Ok, so i downloaded this plugin from the winamp site, that was supposed to allow me to play .avi files in winamp. Well, it turns out that it decided to take over nearly every application on my hard drive, and then wont play some mP3's. It says that Adobe Acrobat is now a Winamp application. It also says that the uninsatller for this damned plug in is a winamp application. I dont know how to run a program in winamp, but i do know that cussing while pressing the play button only reults in it saying MCI Error Incmpatible Media over and over again. Any and all help in getting rid of this fvcking program would be very appreciated. BTW im not a comp sci or comp eng major, so non-1337!!!!111!! speak would be appreciated.
If anyone would feel like being generous, my comp is a lap top so maybe i could bring it by and you could fix it?
Thanks,

Cory

Winamp 5 has always had the capability of playing AVI files. Something sounds strange here...

There was a plugin for 2.xx that allows AVI playback. 3.x sucked, but 5.x rocks. Just uninstall and upgrade.

Un-install sounds easy doesn't it?
yeah, i thought of that ( see quote ) and it wont work, the uninstall program opens only in Winamp. I can't even do a right click and choose the "open with" option. Reformat is the only option that i see. And that sucks, becuase i did that once, and im sure you all noticed me when i repleshied my supply of lost music. Sorry about that.

Anyone got any idea? I'll throw in a "ruck folla." Sticker for the person to fix the problem. =P

thanks

Cory

I don't think this will work any better, but have you tried using the windows add/remove programs thingy?

A data partition is a users best friend. My 2 80's in RAID Stripe are partitioned nicely. I can install windows and be back up to full speed in a matter of hours from format. Did it last night in fact.

umm,,,,yeah, ive tried the add/remove thing and it just refuses to work.
Partitioning a 14 gig harddrive just sounds silly doesn't it?

Not in the least. You're not losing any disk space, and you're forcing all the Microsoft programs to stay in their own little world and nuke their own partition while leaving your data partition intact.

I would do it.

well, i found out what the problem was. There was a setting in winamp that was telling my plugin to read ALL files. It was even running .dll files in winamp. A quick little menu button click, and the program uninstalled like a charm.
This was not my doing, but Nairbs. Because he is 6'11", and smart, though he sucks ass at Medal of Honor!

Cory

There is no need to partition any hard drive in this day and age. Go to http://www.slickdeals.net or fatwallet, and you can usually pick up a new 200 gig for around $60 after a few mail in rebates. If your drive goes bad while it is partitioned, guess what... all your data is gone, including that backup partition. Your dual 80 gig setup may be cool for now, but two hard drives with no redundancy greatly increases your chance for lost data, so good luck with that. I'm not a hardcore paranoid data backup freak, and I realize your rig is just good for what you do with it, but seriously, get another HD or a few blank dvdrs.

It's not the HD I'm worried about getting nuked. I've never hard-crashed a hard drive.

It's Windows dicking around with files it shouldn't. And let's face it, OS reinstallation is a standard part of Windows maintenance, especially when running 9x/ME. The best way to facilitate that from the installation frontend is to have system-critical files and programs installed on one partition, and data on another one (or two).

Heck, even WinXP nukes itself. I'm reinstalling it on my mother's computer right now. Reminds me, I've got to go tend to that...

I would have to disagree. Aside from the obvious need to have one partition for normal usage, there's a variety of reasons why having a good partition strategy is better than one large partition.

- Swap space. Putting the swap towards the edge of a hard drive platter means a greater number of readable and writable sectors will exist per degree. Since the disk rotates at a fixed rate, more sectors will always pass on the edge versus the innermost ring or middle per second. That means faster swap access. That's your Physics 23 at work, folks.

- Personal files. By putting all user files (such as user desktop info, documents, e-mail, whatever) on a seperate partition, I can do whatever I want to the OS without having to worry about something stepping on my stuff. I can even lift the entire partition and place it on a different machine and suddenly all my stuff, including application preferences, magically appears!

- Log files. I keep track of my system logs. They usually don't get out of hand. Unfortunately, when every round of IIS worms goes around, my Apache logs mushroom in size. By placing the logs on a seperate partition, I can guarantee that my log files won't fill up everything. A full hard drive (and I mean packed to the last byte) will give any operating system a hard time running, let alone doing administrative duties.

- Mass storage. I create one large partition for long-term media storage. Whenever I use it, I generally have the entire partition's access set to read-only. Read-write is only used on those rare occasions when I've deemed a file ready for commit. (Playlists, media files I'm editing, and any other projects-in-progress exist in my personal files partition.) In addition to protecting the files from an accidental brush with my delete key, it also guards against viruses infecting installer binaries, misbehaving programs causing file corruption, and anyone who might crack my account then trash the files.

- Operating system segmentation. I can put a large part of my OS on a read-only partition. This will cause any automated root-kit or hostile takeover to fail at some stage since the attacker can't write to my binaries or configuration files. Depending on the method of delivery, the attack may result in a simple denial of service instead of a full-blown takeover.

Those are just general measures any OS could use. There are many other facets of design that could be addressed by having multiple partitions. An example is file system choice for different segments. One segment could benefit from a file system which is good with many small files, while another would be more suited towards using a file system which excels at manipulating large files. Segment A may benefit from having revision dated files and other metadata, while segment B may not need extra detail for it's files.

Also, your choice in operating systems may open up even more options to consider. In unix systems for example, I can restrict executables to run only from my OS and applications partitions. Since they're normally read-only, it increases the difficulty for anyone wanting to run an unapproved program on my system.

From what I've seen in my short time here, I think we can give Castorite the title of "computer genius".

Alright, well we were talking about a Windows XP install here, so yes I was a bit hasty to say that there is "no need" to do it, hell many Linux distros require multiple partitions, for security reasons as you stated.

But, physics 23 at work eh? Well lets think about it for a second, you have about two gigs at the beginning of your drive where your OS resides, then you put the swap at the end of your drive. Ok, so it can read faster towards the end of the drive, but have you thought about seek times at all? HDs are mechanical; they contain arms on which the read/write heads are embedded. You put your swap at the end of your drive and look at that arm go, back and forth back and forth, takes forever huh? It being a windows install it has to constantly access files in the windows directory, and it damn sure is swapping. So, it needs to do two things at different locations at the same time on the same drive.. uh oh, performance issues.

Now, stay with me... I'm just talking about windows here, but typically you get better performance placing your swap file (read: file, not partition, hence "windows") on a separate slower drive that isn't accessed all that often, rather than your big beefy drive you throw everything on, and use all the time. Of course, you want to place your swap on the fastest HD you have, but you get the idea.

Alright, in all reality nowadays people just go get themselves a DELL and never really tweak anything on it, and that works just fine for most people. The performance hit you take by putting your swap file at the end of your drive isn't really significant, but in everything I've ever read it has always been recommended to place the file on another drive rather than at the end of a partitioned drive. If you are partitioning off your swap to increase performance, you are wasting your time. Time better spent playing video games or downloading porn.

The point of my earlier post was to respond to -|F.I.B.|-LowMan's post about having a backup partition on a RAID 0 array. It's fine and dandy to just back up your frequently used programs and drivers on a second partition, but I was kind of advising him not to put anything important there. RAID 0 exposes your data to extra risk, so I would never trust anything irreplaceable on a “backup partition” on a RAID 0 array. If he has anything like that a third, backup drive would be advised, or perhaps a nice RAID 0+1 array?

If you want fast Windows recovery time you can always just ghost your windows install and get everything back *exactly* the way you want it in a matter of minutes. I don't know, I personally enjoy going out and downloading the latest drivers and programs when I reinstall, making sure everything is up to date, but I guess some people just don't have the time for that.

BTW, in my lifetime I've had a WD and Maxtor HD go out on me. I got the click of death on my WD, and after some searching on the Internet I found that the particular model was recalled due to a manufacturing defect, which I'm glad I found out after I lost 8 gigs of music I downloaded off of my 56k. Needless to say I was pissed. The maxtor went out in a similar fashion, however it was just an old 10 gig, so it didn't mean much to me. It does happen though... never say never.

This, however, does not connotate faster read/write access. Ever watch a CD spin in the player? It starts out spinning really fast, because the laser begins reading from the center. However, as the laser moves out to pick up the other data tracks, the player spins the disk more slowly, in order to keep data transfer rate constant at the laser.

Hard drives work the same way. When a 7200 RPM-rated hard disk reads the data on the innermost sector and track, the platters spin at 7200 RPM. As the head moves outward to read off of a different track, the platters slow down to keep the data transfer rate at the head constant.

THAT, my friends, is your Phys23 at work.