Re: Drive Names
- From: "Pop`" <nodoby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:17:41 -0400
Galen wrote:
In news:OUOscxu7GHA.4064@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Pop` had this to say:
My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
I did not make the above statement about the "end" of the sent message.
Something's wrong with the way you quoted.
Galen wrote:
In news:A1F2A7FD-10F3-4AE2-A113-AE4E9B312557@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
edlewusa had this to say:
My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
I just installed XP on a new hard drive. The hard drive is named
E, the floppy is A, the DVD/CD is D and a zip 100 is C.
Should I be concerned that the hard drive is E? Is it worth
changing it to C?
I wouldn't worry about it and changing it can have some rather
unruly consequences when done improperly and can be quite
complicated.
If he has literally "just" installed it, and hasn't installed any
further software, then no, that's not true. And it's not complex to
do. Administrative Tools, Disk Management will handle it rather well
and cleanly.
For consistancy for future maintenance, etc, the boot drive should be
set back to C using Disk Management or, as another indicated, maybe
reinstalling. Personally I'd use Disk Management.
Pop`
I never make the mistake of assuming that "just installed" means they
haven't installed anything else.
You also made zero effort to see what it meant, nor even accounted for the
variations of what it could mean. I did. You alse made the comment that it
could be "quite complicated" which may or may not be true. Very few people
IME have ever found it "complicated"; in fact, it's pretty straight forward.
It can be very complicated - even
with very little additional software. Having "been there, seen that,
and done that" so to speak on numerous occasions I stand by my
recommendation to leave it as is.
There's nothing technically wrong with leaving it as it is, which I
explained already. In the future however, then the complexity you referred
to could become the case, because of the mixup. The "install" may go to C,
but since X is the system drive, parts of it may end up on X, unbeknownst to
the user, and that's only one of many of the future possibilities I see it
creating. There's techincally and there's the real world and real people
involved, not just you.
Not only that but, in my opinion,
any program worth installing will certainly use %ProgramFiles% to
properly locate the installation point and will follow such standards
properly.
Yes, that's true. But how do you know it's true of the OP's applications,
or any future application? What you consider "worth installing" isn't every
or even necessarily any one else's opinion. A relatively inexperienced user
(in these areas) should not be treated as though they have the same opinions
and experiences that you do. You only cheat those you try to assist with
that kind of attitude. Think "ymmv" and "tinw".
Failure to adhere to such simplistic standards on the part
of the coding team would tell me, without a doubt, to expect shoddy
coding the rest of the way through.
Again, what YOU expect and what others expect aren't necessarily related in
any way.
And, again, that's YOUR expectation, and maybe true in general, but it's not
true in anything like all or even most instances. Even some of today's
available installer applications used by many companies don't use the "%xx%"
path; and many other programs don't pay attention to it either, because they
check to see what os they are on, and assemble the full path thusly. Many
don't even do if/then's or cases, etc., to be certain the path even exists,
but just go ahead and create it if it's not there.
I have some EXCELLENT apps I use which don't use root paths. They're
blazingly fast for an XP gui app, accurate, and expertly coded, a few of
them done in actual assembly language without the use of a higher level
language/compiler. Your experience almost sounds like it's a combo of just
MS and some unknown site's freebie downloads.
As for the console snap in diskmgmt.msc I'd barely recommend it for
any task greater than formatting an empty partition or setting the
drive letter on a slaved drive's partition. There are various
migration tools that purport to work, of those choices I've had the
most infuriating time with Symantec products foisted down on us by
ignorant management who probably got either a kickback or sadistic
joy at watching us work with said tools.
Aha, now we know where you're coming from. Sour grapes. You couldn't get
Norton's stuff to work, so it had to be the fault of those apps. Rather
than figure out WHY it didn't work, you relied on others, took it as bible,
and thus decided your superiors were dummies because they wouldn't accept
your excuses. I've known many like you, actually, if that's accurate.
The XP tool I was referring to is found at Start; Programs;
Administrative Tools, Computer Management, and Disk Management, the very
same location where you find the Event Viewer and probably a host of other
useful and perfectly accurate tools supplied with XP but of which you know
nothing. I think you are the one I've mused before about having to use
x.msc for everything instead of knowing the os well enough to know the logic
of its location, let alone get to it. Plus that makes it look like you know
some great windows "secret" that no one else knows, instead of mentioning
where it's really at, and then saying "here's another way to get to it".
Maybe, in stead of giving erroneous/vague advice and offering your opinions
and experiences as the only way to do/use/have anything, you should learn a
little more about Windows in general and system maintenance in particular.
Pop`
.
- References:
- Re: Drive Names
- From: Pop`
- Re: Drive Names
- Prev by Date: Re: Drive Names
- Next by Date: Re: Drive Names
- Previous by thread: Re: Drive Names
- Next by thread: Re: Drive Names
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
