 sj |
||
|
||
Tech: Hard drive partitions - why?
|
|
|
Subject: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: michaelr Date: 06 Dec 07 - 08:23 PM Just got my new computer. I've heard about partitioning the hard drive being a good thing. Why and how? Thanks, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: Bill D Date: 06 Dec 07 - 08:46 PM It may be already. Many new computers come with various system files and restoration software on a D drive, instead of the usual C drive. Viruses often search only the C drive. Also, it *can* be useful to protect data by applying a protective configuration to one drive...or just to allow several users to have their own area. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: Nick Date: 06 Dec 07 - 08:47 PM One attraction is putting data on programs on a separate part of the drive to he operating system. That way if you need to reinstall the operating system you can do so without having to back up/remove all the data etc Depends on what operating system you have as to the easiest way to do it |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: Richard Bridge Date: 06 Dec 07 - 10:29 PM C - OS and programs D - Backup for C E - Data F - backup for data |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: JohnInKansas Date: 06 Dec 07 - 10:58 PM Many of the uses for partitioned hard drives stem from "olden times" when Operating Systems couldn't necessarily handle "large drives." When larger drives became available, before the OSs caught up to being able to use them "all in one piece" it was simple to partition the drive, so that it appeared - to the OS - to be two separate drives. The OS would think you had a C:\ and a D:\ hard drive, althought they were both inside the same box. Windows Operating Systems since Win2K, NT4, WinXP, etc can handle single drives up to "bigger than anybody needs" (theoretically, to 32 TB) so the necessity for partitioning because of OS limits has pretty much gone away. A second reason for partitioning is when you want to be able to run more than one OS on the same machine, and both (all) of the Operating Systems can't read drives with the same format. Win2K/WinXP and later actually do run better when the hard drive is formatted using the NTFS file system, but an older OS probably can't read that system, so you have to have a "separate drive" with a different format for the "other" system. Partitioning allows part of the disk to be formatted as - and to look like - an NTFS hard drive, while another part is formatted as - and looks like a separate - FAT or FAT32 hard drive. The partitioning also allows each OS to "own" a separate drive with its own boot sector(s). If you had two hard drives, you might want the Operating System and all the programs on one drive. You really wouldn't need to back up that drive, since you'd probably want to reinstall programs from original disks in case of a rebuild. If all your "outputs" - documents, spreadsheets, and music and DVD downloads were kept on the other hard drive, you could make backups just of that drive, without worrying about the software. Two partitions on one hard drive will look like two hard drives to the computer, making it easy to keep things separated. Of course, it takes 171 CDs to back up 120 GB worth of data, so you'd need a third hard drive for that - or a lot of time to spend burning CDs. For some things you could use DVDs and only need 60 per full backup; but my experience has been that they're not a useful way to backup up anything other than music/video content. Partitioning just makes one physical hard drive behave like two (or more) separate hard drives all in one box. Whatever you can do with two hard drives can be done with one hard drive partitioned into two logical drives - except - if you rely on making backups of one partition (drive C:\?) on the other partition (drive D: ?), any drive failure that involves the "mechanics" or the "control circuits" of the box usually will take out both partitions so you can't really consider it a "safe backup" method. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: michaelr Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:15 AM Bill D, it only shows the C drive. It's got almost 230 gigs of free space, though. Nick, I have XP Home. John in Kansas, as usual you take the prize for thorough andunderstandable explanations. Thank you. Richard Bridge, why make a backup of the OS and programs? If it's all on the same physical hard disk, wouldn't a failure affect the partitions equally? Thank you for your patience. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: M.Ted Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:42 AM I keep partitions for a couple reasons--first, to allow bootable backups of each of the computers we have(the partition sizes correspond to the computer HD sizes)--second, for data storage(sound and video data), and third, for legacy OS's. I also have a small drive that travel with that has bootable mirrors of our laptops, allowing us to travel with one laptop, but have access to them all. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: Uncle Phil Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:46 AM Another "olden days" reason to partition a physical drive into multiple logical drives is that the old FAT file systems get less and less efficient as the size of the drive increases. In other words it takes a larger percentage of the disk just to manage files as the size of the disk increases. Bummer. What to do? Well, you can partition the physical drive into multiple smaller logical drives. That way the FAT file system stores file more efficiently because it sees smaller drives, and you get to use more of your disk to store your files. Of course, a far better solution would be to use a more modern, more efficient file system. - Phil |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Dec 07 - 12:50 AM My previous computer had an 80 GB hard drive, partitioned into three. The C:\ drive had only 15 GB, and it was constantly filling with things that only wanted to load themselves onto C:\ The D:\ drive was for restoring the operating system, and the remaining partition was supposed to be for storage. I reformatted the hard drive (with a larger C:\ partition) and reinstalled the software when I gave it to my stepson a couple months ago. Works like a new computer. And MY new computer has 1.5 Terabytes of storage... -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: Richard Bridge Date: 07 Dec 07 - 02:53 AM Usual need to format C is that the programs have got their knicker elastic twisted. With Driveimage or Norton Ghost you can have formatted C, re-installed the backup OS from D and be back working in 15 minutes. Put your pst files on E and backed up to F and you don't even lose your Outlook data when you do it. Keep another backup of everything on either a second hard drive in the same machine or an external drive, or up your network on another machine. And write your psts and "My Documents" off to DVDs monthly or preferably weekly. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: JohnInKansas Date: 07 Dec 07 - 03:45 AM Yeah Joe - - but how long will it take you to get 1.5 TB of stuff on your new computer. Two thirds of all hard drives last up to (and then die) between 2 years to about 7 years, if you're on an always-on hookup and they run all, or nearly all, the time. You need at least 1.5 TB of backup space somewhere on another drive. If you're going to do regular backups, and save more than one (in case the latest one "doesn't take") you really should have at least 2x the capacity in backup as you have on the machine. But then, when you copy the 1.5 TB back from backup to a replacement drive after the first one fails, you're looking at a few days just to copy it all, with the fastest drives I've heard of. Since the backup drive likely will be about the same age as the internal one and you'll be working it really hard doing a restore, it could almost be expected to fail before you get it all copied, so maybe you'd better have dual backups just to be on the safe side. ... Or you could RAID three 500 GB volumes to be triple redundant, which is generally considered "reasonably safe." John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: Nick Date: 07 Dec 07 - 08:50 AM I had a registry problem on my machine which resulted in the end in a format, and a friend has also recently had a problem that resulted in salvaging their data but formatting the machine and starting again, so it is quite dear to my heart. With a set up of Operating system - Programs - Data like Richard describes I would have saved a good chunk of time and frustration. My friend had no back up and I used Knoppix (linux operating system on a bootable CD) to get their data off. If I had been able to just reinstall the operating system (which was the only broken bit) it would all have been a lot easier. By the way what have people got against B: drives? I haven't used - or seen - a big floppy for a long time but never come across people using B: drives. If xp home was installed on the machine already there is a fair chance that you may not have an install disk (my XP home machine came with a ghost disk that flattens the machine and puts it back to how it was on day one) and I think (someone will confirm) you can only partition the drive with a piece of third party software like Partition Magic. Probably not worth the hassle. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 07 Dec 07 - 10:08 AM My data and programs are pretty well separate anyway - it's quite natural on a Linux system. On Linux, some people like to have /home where the users directories, eg. /home/jon on it's own partition or may take the partitioning further. In terms of normal usage, it's the same, ie. we don't have to worry about drive letters (or equivalents, eg. hda) - /home is /home where ever we create it or mount it. One difference is that with separate partitions, if I wanted to reformat and clean install a new operating system, I could do that without touching /home. I couldn't if /home was just a directory under /. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: danensis Date: 07 Dec 07 - 10:22 AM The other big advantage of having a data partition is that you can, if necessary, move it to a separate physical drive more easily. That way, when your first drive falls over (as they are prone to do) then you have the data on a separate drive. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: JohnInKansas Date: 07 Dec 07 - 05:43 PM Being on a separate partition isn't being on a separate drive. If you have a lot of "program failures" and fear needing to reinstall the OS, then a mirror of the OS in a separate partition may be of some value. It will be no help at all if the hard drive suffers any kind of mechanical or HD controller problem, since the entire drive is likely to go down, and when this happens your backup is just as "gone" as your OS. Since getting past Win98, I've had ONE instance when I reinstalled an OS to repair one of my computers. "Way back when" I had very few Hard Drive failures, but I've had FIVE in the last two years. In every instance of a Hard Drive failure, the entire HD was DEAD. I typically have four computers running 24/7, and with external HDs a total of six or seven HDs going all the time. The failures I've had are consistent with current MTBF figures for available drives. Since a year is about 9,000 hours (24/7) my six HDs run a total of about 45,000 hours per year, and MTBF values for hard drives are typically 20,000 to 30,000 hours1, so if I had started with all new drives I could expect one failure in the first year and would be almost certian to have at least one by the end of the second year. 1 You can get HDs that quote higher MTBF figures, but the ones who actually deliver are usually more expensive, and the ones that aren't more expensive have higher numbers because the sales department made up a new If you're running only one HD, you're still half-way to the average end of life at the end of a year to year and a half, and probably can expect a 50/50 chance of a failure within a little more than two years. The only failures counted in calculating the MTBF are those that stop the drive from functioning, and would be ones that would prevent you from using a backup from another partition on that drive. While some drives go for very long times, the more of them you run the closer to the odds you get. One of my most recent failures ran for more than 7 years, and I've only had one drive that went down in less than 2; but if you want to recover from an actual drive failure you don't have a backup unless it's on a separate and independent piece of hardware. (Another separate hard drive, CDs, DVDs, Tape, or someone else's machine are possiblities.) John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: Newport Boy Date: 08 Dec 07 - 04:34 AM I agree with JiK's analysis. I don't run my computers 24/7 - typically they run about 12 hours on 5 days and about 5 hours on the other two. Take out about 9 weeks away and that makes about 3,000 hours/year. My oldest hard disk is a 4GB Samsung, now 7 years old and in its 3rd computer as the OS disk. I have had one total failure in 9 years - a Seagate drive at 13 months, with a 12 month warranty. Since then, I've always built my computers with 2 hard drives - it's a very low part of the total cost. I normally partition both drives, and the main OS is on a different drive from the main data partitions. My current primary setup is 2 x 250GB drives, each partitioned with 4 partitions of about 50GB. Drive 1 has Win XP, Data backup, Photo backup, and music backup. Drive 2 has Data, Photos, Music. Disk 2 also has a partition for Acronis Secure Zone, which holds an image of drive C. I use Acronis True Image to update the OS image weekly, and also to back up all the data daily. I also back up all data to my wife's computer weekly, and backup my database and financial data to memory sticks after each session. I only started using Windows with Win95 - previously I'd used DOS and OS/2. With Windows, I've had 4 complete crashes of the OS (but none in the last 4 years). I've not lost any data, except a few very recent emails. I've also had a recent complete corruption of Disk 1 (I tried an installation of Suse Linux 9). Acronis had me back running in less than 20 minutes. If you only have one hard disk, partitioning can make it easier to backup or copy data, particularly if the OS falls over (although this is less common now). Two hard disks gives you a good first-line backup of data or OS. Phil |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 08 Dec 07 - 08:08 AM According to I don't know what is correct but I've been led to believe that start/stop poses a greater hazzard to a hdd than 24/7 running. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 08 Dec 07 - 09:02 AM Just looked up the spec for the 1Tb SATA drive I've been considering. It quotes: MTBF 750,000 hours Start / Stop Cycles 50,000 Limited Warranty 5 years. --- My personal unfounded & unscientific what would I expect from a hdd is at least 4 years (OK I do know one can fail sooner). My personal how long would I expect to run Win before I decide a re-install is desirable (I'm not saying I might not be able to spend a couple of days troubleshooting or finding ways to speed the system up again - just I might consider the former easier and a more complete fix - people have different mileages on this sort of thing) around 1-2 years. My personal how long would I expect to run Linux before a reinstall (I'm not fond of upgrading) is a) When a new distribution of OpenSuse comes out having something new (needn't be the OS has been php4 to 5, to OpenOfice2, to MySQL5, etc. actually in the distro) that I want. This could be less than a year or b) When support for my distribution ends - 2-3 years. In my experience, it is not prone to the types of failures/annoyances that would lead me to a Win type re-install. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: JohnInKansas Date: 08 Dec 07 - 10:26 AM The SATA drives are fairly new in end user computers, at least here, so the MTBF numbers I cited are what I've been seeing for EIDE drives. Life/reliability has been a problem as typical drive sizes have crept up and as rotation speeds (and heat generated) have been pushed up. SCSI drives have generally been more reliable, but considered "too complex" for consumer grade operators, and are generally in the class of "higher reliability costs more." It is perhaps worth noting that most drives available to "match original equipment" in the US carry two year warranties. Seagate, however, decided a couple of years ago to offer a "5 year limited warranty" on ALL SEAGATE DRIVES - even for those originally sold with a 2 year promise. I don't know if that's because they felt their reliability was up to a 5-year warranty or if they just decided to "eat the returns" to counter complaints. (They've replaced two of mine, and I have the RMA open for the most recent failure on a third one 2.6 years old, originally showing the older 2-year warranty.) The only local seller in my area handles Maxtor almost exclusively now, but since Seagate bought Maxtor last May I haven't heard whether the Maxtor name will continue (cheaper but shorter warranty?) or whether it's just unloading inventory before dumping the name. eWeek noted (back then): Prices having been falling for almost a decade. Drives with 250GB of storage can be bought for $150 in some stores; drives with 1GB to 2GB of storage sold for $400 or more in the late '90s. Prior to acquiring Maxtor, Seagate had a 29 percent market share, with Western Digital (18 percent) second and Hitachi (14 percent) third. Maxtor had been fourth with a 12 percent share. IBM also got out of the business, sold to Hitachi, so there appear to be only three manufacturers left, at least for US users. Are there any other brands common outside the US? John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 08 Dec 07 - 10:50 AM I think my current drives are Hitachi and Maxtor, John. We may also had a couple of WDs floating around. The Tb one I thought I'm most likely to get (if at all) was a Seagate. One make you've not mentioned but I seem to have noticed lately is Samsung. Other that that, it's probably easiest for me to provide a link. For a disk, I'm as likely to buy from Dabs as anywhere else so here is their selection. Might help give a picture of the UK market. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: Gulliver Date: 08 Dec 07 - 11:03 AM This thread is very informative (the more I read, the more I realize how much I have to learn!)--thanks to all who contributed. I have just one question, re "backing up" data files. How do you do this? Simply copying files (as I do, onto CDs or Zip disks, sometimes winzipping them first), or using specific programs for this purpose? Don |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: treewind Date: 08 Dec 07 - 11:21 AM there appear to be only three manufacturers left, at least for US users. Are there any other brands common outside the US? Every HD I've purchased in the last few years has been Samsung. I'm not aware that they own/are owned by other major names but I could be wrong. BTW there's other reasons for separate partitions that nobody's mentioned yet: you can use a separate partition for some functions that could accidentally get greedy; then they can hit their limit without crippling the system beyond rescue. For example on a linux system you might put log files on their own partition as they can grow very big sometimes, or on any system keeping data and OS separate helps to achieve this. Lots of other uses for partitions are available for Linux or other Unix variants such as Mac OSX:
|
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 08 Dec 07 - 11:46 AM It's usual to have a separate partition without a file system (in the conventional sense) for swap space. It's much more efficient than having a swap file buried in your file system. I'd have thought so but I found these comments I read recently on Wikipedia interesting. Can't see myself changing from using a swap partition in a hurry though. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: Newport Boy Date: 08 Dec 07 - 12:26 PM Re Swap files - I have a separate partition for my WinXP swap file - I think it speeded things up. Re disk manufacturers - my last few have been Samsung. My 250GB SATA were £50 when I bought them in July 2006. They're now down to £42. Re data file backup - I've been using SyncToy (from Microsoft's Powertoys) for a while. It's very quick, has loads of options, and is brilliant for digital photos if you have multiple copies in various stages of edit. For my main routine backup, I've recently switched to Acronis True Image, which does the OS partition imaging as well. Phil |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: JohnInKansas Date: 08 Dec 07 - 12:39 PM I've had a couple of Samsung HDs as original equipement, but they don't appear to be around in retail stores. But the GREAT NEWS!!!!! #!$*##! is that the only retail store within 180 miles (210 km) of me has announced: CompUSA is sold; will close all stores (They do say they'll have a great sale during the holidays.) John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: Dave the Gnome Date: 08 Dec 07 - 06:07 PM No need for seperate partitions for different OS's - Just use VmWare. Download GSX Server for free and run as many virtual machines as you want in Windows. SATA drives - Cheap and cheerful. Get a SATA array hookep up on NAS and run a couple of terabytes at RAID 1/0 or 5 for cheap enough nowadays. Back it off to another array or to an Ultrium drive. Why spend hours of your precious time worrying about data when money can take all your troubles away? :-) The cost of a NAS array and tape backup is about what we used to spend on a desktop last year! To answer the first question - Just speed of loading if you are still in the IDE age. Cheers Dave. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 08 Dec 07 - 09:57 PM "other uses for partitions are available for Linux or other Unix variants such as Mac OSX: * It's usual to have a separate partition without a file system (in the conventional sense) for swap space. It's much more efficient than having a swap file buried in your file system. " Well, actually, I have NEVER heard of any UNIX/Linux variant that will accept using anything other than a totally separate partition for 'swap' - the way the partiton is formatted may indeed be incompatible with all other intended uses. Most new Linux installs left to therir own devices will automatoically set up 'swap' as a separate one - of type 'swap', and you are asked on a manual install where the swap partition is anyway. As far as I know Mac OSX is NOT Linux - it is supposedly a UNIX variant. "a separate partition without a file system (in the conventional sense) for swap space. It's much more efficient than having a swap file buried in your file system" I found this out years ago for Windoze... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 08 Dec 07 - 10:19 PM I'm aware from reading the referred Wiki entry that the 'new' Linux kernel can use 'swap files' - but they still have to be in SOME partition... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: treewind Date: 09 Dec 07 - 05:46 AM I think you'll find Mac OS is based on BSD. (I didn't say it was Linux). Re swap files - yes they have to be in a partition but if you swap to files they can share a partition with other files instead of having a fixed size partition. That Wikipedia article is interesting but it doesn't explain why a partition formatted for swap space is no faster than using a file. Maybe it is, but the difference is so small as to outweigh the disk space disadvantage of reserving a partition for swap. OTOH disk space is cheap. Then again so is memory - why swap at all...? Anahata |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 09 Dec 07 - 07:55 AM I guess we are usually going to ways of using more memory than we have RAM. With 1Gb RAM, I find swap is used when I start using graphics, eg. KDE. My web server. again with 1Gb, which runs in text mode (runlevel 3) never seems to use swap. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: 8_Pints Date: 09 Dec 07 - 01:48 PM Nick asked "By the way what have people got against B: drives?" In the early days there were no hard drives, merely a couple of floppy diskette (remember those?) drives. So the standard IBM MSDOS configuration had Drive A and B representing these, and Drive C representing the Hard Drive when it finally appeared. Bob vG |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: Nick Date: 09 Dec 07 - 03:46 PM Bob vG Sadly, I still have a collection of 5 1/4" disks in a cupboard in the room I'm sitting in. Unfortunately they have to be folded to get them into any of my current drives which they don't seem overly happy with so the beautifully crafted C+ programs (not) are destined never to see the light of day again. I mapped a B: drive on a machine the other day just for the hell of it and for the pure nostalgia. It's available again on XP machines and later having disappeared on win95/98 machines without fiddling and it was weird to see one again in Explorer/My computer. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: JohnInKansas Date: 09 Dec 07 - 06:31 PM Nick - I'm using the storage drawers I got 25 years ago for 5.25" floppies for CDs now. Perfect fit for CDs in thin jewel cases, although the 8 drawers I had left are about jammed full (of data CDs) now; and one CD holds about the same amoung of data as the whole 8 drawers full of 5.25" (2S) floppies. John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: Rowan Date: 10 Dec 07 - 02:38 AM Bob vG, I still have the KayPro 2X I bought in 1983, that used CP/M as its OS, before Micro$oft; the two 5.25" floppy drives were the A (for your program disc) and the B, onto which you wrote your data files. Some traditions die hard and the B drive appears to be one of them. WHile many are probably familiar with the old batch-file punch cards, I wonder how many people on this thread remember the delights of 8" floppies. Cheers, Rowan |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: treewind Date: 10 Dec 07 - 03:25 AM Oh yes indeed! 8 inch floppies with 150k of storage on them. I even worked on the controller hardware for them and did software development on them for years. And that 150k had room for an editor, FORTRAN compiler, source code and executable all on the disk. I had very little contact with punched cards but used paper tape a lot (mid-70s). Anahata |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 10 Dec 07 - 09:22 AM 150K? Hmmmm TRS80 - with NewDos80... allowed all sorts of weird combinations of densities of tracks on a 5" floppy... Put all the batch files into a single file to save space wait a minute - FLOPPIES??!!! bloddy hell!! I had a dual AUDIO CASSETTE interface... saved up for a disk interface... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: Geoff the Duck Date: 10 Dec 07 - 01:17 PM Separate partitions are there so you can put your important stuff where you can find it and not in the Windoze Default Save Locations that the kids fill with all their junk! Quack! GtD. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: JohnInKansas Date: 10 Dec 07 - 01:22 PM GtD - You can do the same thing just by making a folder on the single partition. I don't put anything in any folder that starts with "My ..." just because it insults my intelligence (little that there is of it). John |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 10 Dec 07 - 01:25 PM LOL, John. I've never liked the My... either. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: treewind Date: 10 Dec 07 - 01:41 PM A good trick with the "My Documents" folder is to point it to a more sensible location that the default buried under documents and settings. As "My Documents" is really only a shortcut with a few extra bells and whistles, it's easy to change the target location. On my work computer it's C:\anahata\ which is much easier to remember and type when I need the real path to it. And it could be D:\anahata on another drive or partition. Of course, when possible my files are on /home/anahata but that's a different OS and another story... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 10 Dec 07 - 02:01 PM Don't think I'll be buying a WD drive again see here. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Hard drive partitions - why? From: JohnInKansas Date: 10 Dec 07 - 02:30 PM Jon - It's not too clear from the article whether the crap applies to WD drives or just to their "Access Anywhere" program. It's not even very clear from the article, or from the Wiki article what the program is. Microsoft has been pushing a "new concept" in hard drives that a few manufacturers may(?) have been beginning to incorporate to "facilitate univeral encryption" of everything on the drives. It was apparently supposed to be a "feature" of Vista that got delayed and missed being fully included. With the exception of a few "security enhancements" that remain to be validated, Vista's entire apparent purpose seems to be "enhancing DRM." Microsoft, and to some extent Apple(?) seem to be taking the tack that "tracking everything" is the best way to go, but others a touting the alternate (subtly different?) approach of "blocking everything." An article that appeared in my local newsrag, not on the web that I've seen: [quote] CenturyTel Inc., a Monroe, La., phone company that provides Internet access and long-distance calling services, is facing stiff competition from cell phone companies and cable operators. So to diversify, it's getting into the online-advertising business. And not just any online advertising. The technology it's using could change the way the $16.9 billion Internet ad market works, bringing in a host of new players — and giving consumers fresh concerns about their privacy. CenturyTel's system allows it to observe and analyze the online activities of its Internet customers, keeping tabs on every Web site they visit. The equipment is made by a Silicon Valley start-up called NebuAd Inc. and installed right into the phone company's network. NebuAd takes the information it collects and offers advertisers the chance to place online ads targeted to individual consumers. NebuAd and CenturyTel get paid whenever a consumer clicks on an ad. This technique — called behavioral targeting — is far more customized than the current method of selling ads online. Today, it's an imperfect process: companies such as Revenue Science Inc. and Tacoda Inc., which was bought by Time Warner Inc., contract with Web sites to monitor which consumers visit them, attaching "cookies," or small pieces of tracking data, to visitors' hard drives so they are recognized when they return. The targeting firms feed the data to Web site owners, who use it to charge premium rates for customized ads. But the information is limited, since the tracking companies can't monitor all of the sites and individual visits. The newer form of behavorial targeting involves placing gear called "deep-packet inspection boxes" inside an Internet provider's network of pipes and wires. Instead of observing only a select number of Web sites, these boxes can track all of the sites a consumer visits, and deliver far more detailed information to potential advertisers. [end quote] And deleting the cookies won't avoid this tracking. John |
| Share Thread: |