clipka wrote:
> Of course the script first verifies that the shell is compatible with 
> the command syntax used in the script, goes on to find out what compiler 
> to use, and so on...

Yes, it's one of those lovely systems where you write code to describe the 
code that describes the code that gets compiled, because otherwise it's just 
too much a PITA.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:
> Yes, it's one of those lovely systems where you write code to describe 
> the code that describes the code that gets compiled, because otherwise 
> it's just too much a PITA.

Yup.

So much for portability :-P

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> So much for portability :-P

C isn't portable. C just lets you put several versions of the source code 
into the same file. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

>  Something like a half year ago I had 10 GB of free space in my C: drive.
> Today I had less than 4 GB,

I think the moral of the story is that nowadays you can't really survive 
with only 4GB or 10GB of free space on the C drive without performing 
regular clean-ups.  I guess most developers assume way bigger hard drive 
space so don't care about leaving around odd MBs here and there.

OOC why such a small C partition?  HDs are really cheap, I don't think you 
can even buy anything under 120GB now.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:

> C isn't portable. C just lets you put several versions of the source 
> code into the same file. :-)

Yeah, I guess that's a fitting description :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> OOC why such a small C partition?  HDs are really cheap, I don't think you 
> can even buy anything under 120GB now.

  Even if a 100 TB disk was free, I am still not eager to reinstall Windows.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>> OOC why such a small C partition?  HDs are really cheap, I don't think you 
>> can even buy anything under 120GB now.
> 
>   Even if a 100 TB disk was free, I am still not eager to reinstall Windows.

Depending on the version of Windows, you could get a new disk and just move 
the partitions over, one way or another.  It's really no harder than 
recovering from a HD crash.  Let me know if you are interested.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>>  Something like a half year ago I had 10 GB of free space in my C: drive.
>> Today I had less than 4 GB,
> 
> I think the moral of the story is that nowadays you can't really survive 
> with only 4GB or 10GB of free space on the C drive without performing 
> regular clean-ups.  I guess most developers assume way bigger hard drive 
> space so don't care about leaving around odd MBs here and there.
> 
> OOC why such a small C partition?  HDs are really cheap, I don't think 
> you can even buy anything under 120GB now.
> 
> 
Older versions of Windows, prior to XP, you could do it, since a) 
settings didn't get saved into c:\documents and settings\, and neither 
did documents. I don't think there is any *obvious* way to move 
settings, and if you did, you would break things that assume they will 
be in the same place, instead of checking the current path for it, and 
while you can move the documents, **I know** personally that this breaks 
some applications which expect the document path to remain the same, 
after detecting they are in XP or higher.

What this means in practice is, you can't **clean up** anything, because 
any programs that store settings outside the registry, or anything else 
they need, will end up on C, even if you install them on Q, or 
something. The more things you have installed, the more caches, 
settings, data, etc. get shoved into C anyway, and the less and less 
room you have for anything else. So, under XP, if you don't do it the 
stupid way, which is, "Install everything in the same massive 
partition", you eventually run out of room, and not just because half 
the shit, including MS' own patches/installers are often too stupid to 
clean up after themselves either, never mind anyone else's.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

> while you can move the documents, **I know** personally that this breaks 
> some applications which expect the document path to remain the same, after 
> detecting they are in XP or higher.

Such an application that assumes absolute folder paths that are hard coded 
would be ridiculous.  It would mean for instance it would only work on 
English 32bit XP and nothing else.  German XP (and I suspect all other 
languages) has different folder names for My Documents, 64bit has a "Program 
Files (x86)" folder, Vista has C:\Users rather than C:\Documents and 
Settings, didn't Win2K have C:\WINNT as the windows folder or something? 
Basically such a program would suck so much, the fact that it stored it's 
data on C rather than D would be the least of your worries.

BTW Vista can trick older/badly written programs in to thinking they are 
writing to a certain location, but actually stores the files in the correct 
area.  If you tell Vista your user area is somewhere else (eg D drive) then 
really everything will be put on the D drive, even by badly behaved programs 
that try to write directly to the C drive.

Post a reply to this message

>  Even if a 100 TB disk was free, I am still not eager to reinstall 
> Windows.

At some point though (if not already) you are going to have spent more time 
trying to fix these things than it would have taken to just reinstall. 
Didn't you spend ages trying to defrag this drive a while ago too?  If it 
was me I'd just bite the bullet and reinstall before I wasted any more time 
on such issues.

Post a reply to this message