Evening David, > Eventually I rendered it readable. I have no idea what it could have been that caused the problem. I've read it fine in the Linux version of Thunderbird as has at least one other recipient, I sent it to work and Outlook read it fine there. Wolfgang seems to have had a different problem to yours in that he saw each of my paragraphs as one single long non-wrapping line. Eudora reads it fine as well and my Wife's version of Thunderbird on Windows XP has no problems either. Spooky.
>>It is surely just common sense that if you want a multiple boot >>machine you should mark the space out before installations. I >>have no idea what Linux has to offer in the way of such tools, > > Now, while I agree that it is sensible to do what you say, I have to > state, for the defence, . . . . . . > > Of what, where is the attack ? It was a figure of speech, sorry if thought that I thought I was 'under attack'. I shall attempt to refrain in future from using words that may cause confusion. > Will learned counsel for the defence please inform the court what he is > defending. > The less than sensible ? Linux ? Or Norman Dunbar ? You suggested that you knew not what tools Linux had to offer in the realms of disc partitioning. I provided a small list of these I knew about off the top of my head. As with many things Linux/Unix, there are about 101 different ways to skin the proverbial cat, so there may well be others. As for what I was defending, as I said above, it was a figure of speech. > Is paranoia showing again ? It was yourself that perceived a > non-existant slight in Tony's mail some while ago ? I believe you may be getting me confused with another member of the list. I have never been slighted by Tony, nor have I taken offence at any recent posting on the list. Paranoia doesn't live here! >>Bearing in mind you need a Primary ptn' for each bootup, > > I'm not 100% sure that this is true. You van define a maximum of 4 > primary partitions on a disc and then you are stuffed if you want more. > To get around this limit, you define an extended partition a. . . > > It is not a work-around, it is the system, the MBR is the first sector, > number of definitions is limited. Sorry, I'm missing your point. You said that a primary partition is needed for each boot up. I said that I wasn't 100% sure if this was the case - in other words, I was questioning your statement of fact. I mentioned the 4 primary limit and you say that it isn't a work around (which I don't believe I mentioned), you then tell me that it it limited. So when I mentioned getting around this limit (of only 4 primary partitions) I was indeed mentioning how to get round the *limit*. Not a workaround at all. > >>I did once install W95, 98 & 2000 in one box, as I recall it >>was a doddle, Windows just used free space to make the new >>primaries, > > The windows installer would have seen the partitions as separate drives > . . . . > > You are quite wrong and just fatally biased against Microsoft, Dear or dear. You seem to know a hell of a lot about me and we have never, to the best on my recollection, ever been introduced. I am *not* fatally biased against Microsoft. My desktop PC runs Windows XP (occasionally I admit) and my wife's laptop runs XP as well. I tend to favour Linux on my laptop and on the desktop, again, I run Linux (it dual boots). Those are my preferences. I use Windows at work all day every day and it works, mostly. And I stand by my statement above. If you create 4 partitions on a disc and then install Windows, you will be asked which 'disc' you wish to install to and each partition will indeed be a 'separate' hard disc - as far as Windows is concerned. > there are pro's & con's for MS, allow credit where it is due. > 25 years ago the bleat was "why wont computers talk to each other ?", > no they cry MONOPOLY ! WTF? Did Microsoft suddenly invent networking? I believe not. In fact, Microsoft came late to networking, like they came to the internet, very late and with a half botched attempt at a bolt-on to Windows 3.1 making it 3.11 (if I remember correctly) which was the first to have networking capabilities built in. Up until then, networking of Windows up to 3.1 was done on top of Novell Networking - or similar. >>A Sony VAIO of a friend caused quite a headache, a reinstallation was a >>pain due to the Sony Specials and an unhelpful dealership > > My Sony Vaio reinstalled quite nicely thanks. . . . . . > > I was just recounting , for Malcolm, laptop experiences - not seeking > remedies for long past problems. And illustrating why I dislike the > proprietry brands. And I was actually agreeing with you and recounting my experiences with laptops. I wasn't offering any solutions. I agree about unhelpful (Sony) dealerships though - exactly my experience when I needed a new keyboard for this laptop. >>Lastly my wife bought an Advent when I was away, at least it is >>not Vista, but as the OS and delivered software is only in a >>recovery partition, no discs, one cannot reformat the HDD without >>losing the system. > > My wife's DELL as a similar setup, however, a quick scan of the support > site at Dell gave instructions on creating a set of 'original' CDs from > the recovery partition. This is for people who chose not to bother > paying (!!!) extra £5,00 for the CDs > > Pompous pratt - the economy I alluded to was the reduced cost to the > supplier of a limited OEM version of the OS Hmmm, personal attacks now eh, that's not big and it's not very clever either. If you care to read my reply again, then you will note that I was offering you a suggested manner of being able to [re]create a set of installation discs from the data stored in the recovery partition. Obviously the Advent manner of doing things may be different from Dell and it might not be possible I don't remember you mentioning 'economy' anywhere and I certainly was not implying that you were a tight fisted cheapskate who wouldn't pay an extra fiver for a 'proper' recovery disc. I was actually making the point that manufacturers make you pay extra, as an option, to receive a pre-burned CD that you can use to recover in the event of a catastrophic loss of hard disc. My triple exclamation mark was intended as 'surprise' in that when you pay what you pay for a decent quality PC/Laptop the fact that you are then asked to pay extra for the very manner of recovering your system, *and* proving that you have a legal copy of the OS. That's the surprising thing and hence my reference to *paying*. I don't know you, how much you earn or whether yo can afford an extra fiver or not, so I'm in no position to make accusations of 'economy' or otherwise. As for "pompous pratt" - well, you obviously don't know me at all. The last thing I am is pompous. >>I have never invoked one of these recovery procedures, I presume >>they can only do so by recreating the original environment, >>everything else would be lost. > > That's about the gist of it, yes. They recreate exactly the shipped > configuration. You basically start afresh with a 'new' hard disc . . . > . . . > > I had forgotten how to suck eggs Hmmm. Read your original comments (above) again please. You wrote that you had 'never' invoked a recovery procedure and that you 'presumed' the result of said recovery. I advised you that I had recovered my Sony Laptop (previously in the email) and that they do indeed do as you 'presumed'. You admit that you have *never* done it and that you didn't *know* what the end result would be - I have provided you with an answer and you start going on about 'sucking eggs'. That expression means that someone is telling you something that you already *know* - but you didn't *know*, you presumed. And to presume is not to know, it is to guess. No eggs to suck there I'm afraid. >> now I wish I had not made it readable Whatever. But you took the time to do so, misunderstood some of my points and made personal attacks too. I felt the need to put the matter straight again with hopefully the minimum of misunderstanding this time. Now having been personally attacked on a couple of occasions in your email, you will note my complete lack of a similar repost. Can we at least be polite to each other in future? Regards, Norman. _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
