|
I take a brand new thumb drive out of the package
I'll call this one the Orange Thumb Drive
I insert the Orange Thumb Drive into the USB jack
Windows reports that The Orange Thumb Drive is Drive "E:" (no quotes)
I remove The Orange Thumb Drive
I place a different thumb drive into that same USB Jack.
I'll call this one The Purple Thumb Drive
Windows reports that The Purple Thumb Drive is also Drive "E:" (no quotes)
While the Purple Drive is still in place, I plug The Orange Thumb Drive into another USB Jack.
Windows reports that The Orange Thumb Drive is now Drive "F:" (no quotes) This makes sense
I unplug both Thumb Drives
I now plug The Orange Thumb Drive back into the original USB Jack.
Expected behavior: Windows will assign him "E:"
Observed behavior: Windows continues to assign him "F:"
Huh ?
Brain assistance welcome and invited
(Is there a better place to ask this question ?)
|
|
|
|
|
It assigned the drive letter the device last used.
|
|
|
|
|
--edit
Deleted; this is not even a programming questions, this is for admins to sort out. If it were a programming question, it would not be welcome in the Lounge.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Windows has this thing where it assigns a drive letter to a volume. If you repartition it, you'll see what I mean.
So, my guess is that E was the first available drive latter to use when it first assigned one to the volume since A, B, and D are reserved-ish; D still being the old CD-ROM drive by default. When you inserted them individually, they both were assigned E because E wasn't being used both times and all is well. But when E was taken by inserting two at once, the second one was reassigned F. When you removed both and stuck in the one that got re-assigned, F wasn't being used with no other devices so Windows just kept on using it and never re-assigned it again to "reset" it.
The thing to remember is, it's actually a property of the volume itself. One of the less intuitive things Windows does, but at least you can center your icons on the task bar now. 
Jeremy Falcon
modified 15-Feb-23 18:42pm.
|
|
|
|
|
ditto
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
I have been attempting to understand this a little more with the "Disk Management" program
(i.e., [Windows_Key]+"X", then "K")
Wo; pretty cool stuff.
So then, I can remove the drive letter, and I barely understand what I'm looking at; which I will live with for the moment.
More experimentation shows that I can change that Drive Letter Name, and that I have twenty four options...
- A-Thru-Z,
- but
- "C" and "D" are already taken
...which makes sense
So, I tried "A"
Ta-Da, Windows Command Prompt sees "A:"
Duh
Have I just created the world's first Sixteen Gigabyte Floppy Drive ???
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm pretty sure A and B are 100% ok to be used these days. C for your system drive is just a convention more than a hard rule. A and B were originally for insertable media like floppy disks, since they were around before internal storage. C was just next in line when HDDs came out, and of course optical drives just picked the next one: D. Just a convention though. If you had two hard drives for instance before installing a CD-ROM drive, then Windows would call the CD-ROM drive E because D was already assigned to a volume. Removing the second hard drive wouldn't change the E mapping since it's already set to the volume.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing new here. Windows has worked that way at least since Windows supported USB drives (NT SP6? XP?)
Windows assigns a "default drive letter" to every device the first time it sees it. It will use that letter whenever the device is inserted again. If the default drive letter is used by another device, Windows will reassign the "default drive letter".
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
That's as good an answer as I've ever seen. I won't claim I've verified it, but it absolutely sounds plausible.
I have a batch file PowerShell script that backs up folders to a USB stick, and I gave up a long time ago trying to identify it through a predictable drive letter. The script instead uses a combination of known serial number + volume label in its attempt to positively, correctly identify the drive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remember when 1M year BC came out and that bikini. At the time it made quit a stir.
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - An updated version available!
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
Watch "Fathom" 1967
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
watch "Fathom" 1967.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Who was that comedian telling about once he was arrested, and the officer told that anything he said would be held against him?
"I tried 'Rachel Welch', but it didn't work!"
|
|
|
|
|
She was before my time, but admittedly that didn't keep her from...well, leaving an impression.
|
|
|
|
|
#Worldle #390 4/6 (100%)
π©π©π©π©π¨βοΈ
π©π©π©π©π¨βοΈ
π©π©π©π©π¨βοΈ
π©π©π©π©π©π
https://worldle.teuteuf.fr
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
#Worldle #390 5/6 (100%)
π©π©π©π¨β¬βοΈ
π©π©π©π©π¨β¬
οΈ
π©π©π©π©π¨β¬
οΈ
π©π©π©π©π¨βοΈ
π©π©π©π©π©π
https://worldle.teuteuf.fr
|
|
|
|
|
See title--I alluded to this last week. Edge 109 was supposed to be the last version of Edge to run on Windows 7.
So yesterday was Patch Tuesday, and I was a bit surprised to see Edge (now 110) still being offered by Windows Update on my Win7 VM as part of yesterday's new releases. I let it download...and fails to install - no surprise. The installer probably has a dependency check and at least it does the right thing.
But why is it showing up there at all, if it's been known and planned and announced to such fanfare? You'd think this is one of the first things they would've made sure works as expected...It should be a simple exercise for the people in charge of putting together patches who should have a high level of competency for this sort of thing by now. Or do they let the interns manage the patches?
When MS talks a big game about AI and ChatGPT and all that nonsense I never really believed in, this is exactly the example I always come back to - until they can sort out how to do basic things like patching correctly, they shouldn't even try to pretend they have the know-how to make a so-called AI. Solve the easy things first.
Or maybe they can use their fancy AI to sort it out for them. Would you trust it to do a better job than the Windows Updates team, and let it loose and in charge of patching your fleet of machines?
|
|
|
|
|
We don't even trust the Windows Update team. Every update is tested before releasing it to the fleet.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs. - Thomas Sowell
A day can really slip by when you're deliberately avoiding what you're supposed to do.
- Bill Watterson (Calvin & Hobbes)
|
|
|
|
|
The reality is that both MS and Apple are not the companies we grew up with anymore. In some ways that's good, like with MS embracing Linux. But, the minds behind them both are gone. What's left is the name. Times change.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: It should be a simple exercise for the people in charge of putting together patches who should have a high level of competency for this sort of thing by now. Or do they let the interns manage the patches?
Must be nice to work for companies where that is easy to do. Every company I have worked for, even when projects are not that large, releases are always a nail biter. But maybe that is just because I was always the one that had to solve the problems when they showed up.
dandy72 wrote: until they can sort out how to do basic things like patching correctly, they shouldn't even try to pretend they have the know-how to make a so-called AI. Solve the easy things first.
Because everyone else has already solved that?
|
|
|
|
|
Good point. Updating something that unknown users can have frigged about with in unknown ways is, um, far from easy. Those who think it is should try it themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
My point was, they've been doing this for decades. Why's the process so still broken after all this time?
Or maybe I was still giving them too much credit when I wrote:
dandy72 wrote: people [...] who should have a high level of competency for this sort of thing by now
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: Why's the process so still broken after all this time?
Because they don't deliver process. They deliver software.
Additionally it is a very complex product. Which means the there are very many steps in the process all of which can only be managed by humans. Which are not and never will be perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Because they don't deliver process. They deliver software.
But you'd think there was a process in place to deliver said software.
The Windows Update facility has existed for what, at least 20 years? I agree patching isn't something trivial for most people, especially for such a complex piece of software as Windows. Mind-bogglingly complex; you couldn't pay me enough money to take on that job.
But my point, again, was, is there no-one in that department that has worked there long enough to have figured out the process (there's that word again) so the whole thing (or at least most of it) can be streamlined and just gets repeated every second Tuesday of every month?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)