En el artículo . com,
bm escribió:

But why am I killfiled?

He's met someone else. He doesn't love you any more.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
(")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg

On 28/03/16 06:00, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 09:28:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 25/03/16 21:20, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 24/03/2016 22:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Oh the joys of Linux, and no de fragging ever unless the disk is 100%
full

I've heard this said, and I never can work out how.

If I put 5000 files on my disk, and delete every alternate one, how can
it not be fragmented?

Well of course it is somewhat, but the point is that new files tend to
be written in the middle of the biggest free space, depending on the
actual disk format in use, so they tend to simply grow linearly.

Fragmentation isn't a file in a random place, its a file in dozens of
random places, so to get the entire contents takes many seeks.

http://www.howtogeek.com/115229/htg-...x-doesnt-need-
defragmenting/

I was quite surprised at the explanation. The strategy of scattering
files across the disk volume 'in order to allow them space into which to
grow' seemed so bogus, seeing as how most files are edited by writing a
complete new copy before renaming the original as a backup file, either
temporarily simply to avoid the naming conflict or as a safety rollback
copy.


Where are you going to put that new file then? Into all the tiny little
gaps left by previous deleted ones, as none of the spaces were big
enough to hold new bigger files?

If you delete a single file bang in the middlke of a huge gap you get
the huge gap back, with no clutter.

skip intersting design of tape FAT

With my strategy of minimising fragmentation of free space being *such*
a "No Brainer", I've always assumed MSFT's FAT based FSes used a similar
strategy, BICBW.


The words in that paragraph are in te wro9ng order.

I've always assumed MSFTs FAT based FSes were the result of no brain no
strategy.

And in fact the FAT structure doesn't necessariliy determine the usage
strategy.

That's done by the OD disk writing utility libraries.



...

Incidently (aside from the use of SSDs), the key to minimising
fragmentation induced performance loss in a MSFT FS is optimised
partitioning of the HDD into 3 partition spaces (OS, Apps and data
partitions).

Frankly I dont see much difference between OS and Apps.

In Linux, you tend to have the OS and apps all in one place - thats
readonly data, the user data in another, and if you are in server land,
the /var system which contains systemwide 'moving' data like mail and
log files and databases etc, by default

Performance wise boot time is affected by having the OS on SSD, and
general program startup by having the apps on SSD (/usr/bin and friends)
but really the user data as suchj ois not needed to be spo speedy, and
as far as system log files go, they are written in background so you
wint nootoi=ce any seepd differential

What is very important is to have swap in SSD if you can, because its
much faster at paging in and out.

Assuming you need swap at all.



snip defrag windows stuff

--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 27/03/2016 23:26, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

On 26/03/2016 09:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Once again the legacy of Windows - a single user system with its roots
back in floppy disks - and Unix - a multi-user system designed to work
with a very busy disk from the outset - show up.

You do talk a load of crap at times...

Windows 3.1, sure a shell on top of DOS. Win NT onward, basically a
re-engineering of VMS. Hardly what anyone would describe as a single
use floppy based system.

Bodged downwards though to have drive letters. Drive letters, in this
day and age.


You don't have to use drive letters, you can mount things on directories
just like unix if you want.

People use drive letters because its easy.

On 27/03/2016 22:57, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/03/2016 09:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Well of course it is somewhat, but the point is that new files tend to
be written in the middle of the biggest free space, depending on the
actual disk format in use, so they tend to simply grow linearly.

Fragmentation isn't a file in a random place, its a file in dozens of
random places, so to get the entire contents takes many seeks.

http://www.howtogeek.com/115229/htg-...defragmenting/


Good link. Thanks.

The Windows guys chose to put all their files near the same end of the
disk to reduce seeks when the disk is nearly empty. Linux has a
different approach - they are scattered all over the place.

Andy

Almost true.
Linux uses different allocation strategies for different file system types.
Not that they make much sense if the OS doesn't know the physical layout
of the disk, which it doesn't for SATA/IDE. The OS doesn't know if it
really is putting the stuff in the best place at all.

On 28/03/16 12:18, dennis@home wrote:
On 27/03/2016 22:57, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/03/2016 09:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Well of course it is somewhat, but the point is that new files tend to
be written in the middle of the biggest free space, depending on the
actual disk format in use, so they tend to simply grow linearly.

Fragmentation isn't a file in a random place, its a file in dozens of
random places, so to get the entire contents takes many seeks.

http://www.howtogeek.com/115229/htg-...defragmenting/



Good link. Thanks.

The Windows guys chose to put all their files near the same end of the
disk to reduce seeks when the disk is nearly empty. Linux has a
different approach - they are scattered all over the place.

Andy

Almost true.
Linux uses different allocation strategies for different file system types.
Not that they make much sense if the OS doesn't know the physical layout
of the disk, which it doesn't for SATA/IDE. The OS doesn't know if it
really is putting the stuff in the best place at all.

economical with the truth

"somewhere in London" is not the same as 'I dont know where he is'

And if that is true, why does windows need defragging on IDE and SATA
disks, since windows can't know where the data is either?

Once again we see that you prefer an agenda to the truth.




--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On 28/03/2016 12:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/03/16 12:18, dennis@home wrote:
On 27/03/2016 22:57, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/03/2016 09:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Well of course it is somewhat, but the point is that new files tend to
be written in the middle of the biggest free space, depending on the
actual disk format in use, so they tend to simply grow linearly.

Fragmentation isn't a file in a random place, its a file in dozens of
random places, so to get the entire contents takes many seeks.

http://www.howtogeek.com/115229/htg-...defragmenting/




Good link. Thanks.

The Windows guys chose to put all their files near the same end of the
disk to reduce seeks when the disk is nearly empty. Linux has a
different approach - they are scattered all over the place.

Andy

Almost true.
Linux uses different allocation strategies for different file system
types.
Not that they make much sense if the OS doesn't know the physical layout
of the disk, which it doesn't for SATA/IDE. The OS doesn't know if it
really is putting the stuff in the best place at all.

economical with the truth

"somewhere in London" is not the same as 'I dont know where he is'

And if that is true, why does windows need defragging on IDE and SATA
disks, since windows can't know where the data is either?

Once again we see that you prefer an agenda to the truth.

Which bit is untrue!
Other than your continued claim windows needs defragging?

On 27/03/2016 23:26, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

On 26/03/2016 09:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Once again the legacy of Windows - a single user system with its roots
back in floppy disks - and Unix - a multi-user system designed to work
with a very busy disk from the outset - show up.

You do talk a load of crap at times...

Windows 3.1, sure a shell on top of DOS. Win NT onward, basically a
re-engineering of VMS. Hardly what anyone would describe as a single
use floppy based system.

Bodged downwards though to have drive letters. Drive letters, in this
day and age.

Drive letters are crap, although using them is (mostly) optional... You
can use *nix style grafting of volumes into another directory tree if
you like.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28/03/2016 01:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/03/16 22:55, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/03/2016 15:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
8GB or RAM of which at the time of writing less than half a gig is
'free' and everything else is buffers cache or in use...

My Windows system is reporting 84Mb free out of 3GB. Most of the rest is
cache.


well you only have 3GB. I've gotta bigger cache than you have!

This is where Linux does score.

I have more RAM than that (after my son gave me a free upgrade!) but I
have a 32-bit Windows licence.

Andy

On 28/03/2016 01:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/03/16 22:23, John Rumm wrote:
On 26/03/2016 09:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Once again the legacy of Windows - a single user system with its roots
back in floppy disks - and Unix - a multi-user system designed to work
with a very busy disk from the outset - show up.

You do talk a load of crap at times...

Windows 3.1, sure a shell on top of DOS. Win NT onward, basically a
re-engineering of VMS. Hardly what anyone would describe as a single use
floppy based system.


Why do you feel the need to pretend I wrote something I didn't, in order
to score ego-points?

I said that windows had its *legacy* back in single user single tasking
floppy based operating systems.

As I highlighted - that was a legacy of 16 bit windows. Modern versions
are not descendants of that, and hence don't share that legacy.

Not that it still was.

You might as well argue that *nix is command line only and does not
support a GUI...

Of course Win NT, written in 1993, some 20!! YEARS after Unix was
ALREADY a multi user multi tasking OS...had to try and drag windows into
the 20th century, but of course it still had to mainatain backwards
compatibility with older windows programs, and it still relied on pretty
guis to make administration accessible to the most complete moron of a
user, and that resulted in exactly the sort of compromises I
documentation. Form over function, designed to sell rather than work.

The NT kernal did not need (or attempt) to maintain backward
compatibility (remember it was not even intended to be a windows product
at first, ans was to be a development on from OS/2).

At the time it was designed the OS supported multiple APIs and multiple
hardware platforms. The windows compatibility was just an abstraction
that sat between the underlying OS and the application. (later versions
more closely coupled the Win32 API to the kernel in the interests of
greater performance, and in realisation that its POSIX and OS/2 APIs
were of less interest to customers)

And that is really the complete answer in a nutshell. *nix systems were
designed to work in professional applications, Windows has always been
first and foremost a consumer product, not an industrial one.
It's tried
and succeeded in getting sold into those markets, but that is more in
spite of its engineering, than because of it.

Rough diamond, or polished turd.

Your choice

As I have said many times, I use both. I just don't feel the need to
keep whining on about why my OS (or boiler, or any other hobby horse)
must be better that any other, just because its the one I like the most.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
On 27/03/2016 23:26, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

On 26/03/2016 09:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Once again the legacy of Windows - a single user system with its roots
back in floppy disks - and Unix - a multi-user system designed to work
with a very busy disk from the outset - show up.

You do talk a load of crap at times...

Windows 3.1, sure a shell on top of DOS. Win NT onward, basically a
re-engineering of VMS. Hardly what anyone would describe as a single
use floppy based system.

Bodged downwards though to have drive letters. Drive letters, in this
day and age.

Drive letters are crap, although using them is (mostly) optional... You
can use *nix style grafting of volumes into another directory tree if
you like.

I have one called "Sloy" which the Scots amongst us might recognise as a
very big ... . Mind you since it's only 125GB, I must have bought it a
very long time ago.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:54:04 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 27/03/2016 23:26, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

On 26/03/2016 09:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Once again the legacy of Windows - a single user system with its roots
back in floppy disks - and Unix - a multi-user system designed to work
with a very busy disk from the outset - show up.

You do talk a load of crap at times...

Windows 3.1, sure a shell on top of DOS. Win NT onward, basically a
re-engineering of VMS. Hardly what anyone would describe as a single
use floppy based system.

Bodged downwards though to have drive letters. Drive letters, in this
day and age.

Drive letters are crap,

Strange though, in 20+ years supporting many Windows users, I can't
remember anyone (other than a *nix / Apple user) even mentioning, let
alone complaining about them? I mean, they may not understand what
they represent in a technical sense but they generally understand what
they mean to them (in most cases without any instruction).

although using them is (mostly) optional...

Quite.

You
can use *nix style grafting of volumes into another directory tree if
you like.

And I would say, outside the admin / geek, few would want to. ;-)

It's my view that with all these OS's one must / should consider the
target audience.

I don't think that there is any question that Windows (3.1) was
developed for the ordinary (desktop) consumer / user ... around the
time of electric typewriters etc.

Apple OS was targeted at those even less computer literate.

Linux came out of *nix because Linus wanted a kernel / OS he could
play with.

All the above platforms have their desktop and sever variants and each
has provided a good service to all over the years (and many still
are).

I have (and regularly use) all of the 'common' OS's out there
(Windows, OSX (- iOS), Linux and Android, and in spite of what some of
the Linux nerds say, 'Android users' don't see Linux) but like the
vast majority out there, Windows can and does do more for *me* than
any of the alternatives (less so Android because it does different
things in a different way, like it's good for mobile car diagnostics /
OBD reading etc).

This is still very much a Windows-centric world, as you will easily
observe walking round nearly any computer shop, office, or gaming
machine and if you want to find hardware that says it's 'Linux (or OSX
to some degree) compatible' on the box.

My first full installations of Linux, Apple OS and DOS / Windows was
done from floppies.

We have several PC's PC's here, most are dual boot (OSX / Windows or
Windows / Linux) yet we all really only *use* Windows for good
practical reason (hardware / software support, ease / familiarity /
functionality etc).

Oh, and none of us worry about OS filesystem 'fragmentation', we just
use them as the tools they are supposed to be.

A good example of taking the path of least resistance is seen here and
backing up an image of an SD from a Raspberry Pi.

https://thepihut.com/blogs/raspberry...ry-pis-sd-card

http://tinyurl.com/jyrhvxe

Windows, download and install (two clicks) and then you are away. Very
little to learn, you just do what you want to do and that's backup
your SD card.

If you scroll down to the OSX bit it straight away puts me off when it
starts off by saying ...

"Open Terminal and enter the following command to locate your SD Card:

diskutil list"

CLI ... Hmmm ... ;-(

Then you scroll down to the Linux bit, see how much CLI stuff there is
and that's when I switch off ... ;-(

I *just* want to backup an SD card, not learn gobbledygook!

Cheers, T i m

On 28/03/16 16:13, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/03/2016 01:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/03/16 22:23, John Rumm wrote:
On 26/03/2016 09:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Once again the legacy of Windows - a single user system with its roots
back in floppy disks - and Unix - a multi-user system designed to work
with a very busy disk from the outset - show up.

You do talk a load of crap at times...

Windows 3.1, sure a shell on top of DOS. Win NT onward, basically a
re-engineering of VMS. Hardly what anyone would describe as a single use
floppy based system.


Why do you feel the need to pretend I wrote something I didn't, in order
to score ego-points?

I said that windows had its *legacy* back in single user single tasking
floppy based operating systems.

As I highlighted - that was a legacy of 16 bit windows. Modern versions
are not descendants of that, and hence don't share that legacy.

Not that it still was.

You might as well argue that *nix is command line only and does not
support a GUI...

Of course Win NT, written in 1993, some 20!! YEARS after Unix was
ALREADY a multi user multi tasking OS...had to try and drag windows into
the 20th century, but of course it still had to mainatain backwards
compatibility with older windows programs, and it still relied on pretty
guis to make administration accessible to the most complete moron of a
user, and that resulted in exactly the sort of compromises I
documentation. Form over function, designed to sell rather than work.

The NT kernal did not need (or attempt) to maintain backward
compatibility (remember it was not even intended to be a windows product
at first, ans was to be a development on from OS/2).

At the time it was designed the OS supported multiple APIs and multiple
hardware platforms. The windows compatibility was just an abstraction
that sat between the underlying OS and the application. (later versions
more closely coupled the Win32 API to the kernel in the interests of
greater performance, and in realisation that its POSIX and OS/2 APIs
were of less interest to customers)

And that is really the complete answer in a nutshell. *nix systems were
designed to work in professional applications, Windows has always been
first and foremost a consumer product, not an industrial one.
It's tried
and succeeded in getting sold into those markets, but that is more in
spite of its engineering, than because of it.

Rough diamond, or polished turd.

Your choice

As I have said many times, I use both. I just don't feel the need to
keep whining on about why my OS (or boiler, or any other hobby horse)
must be better that any other, just because its the one I like the most.


Well that is interesting, because I wasn't whining on' I was answering
someone who said 'how come the two strategies are different' and I
replied essentially 'history'.

And I am afraid the the legacy of windows a single task single user
operating system lives on even into its multi-tasking multiuser and
server aspects today.

These have all been somewhat additional things grafted on, they were
never designed in from the start.

As indeed I freely admit GUI X windows was grafted onto *nx.


--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

On 28/03/16 16:13, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 28/03/2016 01:06, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 27/03/16 22:55, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/03/2016 15:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
8GB or RAM of which at the time of writing less than half a gig is
'free' and everything else is buffers cache or in use...

My Windows system is reporting 84Mb free out of 3GB. Most of the rest is
cache.


well you only have 3GB. I've gotta bigger cache than you have!

This is where Linux does score.

I have more RAM than that (after my son gave me a free upgrade!) but I
have a 32-bit Windows licence.

Andy

sheesh, are there still such things?

IIRC I went 64 bit around WinXP time.

--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 28/03/2016 17:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/03/16 16:13, John Rumm wrote:

8

As I have said many times, I use both. I just don't feel the need to
keep whining on about why my OS (or boiler, or any other hobby horse)
must be better that any other, just because its the one I like the most.


Well that is interesting, because I wasn't whining on' I was answering
someone who said 'how come the two strategies are different' and I
replied essentially 'history'.

And I am afraid the the legacy of windows a single task single user
operating system lives on even into its multi-tasking multiuser and
server aspects today.

So as the Windows kernel is a multi tasking kernel and the file systems
have fine grain multiuser access control and have had since NT which
version of windows do you think was designed as a single user system?


These have all been somewhat additional things grafted on, they were
never designed in from the start.

As indeed I freely admit GUI X windows was grafted onto *nx.

So its pretty much the same as windows was in win 2k then.

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 28/03/2016 10:02, 764hho wrote:

And it doesnt really matter if those log files do get quite
fragmented, because they are hardly ever read from end
to end except when browsing them, when you reading
much more slowly than the file can be read anyway,
so extra seeks between fragments dent matter at all.

Unfortunately, in my experience, it can matter.

Not very often when fragmentation of them matters tho.

One particular application I used to deal with had such files. And they
were regularly accessed. The difference achieved from a simple move of
such a file was often very obvious to a user.

Then the use of that log file was done badly. It should have
been properly indexed so that there was no need to access
the entire file serially and so see the extra head movements
that fragmentation produced.

It can also matter because in time, as other files are created and
deleted, the fragmented log file can mean that any free space is
fragmented.

Sure, but with some linux file systems the free space is deliberately
fragmented
to minimise the fragmentation seen with files that grow over time.

One area of NTFS I have either forgotten or never read up is how it knows
where fragments of files reside. Based on another file system which I did
know well, there was a file which contained lots of records something
like:

File number ! Fragment number ! Starts at block ! For so many blocks

In that old system, locating the block required shuffling through this
file and counting. The amount of work this required was very closely
related to the number of fragments and hardly at all to the absolute size
of the file. To find the last block of a severely fragmented file would
require reading through lots of these small records. (Of course, some or
all of this might be cached - though probably not then. This file would be
a prime candidate for holding in memory.)

It isn't like that with NTFS.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 28/03/16 12:18, dennis@home wrote:
On 27/03/2016 22:57, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/03/2016 09:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Well of course it is somewhat, but the point is that new files tend to
be written in the middle of the biggest free space, depending on the
actual disk format in use, so they tend to simply grow linearly.

Fragmentation isn't a file in a random place, its a file in dozens of
random places, so to get the entire contents takes many seeks.

http://www.howtogeek.com/115229/htg-...defragmenting/



Good link. Thanks.

The Windows guys chose to put all their files near the same end of the
disk to reduce seeks when the disk is nearly empty. Linux has a
different approach - they are scattered all over the place.

Andy

Almost true.
Linux uses different allocation strategies for different file system
types.
Not that they make much sense if the OS doesn't know the physical layout
of the disk, which it doesn't for SATA/IDE. The OS doesn't know if it
really is putting the stuff in the best place at all.

economical with the truth

"somewhere in London" is not the same as 'I dont know where he is'

And if that is true, why does windows need defragging on IDE and SATA
disks,

It doesnt.

since windows can't know where the data is either?

Doesnt need to to ensure that no file is fragmented
when defragging.

On 28/03/2016 16:54, T i m wrote:
Strange though, in 20+ years supporting many Windows users, I can't
remember anyone (other than a *nix / Apple user) even mentioning, let
alone complaining about them? I mean, they may not understand what
they represent in a technical sense but they generally understand what
they mean to them (in most cases without any instruction).

I have heard complaints/questions.

Starting with "Why can't I use A:?". Having ill-advisedly used A: and/or
B:, "Why doesn't this work right?" (maybe A: and B: don't do odd things
now - they used to).

Going on to "Why is it Z: on that PC but Q: on this one?"

"Where has P: gone?" when the original P: is "over-mapped" by another
drive that wants to be called P:.

"Why can't I use my CD drive since someone set up the network drive as D:?"

--
Rod

On 28/03/16 19:57, 764hho wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 28/03/16 12:18, dennis@home wrote:
On 27/03/2016 22:57, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/03/2016 09:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Well of course it is somewhat, but the point is that new files tend to
be written in the middle of the biggest free space, depending on the
actual disk format in use, so they tend to simply grow linearly.

Fragmentation isn't a file in a random place, its a file in dozens of
random places, so to get the entire contents takes many seeks.

http://www.howtogeek.com/115229/htg-...defragmenting/




Good link. Thanks.

The Windows guys chose to put all their files near the same end of the
disk to reduce seeks when the disk is nearly empty. Linux has a
different approach - they are scattered all over the place.

Andy

Almost true.
Linux uses different allocation strategies for different file system
types.
Not that they make much sense if the OS doesn't know the physical layout
of the disk, which it doesn't for SATA/IDE. The OS doesn't know if it
really is putting the stuff in the best place at all.

economical with the truth

"somewhere in London" is not the same as 'I dont know where he is'

And if that is true, why does windows need defragging on IDE and SATA
disks,

It doesnt.

hahahaha


since windows can't know where the data is either?

Doesnt need to to ensure that no file is fragmented
when defragging.


Oh dear ...




--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:03:00 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 28/03/2016 16:54, T i m wrote:
Strange though, in 20+ years supporting many Windows users, I can't
remember anyone (other than a *nix / Apple user) even mentioning, let
alone complaining about them? I mean, they may not understand what
they represent in a technical sense but they generally understand what
they mean to them (in most cases without any instruction).

I have heard complaints/questions.

Starting with "Why can't I use A:?". Having ill-advisedly used A: and/or
B:, "Why doesn't this work right?" (maybe A: and B: don't do odd things
now - they used to).

Nope, never had that ...

Going on to "Why is it Z: on that PC but Q: on this one?"

"Where has P: gone?" when the original P: is "over-mapped" by another
drive that wants to be called P:.

"Why can't I use my CD drive since someone set up the network drive as D:?"

Yeahbut they are network related questions and most home users don't
use networking and so those business / office users should have been
better trained and / or the network admin configured the shares more
consistently with a / the logon script).

Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote
polygonum wrote
T i m wrote

Strange though, in 20+ years supporting many Windows users, I can't
remember anyone (other than a *nix / Apple user) even mentioning, let
alone complaining about them? I mean, they may not understand what
they represent in a technical sense but they generally understand what
they mean to them (in most cases without any instruction).

I have heard complaints/questions.

Starting with "Why can't I use A:?". Having ill-advisedly used A: and/or
B:, "Why doesn't this work right?" (maybe A: and B: don't do odd things
now - they used to).

Nope, never had that ...

I have.

Going on to "Why is it Z: on that PC but Q: on this one?"

"Where has P: gone?" when the original P: is "over-mapped" by another
drive that wants to be called P:.

"Why can't I use my CD drive since someone set up the network drive as
D:?"

Yeah but they are network related questions

No they are not. It happens just as often with removable drives.

and most home users don't use networking

BULL**** they don't.

and so those business / office users should have been
better trained and / or the network admin configured
the shares more consistently with a / the logon script).

Pity about all the home users.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:20:54 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

snip

Going on to "Why is it Z: on that PC but Q: on this one?"

Network search mapping / network drive mapping.

"Where has P: gone?" when the original P: is "over-mapped" by another
drive that wants to be called P:.

Straight network re-mapping.

"Why can't I use my CD drive since someone set up the network drive as
D:?"

Network mapping.

Yeah but they are network related questions

No they are not.

Yes they are. Every single instance was stated by *you* as network
drive mapping issues.

It happens just as often with removable drives.

But you just stated all network related issues and hence my
observation (that *those* were all network related issues).

and most home users don't use networking

BULL**** they don't.

You don't have a clue mate.

and so those business / office users should have been
better trained and / or the network admin configured
the shares more consistently with a / the logon script).

Pity about all the home users.

No need, they rarely suffer network related drive mapping issues
because 1) they rarely make use of networking (LAN not Internet) and
2) rarely don't know about drive mapping if they do.

I *know* this because I've helped enough people with home networking
in my life who prior to my assistance hadn't got a clue that they
could share files, folders, printers and DVD drives etc.

Cheers, T i m

T i m wrote
Rod Speed wrote
T i m wrote
polygonum wrote

Going on to "Why is it Z: on that PC but Q: on this one?"

Network search mapping / network drive mapping.

"Where has P: gone?" when the original P: is "over-mapped" by another
drive that wants to be called P:.

Straight network re-mapping.

Not necessarily, you can get the the same thing with removable drives.

"Why can't I use my CD drive since someone set up the network drive as
D:?"

Network mapping.

Yeah but they are network related questions

No they are not.

Yes they are.

No they are not.

Every single instance was stated by *you*

I never stated any, polygonum did that.

as network drive mapping issues.

Not all of them are.

It happens just as often with removable drives.

But you just stated all network related issues

No I did not, and polygonum didn't either.

and hence my observation (that *those*
were all network related issues).

They aren't all.

and most home users don't use networking

BULL**** they don't.

You don't have a clue mate.

Hell of a lot more a clue than you do thanks.

and so those business / office users should have been
better trained and / or the network admin configured
the shares more consistently with a / the logon script).

Pity about all the home users.

No need, they rarely suffer network related drive mapping issues
because 1) they rarely make use of networking (LAN not Internet)

BULL****.

and 2) rarely don't know about drive mapping if they do.

It isnt just about network drive mapping.

I *know* this because I've helped enough people with home
networking in my life who prior to my assistance hadn't got a
clue that they could share files, folders, printers and DVD drives etc.

You don't even see the ones that can work that out
for themselves or have the system do it for them
when they plug another device into their router etc.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:32:00 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

snip

One area of NTFS I have either forgotten or never read up is how it
knows where fragments of files reside.

snip

(From memory and basically ...)

The FileAllocationTable(s) hold records that point to the first
segment of a file that in turn links to the next.

NTFS uses MasterFileTable(s?) that hold records of all the segments
that make up each file (and hold the actual files when small enough).

So with FAT ('only' FAT16 possibly) if you lose the content of one
segment of a multi-segment file you could / would lose access to all
subsequent parts.

With NTFS / MFT if you lose the content of one segment of a multi
segment file you just lose that segment (that you are less likely to
do because of journaling).

Or something like that, it's been a while. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:20:54 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

snip

Going on to "Why is it Z: on that PC but Q: on this one?"

Network search mapping / network drive mapping.

"Where has P: gone?" when the original P: is "over-mapped" by another
drive that wants to be called P:.

Straight network re-mapping.

"Why can't I use my CD drive since someone set up the network drive as
D:?"

Network mapping.

Yeah but they are network related questions

No they are not.

Yes they are. Every single instance was stated by *you* as network
drive mapping issues.

It happens just as often with removable drives.

But you just stated all network related issues and hence my
observation (that *those* were all network related issues).

and most home users don't use networking

BULL**** they don't.

You don't have a clue mate.

and so those business / office users should have been
better trained and / or the network admin configured
the shares more consistently with a / the logon script).

Pity about all the home users.

No need, they rarely suffer network related drive mapping issues
because 1) they rarely make use of networking (LAN not Internet) and
2) rarely don't know about drive mapping if they do.

I *know* this because I've helped enough people with home networking
in my life who prior to my assistance hadn't got a clue that they
could share files, folders, printers and DVD drives etc.

Swerve the prick FFS.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:49:03 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:03:00 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 28/03/2016 16:54, T i m wrote:
Strange though, in 20+ years supporting many Windows users, I can't
remember anyone (other than a *nix / Apple user) even mentioning, let
alone complaining about them? I mean, they may not understand what
they represent in a technical sense but they generally understand what
they mean to them (in most cases without any instruction).

I have heard complaints/questions.

Starting with "Why can't I use A:?". Having ill-advisedly used A: and/or
B:, "Why doesn't this work right?" (maybe A: and B: don't do odd things
now - they used to).

Nope, never had that ...

Going on to "Why is it Z: on that PC but Q: on this one?"

"Where has P: gone?" when the original P: is "over-mapped" by another
drive that wants to be called P:.

"Why can't I use my CD drive since someone set up the network drive as D:?"

Yeahbut they are network related questions and most home users don't
use networking and so those business / office users should have been
better trained and / or the network admin configured the shares more
consistently with a / the logon script).

You mean most home users only have one computer at their house?

That wasn't what I meant but may well be true (statically (where
'computer' doesn't mean smartphone or tablet, that also rarely make
use of any local shared services, other than the Interweb)). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Tuesday, 29 March 2016 00:35:40 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

You don't have a clue mate.

He has no mates. He isn't capable of it.

On 28/03/2016 11:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/03/16 06:00, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 09:28:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 25/03/16 21:20, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 24/03/2016 22:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Oh the joys of Linux, and no de fragging ever unless the disk is 100%
full

I've heard this said, and I never can work out how.

If I put 5000 files on my disk, and delete every alternate one, how can
it not be fragmented?

Well of course it is somewhat, but the point is that new files tend to
be written in the middle of the biggest free space, depending on the
actual disk format in use, so they tend to simply grow linearly.

Fragmentation isn't a file in a random place, its a file in dozens of
random places, so to get the entire contents takes many seeks.

http://www.howtogeek.com/115229/htg-...x-doesnt-need-
defragmenting/

I was quite surprised at the explanation. The strategy of scattering
files across the disk volume 'in order to allow them space into which to
grow' seemed so bogus, seeing as how most files are edited by writing a
complete new copy before renaming the original as a backup file, either
temporarily simply to avoid the naming conflict or as a safety rollback
copy.


Where are you going to put that new file then? Into all the tiny little
gaps left by previous deleted ones, as none of the spaces were big
enough to hold new bigger files?

If you delete a single file bang in the middlke of a huge gap you get
the huge gap back, with no clutter.

skip intersting design of tape FAT

With my strategy of minimising fragmentation of free space being *such*
a "No Brainer", I've always assumed MSFT's FAT based FSes used a similar
strategy, BICBW.


The words in that paragraph are in te wro9ng order.

I've always assumed MSFTs FAT based FSes were the result of no brain no
strategy.

FAT was basically just a formalisation of what was inherited from
CP/M... it was not until MS hired a patent lawyer with the intention of
finding new way to monetise old intellectual property, that FAT was even
really acknowledged as being an item rather than just a bit of
technology that loads of people used. It main goal was simplicity and
lightweight implementation - as was demanded by the needs of the time.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 29/03/2016 00:35, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:20:54 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

snip

Going on to "Why is it Z: on that PC but Q: on this one?"

Network search mapping / network drive mapping.

Users with later versions of windows don't need to map network drives.
You access them using the machine name and share name.

Its yet more FUD from people that don't use windows.

On 29/03/2016 09:49, Tim Streater wrote:


You mean most home users only have one computer at their house?


The ones that do are probably using windows 7,8 or 10 so the issue with
mapping drives to letters doesn't exist.

It didn't really exist with XP either.

So its another 20 year old issue, which goes to show how long ago the
commentators last used windows.
I think its safe to ignore what they say.

On 29/03/16 14:24, John Rumm wrote:
On 28/03/2016 11:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/03/16 06:00, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 09:28:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 25/03/16 21:20, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 24/03/2016 22:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Oh the joys of Linux, and no de fragging ever unless the disk is 100%
full

I've heard this said, and I never can work out how.

If I put 5000 files on my disk, and delete every alternate one, how
can
it not be fragmented?

Well of course it is somewhat, but the point is that new files tend to
be written in the middle of the biggest free space, depending on the
actual disk format in use, so they tend to simply grow linearly.

Fragmentation isn't a file in a random place, its a file in dozens of
random places, so to get the entire contents takes many seeks.

http://www.howtogeek.com/115229/htg-...x-doesnt-need-
defragmenting/

I was quite surprised at the explanation. The strategy of scattering
files across the disk volume 'in order to allow them space into which to
grow' seemed so bogus, seeing as how most files are edited by writing a
complete new copy before renaming the original as a backup file, either
temporarily simply to avoid the naming conflict or as a safety rollback
copy.


Where are you going to put that new file then? Into all the tiny little
gaps left by previous deleted ones, as none of the spaces were big
enough to hold new bigger files?

If you delete a single file bang in the middlke of a huge gap you get
the huge gap back, with no clutter.

skip intersting design of tape FAT

With my strategy of minimising fragmentation of free space being
*such*
a "No Brainer", I've always assumed MSFT's FAT based FSes used a similar
strategy, BICBW.


The words in that paragraph are in te wro9ng order.

I've always assumed MSFTs FAT based FSes were the result of no brain no
strategy.

FAT was basically just a formalisation of what was inherited from
CP/M... it was not until MS hired a patent lawyer with the intention of
finding new way to monetise old intellectual property, that FAT was even
really acknowledged as being an item rather than just a bit of
technology that loads of people used. It main goal was simplicity and
lightweight implementation - as was demanded by the needs of the time.



Exactly., The disk strategy for a floppy disk single user single tasking
OS is not that important.


--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On 29/03/16 14:24, dennis@home wrote:
On 29/03/2016 00:35, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:20:54 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

snip

Going on to "Why is it Z: on that PC but Q: on this one?"

Network search mapping / network drive mapping.

Users with later versions of windows don't need to map network drives.
You access them using the machine name and share name.


Dennis, you are very out of date. Thats been true since - well the turn
of the century at least, BUT if you want them permanently 'mounted' the
tools that DOS - sorry WINDOWS gives you seem top prefer a drive letter.

Its yet more FUD from people that don't use windows.
Yet mopre FID fr9om people who use^H^H^H have Windows on their computers
and are too stupid to install anything else.






--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On 29/03/16 14:29, dennis@home wrote:
On 29/03/2016 09:49, Tim Streater wrote:


You mean most home users only have one computer at their house?


The ones that do are probably using windows 7,8 or 10 so the issue with
mapping drives to letters doesn't exist.

It didn't really exist with XP either.

So its another 20 year old issue, which goes to show how long ago the
commentators last used windows.
I think its safe to ignore what they say.

I guess that job as Microsoft certified windows support droid is looking
shaky eh dennis?

You could try moving to Mumbai...

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 29/03/2016 14:24, dennis@home wrote:
Users with later versions of windows don't need to map network drives.
You access them using the machine name and share name.

This bit of the thread started with:

"Strange though, in 20+ years supporting many Windows users,..."

Does your definition of later versions start with W95?

--
Rod

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 19:00:19 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 29/03/2016 14:24, dennis@home wrote:
Users with later versions of windows don't need to map network drives.
You access them using the machine name and share name.

This bit of the thread started with:

"Strange though, in 20+ years supporting many Windows users,..."

Does your definition of later versions start with W95?


I think this thread has gone a bit wobbly. I was the one who you
quoted above but I said that in response to the suggestion that
'people' would complain about being confused by or disliking drive
letters.

All I was doing was stating that *in my experience* (even of Windows
users going back to networked 3.1 in an office environment, on a LAN
that I installed, the clients and servers that I had built and the
final system that I supported on my own), drive letters were rarely
raised as an issue.

That's all. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:49:03 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:03:00 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 28/03/2016 16:54, T i m wrote:
Strange though, in 20+ years supporting many Windows users, I can't
remember anyone (other than a *nix / Apple user) even mentioning, let
alone complaining about them? I mean, they may not understand what
they represent in a technical sense but they generally understand what
they mean to them (in most cases without any instruction).

I have heard complaints/questions.

Starting with "Why can't I use A:?". Having ill-advisedly used A: and/or
B:, "Why doesn't this work right?" (maybe A: and B: don't do odd things
now - they used to).

Nope, never had that ...

Going on to "Why is it Z: on that PC but Q: on this one?"

"Where has P: gone?" when the original P: is "over-mapped" by another
drive that wants to be called P:.

"Why can't I use my CD drive since someone set up the network drive as
D:?"

Yeahbut they are network related questions and most home users don't
use networking and so those business / office users should have been
better trained and / or the network admin configured the shares more
consistently with a / the logon script).

You mean most home users only have one computer at their house?

That wasn't what I meant but may well be true (statically
(where 'computer' doesn't mean smartphone or tablet,

Statistics are irrelevant to the fact that those are just
as much computers as the desktops and laptops.

that also rarely make use of any local shared
services, other than the Interweb)). ;-)

That's bull**** with printers alone.

On 29/03/2016 20:00, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 19:00:19 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 29/03/2016 14:24, dennis@home wrote:
Users with later versions of windows don't need to map network drives.
You access them using the machine name and share name.

This bit of the thread started with:

"Strange though, in 20+ years supporting many Windows users,..."

Does your definition of later versions start with W95?


I think this thread has gone a bit wobbly. I was the one who you
quoted above but I said that in response to the suggestion that
'people' would complain about being confused by or disliking drive
letters.

All I was doing was stating that *in my experience* (even of Windows
users going back to networked 3.1 in an office environment, on a LAN
that I installed, the clients and servers that I had built and the
final system that I supported on my own), drive letters were rarely
raised as an issue.

That's all. ;-)

Cheers, T i m


No problem whatsoever with you reporting your experience. After all, we
all have different experiences.

--
Rod

wrote
T i m wrote

You don't have a clue mate.

He has no mates. He isn't capable of it.

There you go, face down in the mud, as always.

4 of them showed up about different stuff
just the last couple of hours yesterday. Bet
that's more than you got, gutless.

On 28/03/2016 16:54, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:54:04 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

On 27/03/2016 23:26, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

On 26/03/2016 09:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Once again the legacy of Windows - a single user system with its roots
back in floppy disks - and Unix - a multi-user system designed to work
with a very busy disk from the outset - show up.

You do talk a load of crap at times...

Windows 3.1, sure a shell on top of DOS. Win NT onward, basically a
re-engineering of VMS. Hardly what anyone would describe as a single
use floppy based system.

Bodged downwards though to have drive letters. Drive letters, in this
day and age.

Drive letters are crap,

Strange though, in 20+ years supporting many Windows users, I can't
remember anyone (other than a *nix / Apple user) even mentioning, let
alone complaining about them? I mean, they may not understand what
they represent in a technical sense but they generally understand what
they mean to them (in most cases without any instruction).

although using them is (mostly) optional...

Quite.

You
can use *nix style grafting of volumes into another directory tree if
you like.

And I would say, outside the admin / geek, few would want to. ;-)

It can help if you have quite a few partitions, and then also things
like multi format card readers that can gobble letters. You can end up
with more than 26 logical drives!

Of all the platforms I have used, I think I liked the Amiga way of doing
drives and volumes the best[1]. You could create physical device names
as you liked (either defined in a mountlist file, or as a separate mount
listette file in the Drivers folder). You could also create an
assignment that looked like a device name or volume name, but pointed
somewhere else like a folder on a hard drive or network.

You could refer to a drive by its name (say dh0: for a hard drive) or by
its volume label (say system. If you used the volume label it did not
care what physical drive it was in. So it made handling of removable
media very nice - you could refer to MyCDName:somepath/somefile and if
it could not find the volume it just promoted you to put it into any
drive (which could include copying the CD to a hard drive folder and
then assigning that name to the folder). It still bugs me today when
installing a multi DVD game for example that Windows will frequently
insist that you stick all the discs one by one into the same drive, and
can't make use of multiple DVD drives...

[1] to be fair ISTR VMS could do similar, but the syntax was convoluted.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 29/03/16 14:24, dennis@home wrote:
On 29/03/2016 00:35, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:20:54 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

snip

Going on to "Why is it Z: on that PC but Q: on this one?"

Network search mapping / network drive mapping.

Users with later versions of windows don't need to map network drives.
You access them using the machine name and share name.


Dennis, you are very out of date. Thats been true since - well the turn of
the century at least, BUT if you want them permanently 'mounted' the tools
that DOS - sorry WINDOWS gives you seem top prefer a drive letter.

No they dont and haven't done for a very long time now.

Its yet more FUD from people that don't use windows.
Yet mopre FID fr9om people who use^H^H^H have Windows on their computers
and are too stupid to install anything else.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 06:12:41 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"T i m" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:49:03 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , T i m
wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:03:00 +0100, polygonum
wrote:

On 28/03/2016 16:54, T i m wrote:
Strange though, in 20+ years supporting many Windows users, I can't
remember anyone (other than a *nix / Apple user) even mentioning, let
alone complaining about them? I mean, they may not understand what
they represent in a technical sense but they generally understand what
they mean to them (in most cases without any instruction).

I have heard complaints/questions.

Starting with "Why can't I use A:?". Having ill-advisedly used A: and/or
B:, "Why doesn't this work right?" (maybe A: and B: don't do odd things
now - they used to).

Nope, never had that ...

Going on to "Why is it Z: on that PC but Q: on this one?"

"Where has P: gone?" when the original P: is "over-mapped" by another
drive that wants to be called P:.

"Why can't I use my CD drive since someone set up the network drive as
D:?"

Yeahbut they are network related questions and most home users don't
use networking and so those business / office users should have been
better trained and / or the network admin configured the shares more
consistently with a / the logon script).

You mean most home users only have one computer at their house?

That wasn't what I meant but may well be true (statically
(where 'computer' doesn't mean smartphone or tablet,

Statistics are irrelevant to the fact that those are just
as much computers as the desktops and laptops.

The word 'statistically wasn't referring to phones ort tablets.

that also rarely make use of any local shared
services, other than the Interweb)). ;-)

That's bull**** with printers alone.

Still 'nope'. You are still wrong.

See, you don't have the ability to see things as others see them and
hence aren't able to accept that things may not be as you think they
are.

My mate runs a PC shop and I often chill out in there (it's also where
the 3D printer we built lives and I've always got something I want to
print on there).

So, I *still* (continuing / expanding my lifelong role in IT Support)
see and hear just what sort of things 'ordinary people' do with their
machines and therefore *know* that very few actually make use of local
networking, *including* network printing and printing from mobile
devices like tablets and phones.

I'm not talking everyone, I'm talking 'most people'.

You are very welcome to think something different but I suggest it's
unlikely to accurately reflect the real world of 'ordinary people'.

Cheers, T i m