Re: Fw: Fw: new pc finally arrived and have to make decisions-help

[J R FOX jr_fox@xxxxxxxxxx]

--- Avrom Fischer  wrote:

> I am going to install windows 2000 unless it does
> not have the system restore that is in xp. I only
> have an xp book. Does windows2000 have a system
> restore. Is it any different then the one in xp.

Avrom,

W2K (the Win I use) does not have this as a built-in
feature, as XP does. You have to resort to an outside
utility, of which there are a few. On one machine, I
have CONFIGSAFE, a program that costs about 40 bucks.
Quite easy to use, graphical interface, works quite
well. They have some payware competitors, I'm sure.
However, some time ago Robert recommended the freeware
ERUNT program. It is fairly barebones, compared to
CONFIGSAFE, but does the job well and is also pretty
easy to use. Both will launch straight from your
desktop. I don't think this should be your decider,
as between W2K and XP.

> I have a "partition magic 5" (in fact it was still
> in sealed box till I just opened it) Will that work
> on a windows 2000 or windows xp pc. There is no
> reference in the manual to whether it will or will
> not work and whether it can handle a 250 gig hard
> drive. It does say that it works with nt.

This version is way too old -- don't use it. The
problem is that MS -- in its infinite wisdom -- has
changed the NTFS spec at least 3 times since the days
of NT. This can be a big banana peel, just waiting
for you to slip on. You want a version that "speaks"
latter day NTFS. Do yourself a favor and buy
Partition Magic 8. (The version I'm using is 8.01,
the last update before Symantec took over from former
publisher PowerQuest.) Do an online price search with
a couple of the major price engines to find the best
price, or you can probably risk buying a used copy on
Ebay for even less. This should also give you the
manual, which you want to have on hand, even though it
is not a particularly difficult program to use. Some
of the partitioning concept explanations are good to
know.

>>NTFS is a much stronger file system than any form
> of FAT. It resists
>>fragmentation. It is generally faster -- with
> large files, MUCH faster. It is the ?much harder to
> trash an NTFS disk. It's self-monitoring for
> integrity, and
>>fixes its own problems.

Generally speaking, this is true. However, a relative
of mine has _twice_ had problems with *some* 40G - 80G
NTFS partitions that developed serious access or
reliability problems. Hardware could have had
something to do with this, but this happened on two
different hard drives, from different manufacturers.
Although I've had no such problems myself, it has left
me wondering just how "bulletproof" NTFS really is,
and how large its partitions ought to be. I plan to
keep them well under 40G. Right now I am using a 32G
FAT-32 drive for video stuff, and I have a 60G FAT-32
storage partition on an external USB drive, which is
probably the largest one I'm using at present. My W2K
boot drives are NTFS, though. This -- and wherever
the Win app.s reside -- may be where it is employed to
best effect. Unless you are working with huge
databases, or that sort of thing.

> I plan to format about 50 gigs in ntfs to get used
> to it in light of what Robert wrote concerning g
> ntfs. would it be better to have two 25 gig drives
> or one huge 50 gig drive.

I've already weighed in on this. And Robert has
mentioned the issue of being able to get access to an
NTFS boot partition, in the event of a serious
problem. If the drive itself goes South, nothing's
gonna help you other than having a reasonably up to
date clone drive (same size / make / model) ready to
plug in. This is one strategy I use. Hard drives are
pretty cheap these days, esp. after various rebates.
Just finished cloning the drive in this box, before
checking the List mail.

Another strategy you might consider is having a 2nd.
W2K boot partition (a "maintenance" partition) on the
same hard drive. I do this on every HDD. That way,
if the failure is in Windows rather than the hardware,
you can still access whatever is on the stricken boot
partition, and the NTFS won't be a barrier to this.
The original idea of a maintenance partition was
rather light duty, in terms of what was installed
there. However, I like to have doubles of almost
everything, so mine are pretty well stocked with app.s
and utilities. Setting this up is more work of
course, but it has come in handy.


Jordan