factory restore

"Phillips" wrote in message
...
It wasn't my intention to claim that partitioning increases overall system
performance; partitioning is a cheap solution to have the data available
in case that the OS has to be reinstalled. OEM versions wipe up the drive
and put the system in the original factory state. Everything is "wiped"
off the harddrive - albeit you can recover some of the bits/files. Of
course, one can use other backup solutions (optical media, external HDD
etc) but at a cost.

Nope. That isn't true either. Although it's at the discretion of the OEM,
standard OEM distros do not force an arbitrary repartition of the target
install media. Go to a small custom builder and he will hand you an OEM
distro that does everything a retail distro does, the exact same way a
retail disto does except it will not do an upgrade. The behaviour you're
claiming to occur 100% of the time although not unusual, doesn't happen
arbitrarily becasue it's an OEM distro. The OEM has to *work* at getting
setup to blow the partition structure away.


My original intended claim was that partitioning (possible only with the
retail OS) becomes useful in that the user can move some of the folders
originally installed on the boot drive - MyDocu, Email, Favorites blah
blah for one or more accounts - to other partitions; in this case, a clean
(re)installation of the retail OS does not wipe off those personal
folders.

True to a degree, but you still have to reinstall and patch up all the
applications and hack the registry. And this is after patching the OS back
up. It's a real PITA. Using FAST is a better solution which precludes the
percieved "need" to partition. And, depending on the app, if you don't
reinstall and 'tweak' correctly, you'll blow your supposedly safe data away.
Outlook Express is a prime example.

The drawbacks of partitioning can be alleviated by various tweaks - run OS
kernel in RAM, no swap file or swap file on RAM Drive, extravagant Solid
State Disks (SSDs) for Billionaires.

With the exception of SSDs, those are bad ideas. In fact extremely lousy
ideas for a whole host of reasons. Actually SSDs don't have the performance
or reliability characteristics of standard drives, so that question can be
begged as well.


Tweaks are inherently necessary - when done right - since the OS comes
with default settings to fit the average hardware setups and thus lower
support costs.

Nope. The OS comes out of the box capable of running multiple things
virutally equally well without penalty. Ponder carefully, robbing Peter to
pay Paul. Support costs are irrelevant. Platform stability is relevant since
'tweaking' can lead to an unstable platform that will play PacMan with your
data. The ability to switch between different types of applications sans
penality is critical which is why 'tweaking' is such an adventour and rarely
understood by most.

However, for most custom built machines, the defaults can (and must be
customized for a more efficient usage - one has to justify the trouble of
building the machine - of the hardware; such tweaks can be quantified
using performance testing programs - 3DMark, PCMark etc for the average
tweaker.

Ahhh. Again, nope. I build my own machines and I run a highly mixed bag of
applications. I currently have VPC with a couple of VMs runnig, SQLServer,
IIS, OL, OE, RD, VS.NET, yada yada, and I also game. While gaming I disable
*nothing*, although I may close VS, nor do I do anything different when I'm
running heavy SQL or testing applications. Then again I'm running some heavy
duty hardware. However I run a similar application mix and load, although
not with the same degree of concurrency on my laptop and it is running sans
tweaks.

Again, robbing Peter to pay Paul has consequences. Peter *will* suffer.

One of the most common mistakes people make is assuming that every thing
must be tweaked. What they don't realize is they're tweaking the performance
measurement tool rather than their work load. ;-)


As you mentioned, the advantage of XP Pro over XP Home derives mainly from
better networking ( a must these days)

No I did not say any such thing. Pro does not have 'better' networking. It
has additionaly layers of overhead that are only valid in an Enterprise
network. There are longer path lengths that do nothing beneficial outside of
the Enterprise environment.

and more administrative control over safety policies; these features alone
justify the price difference since most machines are connected to a form
of other of network.

"Most" machines, in fact the vast majority, when networked, are connected to
peer networks. Peer networks do not need the overhead or capabilities of a
managed domain. There is nothing that Pro offers that adds functionality
much less performance to a peer network. Period. Any one that claims
otherwise hasn't done their homework.

Of course, partitioning comes again handy for file protection - you can
hide a partition, encrypt etc - at lower costs.

Nope. Again, popular misconceptions. If the OS sees the data, then so can
the nasty. If the drive craps out, so goes all partitions. And with XP you
can't hide partitions as long as they show up in the partition table.
Doesn't matter if you don't mount the drive or not. The only way to prevent
mischief to data is to physically remove it from the machine.

Don't get me started on encryption. I'll simply state that any one that
advocates clean install to solve problems and encryption for enhanced
security in the same sentence has no idea what they're getting into. As well
encryption adds additional complextity and overhead to the file management
system and does in fact generate performance penalities.


Michael



--
Walter Clayton
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

Guys,
I was talking about the (multitude of) average users and their PCs: Dell,
Gateway machines with preinstalled OEMs plus custom built machines in the
low high-end class (guess up to $2000); most laptops come with an OEM OS
also. Most cheaper machines come with XP Home while the more expensive use
XP Pro. Glimpsing through the subjects of the messages, I gather that these
type of dudes ask for help on this "windowsxp.newuser" newsgroup.

You, on the other hand, are talking about what I would call 'everything
computing' (customized OEM distros, critical data management/backups etc). I
wouldn't go so far as calling it a 'categorical mistake' since Dells etc are
(arguably a subset of, well, 'everything computing that uses a flavor of
XP'; however, my take is that we are comparing apples and oranges.

Again, I will summarize my arguments - for the benefit of the 'newuser.'

1. Partitioning is a cost efficient method of storing data and is not
available on common XP OEMs:
a. location is right in the machine - easy to remember where you put it

b. readily available - either after reinstall or via another OS (be it
Knoppix) that can be installed on an available partition or run from some
drive.
c. low start up cost (just the Retail XP Pro that can be transferred on
another machine, installed on another partition etc). Of course, in long run
one needs better backup management.
d. enhanced - but not perfect - data security
e. enhanced efficiency - shorter times for defrags, virus scans, backups
since only the most active partitions need to be addressed often. Just an
example: you want to make an imagine of your boot drive and you need to
restore it! It is far more convenient to have XP installed on a 15-20GB
partition than a on a whole 120-200GB (most machines come with HDDs in this
range) partition.
f. better data organization. I have 150GB "Music" partition (I let you
guess what's types of files you could find there), other "Downloads,"
"Documents," (emails, saved settings, favorites etc), "Shop" (mostly apps,
work in progress and temp files) etc.
g. faster search/indexing times - since you most likely I would search
on the appropriate partition.

2. Tweaking, when done right, presents benefits derived from increased speed
(say, multiple downloads, personalized GUI, blah blah), and security -
disabling services etc.

Now, your main counter-arguments seem to be "slower system for NTFS," poor
security, unreliable system due to tweaking, poor backup strategy. I simply
agree with you. Run OEM as it comes, buy a $200 external HDD, burn CD's you
lose track of after a few months or cannot be read unless you dedicate time
to verify and maintain, pay a storage provider (in Alaska and upload your
precious pics and tax returns... sorry, sense of humor goes astray at times
Of course, one needs to find better backup solution - pending of the data
type and costs of maintenance v cost of loss bla blah.

All in all, the new OEM XP Home user can simply weight the arguments and
counterarguments and proceed according to her/his judgment pending their
means and needs.

Michael







"Walter Clayton" wrote in message
...
"Phillips" wrote in message
...
It wasn't my intention to claim that partitioning increases overall
system performance; partitioning is a cheap solution to have the data
available in case that the OS has to be reinstalled. OEM versions wipe up
the drive and put the system in the original factory state. Everything is
"wiped" off the harddrive - albeit you can recover some of the
bits/files. Of course, one can use other backup solutions (optical media,
external HDD etc) but at a cost.

Nope. That isn't true either. Although it's at the discretion of the OEM,
standard OEM distros do not force an arbitrary repartition of the target
install media. Go to a small custom builder and he will hand you an OEM
distro that does everything a retail distro does, the exact same way a
retail disto does except it will not do an upgrade. The behaviour you're
claiming to occur 100% of the time although not unusual, doesn't happen
arbitrarily becasue it's an OEM distro. The OEM has to *work* at getting
setup to blow the partition structure away.


My original intended claim was that partitioning (possible only with the
retail OS) becomes useful in that the user can move some of the folders
originally installed on the boot drive - MyDocu, Email, Favorites blah
blah for one or more accounts - to other partitions; in this case, a
clean (re)installation of the retail OS does not wipe off those personal
folders.

True to a degree, but you still have to reinstall and patch up all the
applications and hack the registry. And this is after patching the OS back
up. It's a real PITA. Using FAST is a better solution which precludes the
percieved "need" to partition. And, depending on the app, if you don't
reinstall and 'tweak' correctly, you'll blow your supposedly safe data
away. Outlook Express is a prime example.

The drawbacks of partitioning can be alleviated by various tweaks - run
OS kernel in RAM, no swap file or swap file on RAM Drive, extravagant
Solid State Disks (SSDs) for Billionaires.

With the exception of SSDs, those are bad ideas. In fact extremely lousy
ideas for a whole host of reasons. Actually SSDs don't have the
performance or reliability characteristics of standard drives, so that
question can be begged as well.


Tweaks are inherently necessary - when done right - since the OS comes
with default settings to fit the average hardware setups and thus lower
support costs.

Nope. The OS comes out of the box capable of running multiple things
virutally equally well without penalty. Ponder carefully, robbing Peter to
pay Paul. Support costs are irrelevant. Platform stability is relevant
since 'tweaking' can lead to an unstable platform that will play PacMan
with your data. The ability to switch between different types of
applications sans penality is critical which is why 'tweaking' is such an
adventour and rarely understood by most.

However, for most custom built machines, the defaults can (and must be
customized for a more efficient usage - one has to justify the trouble of
building the machine - of the hardware; such tweaks can be quantified
using performance testing programs - 3DMark, PCMark etc for the average
tweaker.

Ahhh. Again, nope. I build my own machines and I run a highly mixed bag of
applications. I currently have VPC with a couple of VMs runnig, SQLServer,
IIS, OL, OE, RD, VS.NET, yada yada, and I also game. While gaming I
disable *nothing*, although I may close VS, nor do I do anything different
when I'm running heavy SQL or testing applications. Then again I'm running
some heavy duty hardware. However I run a similar application mix and
load, although not with the same degree of concurrency on my laptop and it
is running sans tweaks.

Again, robbing Peter to pay Paul has consequences. Peter *will* suffer.

One of the most common mistakes people make is assuming that every thing
must be tweaked. What they don't realize is they're tweaking the
performance measurement tool rather than their work load. ;-)


As you mentioned, the advantage of XP Pro over XP Home derives mainly
from better networking ( a must these days)

No I did not say any such thing. Pro does not have 'better' networking. It
has additionaly layers of overhead that are only valid in an Enterprise
network. There are longer path lengths that do nothing beneficial outside
of the Enterprise environment.

and more administrative control over safety policies; these features
alone justify the price difference since most machines are connected to a
form of other of network.

"Most" machines, in fact the vast majority, when networked, are connected
to peer networks. Peer networks do not need the overhead or capabilities
of a managed domain. There is nothing that Pro offers that adds
functionality much less performance to a peer network. Period. Any one
that claims otherwise hasn't done their homework.

Of course, partitioning comes again handy for file protection - you can
hide a partition, encrypt etc - at lower costs.

Nope. Again, popular misconceptions. If the OS sees the data, then so can
the nasty. If the drive craps out, so goes all partitions. And with XP you
can't hide partitions as long as they show up in the partition table.
Doesn't matter if you don't mount the drive or not. The only way to
prevent mischief to data is to physically remove it from the machine.

Don't get me started on encryption. I'll simply state that any one that
advocates clean install to solve problems and encryption for enhanced
security in the same sentence has no idea what they're getting into. As
well encryption adds additional complextity and overhead to the file
management system and does in fact generate performance penalities.


Michael



--
Walter Clayton
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

"Phillips" wrote in message
...
Guys,
I was talking about the (multitude of) average users and their PCs: Dell,
Gateway machines with preinstalled OEMs plus custom built machines in the
low high-end class (guess up to $2000); most laptops come with an OEM OS
also. Most cheaper machines come with XP Home while the more expensive use
XP Pro. Glimpsing through the subjects of the messages, I gather that
these type of dudes ask for help on this "windowsxp.newuser" newsgroup.

Nope. Again, some rather gross generalizations that simply are flat out
false. Dell for one, supplies standard OEM media. They have discovered that
it reduces support costs. The other OEMs, including e-Machine nee Gateway
will provide standard type OEM media on request at no charge to the client.
I know since I have clients that have e-Machines...
Toshiba laptops are *NOT* low end and and not cheap. But they ship with HE
when purchased at reail outlets. Again, an extremely broad generalization
that does not hold up to the light of day.


You, on the other hand, are talking about what I would call 'everything
computing' (customized OEM distros, critical data management/backups etc).
I wouldn't go so far as calling it a 'categorical mistake' since Dells etc
are (arguably a subset of, well, 'everything computing that uses a
flavor of XP'; however, my take is that we are comparing apples and
oranges.

Nope. I categorize nothing. I take each an every platform as unique as soon
as the user fires it up and starts using the machine. Which is why
generalized 'tweaking' is a crap shoot.
However, yes, I do deal with generalized platforms. Problem is the number of
people that are running a generalized platform that think otherwise.


Again, I will summarize my arguments - for the benefit of the 'newuser.'

1. Partitioning is a cost efficient method of storing data and is not
available on common XP OEMs:

Again, an overly broad statement that is categorically false. In fact both
parts of the statement are false. Partitioning consumes space that could be
otherwise used for user storage (carefully think about the HD structure
required to track files and free space as well as the amount of free space
that must be reservd to allow for growth and that can not be aggregated).
Partitioning is extremely ineffienct of space usage. And agin, common OEM
distros are happy with multiple partitions.

a. location is right in the machine - easy to remember where you put it


Nope. It's a nightmare in terms of actual use and support. However that does
depend on granularity and the applications. If you have OS, app, data that's
one thing. Personally I have 10 monted partitions across two stand alone
drives and one RAID array and I get confused where I stuff things. Even with
550G online I'm running out of space since I can't stop long enough to
concatenate the free space. Not that I have much to begin with.

b. readily available - either after reinstall or via another OS (be it
Knoppix) that can be installed on an available partition or run from some
drive.

Again, nope. Data is accessible, but data without applications is like a car
with gas. You're going nowhere fast. And yes I do multi-boot although I'm
switching towards VMs for some of what I do. However your're addressing an
extremely small subset of the user population. Space management is PITA when
dealing with a partitioned drive.

c. low start up cost (just the Retail XP Pro that can be transferred on
another machine, installed on another partition etc). Of course, in long
run one needs better backup management.

Nope. There is additional cost that is on the oder of one-third to one-half
of the cost of the machine. That's not low start cost. In fact the CBA sort
of has large holes in it.

d. enhanced - but not perfect - data security

Enhanced how? The stuff you're talking about is the stuff that get's people
in trouble. EFS is the only thing that's availble on Pro that isn't
available on HE and there are a number of people that are now finding out
they should have stayed far, far away from EFS. The 'enhanced' security is
meaningless and dangerous outside of the context of a managed environment.

e. enhanced efficiency - shorter times for defrags, virus scans,
backups since only the most active partitions need to be addressed often.
Just an example: you want to make an imagine of your boot drive and you
need to restore it! It is far more convenient to have XP installed on a
15-20GB partition than a on a whole 120-200GB (most machines come with
HDDs in this range) partition.

Again, you're assuming a lot that does not touch on reality. As well you're
forgetting that most people, even though running with upwards of 200G of
attached acreage, only only use maybe 20-30G at most. That's not a SWAG, but
a hands on observation while babysitting crapware exorcisms.

If your backup software is incapable of compressing and is backing up free
space, may I suggest you find some that works better. Even xcopy would be a
better choice since it doesn't copy free space.

Defrag and av scans times are irrelvant. Schedule when you're safely
slumbering at night and they happen in 0 percieved time.

f. better data organization. I have 150GB "Music" partition (I let you
guess what's types of files you could find there), other "Downloads,"
"Documents," (emails, saved settings, favorites etc), "Shop" (mostly apps,
work in progress and temp files) etc.

See above. I have 10 partitions spread across an aggregate of 550G. I have 5
different download (ignoring some specialized things) directories since I'm
running out of space on individual partitions. And the last I looked about
6-7 different directories where I've go different VMs stuffed (2-16G each).
You'd do better, as would I, with fewer partitions so the free space could
be aggregated. I have two partitions only that have more than 10G free and
both of those are less than 20G free and most of the other partitions,
including the system partition, have less than 3G free. Aggregating that
free space would be nice, but I'm looking at having to bump up to 1TB by
adding a 4x250 RAID0+1 array real soon now.

g. faster search/indexing times - since you most likely I would search
on the appropriate partition.

Indexing is disabled. And should be unless your business is doing file
searches. However, indexing reduces search time on large drives and when the
data is aggregated operates better.
But you just contradicted yourself. If your partitioning schemed is well
organized, why are doing searchs for files. ;-)


2. Tweaking, when done right, presents benefits derived from increased
speed (say, multiple downloads, personalized GUI, blah blah), and
security - disabling services etc.

Again, you're robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is what 'tweaking' is. You
steal resources from one area and give them to another. Personalization is
not in the same category as 'tweaking'. As long as Peter doesn't complain
and start getting sulky then you're home free. Otherwise you're going to
have give Peter some of his stuff back.


Now, your main counter-arguments seem to be "slower system for NTFS," poor
security, unreliable system due to tweaking, poor backup strategy. I
simply agree with you.

Hmm. What is 'slower system for NTFS'?
As for poor security, again, you missed the boat. The superset functionality
of Pro is appropriate for the enterpise/managed environment. Care to state
the specifics of what you tink HE is incapable of that is appropriate for a
peer network and/or single machine/non-server use?
'Tweaking' into instability: Yep. I fix those systems rather often. ;-)
'Poor backup strategy". What does that have to do with Pro vs. HE? What does
Pro offer that HE doesn't in that regard?

Run OEM as it comes, buy a $200 external HDD, burn CD's you lose track of
after a few months or cannot be read unless you dedicate time to verify
and maintain, pay a storage provider (in Alaska and upload your
precious pics and tax returns... sorry, sense of humor goes astray at
times Of course, one needs to find better backup solution - pending of
the data type and costs of maintenance v cost of loss bla blah.

OK. But again, what does this have to with Pro vs. HE much less partitoning?
There's actually sense in storing data on different coasts if the expense is
worth it to you. Actually, you may have thought you were being humorous but
I have had to tell people their unreplacable pictures of deceased family
members were flattened by hardware or malware/crapware activity.


All in all, the new OEM XP Home user can simply weight the arguments and
counterarguments and proceed according to her/his judgment pending their
means and needs.

That's absolutely true. What's funny is the number of people that feel that
Pro is vastly superior to HE and can't back up the claim. ;-)


Michael



--
Walter Clayton
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.