KR> christ rod, why it that any simple correspondence with you soon
KR> grows to a multipart multimegabyte production.

Christ Keith, why is it that any simple correspondence with you soon
grows into a multipart multimegabyte production ?  Presumably its all
your dodging and weaving as you try to desperately retain as much of
your credibility as you can muster when your original claim about the
desperate danger of an FDISK /MBR is shown to be anal retentive crap.
Which few except you think is that dangerous, even IBM.

RS> You have now been backpedalling furiously trying to preserve some
RS> vestige of credibility when its shown clearly that FDISK /MBR aint
RS> anything like as dangerous as you allege.

KR> if thats what you want to think rod, then go ahead,

OK I will, without bothering to wait for permission |-)

KR> it is not a bad idea for anybody who places any reliance on a
KR> computer to have a sensible strategy for recovery, full backup is
KR> not viable for most,

RS> Well, you can make a far better case for a backup of the stuff that
RS> you have produced or changed yourself, including various config
RS> files of commercial software, than you can for a copy of JUST the
RS> boot sector.

KR> where have i ever said that you should just back up the boot sector?

You were hyperventilating about the risk of an FDISK /MBR and what
should be done to protect against that risk. In fact when Paul was
actually doing a complete rebuild of his system, changing almost
every major component, the first physical sector of just one drive
is the least of his worrys.

KR> it is just part of a sensible  scheme of precautions.

Nope, its an almost irrelevant consideration if, as Paul does not, you
dont bother with the other backup stuff before a major system rebuild.

KR> why spend a couple of days restoring all your software, just because
KR> you had to do a full fdisk to get over a boot sector problem when you
KR> could have spent 2 min to save it , and 2 min to restore it.

Because the risk of losing it in an FDISK /MBR is utterly microscopic,
thats why. Like I say, you can do whatever you like, very few do it the
way you suggest tho, save that sector ONLY, just before an FDISK /MBR.

KR> of course you keep the other stuff too, unless either you dont give a
KR> shit about what you have on your system, or you are like poe and spend
KR> the best part of 2 grand on a dat unit and back the lot up.

So if you do actually take normal backup precautions, the whole question
is completely academic, coz the first physical sectors is saved as part
of that anyway.

KR> you devise a sensible strategy of giving yourself the maximum chance
KR> of recovery for the least effort.

Thats supposed to be news ?

KR> since you agree that having a nortons rescue disk is a good idea, you
KR> obvously agree, even if you dont say so.

Yes, I agree, I even said so in the first response to you when you
jumped into this thread. Thats an utterly different question to what is
sensible to do if you dont have a normal backup/rescue disk approach tho.
In THAT case, it doesnt make much sense to save JUST the first physical
sector before doing an FDISK /MBR for the absolutely microscopic chance
of a simultaneous power flick. And the simplest rescue disk is just as
easy to do as a save of that first physical sector alone anyway, and
give more protection against the other much more likely risks as well.
So your proposed way of doing an FDISK /MBR is pointless.

RS> You can do whatever you like Keith. But what you were actually doing
RS> was claiming a risk in using the FDISK /MBR which was fanciful.

KR> so you still say that there is NO risk at all?
KR> nothing can possibly go wrong? ever?

Nope, never said that. The risk however so low that it doesnt warrant a
special save of just the first physical sector, so most people dont do
that just for an FDISK /MBR. You are welcome to do whatever you want,
but you arent welcome to maintain that its the one true path to
salvation. It aint.

--- PQWK202