[ Quoting KENNETH ABRAMS to SCOTT LITTLE ] 
 SL> People who like to keep maintainance and confusion at a minimum,
 SL> usually like to have some sort of standard.
 KA> What does this statement have to do with assigning a drive letter to a
 KA> particular type of drive?
You missed the point. If I assign a static drive letter to important
resources (CDROM, BBS, filebase, mail, databases) then I don't have to go
though changing setups and batch files, scripts and whatever else to match,
whenever a drive letter changes.
 
 KA> No matter what you keep in mind while partitioning a drive, you have
 KA> no  control over what drive gets what letter
I /could/ but I don't. I only have four major different resources that might
change and I don't want them to (as mentioned above).
 KA> The active primary partition  on your first physical drive will be drive
 KA> C:. Period. You can't change  that.
Oh, you're talking about DOS or Win... yes, you're right. But I can use
SUBST to work around that.
 KA> By your logic, you could just as easily say you can indirectly control
 KA> your CD-ROM's drive letter, by creating sufficient hard drive 
 KA> partitions, possibly making some of them HPFS and invisible on a
 KA> native  DOS boot, to make the CD the letter of your choice.
By my logic? It was the OS2 crowd that suggested tiny RAM drives to fill in
the spaces and make the CDROM the letter I want. I'd rather put Win95 back
on it.
 SL> All those letters are constant throughout the network. If something
 SL> is in I:\APPS on one computer, it's in exactly the same place on the
 KA> Can you at least stay on the subject? Network drive mapping has little
 KA> to nothing to do with a PC operating system's drive letter
 KA> assignments.
It IS on subject! You miss it entirely. You have NEVER administrated a 
etwork
or run a BBS so you cannot possibly understand what I am doing. If I wasn't
doing either, then I would not need to worry about drive letters, but I do,
so I do need to keep some type of order and consistancy.
 KA> drive any hardware, it's a patch to DOS that allows it to see the
 KA> driver  that's controlling the CD. And I'll call it what I damn well
A "patch to DOS" as you descibe it is an extension upon it. Strictly 
peaking,
that makes it a driver, or an extension to one. It provides a standard way of
talking to CDROM devices.
 SL> specify the syntax, and the other is just SUBST for OS2, which is a
 SL> stand- alone IFS.
 KA> Gee, Scotty, last I heard from you there was no such thing as SUBST 
 KA> under OS/2.
In one ear, out the other eh? I said "OS2 does not come with such a simple
command as SUBST". I did NOT say one does not exist, as I have known there
is at least one for quite a while - long before I ever came to this debate.
 KA> Is it actually possible for you to ever keep your story
 KA> straight for more than 3-4 messages in a row?
Can I suggest trying one of those "MegaMemory" courses?
 
 SL> The thing that annoys me is that OS2 has a dialog that presents you
 SL> with a "list" of drive letters to assign the drive. Yet only the one
 KA> The thing that annoys me is that you don't have a clue what you're 
 KA> talking about, yet insist on acting as if you do. 
Urm, the above quote of mine is exactly correct. Do you want me to post you
a screen capture?
Oh, you do remember that I am running WARP CONNECT, don't you? A little more
clarification? Connect is OS/2 VERSION 3. Version 3 cannot assign drive
letters with that dialog.
Regards,
 - Scott
[ admin@cyberia.asstdc.com.au | www.asstdc.com.au/~cyberia ]
--- FMail/2 1.22
3:712/848)
---------------