new browser needed

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-01-28 12:41pm

Crayz9000 wrote:
phongn wrote:FAT16? Ugh. That's even more inefficient than FAT32 and just as dangerous.
I was under the impression that FAT, being what NT used to run on before NTFS was really finished, was more stable than -32 at least in respect to Windows' drivers.

Well, with that in mind I'll just use FAT32, since it's a royal pain in the ass to fit Win2K on a one-gig partition cleanly. I suppose I can make a small NTFS partition just for the swapfile, since Linux doesn't need to access that.

Shouldn't the swapfile be on a FAT32, so you can dispense w/ the overhead of NTFS's features, and it doesn't contain crucial data. If it is, you can also make Linux share it (there's a howto on tldp), though I don't know if you are that tight on disk space.

There's also a way to write to an NTFS partition "safely" using the native windows DLLs. I might try that when I get around to installing Windows on my empty partition currently used to hold stuff I backed up for switching filesystems. I'll probably do that after reiser4 is sufficiently "stable".

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-01-28 12:50pm

Pu-239 wrote:There's also a way to write to an NTFS partition "safely" using the native windows DLLs. I might try that when I get around to installing Windows on my empty partition currently used to hold stuff I backed up for switching filesystems. I'll probably do that after reiser4 is sufficiently "stable".

It's called captive-ntfs. I tried it already, but simply couldn't get it working. So I'm not going to mess with it and just use the tried-and-true (mostly) methods.

You know, there's something I've always wondered about. What exactly is Windows NT 5+'s problem with FAT/FAT32?

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2004-01-28 01:03pm

Faram wrote:
Aya wrote:Bookmarks are fine. I deleted them from Firebird, so I could reimport them in alphabetical order. Firebird decided not to import them.

The chkdsk happens almost everytime I turn on my computer.

I tried to change over to NTFS, but it wouldn't let me. I was wondering, do I need to reformat inorder to change over?
Hmm if you get checkdisk at every reboot then windows ain't shutting down in the right way.

When the chkdsk prompt appears do you let it finish or do you abort it?

What is the error msg when you attempt to convert?

I always shut it down properly, my mom claims the same, but I've seen her turn it off before it's shutdown. I always let chkdsk finish. I'll post the error message later.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-01-28 02:01pm

Crayz9000 wrote:I was under the impression that FAT, being what NT used to run on before NTFS was really finished, was more stable than -32 at least in respect to Windows' drivers.

No, the drivers are equally stable. I've never had a problem with them.

Crayz9000 wrote:You know, there's something I've always wondered about. What exactly is Windows NT 5+'s problem with FAT/FAT32?

Microsoft is trying to kill FAT32 on the hard drive and move everyone to NTFS. The FAT family is inefficient and unreliable. Of course, flash memory and floppy disks will continue to use FAT16/VFAT/FAT32 due to their nature.

Pu-239 wrote:Shouldn't the swapfile be on a FAT32, so you can dispense w/ the overhead of NTFS's features, and it doesn't contain crucial data. If it is, you can also make Linux share it (there's a howto on tldp), though I don't know if you are that tight on disk space.

The swapfile should be on the front of your least-used drive, IIRC. I would use NTFS anyways for it as it is more space-efficient and is faster. There is only one operation FAT32 is faster at.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-01-28 02:25pm

I wonder if I should just move to ReactOS for games when they get that finished. At least it's likely to support Linux filesystems

Anyway, I'd use NTFS but WINE needs read/write Registry access in order to get any program more advanced than Notepad to work. So looks like I'll basically just install Windows on a FAT32 partition, and make a little NTFS partition to stick the swapfile on (why didn't Microsoft think of making swap partitions anyway? Swap on the main filesystem is kind of stupid anyway...)

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-01-28 04:47pm

Because Microsoft wants a dynamically resizable pagefile, and pagefiles on multiple disks.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-01-28 05:02pm

I thought the consensus was that, for most applications, the dynamic pagefile only adds overhead to the computer.

It's a nice thing when you're running short on disk space, but since when are we still running 540 meg hard drives?

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-01-28 05:06pm

phongn wrote:Because Microsoft wants a dynamically resizable pagefile, and pagefiles on multiple disks.

*PUKE!*

I keep a 1GB PF on its own 1GB partition, and Windows STILL makes a dynamic PF on C:! FFS!!!

Mlenk · Post by **Mlenk** » 2004-01-28 05:11pm

Use Firebird. I switched to it from IE about 6 months ago and I've never looked back.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-01-28 05:14pm

Mlenk wrote:Use Firebird. I switched to it from IE about 6 months ago and I've never looked back.

He is using Firebird, but Windows wiped out his profile so he's a bit mad.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-01-28 05:53pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:I keep a 1GB PF on its own 1GB partition, and Windows STILL makes a dynamic PF on C:! FFS!!!

That's there so that Windows can write a memory dump in case Windows bluescreens at some point. That information can thus be used to determine what brought Windows down -- often a driver. Furthermore, you can disable the pagefile on the boot drive, but it's not generally recommended.

Crazy9000 wrote:I thought the consensus was that, for most applications, the dynamic pagefile only adds overhead to the computer.

It's a nice thing when you're running short on disk space, but since when are we still running 540 meg hard drives?

The dynamic pagefile does add some overhead, but Microsoft considers running out of memory to be a worse situation, especially as many applications are not coded to handle that gracefully. Thus, the default dynamically-resizing pagefile.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-01-28 06:18pm

phongn wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:I keep a 1GB PF on its own 1GB partition, and Windows STILL makes a dynamic PF on C:! FFS!!!
That's there so that Windows can write a memory dump in case Windows bluescreens at some point. That information can thus be used to determine what brought Windows down -- often a driver. Furthermore, you can disable the pagefile on the boot drive, but it's not generally recommended.

I never get BSODs on my Win2K b0x.

phongn wrote:
Crazy9000 wrote:I thought the consensus was that, for most applications, the dynamic pagefile only adds overhead to the computer.

It's a nice thing when you're running short on disk space, but since when are we still running 540 meg hard drives?
The dynamic pagefile does add some overhead, but Microsoft considers running out of memory to be a worse situation, especially as many applications are not coded to handle that gracefully. Thus, the default dynamically-resizing pagefile.

Well they should have been thinking that when they wrote Win95 (remember the 'low on resources' bullshit that pre-2K Wins always had?)

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-01-28 06:40pm

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:I never get BSODs on my Win2K b0x.

Shit occasionally happens, and it's nice to discover what brought the box down so I can correct it.

Well they should have been thinking that when they wrote Win95 (remember the 'low on resources' bullshit that pre-2K Wins always had?)

That's because W9X had rather poor memory management (abliet superior to MacOS <=9 or Windows 3.X). Furthermore, we are discussing Windows NT's pagefile behavior, not Windows 9X.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2004-01-28 07:50pm

Mlenk wrote:Use Firebird. I switched to it from IE about 6 months ago and I've never looked back.

*Facepalms* That's like telling me to use a dildo to ward off Ein.

I want something other than Firebird.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-01-28 08:16pm

Aya wrote:Not exactly tech savy. What exactly is the difference between them and is switching safe?

Its safer that staying with FAT32. Just dont pull the power on it while its converting.

FAT32 is like the young brother of file systems, that on one wants to admit they know. Prone to instability and almost no ability to recover from any problems.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-01-28 08:32pm

One of the few reasons FAT32 is still used is because it's fairly easy to implement and understand -- and it's structure makes it suited to thinks like flash memory, where NTFS is not.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-01-28 08:33pm

You know, Aya, you could always try Opera if Firebird bugs you that much. Or Mozilla, but there's not much in the way of differences between it and Firebird.

Frankly, I think it's Windows that's more at fault than anything else. I have not had a single problem with my Mozilla installs over the time I've been using it (since 0.9.7, if I recall.)

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-01-29 12:04am

phongn wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:I keep a 1GB PF on its own 1GB partition, and Windows STILL makes a dynamic PF on C:! FFS!!!
That's there so that Windows can write a memory dump in case Windows bluescreens at some point. That information can thus be used to determine what brought Windows down -- often a driver. Furthermore, you can disable the pagefile on the boot drive, but it's not generally recommended.

Crazy9000 wrote:I thought the consensus was that, for most applications, the dynamic pagefile only adds overhead to the computer.

It's a nice thing when you're running short on disk space, but since when are we still running 540 meg hard drives?
The dynamic pagefile does add some overhead, but Microsoft considers running out of memory to be a worse situation, especially as many applications are not coded to handle that gracefully. Thus, the default dynamically-resizing pagefile.

I've heard that the dynamic swapfile is less efficient since the drive gets fragmented, so you defrag a partition and move the swapfile to it, then set a minimum size?

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2004-01-29 01:22am

Aya wrote:I tried to change over to NTFS, but it wouldn't let me. I was wondering, do I need to reformat inorder to change over?

No. You'll have to boot into the command line to do it to the partition your OS resides on. Just hit F8 just before you see the XP logo, and select Command Line from the list.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-01-29 04:41am

Pu-239 wrote:I've heard that the dynamic swapfile is less efficient since the drive gets fragmented, so you defrag a partition and move the swapfile to it, then set a minimum size?

And a maximum size, which will be the same size as the partition. That way Windows won't fragment the pagefile trying to resize it.

It's just an idea that popped into my head with regards as to how to solve the filesystem problem.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-01-29 12:31pm

A dynamic swapfile can indeed fragment, which will harm performance. However, a fragmented swapfile is still better than running out of memory.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2004-01-29 03:21pm

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2004-01-29 03:22pm

Press Y and restart.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2004-01-29 03:32pm

Ok, I'll do that in a bit.

Jason von Evil · Post by **Jason von Evil** » 2004-01-29 04:04pm

Ok, just converted. Only took a few minutes too.