On Nov 23, 5:49 pm, "glee" <
gle...@spamindspring.com> wrote:
> "Greegor" <
greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0e71aafb-c94e-4fe5...@g7g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> Greegor" <
greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > snip
> >> > As others have pointed out, that method of
> >> > freeing space can easily become catastrophic.
>
> >> No, not catastrophic. Removing the $NTUninstall$ folders (which is
> >> what
> >> the original post was about) only remove the ability to uninstall
> >> updates and service packs. Once a good period of time has gone by
> >> following installation of those updates and service packs, the need
> >> to
> >> have to uninstall them dwindles to nothing, and removing the
> >> uninstall
> >> files does no harm.
>
> >Are you seriously arguing that to be preferable to
> >replacing or adding hard disk space, Glen?
>
> >Microsoft and CompTIA should de-license you for that absurdity.
>
> I stated absolutely nothing of the kind.... read it again. Nowhere in
> any of my comments have I stated or implied that it was preferable.
> Your comment is absurd.
You defended the deletion of undelete files to recover space.
> >> > If you really want to pare down Windows, you
> >> > could use nLite, and slipstream it, which would
> >> > gain you a lot more space, but deleting 100K
> >> > of uninstall files from an 8 to 10 GB Windows install
> >> > is perverse, obsessive and actually counterproductive.
>
> >> Where did you come up with 100K?? The $NTUninstall$
> >> files take up in the range of 1.5GB or more.
>
> >What do you think 1.5 GB costs today, Glen? $2 worth?
> >Wow!
>
> You don't buy pieces of a hard drive, you buy the whole thing. Or are
> you privy to some new way of physically adding a few GB to an existing
> hard drive? My comments specifically were about someone who cannot
> afford to replace their working hard drive with a larger one.
I have done a fair amount of salvaging and repurposing
old or castoff computers myself, Glen.
If somebody was really that much of a charity case
then I would give them another old drive before I would
delete their uninstall files.
> >> > Do you think a "neurotypical" person would
> >> > do that rather than add more hard disk space
> >> > or replace the drive with a larger one, Glen?
>
> >> Yes, if they could not afford a new hard drive and did not want to
> >> remove certain other files. This was already mentioned. I have worked
> >> on client machines that had a small hard drive in good working order,
> >> and the client could not afford to replace the drive at this time. In
> >> such cases, every bit of extra space that can be gained can be
> >> important.
>
> >Did they make backups, Glen?
>
> Sometimes but not always.... I back up their data or show them how to do
> so to a CD or USB, depending on what they have available. Backups
> should not be done to the same drive as the one containing the data.
Obviously not if they have mission critical data that isn't
always backed up...
I stopped telling people to back up to CDROMs long ago.
Corporate or home user, most people DO NOT make
backups to CD. Hardly anybody actually does it, even
if you tell them how important it is.
External USB hard disk is more likely, but
just barely, in practice.
> >Did you get paid in chickens?
> I don't charge people who cannot afford it, and in some cases only
> charge for parts. I use a sliding scale for low-income people, get full
> price from others and from businesses.
We have at least one local charitable
organization that tunes up corporate castoff
computers and gives them to non-profits and
individuals who are genuine charity cases.
> >How much were you telling them a hard disk would cost?
> Hard drive prices are readily available through an online search....
> look them up. Surely you already know what a new hard drive costs.
Twice now when I said hard disk drive you added "new".
> >Just what SIZE of hard disk did this client have?
> >How valuable was their data to them?
>
> Varies.... anywhere from 30GB to 80 GB. Everyone's data is valuable to
> them personally.
So you thought that on a 30 to 80 GB drive it
was smart to delete Windows uninstall files?
> >Did you give them a guarantee?
> Guarantee on what? My work? Yes. That they won't need a new drive
> eventually? Obviously not. I image all my customers systems prior to
> making any major changes, and keep the image on my external drives in
> case they are needed in the future.
> >Did you get them to sign a WAIVER for doing
> >what you know to be risky substandard work, Glen?
> Neither risky nor substandard.... no waiver needed. Any hard drive can
> fail at any time. Making more space on a small drive in good working
> order is not particularly risky. Removing backups to updates and SP's
> is also not risky. I have an image of their system before I begin.
Why would you do that if you think they already have backups?
> >I would if I had to do something like that.
>
> Then those of my clients that are low-income won't
> be asking for your help.... good for them.
As I mentioned above, there is a local outfit
that refurbs corporate castoffs and gives them
to charitable outfits or people who are genuine
charity cases.
I have trouble validating charity cases.
I've seen both well off people pretending they
can't afford a new hard disk drive, and I've
seen truly bad off people who are that way
because of addiction or wierd priorities or
just got a castoff computer and want to
get me to fix it up so they can sell it to feed
their bad behavior.
> >> > Glen > As for your comment concerning backups,
> >> > Glen > there is no relationship whatsoever between
> >> > Glen > someone trying to gain disk space and
> >> > Glen > your claim that such a person doesn't do backups.
>
> >> > Somebody who would delete 100K of uninstall files
> >> > on an 8GB+ system install sure sounds to ME like
> >> > the kind who is short on space, as in too short on
> >> > space to make backups because they lack
> >> > common sense enough to replace and enlarge
> >> > their hard disk.
>
> >> What pray tell does it have to do with backups? Only a fool would
> >> create their backups on the same physical drive as the original
> >> data....
>
> >Yes, a fool or most major manufacturers. :>
>
> Yes, them too. Just because the OEMs have the restoration partition on
> the same, and usually only, hard drive as the OS doesn't mean it's a
> good idea. When the dive fails, the restoration partition is gone.
> That's why most OEMs include an imaging app and usually suggest the user
> make restore discs when they get the new machine.
I agree with most of this except you should know that
there are lots of people who need to reinstall windows
MANY times before their hard disk DIES.
Of course a detached clone backup is necessary.
A dead drive or bad virus infection necessitate that.
But a cloned system partition can solve
most messed up windows installs and
MUCH quicker and easier than rebuilding
the system from a detached hard drive.
> >I agree with your trite simplistic comment, but
> >In actual practice, backup partitiions,
> >especially CLONED system partitions solve
> >about 90% of all problems with messed up Windows.
> I almost never have to use an image backup unless the drive has
> physically failed and I need to clone from an image to a new drive. I
> and many of the techs I know can fix most problems with Windows without
> having to use an image restoration, or even System Restore. I always
> have images available, but if you know what you are doing you don't
> often need them.
How do you fix a garbaged up registry, Glen?
> >The importance of an off drive image would be
> >Crucial for the INEVITABLE other 10% of the
> >time when more drastic measures are needed.
> >(And what do you know, I didn't overlook that fact
> >in my other post you cited, Glen! Why did you
> >pretend that I did overlook that?)
>
> >> which I see from another of your posts today in this group (re: Best
> >> Restore Method) is what you foolishly do, by suggesting to create
> >> your
> >> system image on the same physical drive as your OS and data.
>
> >Yes, as preferable to the hidden OEM restore partition.
>
> >I distinctly remembered suggesting cloning
> >to other drives. Did you miss this part, Glen?
>
> No, I didn't... you added that "if possible" you would *also* make a
> backup to an external drive.... your primary comment was about cloning
> to another partition on the same drive as the OS and data. That is what
> I clearly referred to. I'm beginning to think you have a reading
> comprehension problem, but perhaps English is not your first language
> and you missed some of this... if that's the case, I will try to be more
> clear if I can.
Well at least you're not accusing me of having
those savant superpowers! :)
> >G > Aspies typically lack common sense, among other things.
> >> Now you are just showing your ignorance. People with Asperger's
> >> Syndrome have repetitive behaviors, lack of empathy, difficulty with
> >> social interaction....
> >Why sugar coat it, Glen, they're sociopaths by definition.
> >They're not all happy and positive like TV's "Sheldon Cooper" either!
> Sociopaths, eh? You are really showing your ignorance of the subject
> now. Have you worked with people with Asperger's?
I've come to believe that half the users on usenet are Aspies!
The very culture of usenet shows some signs of
having been formed by the Aspies population on usenet.
> >> but it has nothing to do with "lack of common
> >> sense". "Aspies" are more often than not very intelligent and have no
> >> "common sense" issues.
> >Aspies are called IDIOT/SAVANTS for a reason, Glen.
> Except they are not. A savant (autistic savant, or idiot savant as you
> put it) is distinct from a person with Asperger's. Although they both
> fall into the autistic spectrum of disorders, only about 10% of people
> with Asperger's are savants. People with Asperger's often have "above
> average IQ, unusual interest and capability in natural sciences, complex
> calculations, computer programming or other areas of expertise which can
> be extensive and expansive; marked genetic roots with strong family
> histories of similar or related traits; early, rather than delayed,
> language and word recognition skills; poor motor coordination; and a
> generally higher level of social functioning than seen in Autistic
> persons but still with unusual, peculiar and naive social interactions."
> **
>
> **
http://www.autismtoday.com/articles/savant_faq.asp?name=Darold%20Tref...
>
> "Naive social interactions" does not equal "sociopath".
You cited an ADVOCACY group, Glen, not a textbook.
I know a bit about the "dark side" of Aspies that advocates
would like to minimize.
As I said, they are NOT all like TV's "Sheldon Cooper".