The lettering is undesirable, better to have C for the OS.
Fraid not, hardly ever in fact.
I misread. I thought he meant C: for Windows & apps.
And its quite hard to predict that, particularly how that will change
over time. And risky to change it later without a full image backup.
Nah. We're talking ballpark figures here. Also the massive games &
CD/DVD reference titles & such probably don't belong on C: and in the
System images anyway. Too cumbersome. All those big maps,
screenshots, etc could also bee seen as "user data." That contains
things very often to under 10 gigs. But he has access to a computer
now - so that's all he needs to estimate & then tack some extra space
on there for good measure. If he outgrows it in a year or two, big
woop. Easily fixed. The old images would still be good.
Complete waste of time. And risky too because that config
will never be as comprehensively debugged and so can bite.
That's rubbish. I'm talking about everything the user creates or
downloads as well as a script or .reg or whatever can accomplish what
he tweaked. I'm not talking about everything in the "C:\Documents and
Settings\User\" including "Application Data," "Local Settings" & the
like. Simple folder direction is like 90% of it.
You cant do that if the OS and apps are in separate partitions.
Well I'm not recommending that - but you're wrong anyway. The system
image just has to be in step with the installations & only in certain
occurrence the updates also. It's more clunkey when you install apps
to a different partition, & then restore only the OS, but still very
doable.
Sure if things are pretty static with all 100% trusted apps. But I
doubt that is a case with someone asking about RAID0 and partitioning.
It's helpful elsewhere as well.
Mindless stuff. The real problem is that a complex system like
Win can make changes without you be aware of those changes.
Right. Hence the history for troubleshooting & backtracking.
And the system keeps track of how you use the system.
No. For best results the images should be clean & without use - soley
the result of installation & configuration. It's often worth the time
to rollback to create a new, current, authoritative config. It seems
like a waste but it's really a time investment that pays off when you
end up bypassing many other issues & troubleshooting sessions
entirely.
In practice I don't usually do it exactly this way anymore. I'm a big
fan or repackaging apps for automated distribution. Often there is a
core image of OS & drivers. (This can provide a faster restore than
RIS, etc.) Then everything gets installed & updated on bootup. Still
a compromise. & yes there's still a paper trail - but not the
tremendous manual task you're imagining.
Now I don't think he should attempt to undertake this now. But if
he's experimenting and pusing the limits of the machine and/or his
knowledge he needs to be diciplined in what he does lest when things
go wrong its overwheling or subject to "superstition" rather than
accurate analysis & repair.
Pity that just saving the OS partition wont do that, you have to
save the D partition too to be able to do that, and so they might
as well be in same partition so you cant forget to save them both.
Not if you install everything in C: like I'm proposing. Also not if
what's installed to D: didn't go through an update that affected both.
That just complicated things for simple
users and isnt likely to be done reliably.
It's not complicated if the system is well organized and the file
backup is automatic or you set reminders to do a predefined job and
the image procedure comes whenever you sit down to configure.
Simple users aren't likely to do anything reliably. It's their
problem if they cannot fully utilize their system or failsafes.
But really these two approaches involve different compromises and
emphasize different strengths. One is easier on the onset, the other
involves a little more planning but is safer and is quicker to recover
& acknowledges & plans for the reality of how problems arise in the
real world as well as how lifecycle & upgrades work.
You dont necessarily need to backup ALL the data.
If you don't have a lot of disposable time you need to back up
ANYTHING that would take time to replace. Not just the stuff you'd
"slash your wrists" if you lost. But look who I'm talking to. The
guy with all the time in the world.
And it can be a lot simpler to just put full images there.
Makes more sense to reserve a later
letter for that with that many partitions.
Perhaps. It's personal preference.
I like
A: 1st Floppy
C: 1st HDD
E: 1st optical
Because that's the way it was years ago and the letters make a musical
triad.
Lately I find myself often making R: 1st recordable drive, V: 1st
virtual cdrom, etc. So even I'm moving away from that myself. But
it's only the basic idea of establishing personal conventions I'm
selling to him.
Some of us dont bother with the letters anymore for that.
Maybe I was unclear. I don't mean he should further partition for
organizational purposes. But when you mount the volume you have to
calll it something. Sometimes there's value in using a letter other
than what's next and leaving it labeled "New Volume." It's a minor
point, though, that probably doesn't warrant all this discussion.
Complete waste of time with modern systems.
Rubbish
The world's moved on.
to what exactly? So I guess load balancing for networks is obsolete
as well?
Hardly ever with modern systems.
Rubbish. All the time with common disk intensive tasks i.e.
archiving, archive testing, slipstreaming, mainting virtual disks,
repackaging, usenet warzing, etc.etc.etc
There is no table.
cute.
No thanks. Most of them flout the drive standards and even
when they dont they are too hard to cool reliably and quietly.
It's doable but barely minimalistic. It's not what I use for personal
use either.
Tell us Rod, if "Tape has passed its useby date" how do you handle
these backup HDDs.? I mean I know you copy stuff to other computers
on your home LAN but how to you take copies offline for safekeeping?
Not necessarily for the OS/apps partition tho
with modern OS that support restore points.
Has nothing to do with media rotation & doesn't fully address the
needs of a robust backup scheme. Frankly I wouldn't trust my data to
SR. Much too limiting & minimalistic.
Bullshit. Organization, backup systems, media rotation, load
balancing & general planning are concepts that are separate from
specific storage interface, spindle speed, etc. They are only
connected when the planning includes tiered storage, but even then the
principles are the same regardeless of specific products.
They arent necessarily practical with some.
There are no hard & fast rules here. Only basic principles &
alternate solutions for him to reflect on and decide what works for
him.
Yours arent evolving with the OS capabilitys.
Rubbish. It's true though I still have limited faith in overly
complex OS's with insufficently protected design, that have not yet
evolved enough. They are still too vulnerable to too much which too
easily compromises their "capabilities". I never said he shouldn't
use SR - or that I never so. But, since you bring it up, it is overly
limiting & foolhardy to have a primary reliance on IMHO.
