Greegor said:
snip
Are you seriously arguing that to be preferable to
replacing or adding hard disk space, Glen?
Microsoft and CompTIA should de-license you for that absurdity.
I stated absolutely nothing of the kind.... read it again. Nowhere in
any of my comments have I stated or implied that it was preferable.
Your comment is absurd.
What do you think 1.5 GB costs today, Glen? $2 worth?
Wow!
You don't buy pieces of a hard drive, you buy the whole thing. Or are
you privy to some new way of physically adding a few GB to an existing
hard drive? My comments specifically were about someone who cannot
afford to replace their working hard drive with a larger one.
Did they make backups, Glen?
Sometimes but not always.... I back up their data or show them how to do
so to a CD or USB, depending on what they have available. Backups
should not be done to the same drive as the one containing the data.
Did you get paid in chickens?
I don't charge people who cannot afford it, and in some cases only
charge for parts. I use a sliding scale for low-income people, get full
price from others and from businesses.
How much were you telling them a hard disk would cost?
Hard drive prices are readily available through an online search....
look them up. Surely you already know what a new hard drive costs.
Just what SIZE of hard disk did this client have?
How valuable was their data to them?
Varies.... anywhere from 30GB to 80 GB. Everyone's data is valuable to
them personally.
Did you give them a guarantee?
Guarantee on what? My work? Yes. That they won't need a new drive
eventually? Obviously not. I image all my customers systems prior to
making any major changes, and keep the image on my external drives in
case they are needed in the future.
Did you get them to sign a WAIVER for doing
what you know to be risky substandard work, Glen?
Neither risky nor substandard.... no waiver needed. Any hard drive can
fail at any time. Making more space on a small drive in good working
order is not particularly risky. Removing backups to updates and SP's
is also not risky. I have an image of their system before I begin.
I would if I had to do something like that.
Then those of my clients that are low-income won't be asking for your
help.... good for them.
Yes, a fool or most major manufacturers. :>
Yes, them too. Just because the OEMs have the restoration partition on
the same, and usually only, hard drive as the OS doesn't mean it's a
good idea. When the dive fails, the restoration partition is gone.
That's why most OEMs include an imaging app and usually suggest the user
make restore discs when they get the new machine.
I agree with your trite simplistic comment, but
In actual practice, backup partitiions,
especially CLONED system partitions solve
about 90% of all problems with messed up Windows.
I almost never have to use an image backup unless the drive has
physically failed and I need to clone from an image to a new drive. I
and many of the techs I know can fix most problems with Windows without
having to use an image restoration, or even System Restore. I always
have images available, but if you know what you are doing you don't
often need them.
The importance of an off drive image would be
Crucial for the INEVITABLE other 10% of the
time when more drastic measures are needed.
(And what do you know, I didn't overlook that fact
in my other post you cited, Glen! Why did you
pretend that I did overlook that?)
Yes, as preferable to the hidden OEM restore partition.
I distinctly remembered suggesting cloning
to other drives. Did you miss this part, Glen?
No, I didn't... you added that "if possible" you would *also* make a
backup to an external drive.... your primary comment was about cloning
to another partition on the same drive as the OS and data. That is what
I clearly referred to. I'm beginning to think you have a reading
comprehension problem, but perhaps English is not your first language
and you missed some of this... if that's the case, I will try to be more
clear if I can.
G > Aspies typically lack common sense, among other things.
Why sugar coat it, Glen, they're sociopaths by definition.
They're not all happy and positive like TV's "Sheldon Cooper" either!
Sociopaths, eh? You are really showing your ignorance of the subject
now. Have you worked with people with Asperger's?
Aspies are called IDIOT/SAVANTS for a reason, Glen.
Except they are not. A savant (autistic savant, or idiot savant as you
put it) is distinct from a person with Asperger's. Although they both
fall into the autistic spectrum of disorders, only about 10% of people
with Asperger's are savants. People with Asperger's often have "above
average IQ, unusual interest and capability in natural sciences, complex
calculations, computer programming or other areas of expertise which can
be extensive and expansive; marked genetic roots with strong family
histories of similar or related traits; early, rather than delayed,
language and word recognition skills; poor motor coordination; and a
generally higher level of social functioning than seen in Autistic
persons but still with unusual, peculiar and naive social interactions."
**
**
http://www.autismtoday.com/articles/savant_faq.asp?name=Darold Treffert#aspergers
"Naive social interactions" does not equal "sociopath".
