|
I do something similar, but the opposite way round.
I have 2 systems that I swap between 2 monitors and a wireless keyboard.
The way I do it is with a USB switch similar to this one:
USB Switch Selector,USB 2.0 KVM Switcher Box Switch Hub for 2 PC Sharing 4 USB Devices,One-Button Swapping for Keyboard, Mouse, Scanner, Printer, Computer … : Amazon.co.uk: Business, Industry & Science
It basically has 4 usb inputs on the front, and 2 usb outputs on the back, allowing me to just press the button on the top, so that what ever is plugged into the front is only seen on the selected output.
Since everything is USB A standard connections, it's likely you can reverse it (Although I've never tried) and I do recall when looking for this I did see some that worked the opposite way round too.
I would say that if you put your 2 separate drives into USB enclosures, you should in theory be able to switch the drives between the two independent outputs, so that each OS install only sees the drive you want it to.
Failing that, it shouldn't take to much effort to actually make a suitable switch using an MCU and a digital switch IC of some description.
|
|
|
|
|
My initial concern would be that anything you do today to enforce it, could break tomorrow with an update. The "C" drive has always been a problematic thing with Windows. Sometimes, I am tempted to just make one giant C drive raid array and be done with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Junctions are your friend!
For instance, Outlook always likes to use the system drive for some things (ie. C:\Users\{username}\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Outlook).
Let it set it up. Shut down Outlook.
Move the data to the drive you want and create a junction in place of the original directory Outlook created.
I do this with a few applications, ensuring that my data is on an 8TB Raid 5 array instead of on the system volume.
The only caveat is that it CAN give you deceptive disk usage numbers from some utilities that don't understand junctions.
|
|
|
|
|
I tried this a couple Windows versions ago and had nothing but pain. There were apps that didn't work and settings kept flipping back to their default location. I now blithely accept where Windows wants to put things and my machines just seem to work better.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend; inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -- Groucho Marx
|
|
|
|
|
So.... let me see if I understand this correctly. You have some notion that apps that don't behave well will suddenly work as desired through trickery at the OS level???
Seriously, if you have an app that stores data without giving you a chance to interject, why do you think the app will still work when you block its desired location?? It will break the app if it can't write to the location. If the developer didn't let you choose the place for storing something it will not likely recover from being blocked.
Most software today stores settings information in the "AppData" folder. I place that in quotes because the location is (or was up through 10) a virtual location that could be changed through a registry key. Most of the locations used are (or were) virtualized so you could change the location. This would include the default location(s) for programs to be installed. (There is one for 64 bit and another for 32 bit last I checked.)
But if a developer doesn't know about the virtual locations - then such will get blindly ignored. And if a developer:
- Didn't bother to learn to use the system call for the desired directory and hard coded it
- Didn't bother to prompt you for the location
Then chances are the same developer doesn't have code to gracefully handle your attempts to protect against said developer. Now that could be a good thing since the software likely sucks anyway. But that is anotheer discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
So there's this to consider:
1. ba((r|a|b|c)|z+)
2. ba((r|(a|(b|c)))|z(z)*)
3. ba([ra-c]|z+)
There are 3 major algorithms for converting a state machine to a regular expression.
Of these, the cleanest is probably the state-removal method, which I've employed.
#1 is the original expression
#2 is the expression recreated from a state machine using the state removal method
#3 is the result of my new algorithm, based around the state removal method, but with improvements.
Instead of building a string expression, I built out an abstract syntax tree for my regex
After it is built, I can then do high level analysis and reduction on that expression tree.
The result is #3.
Woo! I went from not being able to solve this for years to improving on it pretty significantly.
I was hoping to get this sorted out this week, and here it is. And to think I only just solved this on Christmas eve. I'm pretty happy with this result.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
OGs post earlier today about black holes has triggered another internal (and this time external) cry of 'WHO CARES?'
I see paleontologists spending enormous amounts of time and money trying to trace the minute evolutions of fossilized remains; astronomers doing the same for stars long gone in time and space; and mathematicians trying to solve conundrums and speculations decades old - and the best I can come up with some times is 'WHO CARES?'
I am not interested in the excruciating details of the path evolution took (and the dead ends) to get where we are today, nor am I greatly concerned with the methods used to fold n-space planes into n-1 graphs.
So, I will now put on my flame retardant undies and stand defiant in the face of the washed public who read the Scientific American, the online magazines, etc.
Thar's only two possibilities: Thar is life out there in the universe which is smarter than we are, or we're the most intelligent life in the universe. Either way, it's a mighty sobering thought. (Porkypine - via Walt Kelly)
|
|
|
|
|
That applies to everything else too. There is not a single thing in either the past, present, or future, that actually matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curiosity is a gift and you either are born with it or you aren't. More explanations would be like explaining colors to the color-blind.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
The answer is excruciatingly simple. People who cares are the one who cares about them. Money talk, obviously some people do.
I cannot point a finger for you, but I guess biologist and medical doctor learn something from biological research. But at best they are like 1% of the population, so you can feel vindicated by knowing that 99% of people do not care.
Happier now?
The question I am left with now though, why do you care (whether any one care)?
I dare say you don't seem really interested in knowing the answer, it looks more like you want some vindication that nobody does. Unfortunately it is not the case.
"Worst", money bigger your saving account is invested by obviously interested parties every single day!
Moreover, the world today would be like 1699 if those specialist didn't have this particular interest, microwave ovens do not grow naturally on tree, you know.
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings . Mathematicians and Physicists deal w/ profound matters . To wit i.e. as far as I know which isn't much e.g. from Godel's mathematics "Can anything be known completely?" . From Astronomy "Where did the universe come from?" also "What brought the universe into being?" . From General Relativity "What is the nature of space and time?" . From Quantum Mechanics "What is the physical nature of reality?" . No doubt there are many others I am not familiar with though I recall something about one Mr. Alan Turing having done a thing or two also . As for black holes they do a thing or two to space and time of which we do not yet know . Sounds kinda interesting to me even profound - Cheerio
|
|
|
|
|
PaltryProgrammer wrote: As for black holes they do a thing or two to space and time of which we do not yet know . Sounds kinda interesting to me even profound - That's the understatement of the year. The truth is that we have no clue about that at all, just a lot of theories and no way to test them.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
CodeWraith wrote: That's the understatement of the year
This is the third day of the year. Does not say a lot about the statement, right.
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
This is the third day of the year. Does not say a lot about the statement, right.
False
|
|
|
|
|
I'm, (sort of), with you on this. We have reached the point where the journey on the quest for knowledge has become ultra-esoteric and, in the main, of no real value. And by "of no real value", I mean:
- unlikely to save the planet
- unlikely to be of benefit to the vast majority
- and unlikely to prevent war, famine and all the other human misery & suffering that we witness every day, (from our comfy sofas), on TV.
Yeah! Happy 2022.
|
|
|
|
|
5teveH wrote: We have reached the point where the journey on the quest for knowledge has become ultra-esoteric and, in the main, of no real value
Medical research comes to mind.
For one, we still know very little about the human brain. I wouldn't call that ultra-esoteric.
|
|
|
|
|
I care (not daily , but I care)
I find it fascinating that people have the talent and patience to do research like that to make us better, maybe not in the short term, or with obvious applications, but we will be better.
Not all science needs to be engineering or have an end product at the end.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
You sent your message via a PC/tablet/phone across thousands of cables, switches, routers, servers, satellites, etc... it is now being read by thousands of people all across the planet.
Shouldn't you care about the folks who created this "magic"?
What about the giants whose shoulders they stood on? I can only imagine the luddites who whined about Newton, Wren, Einstein, Bohr, Tesla, Edison, etc...
Who knows... black holes could eventually lead to faster than light travel, unlimited power, etc...
|
|
|
|
|
Who Cares? Simply put at least one person. OG if no one else.
It was like listening to my wife's 15x removed cousin at a family reunion years ago. He spent almost all of his free time setting up a model railroad in his basement anndddddddd that was all he wanted to talk about. Who Cares? Obviously he did. Did anyone else present around him? perhaps one or two.
So you probably have something you are passionate about. Who else besides you cares? Just the people who are also passionate about that same subject.
I believe 99% of the population of the earth wouldn't give a rats butt about anything discussed on CodeProject either. Most of them would be saying Who Cares? We do. If it matters.
It is all in the eye of the beholder. And personally I love listening to people talk about stuff they are passionate about, They really do know their stuff. I might not care about said stuff. But the passion comes thru and makes them more interesting to be around.
Now I might even start putting up that railroad model my wife got her dad who then gave it to my son who left it in my house when he moved out. Not that anyone cares.
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
In my younger years I was curious and amazed by such things. I think my curiosity of the abstract and strange is satiated now.
As I near retirement age I find my curiosity shifting to the more down to earth matters. How can I grow better vegetables, build things with wood, help others get through their difficult lives? It comes down to how we want to fritter away the moments that make up a dull day. Different strokes for different folks. We can only care about so much.
|
|
|
|
|
My first thought, after reading your post, is "who cares that you don't care?"
My second was, "If you don't care, why did you waste time posting about it?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
With that many gravity, why are we looking for something like dark matter?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|