A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Keith Hinton]

Hi all,
My father is a person who expects Windows XP to be on my machine every day.
The deal is.
I bought a new gateway in April origenally intended to be the replacement Windows machine. But I have been considering running Linux natively entirely alone on it, and whiping Windows, and perhaps virtually running it instaead.
Problem is, My dad, who cannot understand much less begin to learn Linux, cannot stand anything then Windows.
I considered turning my pentium into a Windows box again, but relaly cannot aford to lose Linux on that box either.
A couple of months agoe, my dad logged in to my box, expecting a desktop, start menu, etc.
He saw a Linux log interminal, prompting for a password.
So he shut the system down improperly.
After that, I had to restore Windows from a clone.
I have done this too many times! And now I am being told by my dad who owns the electrical power (and who could kick my but and such) that I cannot, run Linux, whatsoever) and that he may unplug/ground me off the computer.
Any suggestions? This is really an act of unfairness!
But how can I explain to a sighted man who has a tempor and who cannot stand Linux or anything different? Thanks! Regards, --Keith
Skype- add skypedude1234
In fact, I only use WIndblows because of Skype. That's it.

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Willem van der Walt]

Hi,
Setup a dual boot system with Windows as the default operating system to 
boot.  Give a long enough time delay to allow you to press the down arrow 
when you want to go into Linux.
If your farther starts up, he will go into windows.
If you start up, you press down arrow and enter and go into Linux.
HTH, Willem


On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Keith Hinton wrote:

> Hi all,
> My father is a person who expects Windows XP to be on my machine every day.
> The deal is.
> I bought a new gateway in April origenally intended to be the replacement Windows machine. But I have been considering running Linux natively entirely alone on it, and whiping Windows, and perhaps virtually running it instaead.
> Problem is, My dad, who cannot understand much less begin to learn Linux, cannot stand anything then Windows.
> I considered turning my pentium into a Windows box again, but relaly cannot aford to lose Linux on that box either.
> A couple of months agoe, my dad logged in to my box, expecting a desktop, start menu, etc.
> He saw a Linux log interminal, prompting for a password.
> So he shut the system down improperly.
> After that, I had to restore Windows from a clone.
> I have done this too many times! And now I am being told by my dad who owns the electrical power (and who could kick my but and such) that I cannot, run Linux, whatsoever) and that he may unplug/ground me off the computer.
> Any suggestions? This is really an act of unfairness!
> But how can I explain to a sighted man who has a tempor and who cannot stand Linux or anything different? Thanks! Regards, --Keith
> Skype- add skypedude1234
> In fact, I only use WIndblows because of Skype. That's it.
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

-- 
This message is subject to the CSIR's copyright, terms and conditions and
e-mail legal notice. Views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the
views of the CSIR.
 
CSIR E-mail Legal Notice
http://mail.csir.co.za/CSIR_eMail_Legal_Notice.html 
 
CSIR Copyright, Terms and Conditions
http://mail.csir.co.za/CSIR_Copyright.html 
 
For electronic copies of the CSIR Copyright, Terms and Conditions and the CSIR
Legal Notice send a blank message with REQUEST LEGAL in the subject line to
CallCentre@csir.co.za.


This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, 
and is believed to be clean.  MailScanner thanks Transtec Computers for their support.

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Doug Sutherland]

I would suggest a dual boot configuration like this:

Create a windows ntfs partition for winxp.
Create a windows fat32 partition for data.
Create a linux ext3 partition for linux root filesystem
Create one or more linux ext3 partitions for linux data
Create a linux swap partition.

Never store anything you want to save in the winxp
or linux root partitions. This way if you ever need to
reinstall either you leave your data partitions alone 
and never lose anything important.

The windows fat32 data partition can be mounted in
linux so you can move files to and from windows. 
Note that ntfs is read only in linux so best to use fat32
for this partition.

Make one of the linux data partitions the /home mount.
I usually make a small partition for /home but a large 
one, actually several, for data. I also usually create a 
separate /usr/local partition for software I compile from
source to add to the original distro, but that's not really
necessary. The reason I do it is so its easy to save stuff
that might have taken a while to figure out when adding
extra software.

For the bootloader config, set winxp to be the default 
boot, linux as the second choice. If you use a timeout 
then it will automatically start winxp for your father. 
If you don't want to use timeout, just tell him to pick 
winxp from the boot menu always.

There is also the possibility of using vmware but I am 
finding that vmware is getting to be a performance 
problem lately, at least with the new free versions. 
Best to have a dual boot into native os and then you 
can still add some vmware on either or both winxp
or linux in addition to the dual boot.

I used to have a laptop setup that could dual boot into
native win2k or linux, but could also run linux inside 
vmware on win2k, that was really nice. It used the 
vmware workstation 5, which seemed to be much 
better than the free vmware server that they give away.

Another suggestion: create a rescue partition, and set
up a small linux system with speech enabled, add this
to your boot menu. If you ever have problems with 
the other bootables, you can boot into that and then
mount other drives to make any necessary changes. 
If you boot into the rescue partition you can chroot
into the regular linux root filesystem if its not booting.

  -- Doug

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[John Heim]

You installed linux on your Dad's computer w/o permission?  No wonder he got 
pissed off.  I would too and I like linux.

Other people have suggested building a dual boot system and that's probably 
fine. But I think you should get your own computer. If you're running 
speakup, you can get by with a 1 Ghz machine or even less if you have a 
hardware synth.  Join a linux users group in your  area. Those nerds will be 
able to help you assemble a system for practically nothing. If you get 4 or 
5 linux nerds together in one place, they can assemble a machine out of 
spare parts in nothing flat.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Keith Hinton" <keithint38@CommSpeed.net>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 3:03 AM
Subject: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?


> Hi all,
> My father is a person who expects Windows XP to be on my machine every 
> day.
> The deal is.
> I bought a new gateway in April origenally intended to be the replacement 
> Windows machine. But I have been considering running Linux natively 
> entirely alone on it, and whiping Windows, and perhaps virtually running 
> it instaead.
> Problem is, My dad, who cannot understand much less begin to learn Linux, 
> cannot stand anything then Windows.
> I considered turning my pentium into a Windows box again, but relaly 
> cannot aford to lose Linux on that box either.
> A couple of months agoe, my dad logged in to my box, expecting a desktop, 
> start menu, etc.
> He saw a Linux log interminal, prompting for a password.
> So he shut the system down improperly.
> After that, I had to restore Windows from a clone.
> I have done this too many times! And now I am being told by my dad who 
> owns the electrical power (and who could kick my but and such) that I 
> cannot, run Linux, whatsoever) and that he may unplug/ground me off the 
> computer.
> Any suggestions? This is really an act of unfairness!
> But how can I explain to a sighted man who has a tempor and who cannot 
> stand Linux or anything different? Thanks! Regards, --Keith
> Skype- add skypedude1234
> In fact, I only use WIndblows because of Skype. That's it.
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
> 

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Gaijin]

Keith Hinton wrote:
> Hi all,
> My father is a person who expects Windows

     Had a similar problem with my computer illiterate father.  I told
him that "the next time you break it, you have to fix it."  Luckily,
that got him off my system permanently.  I'd suggest a dual-boot system.
  One where he can select Windows, but can't boot Linux without a
password.  Unfortunately, you won't be able to see the lilo prompts.  I
know nothing about grub.  If you can handle that, he'll never be able to
trash your Linux partition.  Windows XP can take care of itself.
Personally, I'd set up a dual-boot system with password protected Linux,
and a DOS prompt.   Let him freakin' try using that.  That's bullcrapp, 
wrecking your computer just because he pays for the power.  If you have 
any income, tell him you'll pay for the computer's electrical use.  In 
any case, if he insists on breaking  the thing, insist that he effing
ix it if he wants to continue using it.  BTW, I use removable hard drive 
trays.  You can plug in one or the other at whim.  If you can afford 
twin hard drives, I'd go that way.  HTH,

         Michael

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Gregory Nowak]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 08:55:49AM -0500, Doug Sutherland wrote:
> The windows fat32 data partition can be mounted in
> linux so you can move files to and from windows. 
> Note that ntfs is read only in linux so best to use fat32
> for this partition.

This is correct for the native ntfs in-kernel driver, however ntfs
read and write works very well under gnu/linux using ntfs-3g:

http://www.ntfs-3g.org/

Greg


- -- 
web site: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org
gpg public key: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org/pubkey.asc
skype: gregn1
(authorization required, add me to your contacts list first)

- --
Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGfCrN7s9z/XlyUyARAu2qAJ9THK+9dxqIzgXcfhXQHtIZoR62fQCeJ8M6
/ObuIbj0OhbwOykXBrq5rL8=
=KLjz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Glenn Ervin]

I would suggest installing XP on a FAT32 partition, as then you can have a 
DOS floppy to access the drive, if you need to.
Glenn

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Sutherland" <doug@proficio.ca>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?


I would suggest a dual boot configuration like this:

Create a windows ntfs partition for winxp.
Create a windows fat32 partition for data.
Create a linux ext3 partition for linux root filesystem
Create one or more linux ext3 partitions for linux data
Create a linux swap partition.

Never store anything you want to save in the winxp
or linux root partitions. This way if you ever need to
reinstall either you leave your data partitions alone
and never lose anything important.

The windows fat32 data partition can be mounted in
linux so you can move files to and from windows.
Note that ntfs is read only in linux so best to use fat32
for this partition.

Make one of the linux data partitions the /home mount.
I usually make a small partition for /home but a large
one, actually several, for data. I also usually create a
separate /usr/local partition for software I compile from
source to add to the original distro, but that's not really
necessary. The reason I do it is so its easy to save stuff
that might have taken a while to figure out when adding
extra software.

For the bootloader config, set winxp to be the default
boot, linux as the second choice. If you use a timeout
then it will automatically start winxp for your father.
If you don't want to use timeout, just tell him to pick
winxp from the boot menu always.

There is also the possibility of using vmware but I am
finding that vmware is getting to be a performance
problem lately, at least with the new free versions.
Best to have a dual boot into native os and then you
can still add some vmware on either or both winxp
or linux in addition to the dual boot.

I used to have a laptop setup that could dual boot into
native win2k or linux, but could also run linux inside
vmware on win2k, that was really nice. It used the
vmware workstation 5, which seemed to be much
better than the free vmware server that they give away.

Another suggestion: create a rescue partition, and set
up a small linux system with speech enabled, add this
to your boot menu. If you ever have problems with
the other bootables, you can boot into that and then
mount other drives to make any necessary changes.
If you boot into the rescue partition you can chroot
into the regular linux root filesystem if its not booting.

  -- Doug

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Gregory Nowak]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

If you do that, then you won't have access to some of xp's features,
such as encryption, which rely on ntfs. Also, I don't see how having a
dos floppy to access the drive would help here, care to elaborate?

Greg



On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 04:13:38PM -0500, Glenn Ervin wrote:
> I would suggest installing XP on a FAT32 partition, as then you can have a 
> DOS floppy to access the drive, if you need to.
> Glenn
> 


- -- 
web site: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org
gpg public key: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org/pubkey.asc
skype: gregn1
(authorization required, add me to your contacts list first)

- --
Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGfD8P7s9z/XlyUyARApUIAJwJaSu3k7vlTocdLnhWYz+Vak6xGACgtOXK
yj7udZ2EtXzX4tboLV/PnDc=
=hKW3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Gregory Nowak]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

One more thing I forgot to mention is that I seem to recall that xp
supports fat32 on partitions no larger than 40Gb. Also, if you use
fat32, be aware that fat32 has a limit of up to 4Gb per file.

Greg



On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 02:28:47PM -0700, Gregory Nowak wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> If you do that, then you won't have access to some of xp's features,
> such as encryption, which rely on ntfs. Also, I don't see how having a
> dos floppy to access the drive would help here, care to elaborate?
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> 


- -- 
web site: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org
gpg public key: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org/pubkey.asc
skype: gregn1
(authorization required, add me to your contacts list first)

- --
Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGfD/m7s9z/XlyUyARAsQvAJwK5uwv9uu9NsIpQIlNRWvIqeV5dgCffpXC
sW0oWRURIlVNi4TrjXodwWo=
=y5ww
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Glenn Ervin]

I have had to access important files, even copy them out when XP fails, one 
can even do a scan from DOS if need be.
I have always installed XP on a FAT32 partition.
In fact, when I get the chance to pull the back-up drive from my laptop's 
hidden partition, I will probably re-format it FAT32 and re-install.
As far as encryption, who cares about that?
I have a home computer, and I don't imagine anyone hacking my system.
I have a router for a firewall.
If it were a work computer, I would be concerned about encryption.
Glenn
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gregory Nowak" <greg@romuald.net.eu.org>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

If you do that, then you won't have access to some of xp's features,
such as encryption, which rely on ntfs. Also, I don't see how having a
dos floppy to access the drive would help here, care to elaborate?

Greg



On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 04:13:38PM -0500, Glenn Ervin wrote:
> I would suggest installing XP on a FAT32 partition, as then you can have a
> DOS floppy to access the drive, if you need to.
> Glenn
>


- -- 
web site: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org
gpg public key: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org/pubkey.asc
skype: gregn1
(authorization required, add me to your contacts list first)

- --
Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGfD8P7s9z/XlyUyARApUIAJwJaSu3k7vlTocdLnhWYz+Vak6xGACgtOXK
yj7udZ2EtXzX4tboLV/PnDc=
=hKW3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Butch Bussen]

I have partitions larger than that.  The only thing xp is stupid about is 
it won't let you define or set up partitions larger than 32767 gb.  Now, 
that number reminds me of intiger basic.  Anyhow, if you use something 
else to set them up, xp works fine.
73s
Butch Bussen
wa0vjr

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Gregory Nowak 
wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> One more thing I forgot to mention is that I seem to recall that xp
> supports fat32 on partitions no larger than 40Gb. Also, if you use
> fat32, be aware that fat32 has a limit of up to 4Gb per file.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 02:28:47PM -0700, Gregory Nowak wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> If you do that, then you won't have access to some of xp's features,
>> such as encryption, which rely on ntfs. Also, I don't see how having a
>> dos floppy to access the drive would help here, care to elaborate?
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> - --
> web site: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org
> gpg public key: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org/pubkey.asc
> skype: gregn1
> (authorization required, add me to your contacts list first)
>
> - --
> Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFGfD/m7s9z/XlyUyARAsQvAJwK5uwv9uu9NsIpQIlNRWvIqeV5dgCffpXC
> sW0oWRURIlVNi4TrjXodwWo=
> =y5ww
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Gaijin]

Doug Sutherland wrote:
> Remember the old 640kb limit in DOS? Apparently IBM said 
> nobody would ever use that much memory hehe.

     I thought Bill Gates said that one, not IBM?  It's standard 
practice to hold back on things like partition sizes.  How else can you 
get people to upgrade their operating systems and buy new hardware? 
They keep increasing the internet's bandwidth, and the only people that 
really benefit are the spammers. <laughs>

         Michael

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Glenn Ervin]

That is not true.
I have accessed all sizes of partitions in DOS.
Glenn

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Sutherland" <doug@proficio.ca>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?


DOS can only access 2GB partitions, and 2GB is small for winxp,
I'd suggest at least 5GB for that. Also most versions of DOS do
not support FAT32, but here's a list of which do:

http://www.cn-dos.net/msdos71/dosfat32.htm

> I would suggest installing XP on a FAT32 partition, as then you can have a
> DOS floppy to access the drive, if you need to.


_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Doug Sutherland]

DOS can only access 2GB partitions, and 2GB is small for winxp,
I'd suggest at least 5GB for that. Also most versions of DOS do
not support FAT32, but here's a list of which do:

http://www.cn-dos.net/msdos71/dosfat32.htm

> I would suggest installing XP on a FAT32 partition, as then you can have a
> DOS floppy to access the drive, if you need to.

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Doug Sutherland]

Butch wrote:
The only thing xp is stupid about is it won't let you define or set up 
partitions larger than 32767 gb.  Now, that number reminds me of 
intiger basic.

2 to the power of 16 = 32768 so that's a 16-bit address.
Same reason why integers max out at 32768 if 16-bit numbers.

Remember the old 640kb limit in DOS? Apparently IBM said 
nobody would ever use that much memory hehe. Now you can
buy terrabyte drives for cheap.

  -- Doug

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Glenn Ervin]

I haven't had to use DOS for some time, but DOS from Win98 is what I use, I 
forget whether it is 6.22, or 7.0.
But it has never been a problem, even with my 120 GB drive.
Glenn
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Sutherland" <doug@proficio.ca>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?


What DOS are you using?

Microsoft DOS had this limit:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/118335

You'll see these limits all over the web
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dos+maximum+partition+size&meta=

If you're using DR-DOS or something, I wouldn't call that DOS.
Is it MS-DOS or what exactly are you running?

Glenn wrote;
> That is not true.
> I have accessed all sizes of partitions in DOS.


_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Butch Bussen]

Didn't you mean most dos doesn't support ntfs?  Yep, There is a limit on 
file size, but I rrestore often from my large 80gig partitions which are 
fat32.  Dos reads them fine, you just have to keep each file smaller 
than 2 gig.  Image for dos or image for windows does that fine.  I need 
to figure out a good way to back up my i r l p Linux box, would like to 
just mirror the drive which has 3 partitions--just in case.
73s
Butch Bussen
wa0vjr

On Fri, 22 
Jun 2007, Doug Sutherland wrote:

> DOS can only access 2GB partitions, and 2GB is small for winxp,
> I'd suggest at least 5GB for that. Also most versions of DOS do
> not support FAT32, but here's a list of which do:
>
> http://www.cn-dos.net/msdos71/dosfat32.htm
>
>> I would suggest installing XP on a FAT32 partition, as then you can have a
>> DOS floppy to access the drive, if you need to.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Butch Bussen]

Been a long time since I thought about that.  Wonder how apple soft got 
around that and would you go up to 64 thousand in line numbers in basic, 
but intiger basic wouldn't.  Man I'm getting old I guess..
73s
Butch Bussen
wa0vjr

On Fri, 22 Jun 
2007, Doug Sutherland wrote:

> Butch wrote:
> The only thing xp is stupid about is it won't let you define or set up
> partitions larger than 32767 gb.  Now, that number reminds me of
> intiger basic.
>
> 2 to the power of 16 = 32768 so that's a 16-bit address.
> Same reason why integers max out at 32768 if 16-bit numbers.
>
> Remember the old 640kb limit in DOS? Apparently IBM said
> nobody would ever use that much memory hehe. Now you can
> buy terrabyte drives for cheap.
>
>  -- Doug
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Butch Bussen]

I do it all the time using a 98 dos disk produced by 98.  About as 
microsoft as you can get.  The partition size isn't the problem--it is 
the 2gig file size.  If you drop back to dos 5 or six, that is true. 
Actually, dos 3.3 would only recognize 32 meg.
73s
Butch Bussen
wa0vjr

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Doug 
Sutherland wrote:

> What DOS are you using?
>
> Microsoft DOS had this limit:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/118335
>
> You'll see these limits all over the web
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dos+maximum+partition+size&meta=
>
> If you're using DR-DOS or something, I wouldn't call that DOS.
> Is it MS-DOS or what exactly are you running?
>
> Glenn wrote;
>> That is not true.
>> I have accessed all sizes of partitions in DOS.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Doug Sutherland]

What DOS are you using?

Microsoft DOS had this limit:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/118335

You'll see these limits all over the web
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dos+maximum+partition+size&meta=

If you're using DR-DOS or something, I wouldn't call that DOS.
Is it MS-DOS or what exactly are you running?

Glenn wrote;
> That is not true.
> I have accessed all sizes of partitions in DOS.

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Doug Sutherland]

Well its all spelled out on the microsoft site
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/118335

The 2-GB partition limit is imposed by the maximum number of clusters 
and the largest cluster size supported by the FAT file system. The FAT 
file system is limited to 65,525 clusters. The size of a cluster must be a 
power of 2 and less than 65,536 bytes--this results in a maximum cluster 
size of 32,768 bytes (32K). Multiplying the maximum number of clusters 
(65,525) by the maximum cluster size (32,768) equals 2 GB. 

This is just like that 32768 number just discussed, it is FAT16 because
it's 16-bit addessing (2 to the power of 16). Sixteen bits times the max
number of clusters is 2GB.

>From The FAT16 Partition Size (2.00 GB / 2.15 GB) Barrier

If you put a hard disk over 2 GB into a machine that is using regular 
FAT (16-bit FAT) under DOS, Windows 3.x or the first version of 
Windows 95, you can use all of it--assuming that you aren't limited by 
one of the other BIOS-related barriers mentioned in adjacent sections. 
However, to access the full contents of the disk, you must partition it
into multiple peices.

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/bios/sizeGB2-c.html

Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2 (OSR2) and Windows 98 support 
two new partition types (0B and 0C) to support the FAT32 file system. 
That isn't really DOS ... it's Win9x OSR2. DOS did not support FAT32.
It only supported FAT16. If you make a bootable disk from Win95
OSR2 or Win98, that's not DOS.

  -- Doug

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Butch Bussen]

I think we're confusing fat 16 and fat 32.  The 2 gig limit applies for 
fat 16, but when you run fdisk at the dos prompt, it says something like 
"your computer system can support a hard disk larger than-----" "Do you 
want to access this larger disk?"

It is before coffee and way too early in the morning for me to try and 
figure out how they do it.  I don't recall the numbers, I remember 
discussing this stuff years ago on cluster size.  That is the smallest 
amount of space a file would take no matter if it were a one byte file. 
I think it started out at 2 then 4 then 8 then 16 then 32.

Way to early to figure this out!!!
73s
Butch Bussen
wa0vjr

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Glenn Ervin]

Butch, I agree
I think FAT32 is the only way to go with XP, and I think it would be easier 
for Linux to access it,
as with DOS.  NTFS does have larger clusters, and therefore wastes less 
space on storing files, but with the difference as minor as it is, compared 
to the size of drives, I see the trade-off of using FAT32 very worth it.
Sure NTFS is more secure, but on home systems, with firewalls & all, how 
many of us need to worry about that anyway.
Glenn
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Butch Bussen" <butchb@shellworld.net>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2007 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?


I think we're confusing fat 16 and fat 32.  The 2 gig limit applies for
fat 16, but when you run fdisk at the dos prompt, it says something like
"your computer system can support a hard disk larger than-----" "Do you
want to access this larger disk?"

It is before coffee and way too early in the morning for me to try and
figure out how they do it.  I don't recall the numbers, I remember
discussing this stuff years ago on cluster size.  That is the smallest
amount of space a file would take no matter if it were a one byte file.
I think it started out at 2 then 4 then 8 then 16 then 32.

Way to early to figure this out!!!
73s
Butch Bussen
wa0vjr


_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Doug Sutherland]

The way they do it is to allow more than one 2GB partition!
That's the primary and logical drives. From microsoft:

Microsoft MS-DOS versions 4.0 and later allow FDISK to 
partition hard disks up to 4 gigabytes (GB) in size. However, 
the MS-DOS file allocation table (FAT) file system can 
support only 2 GB per partition. Because of this fact, a hard 
disk between 2 and 4 GB in size must be broken down into 
multiple partitions, each of which does not exceed 2 GB. 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/118335

After you use the Fdisk tool to partition your hard disk, use the 
Format tool to format those partitions with a file system. The file 
system File Allocation Table (FAT) allows the hard disk to 
accept, store, and retrieve data. Windows 95 OEM Service 
Release 2 (OSR2), Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, 
Windows Millennium Edition (Me), and Windows 2000 support 
the FAT16 and FAT32 file systems. When you run the Fdisk tool 
on a hard disk that is larger than 512 megabytes (MB), you are 
prompted to choose one of the following file systems: 

FAT16: This file system has a maximum of 2 gigabytes (GB) for 
each allocated space or drive letter. For example, if you use the 
FAT16 file system and have a 6-GB hard disk, you can have 
three drive letters (C, D, and E), each with 2 GB of allocated 
space.For additional information about the FAT16 file system, 
click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft
knowledge base:

Maximum Partition Size Using FAT16 File Syetem
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/118335/EN-US/

FAT32: This file system supports drives that are up to 2 terabytes 
in size and stores files on smaller sections of the hard disk than the 
FAT16 file system does. This results in more free space on the hard 
disk. The FAT32 file system does not support drives that are 
smaller than 512 MB.For additional information about the FAT32 
file system, click the article number below to view the article in the 
Microsoft Knowledge Base: 

Description of the FAT32 File System
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/154997/EN-US/

>From the above
Windows 95 OSR2, Windows 98, and Windows Me include an 
updated version of the FAT file system. This updated version is called 
FAT32. The FAT32 file system allows for a default cluster size as 
small as 4 KB, and includes support for EIDE hard disk sizes larger 
than 2 gigabytes (GB).

These microsoft documents are dated 2007, they are not old.
Again, if you use Win95 OSR2 or Win98 to make a boot disk
you're not making DOS. The command.com created by these
is not the same as DOS, it has the new 0B and 0C partition 
type support for FAT32 and VFAT, completely different.

Also, even on WinNT, Win2k, and WinXP, try creating a FAT32 
partition greater than 32GB and then try formatting it:

Logical Disk Manager: Volume size too big.

DOS (FAT16) supports 2GB partitions.
Windows (FAT32) supports 32GB partitions.

There is this theoretical 2TB partition size, but if you can't 
format it, then, well the wind blows.

  -- Doug

.

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Steve Holmes]

Concerning the use of FAT32, I will never use it anymore.  As I will
explain further, you are restricted to file sizes of less than 4 GB.
I agree, it is compatable with both linux and windows so at least you
can share files back and forth.

I have a 200 GB USB drive I bought a year or so ago and it had a FAT32
file system on it.  I thought I would go ahead and start using it to
backup my stuff.  Well, both tar and winzip dutifully built my backups
for me but they each resulted in archives larger than 4GB and both
subsequently failed with size limit errors.  I either would have to
break them up into chunks to fit or do what I ultimately did.  I
repartitioned the drive with two partitions - one with NTFS and the
other being ext3.  Now I can backup all I want with no size limit
issues; unless I get too big and run out of space:) but that's another matter.
-- 
HolmesGrown Solutions
The best solutions for the best price!
http://holmesgrown.ld.net/

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Doug Sutherland]

FAT32 is also much more likely to be corrupted that NFTS
if you have a BSOD or something, and I never use it for the
windows partition. The reason I suggested FAT32 was 
because I thought NTFS was still read only on linux but
Greg pointed out it's now possible

http://www.ntfs-3g.org/

I have had many a FAT32 file corruption over the years 
but so far not one NTFS. OMG maybe microsoft did 
something fairly decent. hehe

  -- Doug

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Glenn Ervin]

As far as NTFS being more reliable than FAT32, I would argue on personal 
experience  that I have had more drives go bad that were running NTFS than 
those running FAT32.
I have owned more drives formatted with FAT32, so I should have experienced 
more FAT32 file system problems, yet I have experienced the opposite.
Now this can be due to mechanical problems un-related to the file system, 
but it is often unclear whether the hard-drive crash was due to an inability 
for the file system being able to repair itself.
Glenn
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Sutherland" <doug@proficio.ca>
To: "Speakup is a screen review system for Linux." <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?


FAT32 is also much more likely to be corrupted that NFTS
if you have a BSOD or something, and I never use it for the
windows partition. The reason I suggested FAT32 was
because I thought NTFS was still read only on linux but
Greg pointed out it's now possible

http://www.ntfs-3g.org/

I have had many a FAT32 file corruption over the years
but so far not one NTFS. OMG maybe microsoft did
something fairly decent. hehe

  -- Doug

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Gregory Nowak]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 11:16:27AM -0500, Glenn Ervin wrote:
> As far as NTFS being more reliable than FAT32, I would argue on personal 
> experience  that I have had more drives go bad that were running NTFS than 
> those running FAT32.

While I don't mean to, and can't dispute your personal experience, as far as I know, there is no connection what so ever between the file
system on a drive, and whether the drive goes bad or not, I don't
follow this line of reasoning. That's like someone saying they got a
flat tire, because they were driving in a rain storm.

> I have owned more drives formatted with FAT32, so I should have experienced 
> more FAT32 file system problems, yet I have experienced the opposite.

This looks logical on the surface, but really isn't if you think about
it. Sticking with the car analogy, that's like saying that if you
drive the same model/year of car for an equal amount of time, both cars
will use exactly the same amount of gas. On the surface, this looks
logical, but really isn't if you stop and consider it, (I won't
explain why here. Coming back to the hd and fs comparison, the only
way to test such a hypothesis, would be to have 2 drives of the same
make and model, produced in the same factory on the same date, one
formated with fat32, the other with ntfs. Even then, your results
still couldn't be said to be accurate, because the workmanship on each
drive might have varied, the materials, although the same, used to
construct the drives might have varied in some small way, and the
amount of use each drive got would most likely vary as well. 

Keep in mind that modern drives have more heads, and more cylinders than
older drives, while still being confined to the same physical size
limit. Therefore, there are more heads, and more media in a newer
drive that could fail, as opposed to the older drives. It is also
possible that due to newer drives being internally more complex then
older drives (see previous head/cylinder comparison), that quality
control today isn't as thorough as it once used to be. In addition to
more complexity, another reason for poorer quality control is that the
size of drives is increasing, and prices are coming down steadily. So,
companies making these drives either could be expecting people to
upgrade more often, thus they aren't concerned with the drive having
an especially long lifetime, or they could purposefully be making more
flaky drives, so as to force people to buy newer drives, thus keeping
their business going. I am only proposing a theory here, I'm not saying
that this is what manufactures are actually doing, though they might be.

> Now this can be due to mechanical problems un-relat
ed to the file system, 
> but it is often unclear whether the hard-drive crash was due to an inability 
> for the file system being able to repair itself.

You said it yourself, a hard drive is a mechanical, (well actually, an
electro-mechanical) device. If it
mechanically breaks, and crashes, no file system put on it, before, or
somehow after the crash, would bring that drive magically back to
life. As for the inability of a file system to repair itself causing
the drive to crash hardware wise, this is something else that doesn't
make sense, to me at least.

Greg


- -- 
web site: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org
gpg public key: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org/pubkey.asc
skype: gregn1
(authorization required, add me to your contacts list first)

- --
Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGfvLa7s9z/XlyUyARAmKfAKCpOqomieK3EELD8VO3lStdPbF/4gCglSHn
bhqImSZ+e6gBNLWzkgYFn0A=
=FEjp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Glenn Ervin]

Hi Greg,
Keep in mind that the file system manages the mechanics of a drive, thus the 
file system does have an effect on the success of a drive, as does other 
factors, like how fragmented your data is on the drive, as if your data is 
very fragmented, the drive will have to work much harder.  This is just one 
of the ways that the file system, and manner in which data is stored can 
effect the life expectancy of a drive.
Glenn
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gregory Nowak" <greg@romuald.net.eu.org>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 11:16:27AM -0500, Glenn Ervin wrote:
> As far as NTFS being more reliable than FAT32, I would argue on personal
> experience  that I have had more drives go bad that were running NTFS than
> those running FAT32.

While I don't mean to, and can't dispute your personal experience, as far as 
I know, there is no connection what so ever between the file
system on a drive, and whether the drive goes bad or not, I don't
follow this line of reasoning. That's like someone saying they got a
flat tire, because they were driving in a rain storm.

> I have owned more drives formatted with FAT32, so I should have 
> experienced
> more FAT32 file system problems, yet I have experienced the opposite.

This looks logical on the surface, but really isn't if you think about
it. Sticking with the car analogy, that's like saying that if you
drive the same model/year of car for an equal amount of time, both cars
will use exactly the same amount of gas. On the surface, this looks
logical, but really isn't if you stop and consider it, (I won't
explain why here. Coming back to the hd and fs comparison, the only
way to test such a hypothesis, would be to have 2 drives of the same
make and model, produced in the same factory on the same date, one
formated with fat32, the other with ntfs. Even then, your results
still couldn't be said to be accurate, because the workmanship on each
drive might have varied, the materials, although the same, used to
construct the drives might have varied in some small way, and the
amount of use each drive got would most likely vary as well.

Keep in mind that modern drives have more heads, and more cylinders than
older drives, while still being confined to the same physical size
limit. Therefore, there are more heads, and more media in a newer
drive that could fail, as opposed to the older drives. It is also
possible that due to newer drives being internally more complex then
older drives (see previous head/cylinder comparison), that quality
control today isn't as thorough as it once used to be. In addition to
more complexity, another reason for poorer quality control is that the
size of drives is increasing, and prices are coming down steadily. So,
companies making these drives either could be expecting people to
upgrade more often, thus they aren't concerned with the drive having
an especially long lifetime, or they could purposefully be making more
flaky drives, so as to force people to buy newer drives, thus keeping
their business going. I am only proposing a theory here, I'm not saying
that this is what manufactures are actually doing, though they might be.

> Now this can be due to mechanical problems un-relat
ed to the file system,
> but it is often unclear whether the hard-drive crash was due to an 
> inability
> for the file system being able to repair itself.

You said it yourself, a hard drive is a mechanical, (well actually, an
electro-mechanical) device. If it
mechanically breaks, and crashes, no file system put on it, before, or
somehow after the crash, would bring that drive magically back to
life. As for the inability of a file system to repair itself causing
the drive to crash hardware wise, this is something else that doesn't
make sense, to me at least.

Greg


- -- 
web site: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org
gpg public key: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org/pubkey.asc
skype: gregn1
(authorization required, add me to your contacts list first)

- --
Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGfvLa7s9z/XlyUyARAmKfAKCpOqomieK3EELD8VO3lStdPbF/4gCglSHn
bhqImSZ+e6gBNLWzkgYFn0A=
=FEjp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Speakup mailing list
Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: A computer issue, how should I deal with this? Best solution?

[Gregory Nowak]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Glen,

On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 08:45:08PM -0500, Glenn Ervin wrote:
> Keep in mind that the file system manages the mechanics of a drive, 

No, the file system doesn't manage the mechanics of the drive. The
mechanics of the drive is actually managed by the drive firmware,
which in turn communicates with the ide/scsi/sata/whatever interface
bios, which in turn communicates with the os, and so on. Let's take an
analog cassette tape for example, which is similar to the hard drive in
that it also stores data magnetically on a medium, and that the medium
moves past a head for reading/writing. To say that the file system
controls the mechanics of a drive is to say that the data on a tape
controls how fast or slow the tape rolls, or how the head comes in
contact with the tape. This is obviously not true, since the tape
rolls at the same rate, regardless of what is recorded on it, and the
head coming in contact with the tape is also not controlled by the
recording, since the head is in contact with the tape when you press
play, and the head loses contact with the tape when you press stop, or
the tape player shuts off automatically.

> thus the 
> file system does have an effect on the success of a drive, as does other 
> factors, like how fragmented your data is on the drive, as if your data is 
> very fragmented, the drive will have to work much harder.  This is just one 
> of the ways that the file system, and manner in which data is stored can 
> effect the life expectancy of a drive.

Yes, it's true that a file system with lots of fragmented files on the
drive could make the drive work more, as it goes through its platters
looking for scattered bits of files. However, both fat32 and ntfs can
have fragmented files, and I haven't heard of anything stating that
ntfs is more prone to fragmentation than fat32, or vise versa. In
fact, back when I was running win98 with the fat32 file system, I
would defragment my c drive once a week. These defragmenting sessions
never completed quickly, lasting 1 hour or more, and the drive wasn't
very full. 

On the other hand, I now have an ntfs drive partition with windows xp
on it, which is also not very full, and I check it for fragmentation
once a week, and so far, windows tells me I don't need to defragment
this drive. Granted, this may be due to the winxp defragmentation
program, vs the win98 defragmentation program, (I don't know if I'd
see the same behavior when defragmenting a fat32 partition under winxp
as with ntfs). The point being, that fragmentation level doesn't
depend on the file system as far as I know. Thus, we can't reasonably
say that a ntfs-formatted drive is more fragmented than a
fat32-formatted drive, (thus shortening the drive's life expectancy), and vise versa.

Greg



- -- 
web site: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org
gpg public key: http://www.romuald.net.eu.org/pubkey.asc
skype: gregn1
(authorization required, add me to your contacts list first)

- --
Free domains: http://www.eu.org/ or mail dns-manager@EU.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGfzqi7s9z/XlyUyARAkCSAJ9LepmtPUtwroidQQvfHxlrqqVqkACg3BlU
ux7t9HvnvWlUlzyDm5191ZU=
=A6de
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----