Big Mike and incorrect advice

Closed Thread

Old 04-07-02, 07:57 PM
ejones's Avatar
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 188
Big Mike and incorrect advice

"No partner I am not wrong, the rest of the drive is floating in lala land because of the Fat16 partition. Also there is no way to partition without first destroying the primary partition then build the second or extended partition. "

Hate to turn this into an "I'm smarter than you are" war, but......

If you care to visit:;en-us;Q255867

You will find that Fat 16 supports up to 2 Gb PER PARTITION.

The original poster has already a 2 Gb partition (approx). The remaining 400 Mb is unpartitioned. There is nothing stopping this person from running fdisk in fat16 mode, then repartitioning the presently unpartitioned space. After formatting, this will become D: drive. The existing 2Gb C: drive will not be affected in any way.

Big Mike seems to be inferring that, as the user has previously set up a single 2 Gb partition, this will need to be removed in order to repartition the remaining part of the disk. THIS IS CRAP!!

And as for his earlier suggestions that the "missing" 400 Mb was in fact used by the swap file, recycle bin etc.......I really recommend he undertake a Windows fundamentals course. Preferably one conducted by an Australian training institution, as the US don't seem too hot in this direction.
Sponsored Links
Old 04-08-02, 05:31 AM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,567
C'mon. mate, don't sugar-coat things; tell us what you REALLY think!
Old 04-08-02, 10:42 AM
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,915
It actually all depends on how the drive was partitioned in the beggining, it may not always be possible to assign a partition to the remaining 400 Mb if the whole size was assigned to the primary drive. Either way, a 2.4 Gb drive is too small, and 400 Mb won't even hold Office.
Old 04-08-02, 03:51 PM
Visiting Guest
Posts: n/a
Cool Ok...

Well tell you what Buck; I am right in the sense that I am thinking 32 bit OS. 16 bit may do what you are suggesting but I am setting here with not one but two A+ rated Microsoft technicians three counting myself and what I am saying is correct BUT what you are saying is also correct to an extent. This is not going to turn into a wetting contest. If you will look at the 700 some odd posts here I have yet to be wrong. I may forget to add something but I NEVER post unless I know the correct answer and if I don’t know the correct answer I go to great lengths to find the correct answer. If there is a soul here that says I have miss-informed them or given them bad advise I will abdicate and leave this forum. I will not stoop to bad mouthing your small spec of land as you wish to do the US. Safe to say I am here, you are where? My dog is bigger so la tee da… look man, I have been doing this type of work for over 20 years. I look at things in a more logical way than maybe you’re what? 18 or so years of life? Drop it, I will agree that you are right as far as the 16 bit FAT goes but you are off in left field as far as a true 32 bit system. End of story…
Closed Thread

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes