Jason on Sun, 7 Jul 2002 22:43:19 -0400

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PLUG] Memory hardware questions

Hash: SHA1

OT Disclaimer: This message is not suitable for all open source or free 
software users. If reading info about M$ products or applications offends 
you, do not read this message.

On Sunday 07 July 2002 20H:15, Paul wrote:
> >>Windows doesn't do symlinks as far as I know.
> >
> >What do you call those shortcuts that new software slaps all over
> >the Windows desktop and task bar?
> You know Micro$oft.  They will never refer to shortcuts as symlinks.
>  Anyone who does might get sued or something.
> Even without shortcuts, you could create a batch file which simply calls
> the target program.

Even these "shortcuts" don't typcially appear at most levels in the FAT or 
NTFS filesystems. It can be difficult to even get Windows Explorer to follow 
a "shortcut to a directory" sometimes.

Plus, if an application stores much of its configuration in the Windows 
registry (most newer Windows applications do), parts of the application (or 
the entire application) might fail to function or even run at all by simply 
moving the files to the path that you want. For example, if you move files 
from c:\Program Files\WinApp to e:\Program Files\WinApp, you might not even 
be able to launch the application anymore. However, simply reversing the 
change should recover with no problems.

<Windows Hack>
The closest thing to a true symlink in the windows world is remapping a local 
drive. That slows things down a bit, because the network layer is 
unnecessarily dragged into the middle of local disk access. But, you can 
remap a drive that way. For instance, if you have some references to c:\ and 
some to d:\, you can remap c: as d: so both references work fine.
</Windows Hack>

And Arthur, no these headaches may not be worth it to you for the small 
improvement in Swap access under Linux. IMHO, $35 for an improvement from 48 
MB to 128 MB of memory should be much more noticeable. Even for Business Apps 
:) However, if you feel like learning a bit, you'll most likely learn a good 
deal by going through the exercise of rearranging the drive partitions.

Another point w/ respect to performance:
I am assuming that the larger drive is much newer and probably supports some 
level of Ultra DMA. I am also assuming that you have a motherboard with dual 
IDE controller controllers. If these controllers support Ultra DMA 
(66/100/133), you might notice a speed difference by moving the slower drive 
to the secondary IDE controller, or possibly making it the slave drive as 
opposed to the master. This is assuming that the smaller/older drive does not 
support Ultra DMA (66/100/133) and that you have an 80 conductor UDMA cable 
connected to the primary IDE controller (color coded connectors).

And, if you are running Win 98/ME (particularly ME), you are right to be 
cautious about switching the boot partition. In my experience, Win 98/ME is 
much more sensitive to modifying the boot partition. I have a scenario 
similar to what you are describing (moved Windows from the 1st disk to the 
second disk). I was able to move things in several stages with both Win NT 
and Win 2K partitions installed. I have a different system with Win ME and 
SuSE. I "lost" my Windows partition a number of times. This was not a problem 
for me, but could be "problematic" for others. I am personally keeping fewer 
and fewer of these Windows partitions around, but will be glad to help 
however I can.

Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org


Philadelphia Linux Users Group       -      http://www.phillylinux.org
General Discussion  -  http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug