Partitioning a 2tb hd for Windows 7 64 bit

[Ken Blake]

True. But some people seem to assume that just _because_ you have
partitions, you _are_ relying on them for data protection, which does
not follow.

Yes, that's exactly my point! What you said was "I always partition a
drive with a few dozen Gig for the system drive, and the rest for
data. It makes life a lot less risky when Windows suffers a brainfart
and dies. Your data is still safe. If you don't partition the drive,
when Windows barfs, your data, which is on the same drive, will
normally be deleted when you restore windows unless you're
very careful.

That suggests that having a separate partition for data is adequate
protection. My point is that it is *not* adequate protection, and that
therefore it is *not* a good reason for having a second partition for
data.

For most people, yes, since at least some data is irreplaceable.
However, for some, having a quickly-restorable working system is also
pretty important.

No argument from me about its importance (as I said, "although that's
good to do"). But your statement "And always have a backup somewhere
else, with an image of the working OS as installed on it" suggests
that that's what is *most* important, and that's what I disagree with,
strongly.

 

[Rod Speed]

No kidding. There's no such thing as enough space or never running out.

That's not so true now of non PVR laptops. Plenty don't fill those now.

My Win 7 media server has two volumes: C: is 75GB and D:
is 27.2TB, (80GB and 30TB unformatted), and it's a struggle
to keep some free space available on D:.

Yeah, I keep buying 2TB drives for mine, but that's mainly because
whenever I have a look at cleaning up the stuff I will never get around
to watching, I look at the price of another 2TB drive and just buy another.

On my Win 7 desktop, C: is 465GB and D: is 13TB, (500GB
and 15TB unformatted), and I'm down to about 2TB free.

I keep an eye on the price of 2TB drives since the floods
and buy another when the free gets below about 1TB.

 

[Rod Speed]

Tell me more about this swap file being used at boot time thing.

Win basically writes stuff to the swap file at boot time that it
decides that will likely be used once the system has fully booted,
basically because its quicker to get it from the swap file than to
get it from the normal system files with stuff like dlls and exes.

What special happens at boot time that necessitates the swap file?

Its not necessitates so much as is likely to be desirable to
make the system more responsive when its fully booted.

 

[Rod Speed]

Definitely, a small C: drive with the system and programs is the way to
go.

Not necessarily, particularly for the simpler users.

It's a non trivial exercise to keep the bulk of the data files
out of that even with Win7 for even quite competent users.

It's on the fastest part of the disk,

Yes, but that's a pretty minor consideration with modern drives.

and "short stroked".

That's not what the term means. It means a drive is
artificially restricted to a smaller size than it actually is.

And this is a big one for me: you can image it separately from all the
data, and restore it without back-dating your data.

You can do that with any decent backup app without it having its own
partition.

Also, you can do thinks like having My Documents on the data partition,
and in such a program as Thunderbird Mail, you can have the "profile"
folder with the settings and e-mail store in it, on the data partition.

But that isnt that trivial to organise for simpler users.

I like to put a smallish partition right after C: for heavily used data,
so the heads will be short-stroking

Again, you are mangling the use of that term...

and not have to reach deep into the disk.

That's a very minor consideration with modern fast seeking hard drives.

Then, the next one after that, would be a large multimedia partition, and
I put one for partition images at the end.

Its mad to keep the images on the drive that's got the
partitions being imaged on it.

I actually use the portable versions of several programs
(portableapps.com), so that they are totally independent from C:; I do
restore C: whenever it crashes, to keep it pristine.

Not really feasible if you configure the OS or apps much.

One kink in that is that portable firefox and portable thunderbird have to
both be running if you're going to call one from the other, or there are
issues.

If you use Boot It Bare Metal as your partition manager, imager, and boot
manager, you can have more than 4 partitions. You can only have 4 in any
one boot menu item, of course. That's why to make the data partitions
volumes in an extended partition.

All those data partitions are volumes in an extended partition.

 

[David Simpson]

What is the best way to partition a 2tb hard drive for Windows 7 64
bit? I am thinking of a small "C" drive for Windows and programs
and a big "D" for all my data. Another possibility is a small "C"
drive for Windows. A medium sized "D" for my programs and a big "E"
for all my data.

If you are not going to backup your system, just make it one big one
partition.

I would never do the 3 partition system. Just gets in the way down the
road. (been there, done that - data needs more room, or system, or the
program area, you just can't win AND a lot of programs are tied to the
system disk)

If you are going to do regular backups, this is how I would set things
up:

1. 60-120GB SSD - "System".
2. 2TB HD for - "Data".

or if you just can't afford a SSD or have a laptop with only 1 drive:

1. ~100G partition - "System". (system, programs)
2. Rest of disk - "Data". (pic, music, movies, etc. DATA!)

Why. There are tons of free tools that make "metal" copies of
partitions. Use these on the system Disk/partition, and if it dies, you
can grab any SSD/HD, and get back running in no time. Also, doing a
small system partition, makes the time for a backup shorter, and that
makes it more likely to happen. ;-)

You NEVER need to use a "metal" backup for your data, as you can use
anything to back it up. You can even back up your system disk to the
"data" disk, and then that backup is just another data file, that again,
can be copy by anything!!! (By anything, you can even use file manager
to copy folders!!!)
BUT NEVER USE THE SAME PHYSICAL DISK FOR THE MAIN BACKUP DEVICE!

With 7, you can just use the add folder from the HD to your "Libraries".
You can even set them to the default save directory!!!

Then get yourself a large USB drive, or if there is a files server in the
house, use it, and backup to them on a regular schedule. (I then backup
the truely irreplaceable stuff off site, but then I have access to a
personal off site server)

BTW I do put a few items on the "data" partition. MMOs (games) are on
the data disk, but I never back up the "games", just a few small files.
Why, because I can just download the game again, anytime, and all data is
on their server (except a few small files). (that will take a ton of
time on a few of the games, but saves me about 45GB of backup space)

Backup examples:
~size ~time(minutes)
System disk backup 20GB 11
Data (daily) 1275GB 20

The reason for the short time for data, is the "data" backup program I
use, only backs up "new" "data". I do a system backup manualy, once a
month, and the "data" daily. I'd have to do it more, if there was any
truely imporant data on it.

Hope this helps you, and anyone in the future.....



--
_______________________________________________
/ David Simpson \
| (e-mail address removed) |
| http://www.nyx.net/~dsimpson |
|We got to go to the crappy town where I'm a hero.|
\_______________________________________________/

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

I do it my way because when (About once a year on average), not if,
Windows barfs big style,

I don't get anything like that.

It's usually something that can't be cured by restoring last week's image.

Corse it can.

I install Windows, do all the updates, check it's working as expected,
*then* record the clean Windows image.

I don't keep just one image of the OS and apps partition.

I do have an image of just the OS before any apps have
been installed, but hardly ever need to use that image,
only if a very badly behaved app mangles the OS install
completely when you don't install the app correctly and
that's hardly ever seen, and only seen once because I
document that app's behaviour.

Then, when I need to restore it, I can install the programs one at a time,
omitting the ones that I no longer use, after updating the old image to
the current state of Windows as it should be.

I don't do that often enough to need to do anything special.

I have 2 Gig of RAM on this netbook,

Yeah, that's much too little.

and even though Windows 7 very rarely uses more than a Gig of that, it
seems to run more smoothly with a swapfile enabled.

Yes, but the speed at which it uses it doesn't warrant
the very substantial cost of a much faster drive for it.

You're a lot better off spending much less on more physical ram instead.

It takes more or less the same time to boot, either way. <Shrug>

Sure, but I was commenting on your proposal to have a much
faster drive for the swap file. That almost never makes any sense.
If the swap file is used much, you need more physical ram instead.

The only real exception is when the motherboard cant
take anymore physical ram and so the cost of replacing
the motherboard, ram and cpu is substantial, or when
you cant use the 64bit version of the OS because one
of the apps or drivers isnt available or viable in 64bit form.

You've obviously never had a computer stolen or fail unexpectedly, then.

I've had both, and more than once in both cases too.

I have, which is why the laptop is the backup for the home PC and vice
versa.

I wasn't talking about backups. I was talking about images of the OS
partition.

If the system is stolen, you can always just do another clean
install of the OS if you have to and then restore the data backup.

Same with a system that fails unexpectedly.

It takes a few minutes each time they see each other on the network to
synchronise all the data files,

Again, that's data backup, not the image of the OS partition being
discussed.

and they have almost the same set of software installed.

My desktops and laptops generally don't.

I do save the backups of particular systems to
other desktops and laptops, and that's a better
approach than synching the data, particularly
when you do something stupid and change
some of the data inappropriately and want to
reverse that change etc.

Then there's the USB HD which gets connected and synchronised once a week
or so, or whenever I remember.

Some of us automate the backup so you don't have to remember.

So far, I've not accidentally lost a byte of data since about 1984.

I havent accidently lost a single byte of data since the
early 60s and that's over a much bigger collection of
machines than you have ever had anything to do with.

 

[Rod Speed]

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote

I just have one partition nowadays. And 8 GB ram on a Win 7 x64 system.
Swap file has been set to the same as the RAM, but it never gets used (I
monitor it). The 4 GB extra memory over my base system cost me something
like $40. Also I replaced the 720 RPM HDD with an SSD. Sure lots more
expensive per GB, but it simply flies like a rocket. I have a 64 GB
SanDisk USB backup stick plugged in all the time backing up my daily data.
Once a week or so I image the whole dataset to a USB3 External HDD using
AllwaySync which easliy lets me set up different data locations and allows
me to back up data from different places with one click (the Sync All
button). And once a month or so I clone the SSD to an external USB3 disk
which I can use to re-create my system any time in no time flat. I have an
older copy of the clone drive just in case I screw up when making a new
clone, and every now and then I do a duplicate of my full data backup too.
These duplicate clones and backup disks are kept in separate buildings 99%
of the time in case of theft or house fire. And for good measure, all my
family photos are on Skydrive in the cloud.

Think I'm reasonably safe. And with the RAM and SSD, the PC is just so
very very fast (and will never get a head crash with vibration & shock).

But can have a problem with a mains failure that you wont see with a hard
drive.

 

[GreyCloud]

I also back up everything to an external hard drive and two internal
hard drives. I've haven't lost anything since 1997.

Just as long as you haven't done an upgrade on line of course. There is
one that has that problem... Ubuntu.

Maybe this is of interest to you:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/d...-on-dimm-street/638?tag=content;siu-container

Hopefully this url isn't munged up too bad.

But the article is rather clear about using non ECC memory.
You can blame Intel on this problem, as they have yet to really address
this problem properly and at a low cost for the consumer.
A lot of people don't know about this and aren't even aware of it.

 

[David Simpson]

Not necessarily, particularly for the simpler users.

True, if they have no support at all. Glad we aren't in a news group
where you could just type a message and then someone else could reply.
;-)

I'd say anyone that can ask the right question in the right area, can
handle it. About the only thing that would be hard, is the size you'd
make the "system", and that was what was ask.

It's a non trivial exercise to keep the bulk of the data files
out of that even with Win7 for even quite competent users.

It's very easy under Windows 7. Almost no data is stored anywhere but
the "user" folder. My entire "User" folder is not even on my "System"
drive. I would not recommend doing what I've done to the average Joe,
but it was not "hard". I would consider myself just average, or these
days, a little below. (Silly, new fangled OS! If TTY was good enough for
dad, why would I need anything else!)

Yes, but that's a pretty minor consideration with modern drives.

It's the only reason SSDs are faster that HDs. I'd call that a major.
On a single track, most HDs can match a SSD in data output, it's when
they change tracks that they truely loose the race.

That's not what the term means. It means a drive is
artificially restricted to a smaller size than it actually is.

Very true.

You can do that with any decent backup app without it having its own
partition.

You know of a free one that's a "non trivial exercise"? Even my paid
one, only a computer "geek" would know what folders NOT to select to do a
real system backup, but not get the data. No you can't just exclude the
"user" folder (system would not boot!).

But that isnt that trivial to organise for simpler users.

True about Thunderbird, but that's because it has 2 sets of data, and one
is suppose to always be in the "user" area. A document or a picture
folder is very easy to setup in Windows 7, using the "library". You can
even set it as the default "save" location, and all your docs would go
there.

Again, you are mangling the use of that term...

Agree, again.

Its mad to keep the images on the drive that's got the
partitions being imaged on it.

Sure is, except as a tempory location for a "data" backup elsewhere!!!
Most likely failure is Power supply, then HD, then everything else, on a
desktop. Laptop ... I'm not going there!

Not really feasible if you configure the OS or apps much.

Then you've never used portableapps. They have their own "data" area in
the portable folder. Just like a full blown system, but no data is added
to the system. True, there are some limits, like you can not use file
"opens with", but if you do the "open" inside the program, it works just
like any other program. I'd NEVER use it for MY system, but it's still
very user friendly for "visiting" someone elses system when you don't
have install rights. Friend uses it ALL the time at work.


--
_______________________________________________
/ David Simpson \
| (e-mail address removed) |
| http://www.nyx.net/~dsimpson |
|We got to go to the crappy town where I'm a hero.|
\_______________________________________________/

 

[Rod Speed]

True, if they have no support at all. Glad we aren't in a news group
where
you could just type a message and then someone else could reply. ;-)

But even in that situation, you can make a case that those users
are better off with everything in a single partition, essentially
because they don’t have to ask about how to do that config.

I'd say anyone that can ask the right question in the right area,
can handle it.

Doesn’t mean that they will be able to recognise a correct
answer to their question, and can do what they are told
needs to be done, and can handle the situation where it
doesn’t go as described, particularly if it’s the only system
they have, so they don’t have any way to ask about how to
get out of the mess they are in if it all goes pear shaped etc
and the system is unusable until fixed etc.

About the only thing that would be
hard, is the size you'd make the "system",

That’s not right. Its also hard to recognise what
is the correct answer for them, and hard to do
what needs to be done correctly too.

and that was what was ask.

And even harder to identify the correct answer
on that, particularly when he never said much
about how the system will be used apps wise etc.

It's very easy under Windows 7.

Nope, not to move the My Documents folder alone, let alone
the other folders like Downloads and the mail folders.

Almost no data is stored anywhere but the "user" folder.

But it isnt a trivial exercise to move that and have
everything completely transparently keep all data
out of the OS and apps partition in the future.

And quite a bit of data isnt in the users folder anyway, most
obviously with Temporary Internet Files, Temp etc etc etc.

My entire "User" folder is not even on my "System" drive.

Sure, but it isnt a trivial exercise for the sort of simple user
that has to ask about whether to partition their hard drive
to do that, and no one actually suggested he do that anyway.

I would not recommend doing what I've done to the average Joe,

And that’s just as true of having a separate OS and apps partition
with no data in it.

but it was not "hard".

It is for the sort of simple user that has to ask about
whether to partition their hard drive to do that.

I would consider myself just average,

You arent anything like that, whatever you consider yourself to be.

or these days, a little below.

Even sillier.

(Silly, new fangled OS! If TTY was good enough
for dad, why would I need anything else!)

It's the only reason SSDs are faster that HDs.
Wrong.

I'd call that a major.

More fool you.

On a single track, most HDs can match a SSD in data output,

But not for reads.

it's when they change tracks that they truely loose the race.

That’s just plain wrong.

Very true.

You know of a free one that's a "non trivial exercise"?

Yep, for the sort of simple user that has to ask about
whether to partition their hard drive to do that.

Even my paid one, only a computer "geek" would know what folders
NOT to select to do a real system backup, but not get the data. No
you can't just exclude the "user" folder (system would not boot!).

That’s not right. The users folder would still be what it was before
the restore and so it would still boot fine after the restore.

True about Thunderbird, but that's because it has 2 sets of
data, and one is suppose to always be in the "user" area.

A document or a picture folder is very easy
to setup in Windows 7, using the "library".

But the sort of simple user that has to ask about whether
to partition their hard drive to do that doesn’t know that.

You can even set it as the default "save"
location, and all your docs would go there.

But that doesn’t necessarily determine where all the apps put the data.

Agree, again.

Sure is, except as a tempory location for a "data" backup elsewhere!!!
Most likely failure is Power supply, then HD, then everything else, on a
desktop.

Not necessarily with some OSs.

And most desktop power supply failures don’t risk
your data, so the hard drive should be first on the list.

Laptop ... I'm not going there!

Its hardly ever the power supply with those. A power
supply failure doesn’t normally risk your data with those.

Theft is much more likely to be the reason to need the backup.

Then you've never used portableapps.

Doesn’t help with the OS config.

They have their own "data" area in the portable folder.
Just like a full blown system, but no data is added o the
system. True, there are some limits, like you can not use
file "opens with",

Which is why I don’t use it. I use that almost exclusively.

but if you do the "open" inside the program,

No thanks, much too clumsy.

it works just like any other program. I'd NEVER use it for MY system,

Me neither.

but it's still very user friendly for "visiting" someone
elses system when you don't have install rights.

I don’t ever want to do that.

Friend uses it ALL the time at work.

I don’t.

 

[John Williamson]

Yes, that's exactly my point! What you said was "I always partition a
drive with a few dozen Gig for the system drive, and the rest for
data. It makes life a lot less risky when Windows suffers a brainfart
and dies. Your data is still safe. If you don't partition the drive,
when Windows barfs, your data, which is on the same drive, will
normally be deleted when you restore windows unless you're
very careful.

That suggests that having a separate partition for data is adequate
protection. My point is that it is *not* adequate protection, and that
therefore it is *not* a good reason for having a second partition for
data.

It might suggest that it is an adequate backup to you, it doesn't to me,
which is why I also recommended backups on other devices (Note the
plurals). The separation of data and programs is only for convenience
when restoring a corrupt Windows installation. Backups are a whole
different subject.

 

[John Williamson]

Rod Speed wrote:

<Snip rubbish>

http://tinyurl.com/883xp7v

It seems things don't change.

 

[Rod Speed]

John Williamson <[email protected]>
desperately attempted to bullshit its way out of its
predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

 

[dweebken]

But can have a problem with a mains failure that you wont see with a
hard drive.

Not really. My laptop keeps going on battery for hours after a mains
failure, and everything else is on a UPS that's good for about 90 mins.
Home type UPSs aren't so expensive these days.

 

[Mike Tomlinson]

En el artículo <[email protected]>, Rod Speed
<[email protected]> escribió:

[snip boilerplate - woddles has it programmed into a macro and trots it
out when he's losing the argument]

Rod Speed FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/883xp7v

 

[David Simpson]

But even in that situation, you can make a case that those users
are better off with everything in a single partition, essentially
because they don’t have to ask about how to do that config.

If they know what a partition is, thay can do any of my suggestions.

And, not if they are going to backup anything large. The system and
programs are not "Large", but rather small. It's all the data people
collect these days that is "Large".

Example: My system backed up is about 20GB. (this includes the "user"
directory) I have over 1300GB of other "data" on my computer. This is
VERY small compared to others I know.

Doesn’t mean that they will be able to recognise a correct
answer to their question, and can do what they are told
needs to be done, and can handle the situation where it
doesn’t go as described, particularly if it’s the only system
they have, so they don’t have any way to ask about how to
get out of the mess they are in if it all goes pear shaped etc
and the system is unusable until fixed etc.

There isn't a "correct" answer. Any will "work"!

Or are you saying that moving your data will not allow a system restore?

That’s not right. Its also hard to recognise what
is the correct answer for them, and hard to do
what needs to be done correctly too.

In what way. If they can find the place to ask, they aren't stupid.

NONE of the things I suggested are "HARD", every single thing I've
suggested for others (not what I've done myself), can be done right from
the desktop, or during setup.

Nope, not to move the My Documents folder alone, let alone
the other folders like Downloads and the mail folders.

What is hard about moving the "Documents" folder? I guess I don't know
computers well enought to understand the hard part of it.

BTW, I'm beginning to wonder if you even use 7, as there is no "My
Documents" anymore!

But it isnt a trivial exercise to move that and have
everything completely transparently keep all data
out of the OS and apps partition in the future.

But moving the "Documents" data is! You should not move the "user"
folder at all, on a "normal" system, as too many setting that are needed
to boot are storied there!

And quite a bit of data isnt in the users folder anyway, most
obviously with Temporary Internet Files, Temp etc etc etc.

Part of the items you've listed ARE stored in the "user" folder! Do you
know anything about Windows 7 at all??? (only one of the "temp" folders
isn't, and it doesn't need to be backuped up)

Sure, but it isnt a trivial exercise for the sort of simple user
that has to ask about whether to partition their hard drive
to do that, and no one actually suggested he do that anyway.

Which is why I said what I said below. YOU cut that message in 1/2. I
just said it wasn't that hard to do. And yes, I even know what it means
if I ever have to restore my system.

And that’s just as true of having a separate OS and apps partition
with no data in it.

I never said "no data"!!! I said data like music, pics, and video.
Moving the ones I listed is about 10 mouse clicks. Nothing else adds up
to much. A good example is:
Last time I looked, my Firefox folder was the largest folder in the
"user" folder, and thatsbecause the bookmarks are so large, and it keeps
5 backups of those". One movie is easly 100 times that size. Heck, even
1 high rez picture could be that large!

It is for the sort of simple user that has to ask about
whether to partition their hard drive to do that.

You keep saying that, but I don't see it. Now if he'd ask "What is a
partition", I'd say just click the defaults, that option is for "geeks".

You arent anything like that, whatever you consider yourself to be.
Even sillier.

Nope, I'm always asking questions. I learn something new about computers
almost daily. That's what a real expert does, not mouth off with 10 year
old "facts".

Wrong.

Do the numbers, then get back with me. There are HDs on the market right
now that can do sustained reads (single HUGE file) at 250Gbps. That's
with track changes. On one track, it would be even faster, but then the
drive's buffer gets in the way, making it almost impossable to test.

More fool you.

But not for reads.

Sure can. If the head is already over the track, and all the data is on
one track. Max time is 1/7200 (7200 rpm) of a second. You can store a
lot of data on one track these days! Again, do the math.

That’s just plain wrong.

Again, do the math. On a "fast" HD, track to track time is measured in
milliseconds, on a "good" drive about 5-9. That 5/100 of a second,
comparied to track time under the head of 1/7200 of a second. Very close
to two orders of magnitude, and on a 10K RPM drive, it is!

Yep, for the sort of simple user that has to ask about
whether to partition their hard drive to do that.

Could you name it?

That’s not right. The users folder would still be what it was before
the restore and so it would still boot fine after the restore.

You said it was "trivial" to excluse you "data" from a system backup. I
said it wasn't.

But the sort of simple user that has to ask about whether
to partition their hard drive to do that doesn’t know that.

If he ask what a partition was, I would not suggest what I suggested, but
since he knew ask if, in the right place, he should be able to right
click on a folder, and select add to library. QED.

But that doesn’t necessarily determine where all the apps put the
data.

Again, Under 7, almost all data is in the user directory. ALL new
programs, and most old XP ones store their settings there. Also the
default for the "Documents" folder is there. The amount of data stored
elsewhere is, lets see, how do you put it, oh yes, "trivial".

Again, I'm not saying to move the "user" folder, I'm saying to move the
pictures, music and videos. You do know that one HD video is larger that
most peoples system and program area added together?

(I did it for a reason that has nothing to do with this thread, but the
way the first gen SSDs worked.)

And most desktop power supply failures don’t risk
your data, so the hard drive should be first on the list.

Wow, you are out of the loop. Most HD failures are because of bad/cheap
power supplies. And my list was just failures, showing that HDs were
number 2, and more likely that a OS failure, which is why you should
backup your data, and on some systems it's MUCH better to partition to
control that, and on Windows 7, having data somewhere other than the
system partition IS "trivial".

Its hardly ever the power supply with those. A power
supply failure doesn’t normally risk your data with those.

Theft is much more likely to be the reason to need the backup.

What didn't you understand. AIN'T going there!

Doesn’t help with the OS config.

Ah, you've never used it at all. Love experts that haven't used
something, but know all about it.

Which is why I don’t use it. I use that almost exclusively.

So to open email, you click on the .pts file?

I don’t.

Never even thought you did, much less said it.


--
_______________________________________________
/ David Simpson \
| (e-mail address removed) |
| http://www.nyx.net/~dsimpson |
|We got to go to the crappy town where I'm a hero.|
\_______________________________________________/

 

[David Simpson]

http://tinyurl.com

Darn, wish I'd read this first.


--
_______________________________________________
/ David Simpson \
| (e-mail address removed) |
| http://www.nyx.net/~dsimpson |
|We got to go to the crappy town where I'm a hero.|
\_______________________________________________/

 

[David Simpson]

En el artículo <[email protected]>, Rod Speed
<[email protected]> escribió:

[snip boilerplate - woddles has it programmed into a macro and trots it
out when he's losing the argument]

Rod Speed FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/883xp7v

Yeah, someone else told me, AFTER I typed in a long response.

Thanks though!!! What a Maroon, he is, as Bugs would say!


--
_______________________________________________
/ David Simpson \
| (e-mail address removed) |
| http://www.nyx.net/~dsimpson |
|We got to go to the crappy town where I'm a hero.|
\_______________________________________________/

 

[a1pcfixer]

John,

As the OP was asking about partitioning for Windows 7, is it really
relevant to talk about Linux and partitioning for it?

Nope, nothing usefull what so ever!

Jim

 

[a1pcfixer]

John,

http://tinyurl.com/883xp7v

That's a most enlightening and accurate appraisal.
A must read for everyone.
Well done & bravo!

Jim