J. P. Gilliver wrote on 5/1/24 10:56 pm:
> In message <un8fup$3kh2$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 5 Jan 2024 19:51:35,
> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> writes
>> J. P. Gilliver wrote on 5/1/24 2:57 pm:
> []
>>> Much the same here, except I just run C: (OS and installed software)
>>> and D: (all data, including downloaded installers for the software).
>>> I image C: (with Macrium), and copy D: (with FreeFileSync currently).
>>> I thought about trying to keep OS and other software separate, but
>>> couldn't see any advantage, and software gets its teeth into the
>>> registry, system files etc., so I just couldn't see any point (and
>>> saw horrendous difficulties doing so). My C: is 50G (19.6G free).
>>> Whatever works for you!
>>
>> For me ....
>>
>> C:\    Win7 OS files only (if I can help)
>> E:\    Other Executables (Word process, etc)
>> F:\    Data files, Letters, Games, SeaMonkey Profile files, etc.
>
> For backup, do you image C: and E:, and sync F:?
> Why (and how) do you keep C: and E: separate?
>>
>> Of course D:\ is the DVD R/RW drive.
>
> Mine appears as E:.

To be honest, it's been that long since I did a back-up, I don't recall.
By-the-by, I think I last backed up using one of my Linux installations.

--
Daniel

[snip]

> I never trusted compression enough to use it but I was a CE. If
> everything worked right every time, I wouldn't have a very interesting
> day.

I didn't use it regularly, but I have tried it, I would usually get a
compression ratio of 1.1 to 1.2 rather than the 2 they claimed. Maybe
you could get 2 if you had nothing but text files on that disk. IIRC,
the same thing with MNP (modem) compression.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Me: Dr Shrödinger, will my cat live?

Doc: Well, yes and no...."

On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 03:57:25 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <qeoepi9kim4799bm2a9fegip2jm7icnavp@4ax.com> at Thu, 4 Jan
>2024 21:08:21, gfretwell@aol.com writes
>[]
>>into 3 partitions, an architecture I still run
>>C: system files.
>>D: common data files (storage for program data)
>>E: everything else.
>>That makes your backups, from XP on, much simpler
>>Image a relatively small system drive and simply copy all the rest of
>>the files on your data drives with a sync program.
>>The only one that really needs to be an image is the system files
>>because of the registry and other program sensitive data. I keep that
>>as small as possible.
>>
>Much the same here, except I just run C: (OS and installed software) and
>D: (all data, including downloaded installers for the software). I image
>C: (with Macrium), and copy D: (with FreeFileSync currently). I thought
>about trying to keep OS and other software separate, but couldn't see
>any advantage, and software gets its teeth into the registry, system
>files etc., so I just couldn't see any point (and saw horrendous
>difficulties doing so). My C: is 50G (19.6G free).
>Whatever works for you!

Maybe it is just the 32m days but I still like a lot of "drives". It
is a way to keep things separated.

On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 19:51:35 +1100, Daniel65
<daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>For me ....
>
>C:\ Win7 OS files only (if I can help)
>E:\ Other Executables (Word process, etc)
>F:\ Data files, Letters, Games, SeaMonkey Profile files, etc.
>
>Of course D:\ is the DVD R/RW drive.

Maybe just a relic of the SCSI days but my optical drive is always
close to the top of the box. D: is my data default.
E: is a FAT partition with DOS and W/3 files on it.
(Boot a thumb drive or diskette into DOS and that is C:)
F: is media stuff.
K: is a mirrored set of drives that gets backup files like my C:
image. and things I sic my sync program on.

On 5 Jan 2024 12:34:59 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>[...]
>
>> I was running an ST 4096 80m on a PC/AT with DOS 3.3 but I broke it up
>> into 3 partitions, an architecture I still run
>> C: system files.
>> D: common data files (storage for program data)
>> E: everything else.
>> That makes your backups, from XP on, much simpler
>> Image a relatively small system drive and simply copy all the rest of
>> the files on your data drives with a sync program.
>> The only one that really needs to be an image is the system files
>> because of the registry and other program sensitive data. I keep that
>> as small as possible.
>
> I should do something similar, but the 'problem' is that when I get a
>new system (laptop), the 'installation' (read: initialization) procedure
>of the Windows (now Windows 11) on the disk [1] does not give the
>choice/chance to partition the disk.
>
>
I haven't played with 11 much but doesn't it have "Disk Management"
that lets you juggle partitions? You should be able to shrink C: and
add another simple volume in that vacated space

gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> On 5 Jan 2024 12:34:59 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> >[...]
> >
> >> I was running an ST 4096 80m on a PC/AT with DOS 3.3 but I broke it up
> >> into 3 partitions, an architecture I still run
> >> C: system files.
> >> D: common data files (storage for program data)
> >> E: everything else.
> >> That makes your backups, from XP on, much simpler
> >> Image a relatively small system drive and simply copy all the rest of
> >> the files on your data drives with a sync program.
> >> The only one that really needs to be an image is the system files
> >> because of the registry and other program sensitive data. I keep that
> >> as small as possible.
> >
> > I should do something similar, but the 'problem' is that when I get a
> >new system (laptop), the 'installation' (read: initialization) procedure
> >of the Windows (now Windows 11) on the disk [1] does not give the
> >choice/chance to partition the disk.
>
> I haven't played with 11 much but doesn't it have "Disk Management"
> that lets you juggle partitions? You should be able to shrink C: and
> add another simple volume in that vacated space

Yes, you can do it after the fact, i.e. after the initial Windows
'installation'/initialization, but not before/during that procedure.

After the fact, you can indeed do it with the stock Disk Management
(which does have a 'Shrink Volume...' function) or with third-party
partitioning software, which is probably more flexible and user-friendly.

Maybe one day I'll do it, or maybe not! :-)

In message <unbsim.11qs.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> at Sat, 6 Jan
2024 14:45:38, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes
>gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>> On 5 Jan 2024 12:34:59 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
[]
>> > I should do something similar, but the 'problem' is that when I get a
>> >new system (laptop), the 'installation' (read: initialization) procedure
>> >of the Windows (now Windows 11) on the disk [1] does not give the
>> >choice/chance to partition the disk.
>>
>> I haven't played with 11 much but doesn't it have "Disk Management"
>> that lets you juggle partitions? You should be able to shrink C: and
>> add another simple volume in that vacated space
>
> Yes, you can do it after the fact, i.e. after the initial Windows
>'installation'/initialization, but not before/during that procedure.
>
> After the fact, you can indeed do it with the stock Disk Management
>(which does have a 'Shrink Volume...' function) or with third-party
>partitioning software, which is probably more flexible and user-friendly.
>
> Maybe one day I'll do it, or maybe not! :-)

Yes, some feature for handling partitions has been built into the OS
since 7. In the 7 version, it was unable to shrink C: below a point
because of "immovable files", which were usually about half way up the
original size of C:, though (a) repeating it after a reboot _sometimes_
allowed further reduction and (b) third-party software (e. g. EaseUS)
did not have this problem. I don't know if this limitation remained in
the in-OS partition utility in future versions.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I admire him for the constancy of his curiosity, his effortless sense of
authority and his ability to deliver good science without gimmicks.
- Michael Palin on Sir David Attenborough, RT 2016/5/7-13

On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 00:10:15 -0500, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 03:57:25 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <qeoepi9kim4799bm2a9fegip2jm7icnavp@4ax.com> at Thu, 4 Jan
>>2024 21:08:21, gfretwell@aol.com writes
>>[]
>>>into 3 partitions, an architecture I still run
>>>C: system files.
>>>D: common data files (storage for program data)
>>>E: everything else.
>>>That makes your backups, from XP on, much simpler
>>>Image a relatively small system drive and simply copy all the rest of
>>>the files on your data drives with a sync program.
>>>The only one that really needs to be an image is the system files
>>>because of the registry and other program sensitive data. I keep that
>>>as small as possible.
>>>
>>Much the same here, except I just run C: (OS and installed software) and
>>D: (all data, including downloaded installers for the software). I image
>>C: (with Macrium), and copy D: (with FreeFileSync currently). I thought
>>about trying to keep OS and other software separate, but couldn't see
>>any advantage, and software gets its teeth into the registry, system
>>files etc., so I just couldn't see any point (and saw horrendous
>>difficulties doing so). My C: is 50G (19.6G free).
>>Whatever works for you!
>
>Maybe it is just the 32m days but I still like a lot of "drives". It
>is a way to keep things separated.

I approach storage from a different perspective. Most of my drives are pooled
into a single 40TB volume on my primary PC and a single 60TB volume on a
networked PC. I just picked up a pair of 18TB drives, so I'll be expanding my
little 40TB pool to 76TB (which becomes 70TB after formatting). I use folders
for separation, rather than partitions. Folders are much more flexible.

In message <e19kpipa4thd76k8tom71kpnoc5ov1838b@4ax.com> at Sat, 6 Jan
2024 22:15:29, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> writes
[]
>I approach storage from a different perspective. Most of my drives are pooled
>into a single 40TB volume on my primary PC and a single 60TB volume on a
>networked PC. I just picked up a pair of 18TB drives, so I'll be expanding my
>little 40TB pool to 76TB (which becomes 70TB after formatting). I use folders
>for separation, rather than partitions. Folders are much more flexible.
>
I agree - I don't subdivide beyond C: and D:, using folders on D:. (And
ones of my own naming, not the Microsoft names.) I do keep C: as a
separate (only 50G, and that far from full) entity, containing the OS
and software, along with all their necessary files, settings, and
registry, and I image that, so that in the event of HD failure (or, in
theory, ransomware), I can restore from the image (restore [and image]
software kept on a mini-CD) and be back running (with all software set
up as it was) within less than half an hour of installing the new drive;
D: I just copy (with a sync. utility to reduce the time needed).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I don't have an agree that our language torture is a quality add
- soldiersailor on Gransnet, 2018-3-8

J. P. Gilliver wrote on 7/1/24 4:04 pm:
> In message <e19kpipa4thd76k8tom71kpnoc5ov1838b@4ax.com> at Sat, 6 Jan
> 2024 22:15:29, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> writes []
>> I approach storage from a different perspective. Most of my drives
>> are pooled into a single 40TB volume on my primary PC and a single
>> 60TB volume on a networked PC. I just picked up a pair of 18TB
>> drives, so I'll be expanding my little 40TB pool to 76TB (which
>> becomes 70TB after formatting). I use folders for separation,
>> rather than partitions. Folders are much more flexible.
>>
> I agree - I don't subdivide beyond C: and D:, using folders on D:.
> (And ones of my own naming, not the Microsoft names.) I do keep C: as
> a separate (only 50G, and that far from full) entity, containing the
> OS and software, along with all their necessary files, settings, and
> registry, and I image that, so that in the event of HD failure (or,
> in theory, ransomware), I can restore from the image (restore [and
> image] software kept on a mini-CD) and be back running (with all
> software set up as it was) within less than half an hour of
> installing the new drive; D: I just copy (with a sync. utility to
> reduce the time needed).

Bloody hell!! Am I underdone?? Or just more economical!! ;-P

One 500GB (yes, GB) spinning rust drive, divided into 9 partitions,
three for Win7 and six for various Linux usages!
--
Daniel

On 1/6/2024 10:23 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <unbsim.11qs.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> at Sat, 6 Jan 2024 14:45:38, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes
>> gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>> On 5 Jan 2024 12:34:59 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
> []
>>> >  I should do something similar, but the 'problem' is that when I get a
>>> >new system (laptop), the 'installation' (read: initialization) procedure
>>> >of the Windows (now Windows 11) on the disk [1] does not give the
>>> >choice/chance to partition the disk.
>>>
>>> I haven't played with 11 much but doesn't it have "Disk Management"
>>> that lets you juggle partitions?  You should be able to shrink C: and
>>> add another simple volume in that vacated space
>>
>>  Yes, you can do it after the fact, i.e. after the initial Windows
>> 'installation'/initialization, but not before/during that procedure.
>>
>>  After the fact, you can indeed do it with the stock Disk Management
>> (which does have a 'Shrink Volume...' function) or with third-party
>> partitioning software, which is probably more flexible and user-friendly.
>>
>>  Maybe one day I'll do it, or maybe not! :-)
>
> Yes, some feature for handling partitions has been built into the OS since 7.
> In the 7 version, it was unable to shrink C: below a point because of
> "immovable files", which were usually about half way up the original
> size of C:, though (a) repeating it after a reboot _sometimes_ allowed
> further reduction and (b) third-party software (e. g. EaseUS) did not
> have this problem. I don't know if this limitation remained in the
> in-OS partition utility in future versions.

The NTFS file system, places some sort of metadata at the 50% point on the disk.

In Linux, something there, used to place certain structures at the
1/3rd and 2/3rds points on their partitions.

These represent "value statements". The positions selected, have
something to do with file system performance. Someone believed,
long ago, that putting a certain structure at the 50% mark, gave
the best average performance.

You will notice in the SSD era, this no longer matters, and the value
statements mean nothing now.

Thus, the behavior of the utility is incorrect for SSDs, and
remains a value statement for HDD. If your seek time is zero,
then nobody cares where a structure is stored.

Just about any utility worth its salt, does not give a fig newton
for the 50% rule. The metadata gets moved, as required, at the
time a partition manipulation is carried out. I can use GParted
on Linux, and squeeze and squish all I want, and no "rules" are
applied to what I do.

The same goes for defragmenters like Raxco PerfectDisk.

Microsoft did not write the original defragmenter API. A third
party wrote it, and Microsoft bought it, and put it in the OS.
This is the feature that, say, JKDefrag would call, to move
a 64KB block or the like. The defragmenter API is "power-safe",
which means there is a reduced probability of destruction
if the power goes off, while you were using the defragmenter API.
It should not be using any cache path, neither System Read Cache
nor System Write Cache, are allowed to be used (if they did,
defragmentation would "fly like the wind").

The defragmenter API is busy, during a "disk shrink". Open the
Optimization dialog and open Disk Management, at the same time,
so both windows are open. Now, make a request to shrink a partition in DM.
What you should see, in the corner of your eye, is the
Optimize window wakes up and "something is going on". This is the
selective movement of materials. When DM shrinks a partition,
it calls Optimize to do the deed (move the materials out of the way).

But even so, there are a number of things that certain OS utilities
will not request movement. Whereas the defrag API is technically
capable of doing a lot of things. There is a disconnect between
what Microsoft deems moveable, versus what the defrag API can
actually do.

Now, you have some idea, what ingredients fit into the "why won't
my partition shrink further in Disk Management" thing. It's not
a technical issue. It may be a value statement, such as
"put a drink coaster under that drink, you cretin".
We must have doilies and throw cushions, and a hassock you
cannot put your feet on. The hassock sits immobile in the
livingroom, serving no worldly purpose :-)

You see this thing ? Don't put your feet on it, or mom will be pissed.
Well, that's like the metadata at the 50% point. It's to remain
in the livingroom, even if it never demonstrates a function.

https://i.etsystatic.com/5275497/r/il/8cc62b/3822959334/il_794xN.3822959334_33s3.jpg

The purpose of a hassock, as it turns out, it's a "land mine". If
an intruder enters the living room, they trip over the hassock
and are "dispatched" by the fall. That's why the hassock must
remain at 50%.

Paul

In message <undt35$11m8s$1@dont-email.me> at Sun, 7 Jan 2024 21:06:27,
Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> writes
>J. P. Gilliver wrote on 7/1/24 4:04 pm:
>> In message <e19kpipa4thd76k8tom71kpnoc5ov1838b@4ax.com> at Sat, 6 Jan
>> 2024 22:15:29, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> writes []
>>> I approach storage from a different perspective. Most of my drives
>>> are pooled into a single 40TB volume on my primary PC and a single
>>> 60TB volume on a networked PC. I just picked up a pair of 18TB
>>> drives, so I'll be expanding my little 40TB pool to 76TB (which
>>> becomes 70TB after formatting). I use folders for separation,
>>> rather than partitions. Folders are much more flexible.
>>>
>> I agree - I don't subdivide beyond C: and D:, using folders on D:.
>> (And ones of my own naming, not the Microsoft names.) I do keep C: as
>> a separate (only 50G, and that far from full) entity, containing the
>> OS and software, along with all their necessary files, settings, and
>> registry, and I image that, so that in the event of HD failure (or,
>> in theory, ransomware), I can restore from the image (restore [and
>> image] software kept on a mini-CD) and be back running (with all
>> software set up as it was) within less than half an hour of
>> installing the new drive; D: I just copy (with a sync. utility to
>> reduce the time needed).
>
>Bloody hell!! Am I underdone?? Or just more economical!! ;-P
>
>One 500GB (yes, GB) spinning rust drive, divided into 9 partitions,
>three for Win7 and six for various Linux usages!

I too am on a 500G spinner; just the C: above (19.3 of 50.0G free) and
D: (294 of 425G free; of the 121G used, 73.6 is video of one sort or
another (only 7 films, plus lots of music videos - rest misc., though
15.7 genealogy). So I would have room for a few other OSs if I should
choose to (presumably all with access to the same data). My backup drive
is a "1T", so at present keeps about 3 backups (actually 3 of C and 2 of
D).

But I don't consider those who have much more disc (real or SSD) space
to be profligate - each to his own. For example, my films are from 2.x
to 5.x G, mostly SD; I can see that someone who likes films (or TV
series and similar), especially if they have a big enough TV to justify
HD or 4K, could easily eat up the TBs, like Char above with his 76.
We're all individual. (All together now: "we're all individual!")
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Q. How much is 2 + 2?
A. Thank you so much for asking your question.
Are you still having this problem? I'll be delighted to help you. Please
restate the problem twice and include your Windows version along with
all error logs.
- Mayayana in alt.windows7.general, 2018-11-1

In message <undubv$11rvs$1@dont-email.me> at Sun, 7 Jan 2024 05:28:14,
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes
>On 1/6/2024 10:23 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <unbsim.11qs.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> at Sat, 6
>>Jan 2024 14:45:38, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> writes
>>> gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>> On 5 Jan 2024 12:34:59 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>> []
>>>> >  I should do something similar, but the 'problem' is that when I get a
>>>> >new system (laptop), the 'installation' (read: initialization) procedure
>>>> >of the Windows (now Windows 11) on the disk [1] does not give the
>>>> >choice/chance to partition the disk.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't played with 11 much but doesn't it have "Disk Management"
>>>> that lets you juggle partitions?  You should be able to shrink C: and
>>>> add another simple volume in that vacated space
>>>
>>>  Yes, you can do it after the fact, i.e. after the initial Windows
>>> 'installation'/initialization, but not before/during that procedure.
>>>
>>>  After the fact, you can indeed do it with the stock Disk Management
>>> (which does have a 'Shrink Volume...' function) or with third-party
>>> partitioning software, which is probably more flexible and user-friendly.
>>>
>>>  Maybe one day I'll do it, or maybe not! :-)
>>
>> Yes, some feature for handling partitions has been built into the OS
>>since 7.
>> In the 7 version, it was unable to shrink C: below a point because of
>> "immovable files", which were usually about half way up the original
>> size of C:, though (a) repeating it after a reboot _sometimes_ allowed
>> further reduction and (b) third-party software (e. g. EaseUS) did not
>> have this problem. I don't know if this limitation remained in the
>> in-OS partition utility in future versions.
>
>The NTFS file system, places some sort of metadata at the 50% point on
>the disk.
>
>In Linux, something there, used to place certain structures at the
>1/3rd and 2/3rds points on their partitions.
>
>These represent "value statements". The positions selected, have
>something to do with file system performance. Someone believed,
>long ago, that putting a certain structure at the 50% mark, gave
>the best average performance.

I can see that, following certain perceptions, and with a disc with
files fairly well distributed (not necessarily fragmented), it could be
a perception that, on average, putting something that's accessed a lot
at the half-way point means the head will have less far to move from any
random position than if that something was near the start. I can't think
what the 1/3 and 2/3 justification is - maybe some combination of the
above with discs being faster near the start.

Such assumptions do assume very specific things about the way the data
on the disc is used - or, perhaps, assume very specifically that it is
random, which for any given user probably isn't quite the case.
>
>You will notice in the SSD era, this no longer matters, and the value
>statements mean nothing now.

Indeed.
>
>Thus, the behavior of the utility is incorrect for SSDs, and
>remains a value statement for HDD. If your seek time is zero,
>then nobody cares where a structure is stored.
>
>Just about any utility worth its salt, does not give a fig newton

(I've not come across that expression with the "newton" part in it
before.)

>for the 50% rule. The metadata gets moved, as required, at the
>time a partition manipulation is carried out. I can use GParted
>on Linux, and squeeze and squish all I want, and no "rules" are
>applied to what I do.

Same with I think any of the third-party ones available to a 7 user (I
currently have EaseUS, though I think I only used it near the start of
my usage of this drive): within the practical limits, of course, of not
being able to squish below the size of the files currently on the
partition. (I don't know if it insists on a teeny bit extra for C: so
you don't leave yourself with an unusable system; I haven't tried, not
having any reason to.) They usually require a reboot (in practice two,
though the process is automated; I think the in-between case is not
normal Windows, so that they _can_ move the unmovable).
>
>The same goes for defragmenters like Raxco PerfectDisk.
>
>Microsoft did not write the original defragmenter API. A third
>party wrote it, and Microsoft bought it, and put it in the OS.
>This is the feature that, say, JKDefrag would call, to move
>a 64KB block or the like. The defragmenter API is "power-safe",
>which means there is a reduced probability of destruction
>if the power goes off, while you were using the defragmenter API.
>It should not be using any cache path, neither System Read Cache
>nor System Write Cache, are allowed to be used (if they did,
>defragmentation would "fly like the wind").

In the same way that it's often far quicker to move (which is of course
really a copy then delete) all to another disc and then back, than to do
a defrag.
>
>The defragmenter API is busy, during a "disk shrink". Open the
>Optimization dialog and open Disk Management, at the same time,
>so both windows are open. Now, make a request to shrink a partition in DM.
>What you should see, in the corner of your eye, is the
>Optimize window wakes up and "something is going on". This is the
>selective movement of materials. When DM shrinks a partition,
>it calls Optimize to do the deed (move the materials out of the way).

I'm not going to play with my partition sizes anyway (I'm quite content
to take your word for the above), but where/what is the "Optimization
dialog" in Windows 7? Sounds like it might be an interesting thing.
>
>But even so, there are a number of things that certain OS utilities
>will not request movement. Whereas the defrag API is technically
>capable of doing a lot of things. There is a disconnect between
>what Microsoft deems moveable, versus what the defrag API can
>actually do.

Yes, I thought the "unmovable files" were system files or such. I
suppose what is "metadata" and what "system files" is just semantics.
>
>Now, you have some idea, what ingredients fit into the "why won't
>my partition shrink further in Disk Management" thing. It's not
>a technical issue. It may be a value statement, such as
>"put a drink coaster under that drink, you cretin".
>We must have doilies and throw cushions, and a hassock you
>cannot put your feet on. The hassock sits immobile in the
>livingroom, serving no worldly purpose :-)
>
>You see this thing ? Don't put your feet on it, or mom will be pissed.
>Well, that's like the metadata at the 50% point. It's to remain
>in the livingroom, even if it never demonstrates a function.
>
>https://i.etsystatic.com/5275497/r/il/8cc62b/3822959334/il_794xN.3822959
>334_33s3.jpg

(I have inherited something similar; mine is rectangular - about 2:1 -
whereas yours, hard to tell from the pic., looks as if it might be
square. I don't remember any direction not to sit on it [I don't think
anyone ever put their feet on it so that didn't come up].)
>
>The purpose of a hassock, as it turns out, it's a "land mine". If
>an intruder enters the living room, they trip over the hassock
>and are "dispatched" by the fall. That's why the hassock must
>remain at 50%.
>
> Paul

Whereas in the computing sense, it's just what you called a "value
statement", not a trap.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Q. How much is 2 + 2?
A. Thank you so much for asking your question.
Are you still having this problem? I'll be delighted to help you. Please
restate the problem twice and include your Windows version along with
all error logs.
- Mayayana in alt.windows7.general, 2018-11-1

On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 22:15:29 -0600, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 00:10:15 -0500, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 03:57:25 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <qeoepi9kim4799bm2a9fegip2jm7icnavp@4ax.com> at Thu, 4 Jan
>>>2024 21:08:21, gfretwell@aol.com writes
>>>[]
>>>>into 3 partitions, an architecture I still run
>>>>C: system files.
>>>>D: common data files (storage for program data)
>>>>E: everything else.
>>>>That makes your backups, from XP on, much simpler
>>>>Image a relatively small system drive and simply copy all the rest of
>>>>the files on your data drives with a sync program.
>>>>The only one that really needs to be an image is the system files
>>>>because of the registry and other program sensitive data. I keep that
>>>>as small as possible.
>>>>
>>>Much the same here, except I just run C: (OS and installed software) and
>>>D: (all data, including downloaded installers for the software). I image
>>>C: (with Macrium), and copy D: (with FreeFileSync currently). I thought
>>>about trying to keep OS and other software separate, but couldn't see
>>>any advantage, and software gets its teeth into the registry, system
>>>files etc., so I just couldn't see any point (and saw horrendous
>>>difficulties doing so). My C: is 50G (19.6G free).
>>>Whatever works for you!
>>
>>Maybe it is just the 32m days but I still like a lot of "drives". It
>>is a way to keep things separated.
>
>I approach storage from a different perspective. Most of my drives are pooled
>into a single 40TB volume on my primary PC and a single 60TB volume on a
>networked PC. I just picked up a pair of 18TB drives, so I'll be expanding my
>little 40TB pool to 76TB (which becomes 70TB after formatting). I use folders
>for separation, rather than partitions. Folders are much more flexible.

Yes, folders are much more flexible, and I do the same (although I
have much less storage than you do).

On 1/6/2024 12:31 AM, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> On 5 Jan 2024 12:34:59 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>> I was running an ST 4096 80m on a PC/AT with DOS 3.3 but I broke it up
>>> into 3 partitions, an architecture I still run
>>> C: system files.
>>> D: common data files (storage for program data)
>>> E: everything else.
>>> That makes your backups, from XP on, much simpler
>>> Image a relatively small system drive and simply copy all the rest of
>>> the files on your data drives with a sync program.
>>> The only one that really needs to be an image is the system files
>>> because of the registry and other program sensitive data. I keep that
>>> as small as possible.
>>
>> I should do something similar, but the 'problem' is that when I get a
>> new system (laptop), the 'installation' (read: initialization) procedure
>> of the Windows (now Windows 11) on the disk [1] does not give the
>> choice/chance to partition the disk.
>>
>>
> I haven't played with 11 much but doesn't it have "Disk Management"
> that lets you juggle partitions? You should be able to shrink C: and
> add another simple volume in that vacated space
>

It does not "juggle".

The functional set of Disk Management, is not intended to displace
business partner Partition Management products. That is why the feature
set is intentionally incomplete.

You can shrink and expand partitions, but this is *not* sufficient
materials for "any possible manipulation". You cannot change the
origin of a partition. That's missing.

The limitation of "shrink to 50%", you won't be able to exist
for every long, before realizing you are in need of better tools.

Open the Optimize (defrag) window.
Open Disk Management, and propose a Shrink to the system.
Watch as the Optimize window "wakes up" and does stuff.

*******

Microsoft does leave "landmines" in their OS.

C:\Windows\System32\MBR2GPT.EXE
C:\Windows\System32\convert.exe

Compare that to some of what Linux gives you (gparted).

Programs like that, these are things that you should
backup first before testing. The MBR2GPT is way way too
ambitious a program, to be releasing that on an unsuspecting
public.

*******

I wake up today and discover this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_%28unit%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_base_units

The bastards have changed Avogadros Number! That's a number
that is burned into my core memory. 6.02252 x 10^23.
And now, that's the wrong number. "This number is no longer
in service".

At least now I know who to blame for those small cans of Coke. Science.

*******

The thing blocking Shrink, may be this file. After four tries
at this, this is the closest I've got to an answer. When the OS
shuts down, it writes stuff just past this, which helps "hide"
who is responsible. There is also a command to delete the journal,
but the system did not create a new one, when I tested that a long
time ago.

File 240654
\$Extend\$UsnJrnl
$DATA $J (nonresident)
logical sectors 38934488-39003863 (0x25217d8-0x25326d7)
logical sectors 40801328-40801599 (0x26e9430-0x26e953f)
logical sectors 40800048-40801055 (0x26e8f30-0x26e931f)
logical sectors 95654272-95655295 (0x5b39180-0x5b3957f) <=== up high, on my sample partition

There are some Linux operations (gparted), which invalidate
the USN change journal (because the Linux driver does not know
how to update it, and zapping it is the next best thing). It may
actually serve two purposes, in the sense that it could allow
the Shrink on Linux to be smaller than the Shrink on Windows :-)

That's just a guess at a blocker, because there's a lot of "noise"
in the traces I collect.

Paul