Please explain a simple way to set up a D drive for documents

RD Mercer said:

Yeah, to easy for all these geeks, the gurunner dude couldn't even figure my same advise, so he just made some snarky comment, but I just don't pay much attention to the folks up in the cheap seats.

Click to expand...

That's because you're making this way too complicated. Doubtless you spend too much time in the Apple forum.

Windows already has build-in capability to move the Documents and Pictures to a new drive, no external drive manipulation needed.

I think it’s just it will change my way of working and I have a lot on right now so it would be simpler to just stick to my usual way of working . Appreciate all the help and tips though thank you and I’ll know what to do in future if needed.

Searching in file explorer wouldn’t be quite the same I think. Or maybe I’m just stuck in my ways

Hazel123 said:

Searching in file explorer wouldn’t be quite the same I think.

Click to expand...

Yes.

I've never considered having my D: drive stuff (or data) under the control of Windows. Not considered means that, not opposed either... Until I started to see threads about access issues caused by permissions set/not set, using the same user name in another install, not using the same user name in another install, and etc. I prefer OS neutral and totally passive drives for the data (they don't "move" at all unless you read or write your files).

My first thought about this decades ago, in DOS times, was: what files do I need to conserve independently of my OS installs, or computers, and how: floppy disks, CDs, DVDs or USB sticks until now.

I eventually realized I could do an internal partition (why another drive? more money, more clutter,...) and store my stuff there. I started to use my internal D: partition as the central storage, and the removeable media as backup, although it can be said that I have never needed the latter (I once needed the external backup of my partition images for reasons long to explain, but I don't mix my D: stuff with my E: stuff). For example in migrations I connect the internal drive and copy from there, it's a lot faster.

I've never found it difficult or costly having to specify where to save my files. The programs use to use your last used folder, if you don't find the downloaded file it's in Downloads and you have to move it to D: and set the browsers to download to D:.

Lately I've started to use different physical disks for the OS (SSD of 256 GB) and D:/E: (data/disk images go to a 1 or 2TB HDD). Windows 10/11 installs and it's maintained and migrated better if it has a physical drive only for it. I'm under the impression that my 10-20 years old HDDs (always in fixed desktops or stored in fixed places) will still last more than any new disk. SSDs don't need to be fixed to last long, they need quality.

Hazel123 said:

I realise it’s a simple thing to set up but ongoing it just seems like hassle

Click to expand...

Not really. It's easy as long as the folders are on the computer and not on OneDrive. The way I have my desktops is the Desktop folder is on drive C:, My Documents and Pictures are on OneDrive. The other User folds are on Drive D:. On Drive D: I made a folder named My Data and under the folder properties I used the Move option to move them to the My Data folder.

Hazel123 said:

Searching in file explorer wouldn’t be quite the same I think. Or maybe I’m just stuck in my ways

Click to expand...

File explorer works the same way. IMHO, your over thinking it and making it harder than what it really is.

JLArranz said:

I've never considered having my D: drive stuff (or data) under the control of Windows. Not considered means that, not opposed either... Until I started to see threads about access issues caused by permissions set/not set, using the same user name in another install, not using the same user name in another install, and etc. I prefer OS neutral and totally passive drives for the data (they don't "move" at all unless you read or write your files).

My first thought about this decades ago, in DOS times, was: what files do I need to conserve independently of my OS installs, or computers, and how: floppy disks, CDs, DVDs or USB sticks until now.

I eventually realized I could do an internal partition (why another drive? more money, more clutter,...) and store my stuff there. I started to use my internal D: partition as the central storage, and the removeable media as backup, although it can be said that I have never needed the latter (I once needed the external backup of my partition images for reasons long to explain, but I don't mix my D: stuff with my E: stuff). For example in migrations I connect the internal drive and copy from there, it's a lot faster.

I've never found it difficult or costly having to specify where to save my files. The programs use to use your last used folder, if you don't find the downloaded file it's in Downloads and you have to move it to D: and set the browsers to download to D:.

Lately I've started to use different physical disks for the OS (SSD of 256 GB) and D:/E: (data/disk images go to a 1 or 2TB HDD). Windows 10/11 installs and it's maintained and migrated better if it has a physical drive only for it. I'm under the impression that my 10-20 years old HDDs (always in fixed desktops or stored in fixed places) will still last more than any new disk. SSDs don't need to be fixed to last long, they need quality.

Click to expand...

I suppose I shall never tire of stating this:

User preference prevails.

People use what works for them. I think that's a wonderful thing because options and alternatives lead to more than one method of addressing issues. Back in the day I used to think partitioning my huge 80GB hard drive was a pretty clever idea. After all, I had so much storage! Why buy another expensive hard drive? Well the short answer is in the event that that drive crashes, craters, bricks, or burns there's a good chance I can kiss all that data goodbye. BUT... Rarely do two independent hard drives die at the same time. It happens but even a broken clock is "right" twice a day. Broken is still broken.

I've been leaving off partitioning drives more and more, which might explain why I use so many hard drives these days. Just a couple of days ago I had a 4TB SSD brick on me. The drive should still be under warranty but the data is gone. No worries, I have duplicates of that data on a spinner but my point is that the SSD wasn't even two years old and the spinner is 7 years old. The spinner is still running. The SSD wasn't exactly cheap. The spinner was reasonably priced. We pay a lot for that high speed performance but at the end of the day what good is it if the rabbit dies before the tortoise gets to the finish line? So I agree: they need quality. IMO they're not there yet.

I've heard the argument for keeping all your data on the same drive as your operating system countless times and I grow weary of it. To each their own. I don't mix my D with E but sometimes they have a whole lot in common i.e. duplicate files. I might be a data junky but at least I get to keep my data regardless of whether or not my OS crashes or a hard drive suddenly dies on me. IMO having all your data and OS all on one drive (partitioned or otherwise) is an accident waiting to happen.

Scannerman, great sensible post, I totally agree on this "People use what works for them. I think that's a wonderful thing because options and alternatives lead to more than one method of addressing issues"

Scannerman said:

I suppose I shall never tire of stating this:

User preference prevails.

People use what works for them. I think that's a wonderful thing because options and alternatives lead to more than one method of addressing issues. Back in the day I used to think partitioning my huge 80GB hard drive was a pretty clever idea. After all, I had so much storage! Why buy another expensive hard drive? Well the short answer is in the event that that drive crashes, craters, bricks, or burns there's a good chance I can kiss all that data goodbye. BUT... Rarely do two independent hard drives die at the same time. It happens but even a broken clock is "right" twice a day. Broken is still broken.

I've been leaving off partitioning drives more and more, which might explain why I use so many hard drives these days. Just a couple of days ago I had a 4TB SSD brick on me. The drive should still be under warranty but the data is gone. No worries, I have duplicates of that data on a spinner but my point is that the SSD wasn't even two years old and the spinner is 7 years old. The spinner is still running. The SSD wasn't exactly cheap. The spinner was reasonably priced. We pay a lot for that high speed performance but at the end of the day what good is it if the rabbit dies before the tortoise gets to the finish line? So I agree: they need quality. IMO they're not there yet.

I've heard the argument for keeping all your data on the same drive as your operating system countless times and I grow weary of it. To each their own. I don't mix my D with E but sometimes they have a whole lot in common i.e. duplicate files. I might be a data junky but at least I get to keep my data regardless of whether or not my OS crashes or a hard drive suddenly dies on me. IMO having all your data and OS all on one drive (partitioned or otherwise) is an accident waiting to happen.

View attachment 147977

Click to expand...

Great post . Thank you for all the insights. Some further explanation as to my decision. Although I have all my data on the same drive as windows, the files get backed up daily by idrive. That was how I set up my fallback. They are stored on idrive and updated. I do have them saved on external drive as well but that isn’t always up to date.

The downside to this, I have realised - is when having to reinstall Windows - as I have been doing due to laptop failure - for idrive to pick up where it left off, the file path names have to be the same.

Which restricted how I reinstalled Windows . Because I must have set up with a Microsoft account when I first installed idrive so when I reinstalled with a local account and then signed into my Microsoft account, idrive didn’t see the existing files and wanted to do a whole new backup from scratch (which takes about two days!). Rather than that, I just reset windows 11 and set up with my Microsoft account again.

Now it would have been a similar issue if my files were now on a D drive. Idrive wouldn’t see them due to the change of file path name . And it would have meant a whole new backup again.

So since using idrive it’s easier if I keep the files on the same drive as windows - as I now realise. It is reassuring having all my files backed up daily - cloud backup- even though I wouldn’t fully rely on it. And have system images and manual file backups as well. Most of my files never change so a manual backup is still an ok fallback. Recent files get backed up daily - until I do another manual backup - so they are there even if a drive fails.

It seems I’m on 25H2 since reinstalling as well

Hazel123 said:

Great post . Thank you for all the insights. Some further explanation as to my decision. Although I have all my data on the same drive as windows, the files get backed up daily by idrive. That was how I set up my fallback. They are stored on idrive and updated. I do have them saved on external drive as well but that isn’t always up to date.

The downside to this, I have realised - is when having to reinstall Windows - as I have been doing due to laptop failure - for idrive to pick up where it left off, the file path names have to be the same.

Which restricted how I reinstalled Windows . Because I must have set up with a Microsoft account when I first installed idrive so when I reinstalled with a local account and then signed into my Microsoft account, idrive didn’t see the existing files and wanted to do a whole new backup from scratch (which takes about two days!). Rather than that, I just reset windows 11 and set up with my Microsoft account again.

Now it would have been a similar issue if my files were now on a D drive. Idrive wouldn’t see them due to the change of file path name . And it would have meant a whole new backup again.

So since using idrive it’s easier if I keep the files on the same drive as windows - as I now realise. It is reassuring having all my files backed up daily - cloud backup- even though I wouldn’t fully rely on it. And have system images and manual file backups as well. Most of my files never change so a manual backup is still an ok fallback. Recent files get backed up daily - until I do another manual backup - so they are there even if a drive fails.

It seems I’m on 25H2 since reinstalling as well

Click to expand...

If it works for you then that's what matters. Myself, I'm slightly possessive of my data (if not protective) so I do my own "cloud". The old fascist slogan, "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" doesn't wash with me. Having 60 or so TB of data on my own network is no biggy to me. I'm not saying that everyone should follow my example, I'm just saying that I learned what works for me. Do I trust Microsoft? Not really. Certainly not all the time.

I concur that there is some advantage in having one's data stored on someone else's cloud. Myself, I'll take my chances. Folks don't have to believe me when I say that ransomware was Microsoft's invention long before it became anyone else's idea. We are all entitled to our own preferences and opinions. The short cut thing works fine for me, but not everyone even has a PC that can handle more than one drive these days. Partitioning often generates its own problems. I've also seen so many people struggle with external hard drives that I've concluded it isn't the best option for some folks. With my network and my external drives I'm pushing closer to 100 Terabytes of data. I make no apology for this. I follow the old carpenter's rule: undercutting is better than over-cutting. Better to have duplicates than not have the files at all.

If I could give anyone advice on retaining and maintaining data it would be to keep your options open. In other words, don't put all your eggs in one basket. The great thing about digital data is that we can put the same eggs in different baskets. In this respect redundancy is not entirely a bad thing. Admittedly, the drawback to my approach is that I still have to have all those baskets to put them in.

Well I wouldn’t trust one drive with my data. I pay £90 ish a year for idrive. IRS a full data back up as opposed to syncing - although I know nothing is foolproof - but I’ve had a few external hard drives fail on me so it’s another basket

And something occurred to me I had never thought about before. Why is it C drive? Why not A or B drive?!

Hazel123 said:

And something occurred to me I had never thought about before. Why is it C drive? Why not A or B drive?!

Click to expand...

A & B are held over from old PC days for floppy drives. They can be used for other things now, but Windows still automatically goes to C drive as it has for many years.

Hazel123 said:

And something occurred to me I had never thought about before. Why is it C drive? Why not A or B drive?!

Click to expand...

When personal computers were first available, there were no hard drives. You opted for one or two floppy drives, and they were designated as A: and B:. When the first hard drives became available, they were naturally designated as C:. As backward compatibility has always been important, hard drives and SSD drives have been C: through Z: ever since.

Scannerman said:

........ Myself, I'm slightly possessive of my data (if not protective) so I do my own "cloud". The old fascist slogan, "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" doesn't wash with me...............

Click to expand...

RIGHTEOUS!!!

Quick question. If I have upgraded to 32gb ram and restore an image that was made when I only had 16gb ram - will it matter ? Trying to get my head round it!

Hazel123 said:

Quick question. If I have upgraded to 32gb ram and restore an image that was made when I only had 16gb ram - will it matter ? Trying to get my head round it!

Click to expand...

No.

Imaging involves hard drives and their contents.

snerd said:

RIGHTEOUS!!!


View attachment 148014

Click to expand...

Albertans are a totally different breed of Canadians.
Probably why I married an American. lol

Hazel123 said:

Quick question. If I have upgraded to 32gb ram and restore an image that was made when I only had 16gb ram - will it matter ? Trying to get my head round it!

Click to expand...

RAM (random access memory) is volatile. This means that whatever is stored in the memory is temporary. The moment you reboot your PC all that memory empties and loads up again with whatever data is on your drive that has instructions to load to memory. When you turn your PC off the RAM remains empty (pretty much). Your restore image is on read/write storage. Even when your PC is turned off all the data remains on the storage until that storage is instructed to delete the data (as in formatting and erasing the drive). Even then the data is not entirely erased by conventional means. Completely erasing a drive can be painstakingly time consuming. Instead, the data is simply rewritten over the old data, much like recording over a used magnetic cassette tape.

Having 32GB of RAM will allow your system image to load much quicker to the memory before you write the image to your hard drive. That is about the only effect it will have. This is why having a lot of memory used to be a huge advantage for running applications and programs much more so ten years ago than today. That isn't to say that having lots of memory isn't a good thing. It really depends on how one uses their PC and what it is used for. Back when graphics cards, for example, ran on less than 1GB of memory having extra RAM was a huge plus. Today, graphics cards pretty much supply all the memory needed for video purposes. Again, that is not to say that having an ample amount of memory can't be useful. Some programs require a substantial amount of memory to load. One example is the Windows operating system. It requires a minimum amount of RAM to load the software to the memory before it can be more permanently written to the drive. Once it is on the drive it still requires a minimum amount of RAM to load from the drive to the memory.

Whatever is in your memory is processed by your CPU (central processing unit) as you need it. Your CPU and memory essentially "talk" to each other, sharing instructions on what should sit idle in memory and what needs to be actively used next. Your memory pulls this from the data on your hard drive, sends it to your CPU for processing, and your CPU tells your memory what is needed next. This is of course an over-simplification. I'm simply putting it in layman's terms. These processes happen in fractions of seconds today although they used to be much slower. So, for example, text: You type to your memory telling your memory what to do. The memory finds it, selects it, sends it to the CPU for processing and the task is executed. A faster CPU will execute it faster. All this happens in nanoseconds so the human brain really doesn't notice what CPU is faster unless it gets super bogged down with tasks. Still, a computer is only as efficient as the weakest link in the chain so if you have very little memory it won't matter if you have a fast CPU if the CPU is waiting on instruction that the RAM has to hustle to get because of limited capacity. The system will still lag. Likewise, if you have a really slow CPU and tons of memory then your memory will be waiting on the CPU to finish its tasks before it can give the CPU more instructions. This is commonly known as a "bottleneck".

Most computers today issued for domestic use do quite well with 16GB of RAM. If you are doing a great deal of data processing, video rendering, tons of multitasking (like game developers do) or, you're running a home server then 32GB would be a good start. There are other uses for extensive amounts of RAM as well, but I've probably already said too much. I apologize for the long narrative but I remember about 30 years ago when I was trying to get my head around it too. Sounded like total gibberish to me. The short answer is, No. 32GB of RAM isn't a bad thing and it won't affect your restore image even if you made it when you were only using 16GB originally. I hope this helps.

Several things.

I suppose maintaining 100 TB is qualitatively different from maintaining 50 GB... over 18,000 files in over 4,000 folders, but 50 GB, it fits in a 64 GB pendrive (I use two per computer).

Number of computers: having at least two interchangeable computers is a huge leap over one in data security among many other things. "Interchangeability" in data doesn't mean duplicating 300W vcards and 600€ processors and etc. My 1st version of this "double computer" was with a new Phenom II X4 and my previous Athlon 64 X2, both with proportional game capable vcards. Until that 2009 moment I used to sell the old computer, but I preferred to conserve the old one and use any for lighter tasks and the Phenom for gaming and heavier tasks. D: partitions were synched manually with a pendrive (with "To Gigabyte" and "To Asrock" folders), not even a net, for example I was keeping the installers in both even if only one had license, and I could run SyncBack "crossed", between Phenom external and Athlon internal or vice-versa, although each D: had a small amount of files particular to that computer. For email I use a client and a comparable (to D: ) accumulation of emails through the years, that I can copy to any new Windows install (I don't do any effort on keeping the email synched, the drawback is I have to manage my new emails as many times as computers, but I don't have a lot of email). New or discontinued email addresses or servers are just Thunderbird (or other client) settings, not new places or techniques to get your email.

OS neutrality. Imo D: must have your own structure, not Windows'. For me the "My Documents" folder and subfolders is exactly the same as C:\Windows\System32\Dism.exe diskcopy.dll dmloader.dll and so on. Would you put Windows\system32 out of C: ? Exactly the same as "My Documents". iDrives and SyncBacks and etc find a very predictable folder structure even with thousands of files and folders, equation with only one solution: not using "My Documents" for your own files. I've even seen suggested using a C: 100% user-controlled folder instead of another partition or physical disk (say C:\Permanent Files, unless that name's used by some program). This solution is inferior to a different partition or disk in several aspects, but possible.

A: and B: : two of my computers have floppies. But I don't trust these letters for anything different from floppies. Imo you could expect different treatments of drives and files depending on which of these groups their letters belong to, "different" meaning "only 100% adequate for what the letters group is for" (even if only in corner cases):

A B: -> floppy drives (it doesn't matter if in 2040 there's no single readable floppy in the world).
C: -> Windows drive (for example, in dual booting, the booted OS gets the C: drive regardless the disk/partition/etc).
other letters -> anything except the above.

Programming has a strong tendency to reuse what's already written for several technical and economical reasons, in actual code and in methods/abstractions.

Scannerman said:

Albertans are a totally different breed of Canadians.
Probably why I married an American. lol

Click to expand...

Watching your fight for Independence with glee and hope for the best for you all. Freedom isn't free!