|
>>hardly ever written to
Don't forget the bazillion log entries generated every nanosecond.
>64
If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: the idea this time is the 480 for OS only, the 1TB for apps only, and the HDD for data.
I think you'll end up with relatively little on your apps-only drive. Despite your best attempts, installers will continue spewing data all over your OS drive and registry. If it was possible to place all apps on a drive by itself, so you could rebuild the OS and point it to the app drive so you don't have to reinstall apps...that would be a worthy endeavor. But I don't see the point given that it's practically impossible to separate apps from the OS.
A data drive, however, makes total sense to me. I try not to save things locally on any machine, and save everything to a system across my LAN acting as a NAS.
|
|
|
|
|
My "manually" administered and cleaned OS drive (W10) is at 194 GB; that's the best I can do with what I use. (There may be default SQL server database space that can / should be moved).
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
You would think, wouldn't you, that some 30 years on Microsoft might have added a feature to enforce an "Op.System-only drive" and provide intelligent defaults for applications that try to put their stuff somewhere else.
I have a hunch that in some cases it might be feasible to create a W:/ partition, install Windows on there, and just leave "legacy" applications to install on the C: per default. (Changing %AppDir% etc might help too...) My understanding is that Windows won't let you install it on an A: or B: drive because it still reserves these letters for floppy drives. Perhaps installing your "real" Windows in W: whilst also providing a C: drive would give greatest compatibility with those badly-behaved apps that one actually needs...
|
|
|
|
|
Bingo! Win 11 does let you set a default location for new apps: Back to Basics: How to change the default save location in Windows 11 - gHacks Tech News[^]
I'll try it - and if I set the bootable SSD as "W:" and the app SSD as "C:" then redirect all the non-data locations to C: it could help.
Thanks for that - good idea ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
In fact Win10 has a similar screen, which I found by chance the other day when my C: (SSD) was getting perilously full. I already moved all my documents, photos, dev websites etc to D: (HD) and applications that ask are also all installed to D:. I've updated all the "default save locations" as per the screenshot but not installed anything since so no idea if it works; I suspect it still depends on apps being "good citizens" of Windows.
As I keep falling over well-hidden (to me) Win10 hacks I assumed everyone else was familiar with this screen!   
Just don't blame me if the W: drive turns out to be a really bad idea long-run...
|
|
|
|
|
It's possible to change the location for things like 'My Documents' to keep in on a separate drive / partition.
Usually when installing you can choose the destination directory, so just make sure you point it to the non OS drive. You can try to use portable versions of apps as well.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
