Saved Bookmarks
| 1. |
Solve : Windows XP double install partitions - how to remove C:? |
|
Answer» Hey everyone, I've been looking around online for some help on a specific issue and I think I can get it here. So, here's the issue. In reference to the first picture, EaseUS has the partitions labeled as System and Boot. Given this, the option to format or delete either one is unavailable, nor can I merge the two.The above means can not remove the C: dive and boot the machine. If you have a 80GB or more of hard drive, having just 1 GB lost is not a big deal. Because you do not have a proven backup plan, it is not wise to go any further with this issue. As patio said, you can backup, do a clean install, and restore from the backup. You can run Chkdsk on the C: drive, then tun Defrag, and then reduce the C:n to about 500 MB or less. The C: has the non-visible boot loader files. If you make H: the active partition and put the loader on it, the drive becomes C: and some programs will not run properly because they were installed when H: had the program files directory and the Windowsl32 stuff. Yes, there is a workaround, but is is not fully automatic. It is EASIER to just leaven it the way it is. Also, it you have enough drive space, you could make the C: drive about 3 to 5 GB and have enough room for a 'spare' install of XP in case of a future virus attack. That is what I have. And it does help to find tough virus infections. I boot into the clean install and run AV programs to disinfect the main system I normally use. Does this int erst you?Hey everyone, thanks for all your help! It's been greatly appreciated. Unfortunately, as you all pointed out, the endeavor wasn't really worth it. I decided to change focus entirely and upgraded to Windows 7. I was able to save my files by taking an old harddrive and plugging it into my mobo. I wasn't sure if it would work, I thought it may even damage something, but nope. It worked fine and I was able to have one single drive with no partitions like I wanted. By the way, considering upgrading to 7? Don't. It's hardly an exaggeration to say that most of 7 is unable to be customized. Just to name a few, you can't customize the start menu, taskbar, or change MIDI output. "Apply to All Folders" is gone and you have to customize 5 "types" of folders to get all folders using one layout and browse windows keep the layout of the viewed folder rather than defaulting to the List view like XP did. All in all it feels more restricting and therefore is an upgrade only because it's newer. What I find really disturbing is that Microsoft is obviously fully aware of how much of a pain 7 is. They created an "XP Mode" which makes 7 look and run like XP. This sounds great at first, but you can only get the feature if you pay for the most expensive version. This is one of the most disgusting and greedy marketing tactics I've ever seen. You may think this viewpoint is cynical, but if XP mode was some kind of altruistic gesture to apologize to the Windows consumer community for how terrible 7 is, then they'd have made it available for ALL versions of 7. Whoever made the decision is hurting Microsoft in the long-term. It's things like this that will push people AWAY from Microsoft and therefore cost them profit and eventually the entire company. Am I being pessimistic? Hardly. Doing a quick google you can see Mac sales started to rise shortly after Vista came out. 7 isn't that different from Vista, so I'm not sure what they expected would happen with 7. The inevitable result of their actions will be the continued loss of profit to Mac and other platforms. But hey, at least I can use DirectX 11 now. TL;DR: 7 is terrible. Microsoft is suicidal. Anyway, enough rant. Thanks again everyone for taking the time to help me.How well does Win7-32bit run on your 1.5GB RAM? Minimum required is 1GB.As far as speed is concerned, it's great. No COMPLAINTS there. Startup to login screen isn't noticeably different than XP. From login to desktop it's faster as there's no wait once I see the desktop. XP took a few seconds longer to load the same startup programs and be responsive to any input.BTW i dis-agree with the Win7 rant...however ...carry on. Quote from: patio on August 03, 2012, 06:55:09 PM BTW i dis-agree with the Win7 rant So do I. Not really a "OT" since the OP started it, rite ? :/ Quote from: toejamtea on August 02, 2012, 12:10:18 AM By the way, considering upgrading to 7? Don't. It's hardly an exaggeration to say that most of 7 is unable to be customized.An interesting allegation... Quote you can't customize the start menuIn what way exactly do you want to customize it? The "Customize Start Menu" dialog is pretty encompassing, with the exception of people that seem to think it's important to be able to change things like the start orb bitmap, because it's "easy to do with Linux desktops" which is a bit of a curious way of describing the multiple configuration files and terminal commands you will inevitably need to use. Quote taskbarAgain, in what way is it not customizable? I mean, sure, you can't do things like make it so every notepad taskbar button is hot pink, but the "Taskbar and Start Menu" dialog has quite a bit. Quote or change MIDI output.Yes and no. It seems they removed the MIDI mapper since that was originally part of the Media Extensions for Windows 3.0. MIDI output options need to be set and used by the application now. The old method let you say "OK, if a program doesn't say to use a specific MIDI output device, use this one" (thus the name MIDI mapper). Now the programs have to explicitly choose a MIDI device. This only really affects programs that are outdated or simply bad in some respect, since most applications (such as FLStudio or other music composition programs) at the very least allow some method of changing the output device, same for MIDI playback in programs like Winamp. If you want to change the default from the Roland WaveTable Synth (which IMO isn't terrible and certainly beats the FM synth of my OPL-3) you can use something like Vista MIDI patch. Quote "Apply to All Folders" is gone and you have to customize 5 "types" of folders to get all folders using one layout and browse windows keep the layout of the viewed folder rather than defaulting to the List view like XP did.Not sure I understand. I recently reinstalled Win7 on this laptop and I only remember changing my view setting once, and setting Apply to All Folders. (Which is still present in Folder Options). Quote All in all it feels more restricting and therefore is an upgrade only because it's newer. What I find really disturbing is that Microsoft is obviously fully aware of how much of a pain 7 is. They created an "XP Mode" which makes 7 look and run like XP.This is patently false, First, they made XP mode to help when applications are written by people with the IQ of a headless chicken and don't work properly on Windows 7 because some doofus decided that they would ignore the API documentation because, even though they wrote it "wrong" it worked so hey release it right? Additionally, it in no way makes Windows 7 look and run like XP, instead it runs a XP virtual machine; this is specifically for running applications as noted above. it's particularly useful for those poor web developers that still need to support IE6... which is actually the only use case I can really think up, with the exception of if you really need to run badly written programs, though I would argue that if a program doesn't work properly on 7 at this point it might be a good idea to consider alternatives. Quote This sounds great at first, but you can only get the feature if you pay for the most expensive version.I have ultimate myself but I've never really found a use for XP mode. Actually I'm reluctant to admit I've never even gotten it working properly. Quote This is one of the most disgusting and greedy marketing tactics I've ever seen. You may think this viewpoint is cynical, but if XP mode was some kind of altruistic gesture to apologize to the Windows consumer community for how terrible 7 is, then they'd have made it available for ALL versions of 7.XP Mode is designed to address the backward compatibility ISSUES introduced when Many of the windows capabilities and features change internally. I believe I've gone through this before, but essentially a program that is written properly might work just by chance in XP (or an earlier version of Windows). that product sells. People buy it- they use it. All is well. But that code that is written wrong is a ticking time bomb. By wrong, I mean- let's say a Function parameter says that certain arguments are not allowed. Some earlier versions might have less strict checking, so applications might be calling them with those arguments and getting values, that are either wrong or coincidentally can be used by the program. When a new version of windows comes around, the internal implementation of said functions might change but the external interface (how it's called) remains the same, and Applications that relied on that behaviour no longer work properly. Some other applications hard-code values that they found to work- for example, a lot of applications directly view the left and right mouse buttons but never take into account whether the buttons are swapped. So the application breaks when somebody upgrades windows. Who is to blame? IMO the people with the cognitive capacity of a dead skunk and the management stylings of a constipated gorilla that wrote the program, but most people just see that they upgrade to windows and now a program doesn't work. The problem is that the app maker is either out of business, or, if they are in business, don't give a crap. "we released that version over 5 years ago, if they want Windows Vista capability, they should upgrade to version 2010!", is what a tech rep might tell you. Of course this leads to ridiculous conspiracy theories where MS is "funneling" money to those application vendors by breaking them, but the truth is that the applications aren't written properly to begin with. And are like rube goldberg devices waiting for MS to change some inner detail of how the OS works. that no application should depend on, at which point they break. Quote It's things like this that will push people away from Microsoftyeah, sure they will have the choice then between the even worse compatibility record and price point of Apple, or the "we may be ten years behind but this year is going to somehow be different" attitude you get with Linux, which is harkened as some be-all -end all customizable OS, which it is, if you don't mind forking C source and writing that "customization" yourself, or editing deeply hidden config files. Quote Am I being pessimistic? Hardly.No- that's being pretty stupid. Quote Doing a quick google you can see Mac sales started to rise shortly after Vista came out.this is meaningless. It's like if you saw that Orange sales rose after a hurricane. That doesn't mean the hurricane caused the Orange sales to rise. Quote isn't that different from VistaThis is probably the only thing I agree with, which is why I don't think Vista is as bad as people claim it to be. First off it finally adds composited hardware and 3d acceleration to the desktop, which helps prevent GPUs with 10 super tiga flooples of processing power or whatever from sitting there and drawing a few boxes most of the time; the rearchitected Sound subsystem that redesigned something that was 20 years old (and of course had to shake off 20 years of dust to do so), and the improved security subsystem using token stripping. XP by comparison is not only old, but it's also rather ugly, equally uncustomizable (unless you count toggling to and from classic start menu), less secure by virtue of being wide open for trojans on a default install (default user is administrator and always has admin permissions and so do any apps they run). This is probably one of the least informed Vista-related rants I've seen, that isn't to say it's dumb, but it seems to be missing the facts that explain or at least mitigate most of the issues presented. I've seen lots of Vista ones, but somebody has to be really out of touch to do the same for 7. Go ahead and install Linux and see how much 'easier' dealing with MIDI devices is there. Just dealing with Audio can be like wrestling a shaved bear covered in olive oil. Of course the windows 8 hate will be arriving shortly. The cycle continues... |
|
