DISQUS

Sorry, REd. I always get to your blog by clicking on my blogroll, not by typing your URL. ;)

huh, what? I don't understand....

Sorry, REd. I always get to your blog by clicking on my blogroll, not by typing your URL. ;)

I know Arial sucks. I need an idea for the name CSS. Any ideas?

Yeah I can't wait to begin complaining about Bush again. :)

Thanks, Ingo. I hadn't checked voltages but I don't have the means to do that anyway. Something tells me that that is not the problem. I have cleared the CMOS as well but no juice.

I can't call Canada but if you felt inclined, you could email me or catch me on MSN sometime. :)

Not at all. It's just the freeest solution I can find. :) I have no budget money to buy anything.



I don't know anything about Kixstart so please enlighten me. :)

Hey, Ingo. You raise a good point about the morally correct thing to do, but let's be honest... there is no such thing as moral correctness in international politics. In an ideal world, governments and politicians do the right things for the right reasons, but the reality is that every government has their own reasons for doing things the way they do. To them, the actions may be moral, and to others they may not be. To the public, people will be told one thing to appease the moral fabric and another is done because the ultimate goal is power. Securing power is never a moral thing. That's the reality and anyone who claims a moral compass is simply doing so to appease a constituency who has a moral compass that is not corrupted by the search to retain power.



Know what I'm saying?

...or mine, for that matter!! ;)

Here's the deal. John Kerry would be a great choice for various reasons. Bush is a great choice for other reasons. Kerry is a horrible choice for some reasons, and likewise, Bush is a terrible choice for different reasons.



The job that the voters have is to separate all the smoke and mirrors and determine which one is better. I had reservations about issuing an endorsement, but I have people I know and readers of this blog ask me who I am voting for as a future military man. To me the smoke and mirrors have been sifted through. I have to vote Bush when the critical issues are on the table.

I still stand at the same place I did 4 weeks ago. 2 Complete. 3 to go. Mine yet to go. I noticed they took the ebay offer out.

Not at all. It's just the freeest solution I can find. :) I have no budget money to buy anything.



I don't know anything about Kixstart so please enlighten me. :)

Shucks, Brian.

Very Tasty. Caution, though. Error on the side of Amaretto unless you happen to have a taste for Scotch. I do not.

Any google fodder you can come up with is helpful. I am running Easy Recovery overnight (it'll take 6 hours according to the estimates). I'm taking this up again in the morning.

Problem is the sale is already made. It’s the warranty I’m talking about.





Aaron

huh, what? I don't understand....

On a single user machine, this is not a requirement. It’s not a requirement in enterprise, but I think it’s better. I agree with this emailer who responded to the Lockergnome post, but I only agree in a non-multiuser environment:





No, the reason that dual-partition images are old school is that two is far too few! ;-)





Seriously: I’ve found that Windows machines perform FAR better when the drive is partitioned in smaller pieces. One prominent principle is that you need to keep free space near to where it will be needed. For this reason, you’ll get better performance by putting the user’s profile and major application directories on separate partitions. Partitions can still be linked (via Win2k’s path mounting) to the same place in the file tree, and can be (to neophytes) indistinguishable from directories on the C: partition.





Similary, swap performance can be enhanced by giving swap its own partition near the start of the drive. (Rule of thumb: swap should be near or in the most-used partition on the least-used hard drive.)





E-mail and other major applications will each benefit from having separate partitions, which are now easier to utilize because they can be mounted and made to look like regular directories. I would consider moving the entire “Program Files” tree to its own partition.





And you get double points if you can do this across two or more drives.





The side benefit is that a scrambled root partition should require re-imaging only the root partition, leaving all the user’s profile and other data intact in the separate partitions.





Furthermore, this will reduce the need for defragmentation, thereby giving you an additional day-to-day performance boost.





Try it on your own system. Find the 3 largest directories on your drive (e-mail? user profile? ) and segregate them into separate partitions. (FullDisk http://www.worldlynx.net/pgerhart/_fuldsk.html can help with the analysis.) It will make a big difference in your daily computing experience.

Let me reiterate for all who keep demanding help with their referrals. I am removing your links until you help me out. Once you have, I will gladly reciprocate and help you out and make your request visible again.





I treat this kind of behavior like spam and will not be tolerated here. Give and it will be given unto you.





Aaron

On a single user machine, this is not a requirement. It’s not a requirement in enterprise, but I think it’s better. I agree with this emailer who responded to the Lockergnome post, but I only agree in a non-multiuser environment:





No, the reason that dual-partition images are old school is that two is far too few! ;-)





Seriously: I’ve found that Windows machines perform FAR better when the drive is partitioned in smaller pieces. One prominent principle is that you need to keep free space near to where it will be needed. For this reason, you’ll get better performance by putting the user’s profile and major application directories on separate partitions. Partitions can still be linked (via Win2k’s path mounting) to the same place in the file tree, and can be (to neophytes) indistinguishable from directories on the C: partition.





Similary, swap performance can be enhanced by giving swap its own partition near the start of the drive. (Rule of thumb: swap should be near or in the most-used partition on the least-used hard drive.)





E-mail and other major applications will each benefit from having separate partitions, which are now easier to utilize because they can be mounted and made to look like regular directories. I would consider moving the entire “Program Files” tree to its own partition.





And you get double points if you can do this across two or more drives.





The side benefit is that a scrambled root partition should require re-imaging only the root partition, leaving all the user’s profile and other data intact in the separate partitions.





Furthermore, this will reduce the need for defragmentation, thereby giving you an additional day-to-day performance boost.





Try it on your own system. Find the 3 largest directories on your drive (e-mail? user profile? ) and segregate them into separate partitions. (FullDisk http://www.worldlynx.net/pgerhart/_fuldsk.html can help with the analysis.) It will make a big difference in your daily computing experience.

Let me reiterate for all who keep demanding help with their referrals. I am removing your links until you help me out. Once you have, I will gladly reciprocate and help you out and make your request visible again.





I treat this kind of behavior like spam and will not be tolerated here. Give and it will be given unto you.





Aaron

which version of IE?

I have every one of those specs at this moment and it’s not doing that… :confused:

Which page, Mike? They look fine to me in IE. Well, they might be broken if you are using 640×480… ;)





Aaron