Local Disc (F:)

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:57:42 -0500, "Anna" wrote:

Ken:
Without belaboring the issue I can only repeat what I've stated in my last
post.

The problems we've run into re this issue along the lines I've described
involving many, many users over the years in an XP environment have
impressed us to strongly suggest that, wherever practical, the user should
establish his/her system (boot) disk as the C: drive even if it means a
fresh install of the OS.


OK. We clearly disagree.

I recommend that he stay with the setup he presently has, since there
is no downside to it. The OP can decide for himself which advice he
wants to follow.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:57:42 -0500, "Anna" wrote:
Ken:
Without belaboring the issue I can only repeat what I've stated in my
last
post.

The problems we've run into re this issue along the lines I've described
involving many, many users over the years in an XP environment have
impressed us to strongly suggest that, wherever practical, the user
should
establish his/her system (boot) disk as the C: drive even if it means a
fresh install of the OS.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
OK. We clearly disagree.

I recommend that he stay with the setup he presently has, since there
is no downside to it. The OP can decide for himself which advice he
wants to follow.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


Ken:
As I explained (or try to explain) in my previous posts, based upon our
fairly extensive experience with thousands of users over the years in an XP
environment, there certainly is a "downside" - at least a substantially
potential one - in one's system (boot) drive being designated with a drive
assignment letter other than C:.

Note the OP's original post. Bear in mind that the OP has just undertaken a
fresh install - albeit one that was faulty - of the XP OS which resulted in
his/her system (boot) drive being designated at the F: drive.

So it would appear that since all his/her programs/applications that
previously existed on that HDD have been deleted in the process, in this
particular case it would seem to be a simple & practical matter for the user
to just "start over" and undertake a proper fresh install of the XP OS
resulting in his/her HDD becoming a properly-designated C: drive. Then, of
course, install whatever programs/applications he/she desires.
Anna

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 14:46:02 -0500, "Anna" wrote:


On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:57:42 -0500, "Anna" wrote:
Ken:
Without belaboring the issue I can only repeat what I've stated in my
last
post.

The problems we've run into re this issue along the lines I've described
involving many, many users over the years in an XP environment have
impressed us to strongly suggest that, wherever practical, the user
should
establish his/her system (boot) disk as the C: drive even if it means a
fresh install of the OS.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
OK. We clearly disagree.

I recommend that he stay with the setup he presently has, since there
is no downside to it. The OP can decide for himself which advice he
wants to follow.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


Ken:
As I explained (or try to explain) in my previous posts, based upon our
fairly extensive experience with thousands of users over the years in an XP
environment, there certainly is a "downside" - at least a substantially
potential one - in one's system (boot) drive being designated with a drive
assignment letter other than C:.


Anna, I've stated my view, and don't want to repeat myself further. We
disagree.

I don't dispute your right to your opinion. Please allow me mine. As I
said, the OP can decide for himself whom he wants to believe and what
he wants to do.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Ken:
I most certainly don't dispute your right (or anyone else's right for that
matter) on this or any other forum to state your view. I fully understand
that you disagree with my point of view. So be it. I was merely responding
to your previous post and hopefully clarifying my position re this issue.
Anna


"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 14:46:02 -0500, "Anna" wrote:


On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:57:42 -0500, "Anna" wrote:
Ken:
Without belaboring the issue I can only repeat what I've stated in my
last
post.

The problems we've run into re this issue along the lines I've
described
involving many, many users over the years in an XP environment have
impressed us to strongly suggest that, wherever practical, the user
should
establish his/her system (boot) disk as the C: drive even if it means
a
fresh install of the OS.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
OK. We clearly disagree.

I recommend that he stay with the setup he presently has, since there
is no downside to it. The OP can decide for himself which advice he
wants to follow.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


Ken:
As I explained (or try to explain) in my previous posts, based upon our
fairly extensive experience with thousands of users over the years in an
XP
environment, there certainly is a "downside" - at least a substantially
potential one - in one's system (boot) drive being designated with a
drive
assignment letter other than C:.


Anna, I've stated my view, and don't want to repeat myself further. We
disagree.

I don't dispute your right to your opinion. Please allow me mine. As I
said, the OP can decide for himself whom he wants to believe and what
he wants to do.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:58:47 -0500, "Anna" wrote:

Ken:
I most certainly don't dispute your right (or anyone else's right for that
matter) on this or any other forum to state your view. I fully understand
that you disagree with my point of view. So be it. I was merely responding
to your previous post and hopefully clarifying my position re this issue.


OK, understood.

And I'll add that although we disagree on this point, I usually agree
with most of your other posts and I think you generally post very good
advice.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 14:46:02 -0500, "Anna" wrote:


On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:57:42 -0500, "Anna" wrote:
Ken:
Without belaboring the issue I can only repeat what I've stated in my
last
post.

The problems we've run into re this issue along the lines I've
described
involving many, many users over the years in an XP environment have
impressed us to strongly suggest that, wherever practical, the user
should
establish his/her system (boot) disk as the C: drive even if it means
a
fresh install of the OS.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
OK. We clearly disagree.

I recommend that he stay with the setup he presently has, since there
is no downside to it. The OP can decide for himself which advice he
wants to follow.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


Ken:
As I explained (or try to explain) in my previous posts, based upon our
fairly extensive experience with thousands of users over the years in an
XP
environment, there certainly is a "downside" - at least a substantially
potential one - in one's system (boot) drive being designated with a
drive
assignment letter other than C:.


Anna, I've stated my view, and don't want to repeat myself further. We
disagree.

I don't dispute your right to your opinion. Please allow me mine. As I
said, the OP can decide for himself whom he wants to believe and what
he wants to do.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

World wide, the local disc is drive C. It is sheer stupidity to have it any
other designation. Just asking for future
problems is what it amounts to.
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:58:47 -0500, "Anna" wrote:

Ken:
I most certainly don't dispute your right (or anyone else's right for
that
matter) on this or any other forum to state your view. I fully understand
that you disagree with my point of view. So be it. I was merely
responding
to your previous post and hopefully clarifying my position re this issue.


OK, understood.

And I'll add that although we disagree on this point, I usually agree
with most of your other posts and I think you generally post very good
advice.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 14:46:02 -0500, "Anna" wrote:


On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:57:42 -0500, "Anna" wrote:
Ken:
Without belaboring the issue I can only repeat what I've stated in
my
last
post.

The problems we've run into re this issue along the lines I've
described
involving many, many users over the years in an XP environment have
impressed us to strongly suggest that, wherever practical, the user
should
establish his/her system (boot) disk as the C: drive even if it
means
a
fresh install of the OS.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
OK. We clearly disagree.

I recommend that he stay with the setup he presently has, since
there
is no downside to it. The OP can decide for himself which advice he
wants to follow.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


Ken:
As I explained (or try to explain) in my previous posts, based upon
our
fairly extensive experience with thousands of users over the years in
an
XP
environment, there certainly is a "downside" - at least a
substantially
potential one - in one's system (boot) drive being designated with a
drive
assignment letter other than C:.


Anna, I've stated my view, and don't want to repeat myself further. We
disagree.

I don't dispute your right to your opinion. Please allow me mine. As I
said, the OP can decide for himself whom he wants to believe and what
he wants to do.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:43:12 GMT, "Unknown"
wrote:

World wide, the local disc is drive C. It is sheer stupidity to have it any
other designation. Just asking for future
problems is what it amounts to.

This ignores the situation that many of us dual-booters are in. I've
never given the designation "C:" to the secondary OS, because, in
order to avoid inevitable problems with the wetware between my ears,
it's mandatory that all drives have the same drive letter no matter
what OS is booted. Thus, both of my Vista installations reside on
drive V:, while XP is on on C:. Therefore, when I'm in Vista, my
%windir% is V:/Windows. It's never caused even the slightest problem,
just as Ken says it won't.

For an enterprise with thousands of computers installed, it's
important to have the boot drive universally designated as C:. For
the individual, stand-alone computer, it's a matter of choice.


"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:58:47 -0500, "Anna" wrote:

Ken:
I most certainly don't dispute your right (or anyone else's right for
that
matter) on this or any other forum to state your view. I fully understand
that you disagree with my point of view. So be it. I was merely
responding
to your previous post and hopefully clarifying my position re this issue.


OK, understood.

And I'll add that although we disagree on this point, I usually agree
with most of your other posts and I think you generally post very good
advice.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
news On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 14:46:02 -0500, "Anna" wrote:


On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:57:42 -0500, "Anna" wrote:
Ken:
Without belaboring the issue I can only repeat what I've stated in
my
last
post.

The problems we've run into re this issue along the lines I've
described
involving many, many users over the years in an XP environment have
impressed us to strongly suggest that, wherever practical, the user
should
establish his/her system (boot) disk as the C: drive even if it
means
a
fresh install of the OS.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
OK. We clearly disagree.

I recommend that he stay with the setup he presently has, since
there
is no downside to it. The OP can decide for himself which advice he
wants to follow.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


Ken:
As I explained (or try to explain) in my previous posts, based upon
our
fairly extensive experience with thousands of users over the years in
an
XP
environment, there certainly is a "downside" - at least a
substantially
potential one - in one's system (boot) drive being designated with a
drive
assignment letter other than C:.


Anna, I've stated my view, and don't want to repeat myself further. We
disagree.

I don't dispute your right to your opinion. Please allow me mine. As I
said, the OP can decide for himself whom he wants to believe and what
he wants to do.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"milleron" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:43:12 GMT, "Unknown"
wrote:

World wide, the local disc is drive C. It is sheer stupidity to have it
any
other designation. Just asking for future
problems is what it amounts to.

This ignores the situation that many of us dual-booters are in. I've
never given the designation "C:" to the secondary OS, because, in
order to avoid inevitable problems with the wetware between my ears,
it's mandatory that all drives have the same drive letter no matter
what OS is booted. Thus, both of my Vista installations reside on
drive V:, while XP is on on C:. Therefore, when I'm in Vista, my
%windir% is V:/Windows. It's never caused even the slightest problem,
just as Ken says it won't.



I agree.
I have set up plenty of dual boot machines and any software I've installed
*always* defaults to the drive where the OS is actually installed...no
matter what the letter.
Plus most software gives you the "advanced option" choice to install on
another drive.

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:43:12 GMT, "Unknown"
wrote:

World wide, the local disc is drive C. It is sheer stupidity to have it any
other designation. Just asking for future
problems is what it amounts to.


You are certainly entitled to that opinion, although I don't
appreciate the rudeness with which you expressed it.

However I strongly disagree. I certainly don't suggest that anyone
should purposely choose to install on a drive other than C:, but if
turns out that way, there is hardly ever a good reason to go to the
trouble of changing it.




"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:58:47 -0500, "Anna" wrote:

Ken:
I most certainly don't dispute your right (or anyone else's right for
that
matter) on this or any other forum to state your view. I fully understand
that you disagree with my point of view. So be it. I was merely
responding
to your previous post and hopefully clarifying my position re this issue.


OK, understood.

And I'll add that although we disagree on this point, I usually agree
with most of your other posts and I think you generally post very good
advice.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
news On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 14:46:02 -0500, "Anna" wrote:


On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:57:42 -0500, "Anna" wrote:
Ken:
Without belaboring the issue I can only repeat what I've stated in
my
last
post.

The problems we've run into re this issue along the lines I've
described
involving many, many users over the years in an XP environment have
impressed us to strongly suggest that, wherever practical, the user
should
establish his/her system (boot) disk as the C: drive even if it
means
a
fresh install of the OS.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
OK. We clearly disagree.

I recommend that he stay with the setup he presently has, since
there
is no downside to it. The OP can decide for himself which advice he
wants to follow.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


Ken:
As I explained (or try to explain) in my previous posts, based upon
our
fairly extensive experience with thousands of users over the years in
an
XP
environment, there certainly is a "downside" - at least a
substantially
potential one - in one's system (boot) drive being designated with a
drive
assignment letter other than C:.


Anna, I've stated my view, and don't want to repeat myself further. We
disagree.

I don't dispute your right to your opinion. Please allow me mine. As I
said, the OP can decide for himself whom he wants to believe and what
he wants to do.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Not rude at all. You imagine that.
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:43:12 GMT, "Unknown"
wrote:

World wide, the local disc is drive C. It is sheer stupidity to have it
any
other designation. Just asking for future
problems is what it amounts to.


You are certainly entitled to that opinion, although I don't
appreciate the rudeness with which you expressed it.

However I strongly disagree. I certainly don't suggest that anyone
should purposely choose to install on a drive other than C:, but if
turns out that way, there is hardly ever a good reason to go to the
trouble of changing it.




"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:58:47 -0500, "Anna" wrote:

Ken:
I most certainly don't dispute your right (or anyone else's right for
that
matter) on this or any other forum to state your view. I fully
understand
that you disagree with my point of view. So be it. I was merely
responding
to your previous post and hopefully clarifying my position re this
issue.


OK, understood.

And I'll add that although we disagree on this point, I usually agree
with most of your other posts and I think you generally post very good
advice.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
news On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 14:46:02 -0500, "Anna" wrote:


On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:57:42 -0500, "Anna"
wrote:
Ken:
Without belaboring the issue I can only repeat what I've stated
in
my
last
post.

The problems we've run into re this issue along the lines I've
described
involving many, many users over the years in an XP environment
have
impressed us to strongly suggest that, wherever practical, the
user
should
establish his/her system (boot) disk as the C: drive even if it
means
a
fresh install of the OS.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in
message
OK. We clearly disagree.

I recommend that he stay with the setup he presently has, since
there
is no downside to it. The OP can decide for himself which advice
he
wants to follow.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


Ken:
As I explained (or try to explain) in my previous posts, based upon
our
fairly extensive experience with thousands of users over the years
in
an
XP
environment, there certainly is a "downside" - at least a
substantially
potential one - in one's system (boot) drive being designated with
a
drive
assignment letter other than C:.


Anna, I've stated my view, and don't want to repeat myself further.
We
disagree.

I don't dispute your right to your opinion. Please allow me mine. As
I
said, the OP can decide for himself whom he wants to believe and
what
he wants to do.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Unknown wrote:
Not rude at all. You imagine that.

"It is sheer stupidity to have it...." No imagination required.

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:43:12 GMT, "Unknown"
wrote:

World wide, the local disc is drive C. It is sheer stupidity to have it
any
other designation. Just asking for future
problems is what it amounts to.


You are certainly entitled to that opinion, although I don't
appreciate the rudeness with which you expressed it.

However I strongly disagree. I certainly don't suggest that anyone
should purposely choose to install on a drive other than C:, but if
turns out that way, there is hardly ever a good reason to go to the
trouble of changing it.




"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:58:47 -0500, "Anna" wrote:

Ken:
I most certainly don't dispute your right (or anyone else's right for
that
matter) on this or any other forum to state your view. I fully
understand
that you disagree with my point of view. So be it. I was merely
responding
to your previous post and hopefully clarifying my position re this
issue.


OK, understood.

And I'll add that although we disagree on this point, I usually agree
with most of your other posts and I think you generally post very good
advice.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
news On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 14:46:02 -0500, "Anna" wrote:


On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:57:42 -0500, "Anna"
wrote:
Ken:
Without belaboring the issue I can only repeat what I've stated
in
my
last
post.

The problems we've run into re this issue along the lines I've
described
involving many, many users over the years in an XP environment
have
impressed us to strongly suggest that, wherever practical, the
user
should
establish his/her system (boot) disk as the C: drive even if it
means
a
fresh install of the OS.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in
message
OK. We clearly disagree.

I recommend that he stay with the setup he presently has, since
there
is no downside to it. The OP can decide for himself which advice
he
wants to follow.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


Ken:
As I explained (or try to explain) in my previous posts, based upon
our
fairly extensive experience with thousands of users over the years
in
an
XP
environment, there certainly is a "downside" - at least a
substantially
potential one - in one's system (boot) drive being designated with
a
drive
assignment letter other than C:.


Anna, I've stated my view, and don't want to repeat myself further.
We
disagree.

I don't dispute your right to your opinion. Please allow me mine. As
I
said, the OP can decide for himself whom he wants to believe and
what
he wants to do.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Unknown wrote on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:21:57 GMT:

U Not rude at all. You imagine that.

I wonder if you move in the same circles as other people. My
daughter does not allow my grand-daughter to use "stupid" etc.


Unknown"
?? wrote:
??
?? World wide, the local disc is drive C. It is sheer
?? stupidity to have it any other designation. Just asking
?? for future problems is what it amounts to.
??
?? You are certainly entitled to that opinion, although I
?? don't appreciate the rudeness with which you expressed it.
??

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

It's just (yet another) sign of the newage times, sad to say.

James Silverton wrote:
Unknown wrote on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:21:57 GMT:

Not rude at all. You imagine that.

I wonder if you move in the same circles as other people. My
daughter does not allow my grand-daughter to use "stupid" etc.


Unknown"
wrote:

World wide, the local disc is drive C. It is sheer
stupidity to have it any other designation. Just asking
for future problems is what it amounts to.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion, although I
don't appreciate the rudeness with which you expressed it.


James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:21:57 GMT, "Unknown"
wrote:

Not rude at all. You imagine that.


You tell me that my view is "sheer stupidity," and you think it's my
imagination that I consider that rude?

Have it your own way. I'm not interested in arguing with you. Goodbye.




"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 17:43:12 GMT, "Unknown"
wrote:

World wide, the local disc is drive C. It is sheer stupidity to have it
any
other designation. Just asking for future
problems is what it amounts to.


You are certainly entitled to that opinion, although I don't
appreciate the rudeness with which you expressed it.

However I strongly disagree. I certainly don't suggest that anyone
should purposely choose to install on a drive other than C:, but if
turns out that way, there is hardly ever a good reason to go to the
trouble of changing it.




"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 16:58:47 -0500, "Anna" wrote:

Ken:
I most certainly don't dispute your right (or anyone else's right for
that
matter) on this or any other forum to state your view. I fully
understand
that you disagree with my point of view. So be it. I was merely
responding
to your previous post and hopefully clarifying my position re this
issue.


OK, understood.

And I'll add that although we disagree on this point, I usually agree
with most of your other posts and I think you generally post very good
advice.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
news On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 14:46:02 -0500, "Anna" wrote:


On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:57:42 -0500, "Anna"
wrote:
Ken:
Without belaboring the issue I can only repeat what I've stated
in
my
last
post.

The problems we've run into re this issue along the lines I've
described
involving many, many users over the years in an XP environment
have
impressed us to strongly suggest that, wherever practical, the
user
should
establish his/her system (boot) disk as the C: drive even if it
means
a
fresh install of the OS.



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in
message
OK. We clearly disagree.

I recommend that he stay with the setup he presently has, since
there
is no downside to it. The OP can decide for himself which advice
he
wants to follow.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


Ken:
As I explained (or try to explain) in my previous posts, based upon
our
fairly extensive experience with thousands of users over the years
in
an
XP
environment, there certainly is a "downside" - at least a
substantially
potential one - in one's system (boot) drive being designated with
a
drive
assignment letter other than C:.


Anna, I've stated my view, and don't want to repeat myself further.
We
disagree.

I don't dispute your right to your opinion. Please allow me mine. As
I
said, the OP can decide for himself whom he wants to believe and
what
he wants to do.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"mike" wrote in message news:%JOoj.805$Ou1.583@trnddc07...
kmayes wrote:
I recently installed a new hard drive and Windows XP Pro. Now my drive is shown as (F drive. I want to install several Programs
but cannot do it because my (C drive is now my Zip drive. I also cannot change letters in drive management. What would be my
solution to this short of doing the system all over again. If I have to do it all over again, how do I make sure it doesn't
happen again.

I'd like to hear a global explanation of why this happens and what to do about it.


This link explains it pretty well-

http://www.goodells.net/multiboot/partsigs.htm



With Win98, I could switch drives around in my system, use boot managers
that swizzled drive letters, basically do anything I wanted and the system would still boot. With Win2K and XP, moving drives
around confuses the OS so it can't tell where it is. Boots part way and
then gives a STOP error...it says it can't find the drive it's been execting programs from...game over. Reinstall time.
I'd like to be able to plug a second ide drive in/out without having
to reinstall windows...