dell has set the drive up.
> How would Dell do that?!!
> Their own proprietry applications?!!
No, just the config of the drive.
>>> The easy thing would be for the owners to open the PC and
>>> see what physical disks are installed, but given their experience
>>> they are reluctant to do this. I am too disabled to travel to them
>>> or even open a PC theses days; getting old is a bastard.
>> I already told you how to use Everest to check that.
>> Tho its certainly possible that it will be fooled too.
> I'm still wondering how on earth Dell manage to do that
and other systems with recovery partitions.
> and for what earthly purpose??!!
partition without the user intending to do that.
> I didn't think Everest can be fooled that easily!!!
hasn�t reported what it claims to be able to see.
>> But you should be able to see what it says about
>> the drive model number and see what size that is
>> from the model number and I bet it's a 2TB drive.
>>> Using Teamviewer and Easeus was able to get a few Gs
>>> from the "Recovery" partition, but not enough to really help.
>>> So, Disk 0 shows as 1.8G and C: + shows 63G.
>>> I really can't believe one of the disks is a mere 60G.
>> That is certainly possible with a SSD. But I don't believe it has one.
>>> When the PC was delivered 1 - 2 years ago they noted this
>>> and complained to Dell. Just what exactly was I don't know
>>> but they say Dell said that they had ordered 2T of disk space
>>> and that is what they have,
>> He's right.
> Then it must be due to a limitation on Dell's BIOS??!!
> Though I'm not aware of a way to use BIOS to fool the OS and applications
> to think the drive as two separate drives.
> But, it's possible, I believe.
Damian
Jul 27, 2013, 1:01:32 PM7/27/13
to
news:b5hjr8...@mid.individual.net...
> It isnt crap that’s the problem, its what is installed.
>
>>>> The easy thing would be for the owners to open the PC and
>>>> see what physical disks are installed, but given their experience
>>>> they are reluctant to do this. I am too disabled to travel to them
>>>> or even open a PC theses days; getting old is a bastard.
>
>>> I already told you how to use Everest to check that.
>>> Tho its certainly possible that it will be fooled too.
>
>> I'm still wondering how on earth Dell manage to do that
>
> Most manufacturers do that with laptops
> and other systems with recovery partitions.
>
>> and for what earthly purpose??!!
>
> Basically to make it harder to wipe out the recovery
> partition without the user intending to do that.
>
>> I didn't think Everest can be fooled that easily!!!
>
> We don’t know that it can be yet because he
> hasn’t reported what it claims to be able to see.
Can you point me to some literature on that?!!
Thanks
>
>>>> I had originally assumed that C: and D:
>>>> would be partitions on one physical disk
>
>>> They are.
>
>> I think that's the case.
>
> I know that's the case.
>
>>>> and I thought it would be easily using something like Easeus Partition
>>>> Manager.
>
>>> No, because Dell has made it appear that they are on separate physical
>>> drives when they are not in fact on separate physical drives at all.
>
>>>> Easeus Partition Manager shows exactly the same as Microsoft,
>>>> CP, Admin Tools, etc. ie Disk 0 is 1.8T and disk 1 is 63G
>
>>> Because they are both being fooled by the way Dell has set the drive up.
>
>> How would Dell do that?!!
>
> It isnt hard to do that.
>
>> Their own proprietry applications?!!
>
> No, just the config of the drive.
Via BIOS?!!
>>>> I had originally assumed that C: and D:
>>>> would be partitions on one physical disk
>
>>> They are.
>
>> I think that's the case.
>
> I know that's the case.
>
>>>> and I thought it would be easily using something like Easeus Partition
>>>> Manager.
>
>>> No, because Dell has made it appear that they are on separate physical
>>> drives when they are not in fact on separate physical drives at all.
>
>>>> Easeus Partition Manager shows exactly the same as Microsoft,
>>>> CP, Admin Tools, etc. ie Disk 0 is 1.8T and disk 1 is 63G
>
>>> Because they are both being fooled by the way Dell has set the drive up.
>
>> How would Dell do that?!!
>
> It isnt hard to do that.
>
>> Their own proprietry applications?!!
>
> No, just the config of the drive.
>
>>>> The easy thing would be for the owners to open the PC and
>>>> see what physical disks are installed, but given their experience
>>>> they are reluctant to do this. I am too disabled to travel to them
>>>> or even open a PC theses days; getting old is a bastard.
>
>>> I already told you how to use Everest to check that.
>>> Tho its certainly possible that it will be fooled too.
>
>> I'm still wondering how on earth Dell manage to do that
>
> Most manufacturers do that with laptops
> and other systems with recovery partitions.
>
>> and for what earthly purpose??!!
>
> Basically to make it harder to wipe out the recovery
> partition without the user intending to do that.
>
>> I didn't think Everest can be fooled that easily!!!
>
> hasn’t reported what it claims to be able to see.
>
>>> But you should be able to see what it says about
>>> the drive model number and see what size that is
>>> from the model number and I bet it's a 2TB drive.
>
>>>> Using Teamviewer and Easeus was able to get a few Gs
>>>> from the "Recovery" partition, but not enough to really help.
>
>>>> So, Disk 0 shows as 1.8G and C: + shows 63G.
>
>>>> I really can't believe one of the disks is a mere 60G.
>
>>> That is certainly possible with a SSD. But I don't believe it has one.
>
>>>> When the PC was delivered 1 - 2 years ago they noted this
>>>> and complained to Dell. Just what exactly was I don't know
>>>> but they say Dell said that they had ordered 2T of disk space
>>>> and that is what they have,
>
>>> He's right.
>
>> Then it must be due to a limitation on Dell's BIOS??!!
>
> Nope.
>
>> Though I'm not aware of a way to use BIOS to fool the OS and applications
>> to think the drive as two separate drives.
>
> Its very easy to do.
>
>> But, it's possible, I believe.
>
> I know it is.
Yes, it's doable, I meant that i didn't know it's that easy.
>>> But you should be able to see what it says about
>>> the drive model number and see what size that is
>>> from the model number and I bet it's a 2TB drive.
>
>>>> Using Teamviewer and Easeus was able to get a few Gs
>>>> from the "Recovery" partition, but not enough to really help.
>
>>>> So, Disk 0 shows as 1.8G and C: + shows 63G.
>
>>>> I really can't believe one of the disks is a mere 60G.
>
>>> That is certainly possible with a SSD. But I don't believe it has one.
>
>>>> When the PC was delivered 1 - 2 years ago they noted this
>>>> and complained to Dell. Just what exactly was I don't know
>>>> but they say Dell said that they had ordered 2T of disk space
>>>> and that is what they have,
>
>>> He's right.
>
>> Then it must be due to a limitation on Dell's BIOS??!!
>
> Nope.
>
>> Though I'm not aware of a way to use BIOS to fool the OS and applications
>> to think the drive as two separate drives.
>
> Its very easy to do.
>
>> But, it's possible, I believe.
>
> I know it is.
Can you point me to some literature on that?!!
Thanks
The Old Bloke
Jul 27, 2013, 1:10:39 PM7/27/13
to
late reply. It's not often that my health allows me to look at MY PC
messages.
First comment is that I do remember this PC a few years ago and it
does not have a SSD.
Secondly, as many of you kind people have talked about, I also have
difficulty in believing that Dell would deliver a PC with a 1.8T disk
and a 63G one as physical hard drives. As I originally said BOTH
Microsoft and Easeus see these as two physical disks, with both
returning exactly the same result.
Thirdly, the owners complained to Dell about the HD setup , a few
weeks after receiving the PC. They now want to complain again, and I
am reluctant to put in their complaint that they were supplied with
such a stupid, almost unbelievable, HD setup. I have suspected that
both Microsoft and Easeus have been "tricked" into seeing 2 physical
HD disks. But when these usually reliable bits of software show this,
it is difficult then to easily rectify the small C:
Fourthly, Together with the owners we are uninstalling apps from C:
and reinstalling on D:. Temp files, User files etc had and continue
to be worked on.
Fifthly, yes I should try Everest/Aida when I get enough energy.
Again thanks for all the help, and in particular your opinions that a
2 physical HDs of 1.8T and 63G is as strange as it looks to me.
Regards
Doug
Sandgroper
Jul 27, 2013, 4:10:37 PM7/27/13
to
On 28-Jul-13 1:10 AM, The Old Bloke wrote:
> Wow, what a lot of useful tips. Thank you so much and sorry for my
> late reply. It's not often that my health allows me to look at MY PC
> messages.
>
> First comment is that I do remember this PC a few years ago and it
> does not have a SSD.
>
> Secondly, as many of you kind people have talked about, I also have
> difficulty in believing that Dell would deliver a PC with a 1.8T disk
> and a 63G one as physical hard drives. As I originally said BOTH
> Microsoft and Easeus see these as two physical disks, with both
> returning exactly the same result.
Maybe the better idea is to access the BIOS and go through the screens
> Wow, what a lot of useful tips. Thank you so much and sorry for my
> late reply. It's not often that my health allows me to look at MY PC
> messages.
>
> First comment is that I do remember this PC a few years ago and it
> does not have a SSD.
>
> Secondly, as many of you kind people have talked about, I also have
> difficulty in believing that Dell would deliver a PC with a 1.8T disk
> and a 63G one as physical hard drives. As I originally said BOTH
> Microsoft and Easeus see these as two physical disks, with both
> returning exactly the same result.
to check what physical disks are actually listed .
Can you post a screen shot of the Microsoft Disk Management showing all
the info in the right hand pane ?
Probably the best way of finding out about the disk set up is to use a
bootable partition editor that is independent of Windows to view the
disk/partitions.
Download and burn the live CD , Parted Magic , it is a bootable Linux
based OS that has a partition editor , GParted that can view and edit
the disk partitions.
http://partedmagic.com/doku.php
Parted Magic video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c-Ef26t50E
> Thirdly, the owners complained to Dell about the HD setup , a few
> weeks after receiving the PC. They now want to complain again, and I
> am reluctant to put in their complaint that they were supplied with
> such a stupid, almost unbelievable, HD setup. I have suspected that
> both Microsoft and Easeus have been "tricked" into seeing 2 physical
> HD disks. But when these usually reliable bits of software show this,
> it is difficult then to easily rectify the small C:
added to have the disk configuration naming arse about., in a perfect
world , the smaller 64 GB bootable HDD with all the OS and program file
should be named Disk 0 and the recently added disk named Disk 1 , but
sometimes it doesn't work like that .
Having the boot disk named Disk 1 and the un-bootable data disk named
Disk 0 is not really going to make any difference or cause any problems,
all you really see in Windows is Drive C: and Drive D:
> Fourthly, Together with the owners we are uninstalling apps from C:
> and reinstalling on D:. Temp files, User files etc had and continue
> to be worked on.
other unwanted files safely.
http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner
> Fifthly, yes I should try Everest/Aida when I get enough energy.
>
> Again thanks for all the help, and in particular your opinions that a
> 2 physical HDs of 1.8T and 63G is as strange as it looks to me.
Disk 1 which is the normal naming convention for physical drives in a
MS system.
Maybe the original model laptop had 64GB HDDs and to do a quick upgrade
on them , probably after many complaints , Dell may have just whacked on
a 1.8 TB HDD so they didn't need to do a complete re-install of windows.
I can't really see Dell going to the expense of farting about with some
disk partition wizardry just to give the appearance of 2 physical disks
from a single large disk.
Rod Speed
Jul 27, 2013, 6:26:43 PM7/27/13
to
news:kt0u24$vun$1...@dont-email.me...
Nope.
Try google.
Rod Speed
Jul 27, 2013, 6:30:23 PM7/27/13
to
"Sandgroper" <woodb...@DROPKNICKERSgmail.com> wrote in message
news:U4adnZIYhaeitGnM...@westnet.com.au...
> I can't really see Dell going to the expense of farting about with some
> disk partition wizardry just to give the appearance of 2 physical disks
> from a single large disk.
Damian
Jul 27, 2013, 11:47:05 PM7/27/13
to
"Sandgroper" <woodb...@DROPKNICKERSgmail.com> wrote in message
news:U4adnZIYhaeitGnM...@westnet.com.au...
Damian
Jul 27, 2013, 11:54:45 PM7/27/13
to
news:b5ivpj...@mid.individual.net...
What's the keyword I should be using?!
Damian
Jul 28, 2013, 12:52:32 AM7/28/13
to
news:kt24b1$lgf$1...@dont-email.me...
Or the key phrase.
Rod Speed
Jul 28, 2013, 1:54:33 AM7/28/13
to
news:kt24b1$lgf$1...@dont-email.me...
Laptop hard drives. Yes, its not a laptop, but they
are doing the same as is done with laptop hard drives.
are doing the same as is done with laptop hard drives.
Damian
Jul 28, 2013, 5:20:23 AM7/28/13
to
news:b5jq1c...@mid.individual.net...
I meant how to use BIOS to fool the OS and applications to see a single
drive as two or more drives.
drive as two or more drives.
Rod Speed
Jul 28, 2013, 6:30:57 AM7/28/13
to
news:kt2ndl$snh$1...@dont-email.me...
Yes, that’s was obvious, and that’s what you use with
google to search for that. And it isnt done by the BIOS.
google to search for that. And it isnt done by the BIOS.
Damian
Jul 28, 2013, 6:51:50 AM7/28/13
to
news:b5ka7m...@mid.individual.net...
That's what you said above!!!
Are you now talking about a proprietary tool that sits under windows
partitioning that fools the windows diskmgmt.msc to see a single drive as
two or more?!
Or are you talking about proprietary hard drive tool that may come with
particular brands(Like seatools for seagate, etc) ??!!
I know seatools and western digital hard drive tool can't do that magic.
Are you now talking about a proprietary tool that sits under windows
partitioning that fools the windows diskmgmt.msc to see a single drive as
two or more?!
Or are you talking about proprietary hard drive tool that may come with
particular brands(Like seatools for seagate, etc) ??!!
I know seatools and western digital hard drive tool can't do that magic.
The Old Bloke
Jul 28, 2013, 2:05:54 PM7/28/13
to
>
>I though this is a desktop, not a laptop.
>
The Old Bloke
Jul 28, 2013, 3:29:29 PM7/28/13
to
>>
>>> Fifthly, yes I should try Everest/Aida when I get enough energy.
>>>
>>> Again thanks for all the help, and in particular your opinions that a
>>> 2 physical HDs of 1.8T and 63G is as strange as it looks to me.
>>
>> From the screen shot you posted , it had the disks named Disk 0 and Disk 1
>> which is the normal naming convention for physical drives in a MS system.
>>
>> Maybe the original model laptop had 64GB HDDs and to do a quick upgrade on
>> them , probably after many complaints , Dell may have just whacked on a
>> 1.8 TB HDD so they didn't need to do a complete re-install of windows.
>
>Trouble with that line is that there is no 1.8TB hard drive they could use.
>
>> I can't really see Dell going to the expense of farting about with some
>> disk partition wizardry just to give the appearance of 2 physical disks
>> from a single large disk.
>
>They did anyway. There is just one physical drive installed.
do any more than I have
Further to the issue, these people want to chase Dell thru all
consumer channels. I am trying to understand why Easeus and MS both
show the same two physical drives, 1.8T and 66G.
All the comments have helped me understand what may be involved.
Thanks to all.
All I can do now is to help this couple though their battle with Dell.
Rod and all, thanks for the help
Regards
Doug vg
Rod Speed
Jul 28, 2013, 4:40:40 PM7/28/13
to
news:kt2sp6$l27$1...@dont-email.me...
No I didn’t. I had said elsewhere that it isnt the
bios doing it and didn’t bother to repeat that there.
> Are you now talking about a proprietary tool that sits under windows
> partitioning that fools the windows diskmgmt.msc to see a single drive as
> two or more?!
No, it isnt a tool, proprietary or otherwise, that sits anywhere.
> Or are you talking about proprietary hard drive tool that may come with
> particular brands(Like seatools for seagate, etc) ??!!
No, although there are some similaritys to that.
> I know seatools and western digital hard drive tool can't do that magic.
Yeah, those are diagnostics.
Its closer to the way its done to get around the 32GB limit in some
very early bios with a driver/overlay that’s loaded from the drive at
boot time.
bios doing it and didn’t bother to repeat that there.
> Are you now talking about a proprietary tool that sits under windows
> partitioning that fools the windows diskmgmt.msc to see a single drive as
> two or more?!
> Or are you talking about proprietary hard drive tool that may come with
> particular brands(Like seatools for seagate, etc) ??!!
> I know seatools and western digital hard drive tool can't do that magic.
Its closer to the way its done to get around the 32GB limit in some
very early bios with a driver/overlay that’s loaded from the drive at
boot time.
Damian
Jul 28, 2013, 10:40:02 PM7/28/13
to
news:b5ldv1...@mid.individual.net...
Ok. I think you put me on the right track now.
Can you please help me with the kind of a keyword or phrase that I should
be using in google or bing search to narrow down literature/software?
Can you please help me with the kind of a keyword or phrase that I should
be using in google or bing search to narrow down literature/software?
Rod Speed
Jul 28, 2013, 10:45:00 PM7/28/13
to
news:kt4kb7$h5f$1...@dont-email.me...
Unfortunately for you, there isnt a nice unique keyword for that
situation. You will have to use what I gave you, maybe with Dell
and IBM added, and wade thru the hits you get to find it.
I cant think of any nice tidy phrase which cover that faking of
the single hard drive to make it appear to be more than one
to Disk Management etc. I guess adding "Disk Management"
might help, but likely not since most of the hits will just be
about formatting and partitioning of the drive.
situation. You will have to use what I gave you, maybe with Dell
and IBM added, and wade thru the hits you get to find it.
I cant think of any nice tidy phrase which cover that faking of
the single hard drive to make it appear to be more than one
to Disk Management etc. I guess adding "Disk Management"
might help, but likely not since most of the hits will just be
about formatting and partitioning of the drive.
darren
Jul 29, 2013, 4:42:06 AM7/29/13
to
use the restore image should you ever have a windozzze problem you do
not loose your data that should be on the D drive. That is if you use
the D drive when you install your add ons
I would be surprised if dell will do any thing about a set up that is
done intentionally.
Damian
Jul 29, 2013, 10:49:22 AM7/29/13
to
news:b5m3a7...@mid.individual.net...
No worries. As you said before, if I look long and hard enough, I should
eventually come up with the right stuff.
eventually come up with the right stuff.
Damian
Jul 29, 2013, 10:52:51 AM7/29/13
to
"The Old Bloke" <le0pa...@Xgmail.com> wrote in message
news:nanav8dnkrmhhuuj1...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>>I though this is a desktop, not a laptop.
>>
>
> Yes it is a Desktop
Ok. That can make things slightly easier, since it's easier to open it up.
>>
>>I though this is a desktop, not a laptop.
>>
>
> Yes it is a Desktop
May be you can get them on the phone and guide through how to open up the
box and sort it out for first and last time that it's just one hard drive
stuffed up by Dell for whatever the reason.
Damian
Jul 29, 2013, 11:35:14 AM7/29/13
to
news:b5m3a7...@mid.individual.net...
No worries. I'm sure I will get there. Thanks Rod.
Damian
Jul 29, 2013, 11:43:31 AM7/29/13
to
news:b5hjab...@mid.individual.net...
> Yes, that’s the whole point of them.
8)??!!
If the programs are installed on the same drive, then it will be full in no
time.
But, If I use it only for OS system files and install all the applications
files and data in the other drive, then it won't be a bad setup.
In fact, that's how I setup my PC(one of them). Seems to be working fine,
performance wise. And my program files and data are lot secure in a
different drive/partition.
Also, my image backups are lot smaller 'cos of that approach.
>
>
>> And currently it's the SSD drive(if the D drive is an SSD) the boot
>> drive?!
>
> No, I don’t believe it has an SSD at all.
>> And currently it's the SSD drive(if the D drive is an SSD) the boot
>> drive?!
>
>
>> I think he can benefit from a complete reinstall regardless of which
>> mechanical drive he chooses to make the boot drive.
>
> No, that won't make any difference to the real problem, the size of the C
> drive.
>
>> Yeah, I would make the SSD boot drive if the 63 Gig one happens to be a
>> one.
>
> There is no SSD.
>
>> Then you gota make sure, not to put any application files in that drive.
>> The user appears to be computer not savvy. For him, I reckon it's better
>> the single mechanical drive(if it's 2TB) chosen as the boot drive.
>
> That’s all there is.
>> I think he can benefit from a complete reinstall regardless of which
>> mechanical drive he chooses to make the boot drive.
>
> No, that won't make any difference to the real problem, the size of the C
> drive.
>
>> Yeah, I would make the SSD boot drive if the 63 Gig one happens to be a
>> one.
>
> There is no SSD.
>
>> Then you gota make sure, not to put any application files in that drive.
>> The user appears to be computer not savvy. For him, I reckon it's better
>> the single mechanical drive(if it's 2TB) chosen as the boot drive.
>
>
>> The reason I prefer the solution 2 is that all the time I would spend on
>> transferring the program files from D to C would be more than a clean
>> installation.
>
> But that would be a stupid approach if it had a SSD.
>
>> It's likely both system and program files have cluttered the D drive,
>> enough to make the system slow, regardless of whether the D drive is full
>> or not.
>
> No, the problem is that the C drive is too small.
Why is that 60 Gig drive is too small for OS installation(Even for windows
>> The reason I prefer the solution 2 is that all the time I would spend on
>> transferring the program files from D to C would be more than a clean
>> installation.
>
> But that would be a stupid approach if it had a SSD.
>
>> It's likely both system and program files have cluttered the D drive,
>> enough to make the system slow, regardless of whether the D drive is full
>> or not.
>
> No, the problem is that the C drive is too small.
8)??!!
If the programs are installed on the same drive, then it will be full in no
time.
But, If I use it only for OS system files and install all the applications
files and data in the other drive, then it won't be a bad setup.
In fact, that's how I setup my PC(one of them). Seems to be working fine,
performance wise. And my program files and data are lot secure in a
different drive/partition.
Also, my image backups are lot smaller 'cos of that approach.
>
Rod Speed
Jul 29, 2013, 5:18:57 PM7/29/13
to
news:kt5v87$l7a$1...@dont-email.me...
I don’t think there is any point in bothering.
The numbers do add up to what a 2TB drive should be in disk management
so its absolutely guaranteed to just be a single 2TB drive in there.
The numbers do add up to what a 2TB drive should be in disk management
so its absolutely guaranteed to just be a single 2TB drive in there.
Rod Speed
Jul 29, 2013, 5:26:41 PM7/29/13
to
news:kt6278$6tk$1...@dont-email.me...
A single partition is a much better config.
Someone else claimed that the reason Dell does it like that is so that
you can just use the restore partition to return to factory config without
losing anything you have added to the system, but that isnt going to
be true if you install the apps on the D drive, because the restore will
restore the registry and none of those apps will be registered anymore.
> In fact, that's how I setup my PC(one of them). Seems to be working fine,
> performance wise.
The problem isnt the performance, the problem is that
there just isnt any point in a separate C drive with the
apps installed on the D drive. It makes a lot more sense
to just have the one partition with everything on it instead
if there is just one physical drive, as there is in this case.
> And my program files and data are lot secure in a different
> drive/partition.
No they are not.
> Also, my image backups are lot smaller 'cos of that approach.
No they are not, essentially because Win7 and 8 does
have a lot of stuff that needs to be imaged in the C drive.
Someone else claimed that the reason Dell does it like that is so that
you can just use the restore partition to return to factory config without
losing anything you have added to the system, but that isnt going to
be true if you install the apps on the D drive, because the restore will
restore the registry and none of those apps will be registered anymore.
> In fact, that's how I setup my PC(one of them). Seems to be working fine,
> performance wise.
there just isnt any point in a separate C drive with the
apps installed on the D drive. It makes a lot more sense
to just have the one partition with everything on it instead
if there is just one physical drive, as there is in this case.
> And my program files and data are lot secure in a different
> drive/partition.
> Also, my image backups are lot smaller 'cos of that approach.
have a lot of stuff that needs to be imaged in the C drive.
Damian
Jul 30, 2013, 4:28:35 AM7/30/13
to
news:b5o51j...@mid.individual.net...
That would be the case regardless of apps are installed on C or D drive.
would it be not?!!
If the version of the registry being restored doesn't have the keys to
resemble later app installations, then it won't make any difference whether
the apps are installed
on C or D.
I have no arguments that the single partition for both OS and Application
files can perform better than two separate partitions.
>
>> In fact, that's how I setup my PC(one of them). Seems to be working fine,
>> performance wise.
>
> The problem isnt the performance, the problem is that
> there just isnt any point in a separate C drive with the
> apps installed on the D drive. It makes a lot more sense
> to just have the one partition with everything on it instead
> if there is just one physical drive, as there is in this case.
I found it's easier to recover and diagnose issues when you have two
separate partitions or drives for the OS and Apps/data.
>
>> And my program files and data are lot secure in a different
>> drive/partition.
>
> No they are not.
Why not?! Two physical drives are not likely to die exactly at the same
time, possible, but not likely.
Even when it's the same drive and two partitions it can still be helpful.
Think about the scenario where a nasty virus
decimate the system, but the program files and data can still be recovered
since it's in a different partition.
>
>> Also, my image backups are lot smaller 'cos of that approach.
>
> No they are not, essentially because Win7 and 8 does
> have a lot of stuff that needs to be imaged in the C drive.
Dunno. In my installations, windows 7, 8 doesn't look like consuming
anywhere near 60Gig.
Besides, you can use a VHD installation as well.
>
would it be not?!!
If the version of the registry being restored doesn't have the keys to
resemble later app installations, then it won't make any difference whether
the apps are installed
on C or D.
I have no arguments that the single partition for both OS and Application
files can perform better than two separate partitions.
>
>> In fact, that's how I setup my PC(one of them). Seems to be working fine,
>> performance wise.
>
> The problem isnt the performance, the problem is that
> there just isnt any point in a separate C drive with the
> apps installed on the D drive. It makes a lot more sense
> to just have the one partition with everything on it instead
> if there is just one physical drive, as there is in this case.
separate partitions or drives for the OS and Apps/data.
>
>> And my program files and data are lot secure in a different
>> drive/partition.
>
> No they are not.
time, possible, but not likely.
Even when it's the same drive and two partitions it can still be helpful.
Think about the scenario where a nasty virus
decimate the system, but the program files and data can still be recovered
since it's in a different partition.
>
>> Also, my image backups are lot smaller 'cos of that approach.
>
> No they are not, essentially because Win7 and 8 does
> have a lot of stuff that needs to be imaged in the C drive.
anywhere near 60Gig.
Besides, you can use a VHD installation as well.
>
darren
Jul 30, 2013, 5:30:25 AM7/30/13
to
your applications but if you have used D drive as they intended you at
least keep your data. I personally use 1 windows drive and keep it
backed up to a removable. I think most people dont back up.
I have seen too many people loose all there stuff when a window pops
up asks them to run a recovery program as windows has encountered a
problem. Click on yes and it is all gone. Back to factory default setup.
I hate systems with a hidden recovery partition rather than windows on
disk. I hate explaining to someone that has just run the recovery
program that all there work is lost even more.
I recommend using the D drive for Data if there is that type of
recovery system installed. Or even better just get a computer form
someone that supply's the windows disk and a single drive with no hidden
Partitions
Rod Speed
Jul 30, 2013, 7:10:04 AM7/30/13
to
news:kt7t4h$8a3$1...@dont-email.me...
Yep.
> If the version of the registry being restored doesn't have the keys to
> resemble later app installations, then it won't make any difference
> whether the apps are installed on C or D.
Yep.
> I have no arguments that the single partition for both OS and Application
> files can perform better than two separate partitions.
I wasn’t talking about perform better, its just a much simpler
config which doesn’t see the decision about the size of the C
partition be seen to be wrong over time.
>>> In fact, that's how I setup my PC(one of them). Seems to be working
>>> fine, performance wise.
>>
>> The problem isnt the performance, the problem is that
>> there just isnt any point in a separate C drive with the
>> apps installed on the D drive. It makes a lot more sense
>> to just have the one partition with everything on it instead
>> if there is just one physical drive, as there is in this case.
> I found it's easier to recover and diagnose issues when you have two
> separate partitions or drives for the OS and Apps/data.
That's just plain wrong.
>>> And my program files and data are lot secure in a different
>>> drive/partition.
>> No they are not.
> Why not?!
You made the claim...
> Two physical drives are not likely to die exactly at the same time,
> possible, but not likely.
Sure. I though you meant logical drive/partition, not two separate physical
drives.
> Even when it's the same drive and two partitions it can still be helpful.
Nope.
> Think about the scenario where a nasty virus decimate the system, but the
> program files and data can still be recovered since it's in a different
> partition.
That’s not the case.
>>> Also, my image backups are lot smaller 'cos of that approach.
>> No they are not, essentially because Win7 and 8 does
>> have a lot of stuff that needs to be imaged in the C drive.
> Dunno.
I do.
> In my installations, windows 7, 8 doesn't look like consuming anywhere
> near 60Gig.
Separate matter entirely to whether it needs to be imaged or not.
> Besides, you can use a VHD installation as well.
Separate matter entirely to whether it needs to be imaged or not.
> If the version of the registry being restored doesn't have the keys to
> resemble later app installations, then it won't make any difference
> whether the apps are installed on C or D.
> I have no arguments that the single partition for both OS and Application
> files can perform better than two separate partitions.
config which doesn’t see the decision about the size of the C
partition be seen to be wrong over time.
>>> In fact, that's how I setup my PC(one of them). Seems to be working
>>> fine, performance wise.
>>
>> The problem isnt the performance, the problem is that
>> there just isnt any point in a separate C drive with the
>> apps installed on the D drive. It makes a lot more sense
>> to just have the one partition with everything on it instead
>> if there is just one physical drive, as there is in this case.
> I found it's easier to recover and diagnose issues when you have two
> separate partitions or drives for the OS and Apps/data.
>>> And my program files and data are lot secure in a different
>>> drive/partition.
>> No they are not.
> Why not?!
> Two physical drives are not likely to die exactly at the same time,
> possible, but not likely.
drives.
> Even when it's the same drive and two partitions it can still be helpful.
> Think about the scenario where a nasty virus decimate the system, but the
> program files and data can still be recovered since it's in a different
> partition.
>>> Also, my image backups are lot smaller 'cos of that approach.
>> No they are not, essentially because Win7 and 8 does
>> have a lot of stuff that needs to be imaged in the C drive.
> Dunno.
> In my installations, windows 7, 8 doesn't look like consuming anywhere
> near 60Gig.
> Besides, you can use a VHD installation as well.
Damian
Jul 30, 2013, 8:33:58 AM7/30/13
to
"darren" <dronn...@adam.com.au> wrote in message
news:o4-dnaIJ2_0oGmrM...@adnap.net.au...
> I have seen too many people loose all there stuff when a window pops up
> asks them to run a recovery program as windows has encountered a problem.
> Click on yes and it is all gone. Back to factory default setup.
> I hate systems with a hidden recovery partition rather than windows on
> disk. I hate explaining to someone that has just run the recovery program
> that all there work is lost even more.
>
> I recommend using the D drive for Data if there is that type of recovery
> system installed. Or even better just get a computer form someone that
> supply's the windows disk and a single drive with no hidden Partitions
Damian
Jul 30, 2013, 8:36:13 AM7/30/13
to
news:b5pl9j...@mid.individual.net...
What case?
>
>>>> Also, my image backups are lot smaller 'cos of that approach.
>
>>> No they are not, essentially because Win7 and 8 does
>>> have a lot of stuff that needs to be imaged in the C drive.
>
>> Dunno.
>
> I do.
>
>> In my installations, windows 7, 8 doesn't look like consuming anywhere
>> near 60Gig.
>
> Separate matter entirely to whether it needs to be imaged or not.
Wasn't talking about imaging.
>
>> Besides, you can use a VHD installation as well.
>
> Separate matter entirely to whether it needs to be imaged or not.
Who's talking about imaging?
>
>
>
>>>> Also, my image backups are lot smaller 'cos of that approach.
>
>>> No they are not, essentially because Win7 and 8 does
>>> have a lot of stuff that needs to be imaged in the C drive.
>
>> Dunno.
>
> I do.
>
>> In my installations, windows 7, 8 doesn't look like consuming anywhere
>> near 60Gig.
>
> Separate matter entirely to whether it needs to be imaged or not.
>
>> Besides, you can use a VHD installation as well.
>
> Separate matter entirely to whether it needs to be imaged or not.
>
>
Rod Speed
Jul 30, 2013, 4:27:00 PM7/30/13
to
and arguably if they can modify it to do that,
they are quite capable of doing backups too.
> Or even better just get a computer form someone that supply's the windows
> disk and a single drive with no hidden Partitions
even with desktops. The main ones that still do it that way
with desktops are the operations that assemble one for you.
Rod Speed
Jul 30, 2013, 4:41:23 PM7/30/13
to
news:kt8bl2$g0m$1...@dont-email.me...
The case that program files and data can still be recovered since it's in a
different partition.
>>>>> Also, my image backups are lot smaller 'cos of that approach.
>>
>>>> No they are not, essentially because Win7 and 8 does
>>>> have a lot of stuff that needs to be imaged in the C drive.
>>
>>> Dunno.
>>
>> I do.
>>
>>> In my installations, windows 7, 8 doesn't look like consuming anywhere
>>> near 60Gig.
>>
>> Separate matter entirely to whether it needs to be imaged or not.
> Wasn't talking about imaging.
You clearly were.
>>> Besides, you can use a VHD installation as well.
>>
>> Separate matter entirely to whether it needs to be imaged or not.
>
> Who's talking about imaging?
You did.
different partition.
>>>>> Also, my image backups are lot smaller 'cos of that approach.
>>
>>>> No they are not, essentially because Win7 and 8 does
>>>> have a lot of stuff that needs to be imaged in the C drive.
>>
>>> Dunno.
>>
>> I do.
>>
>>> In my installations, windows 7, 8 doesn't look like consuming anywhere
>>> near 60Gig.
>>
>> Separate matter entirely to whether it needs to be imaged or not.
> Wasn't talking about imaging.
>>> Besides, you can use a VHD installation as well.
>>
>> Separate matter entirely to whether it needs to be imaged or not.
>
> Who's talking about imaging?
Damian
Jul 30, 2013, 9:50:03 PM7/30/13
to
news:b5qmot...@mid.individual.net...
About backing up boot partitions?! yes I did, and, yes, imaging is
involved.
We are discussing now, whether your idea of windows(7,8) partitions require
space above 60 Gigs all the time.
I say it's not a requirement since you can 'dump' your application files and
data in a separate partition(or preferrably separate drive),
and that would keep the small boot drive(less than 60Gig) from bloating.
Therefore, it won't run out of space as it would with adding applications
over time.
If you say, that can affect the performance of certain applications, that
may be true.
I believe it's a better and safer approach.
involved.
We are discussing now, whether your idea of windows(7,8) partitions require
space above 60 Gigs all the time.
I say it's not a requirement since you can 'dump' your application files and
data in a separate partition(or preferrably separate drive),
and that would keep the small boot drive(less than 60Gig) from bloating.
Therefore, it won't run out of space as it would with adding applications
over time.
If you say, that can affect the performance of certain applications, that
may be true.
I believe it's a better and safer approach.
Rod Speed
Jul 31, 2013, 2:57:24 AM7/31/13
to
news:kt9q67$l9f$1...@dont-email.me...
That still needs to be backed up with Win7 and most use the built in imager
to do that.
> We are discussing now, whether your idea of windows(7,8) partitions
> require space above 60 Gigs all the time.
No, that bit was discussing whether the boot partition still needs to be
backup up/imaged.
> I say it's not a requirement since you can 'dump' your application files
> and data in a separate partition(or preferrably separate drive),
But even when you do that you STILL need to backup/image the boot partition.
> and that would keep the small boot drive(less than 60Gig) from bloating.
> Therefore, it won't run out of space as it would with adding applications
> over time.
> If you say, that can affect the performance of certain applications, that
> may be true.
No, I said the exact opposite, that it doesn’t significantly.
> I believe it's a better and safer approach.
It isnt.
to do that.
> We are discussing now, whether your idea of windows(7,8) partitions
> require space above 60 Gigs all the time.
backup up/imaged.
> I say it's not a requirement since you can 'dump' your application files
> and data in a separate partition(or preferrably separate drive),
> and that would keep the small boot drive(less than 60Gig) from bloating.
> Therefore, it won't run out of space as it would with adding applications
> over time.
> If you say, that can affect the performance of certain applications, that
> may be true.
> I believe it's a better and safer approach.
Damian
Jul 31, 2013, 6:25:35 AM7/31/13
to
news:b5rqs2...@mid.individual.net...
I'm not arguing with that.
>
>> and that would keep the small boot drive(less than 60Gig) from bloating.
>
>> Therefore, it won't run out of space as it would with adding applications
>> over time.
>
>> If you say, that can affect the performance of certain applications, that
>> may be true.
>
> No, I said the exact opposite, that it doesn’t significantly.
>
>> I believe it's a better and safer approach.
>
> It isnt.
Still not following you!
Are you saying saving data and applications files in a separate partition or
a drive is a timer waster in terms of data safety(in case of a
catastrophe)?!
>
>
>> and that would keep the small boot drive(less than 60Gig) from bloating.
>
>> Therefore, it won't run out of space as it would with adding applications
>> over time.
>
>> If you say, that can affect the performance of certain applications, that
>> may be true.
>
> No, I said the exact opposite, that it doesn’t significantly.
>
>> I believe it's a better and safer approach.
>
> It isnt.
Are you saying saving data and applications files in a separate partition or
a drive is a timer waster in terms of data safety(in case of a
catastrophe)?!
>
Rod Speed
Jul 31, 2013, 4:01:12 PM7/31/13
to
news:ktaobb$lsn$1...@dont-email.me...
That is clearly what I was commenting on.
>>> and that would keep the small boot drive(less than 60Gig) from bloating.
>>
>>> Therefore, it won't run out of space as it would with adding
>>> applications over time.
>>
>>> If you say, that can affect the performance of certain applications,
>>> that may be true.
>>
>> No, I said the exact opposite, that it doesn’t significantly.
>>
>>> I believe it's a better and safer approach.
>>
>> It isnt.
> Still not following you!
No surprises there.
> Are you saying saving data and applications files in a separate partition
> or a drive is a timer waster in terms of data safety(in case of a
> catastrophe)?!
I am saying that it is NOT a better and safer approach.
>>> and that would keep the small boot drive(less than 60Gig) from bloating.
>>
>>> Therefore, it won't run out of space as it would with adding
>>> applications over time.
>>
>>> If you say, that can affect the performance of certain applications,
>>> that may be true.
>>
>> No, I said the exact opposite, that it doesn’t significantly.
>>
>>> I believe it's a better and safer approach.
>>
>> It isnt.
> Still not following you!
> Are you saying saving data and applications files in a separate partition
> or a drive is a timer waster in terms of data safety(in case of a
> catastrophe)?!
Damian
Jul 31, 2013, 10:07:57 PM7/31/13
to
news:b5t8oc...@mid.individual.net...
Ok. The safer approach is to use just one large partition/disk then, right?!
>
>
Rod Speed
Aug 1, 2013, 2:52:19 AM8/1/13
to
news:ktcfhr$5kf$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that�s the whole point of them.
>>>>>>>> I wasn�t talking about perform better, its just a much simpler
>>>>>>>> config which doesn�t see the decision about the size of the C
>>>>>>>> That�s not the case.
>>>> No, I said the exact opposite, that it doesn�t significantly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And currently it's the SSD drive(if the D drive is an SSD) the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> boot drive?!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don�t believe it has an SSD at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And currently it's the SSD drive(if the D drive is an SSD) the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> boot drive?!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think he can benefit from a complete reinstall regardless of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which mechanical drive he chooses to make the boot drive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that won't make any difference to the real problem, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> size of the C drive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I would make the SSD boot drive if the 63 Gig one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to be a one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no SSD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you gota make sure, not to put any application files in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that drive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user appears to be computer not savvy. For him, I reckon
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's better the single mechanical drive(if it's 2TB) chosen as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the boot drive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That�s all there is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think he can benefit from a complete reinstall regardless of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which mechanical drive he chooses to make the boot drive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that won't make any difference to the real problem, the
>>>>>>>>>>>> size of the C drive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I would make the SSD boot drive if the 63 Gig one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to be a one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no SSD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you gota make sure, not to put any application files in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that drive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user appears to be computer not savvy. For him, I reckon
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's better the single mechanical drive(if it's 2TB) chosen as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the boot drive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> config which doesn�t see the decision about the size of the C
>>>>
>>>>> I believe it's a better and safer approach.
>>>>
>>>> It isnt.
>>
>>> Still not following you!
>>
>> No surprises there.
>>
>>> Are you saying saving data and applications files in a separate
>>> partition or a drive is a timer waster in terms of data safety(in case
>>> of a catastrophe)?!
>>
>> I am saying that it is NOT a better and safer approach.
>
> Ok. The safer approach is to use just one large partition/disk then,
> right?!
Better. There is no difference with safety.
>>>>> I believe it's a better and safer approach.
>>>>
>>>> It isnt.
>>
>>> Still not following you!
>>
>> No surprises there.
>>
>>> Are you saying saving data and applications files in a separate
>>> partition or a drive is a timer waster in terms of data safety(in case
>>> of a catastrophe)?!
>>
>> I am saying that it is NOT a better and safer approach.
>
> Ok. The safer approach is to use just one large partition/disk then,
> right?!
Damian
Aug 1, 2013, 5:05:53 AM8/1/13
to
news:b5uet9...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that�s the whole point of them.
>>>>>>>>> I wasn�t talking about perform better, its just a much simpler
>>>>>>>>> config which doesn�t see the decision about the size of the C
>>>>>>>>> That�s not the case.
>>>>> No, I said the exact opposite, that it doesn�t significantly.
Better in terms of what factors?! Performance? convenience on backup? etc?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And currently it's the SSD drive(if the D drive is an SSD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the boot drive?!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don�t believe it has an SSD at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And currently it's the SSD drive(if the D drive is an SSD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the boot drive?!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think he can benefit from a complete reinstall regardless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of which mechanical drive he chooses to make the boot drive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that won't make any difference to the real problem, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> size of the C drive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I would make the SSD boot drive if the 63 Gig one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to be a one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no SSD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you gota make sure, not to put any application files in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that drive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user appears to be computer not savvy. For him, I reckon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's better the single mechanical drive(if it's 2TB) chosen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the boot drive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That�s all there is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think he can benefit from a complete reinstall regardless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of which mechanical drive he chooses to make the boot drive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that won't make any difference to the real problem, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> size of the C drive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I would make the SSD boot drive if the 63 Gig one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happens to be a one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no SSD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you gota make sure, not to put any application files in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that drive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user appears to be computer not savvy. For him, I reckon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's better the single mechanical drive(if it's 2TB) chosen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the boot drive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> config which doesn�t see the decision about the size of the C
>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe it's a better and safer approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> It isnt.
>>>
>>>> Still not following you!
>>>
>>> No surprises there.
>>>
>>>> Are you saying saving data and applications files in a separate
>>>> partition or a drive is a timer waster in terms of data safety(in case
>>>> of a catastrophe)?!
>>>
>>> I am saying that it is NOT a better and safer approach.
>>
>> Ok. The safer approach is to use just one large partition/disk then,
>> right?!
>
> Better. There is no difference with safety. ++
>>>>>> I believe it's a better and safer approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> It isnt.
>>>
>>>> Still not following you!
>>>
>>> No surprises there.
>>>
>>>> Are you saying saving data and applications files in a separate
>>>> partition or a drive is a timer waster in terms of data safety(in case
>>>> of a catastrophe)?!
>>>
>>> I am saying that it is NOT a better and safer approach.
>>
>> Ok. The safer approach is to use just one large partition/disk then,
>> right?!
>
Better in terms of what factors?! Performance? convenience on backup? etc?
>
Rod Speed
Aug 1, 2013, 6:45:54 AM8/1/13
to
news:ktd81h$b90$1...@dont-email.me...
You don’t have to decide what size to make the boot
partition, or where to put anything, by definition it
all goes in the one partition when there is only one.
> Performance?
Nope.
> convenience on backup?
Nope.
> etc?
Nope.
partition, or where to put anything, by definition it
all goes in the one partition when there is only one.
> Performance?
Nope.
> convenience on backup?
Nope.
> etc?
Nope.
Damian
Aug 1, 2013, 8:13:07 AM8/1/13
to
news:b5usj5...@mid.individual.net...
So, what should we do for redundancy and security?!
Rod Speed
Aug 1, 2013, 5:05:28 PM8/1/13
to
0 new messages