🚀 go-pugleaf

Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>
>Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote in message
>news:7pivo2$n65$1@mochi.lava.net...
>> Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>>> Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Todd <Post_to_group_only@nospam.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote
>>>>>>>> Hyper wrote
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>> This part is starting to look neat.
>
>Someone will start howling about it any minute |-)
>
>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, and I'd move to a 12GB C drive now if it was me.
>
>And those cretins howling should be able to read that 'if it was me' there.
>Not you, those other cretins making silly claims about what I have said.
>
>>>>>>>>> you would put it all into the C drive???  i'd split it up into maybe 3
>>>>>>>>> partitions, one for windows, one for apps/games, and one for data.
>>>>>>>>> two would be ok also, one for windows and one for apps/data
>
>>>>>>>> I agree.  My C: drive is only 510MB, FAT16, with a 8KB cluster size.
>>>>>>>> Keeps those small system files from hogging the whole drive.
>
>>>>>>> What was being discussed was what to do when using
>>>>>>> FAT32, not FAT16. Thats got lost in the quote snipping.
>
>>>>>> Wrong!
>
>>>>> Nope!  That sentence from me right at the top was preceeded by a comment
>>>>> that it makes sense to upgrade to FAT32 with a drive of that size.
>
>>>>>>> And IMO its mad to use FAT16 on a 12GB drive.
>>>>>>> The only time that makes any sense is if you are so
>>>>>>> strapped for cash that you dont have any choice OS wise.
>
>>>>>>> And if I was in that situation I'd make an obscene gesture in MS's general
>>>>>>> direction and use a pirate copy of Win98 when they shafted me by sticking
>>>>>>> me with FAT16 in the legal copy of Win95 I owned for far too long too.
>>>>>>> But then that sort of guerilla activity has always appealed to me |-)
>
>>>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, Win95b and above included FAT32.
>
>>>>> Well, OSR2 certainly did, and I said so in the quoting that got snipped.
>>>>> If I was gunna get a pirate copy to get FAT32, it makes a lot more
>>>>> sense to get Win98 for its other extras tho like full USB support.
>
>>>>>>>> The rest of my two hard disks are divided into 5 other FAT16 drives,
>
>>>>>>> Which produces a hell of a mess keeping track of what is
>>>>>>> where. At least with Hyper's approach of 2 or 3 partitions,
>>>>>>> its possible to have a reasonably logical use of partitions.
>
>>>>>> That's what drive labels are for.
>
>>>>> Wota pity they dont appear in the fully qualified path name.
>
>>>> Right, which is where Microsoft dropped the ball.
>
>>> What was being discussed was how to partition
>>> a drive when running FAT32 Win95 or Win98.
>
>> And your point is?
>
>Its obvious what my point is, how to partition the boot drive when running
>FAT32 Win9x, the advantages and disadvantages of multiple partitions.
>
>> That part of the thread hasn't been talked about for the last dozen responses.
>
>Its whats being discussed, whether to have a single or multiple partitions
>on the boot drive, and the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches.
>
>>>> Don't use defects in the OS to support your opinions.
>
>>> Dont try to order me about.
>
>> Grow up too.
>
>Dont try to order me about.
>
>> Just because you don't have a valid response except to agree, you get pouty.
>
>I just tell people who try to order me about to bugger off. Like that or lump it.
>
>>>>>> You name them just like you do with folders.
>
>>>>> Nope, quite differently in fact.
>
>>>> What, we can't assign names to drives with just a click
>>>> of the mouse and a little typing?  Or at the dos prompt?
>
>>> Nope, the volume label is rather more restricted than the directory
>>> name with long file names. And more awkward to change too.
>
>> Right, you have to right click on the drive, choose
>> properties and then change the volume label.  So awkward.
>
>Still MORE awkward, particularly when using a decent file manager
>where you can just overtype the name with a directory or a file name.
>
>> And how many letters do you think are in "GAMES" or "DATA".
>
>How many letters do you think are in "Program Files",
>"Application Data", "Temporary Internet Files" etc etc etc.
>
>> I would use the same directory names for such a
>> general area if I used you  'one large drive' model.
>
>You have always been and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
>
>> Get over it.
>
>Dont try to order me about.
>
>>>> When did MS change it so we have to
>>>> call tech support to change a volume label?
>
>>> Careful you dont go blind now.
>
>> ?????
>
>Your keyboard got stuck.
>
>>>> My point is that you can name a drive just like you can name a folder.
>
>>> My point is that your 'just like' is wrong. And that
>>> while you can certainly name a drive, that name
>>> you have given it is far less visible than a root
>>> directory name. Your 'just like' is just plain wrong.
>
>> Your point here is wrong, just plain wrong.
>
>Pathetic really.

OK, your point is pathetic.

>
>> When you open My Computer on the desktop, what do you see?
>
>And when you dont do it like that, you dont see the drives.
>
>> My system displays a windows with the icons for
>> the drives. And guess what is under each drive icon?
>> The volume label. So tell me, which is "less visible".
>
>Obviously is if you dont even open My Computer at all.
>
>> Even in explorer the volume label is more visible that
>> a directory name in the root directory of C: drive.
>
>It aint the only way to look at a folder either. And when
>you use the other obvious alternative, the volume
>label isnt visible at all.  The directory name is.


>
>> The volume label is right next to a drive icon, again, and is visible
>> even if the root directory of the drive is not expanded in the left pane.
>
>Thats just one way of looking at the contents of a folder etc.
>
>> What is your definition of more visible?
>
>What you see when you use the other
>approach to looking at the content of a folder.

Why don't you mention this "other approach" so we all can see?
And please explain why it is so much improved over using the
two I have mentioned.
>
>>>> Not that you use the exact same movements for each.
>>>> Didn't think I had to fully explain that one to you.
>
>>> See above on going blind.
>
>> If I was blind, how could I see above, not that seeing
>> a warning about going blind explains your point any.
>
>Rather pathetic really.
>
Yes, again, I agree that your point is rather pathetic.

>>>>>>> with a 1GB partition for Win2K, formerly used by WinNT.
>
>>>>>>> Sure, you can certainly make a case for a separate partition
>>>>>>> for extra OSs. That wasnt the situation being discussed tho.
>
>>>>>> Nor was wether or not partitions are good or bad.
>
>>>>> Fraid so.
>
>> I thought you just said above that the discussion
>> was about dual booting when the guy had FAT32.
>
>Nope, never said a word about dual booting.

Well, since that is what the original posting was about...
>
>> Here you are saying that the discussion is
>> about the good, the bad, and the partitioned.
>
>Nope.

And just a couple responses above, that is what you are trying to say.
Right where you typed "Fraid so."

>
>>>>>>>> I hate that so many programs are written
>>>>>>>> to install to C: drive automatically.
>
>>>>>>> And if you dont have all those partitions, its a complete yawn when they do.
>
>>>>>>>> And so many small programs don't even
>>>>>>>> give an option to install to another drive.
>
>>>>>>> Yep. Another good reason for a single partition for the whole drive.
>
>>>>>> For me it's a reason to get some other software instead.
>
>>>>> Thats often easier said than done.
>
>>>> So now you use an argument that you
>>>> argued against in one of your other posts?
>
>>> Nope.
>
>> Yes.
>
>Nope.
>
>>>>>>>> just to keep it orderly.
>
>>>>>>> You can have exactly the same orderly with trees
>>>>>>> off directorys in the root if you are that obsessive.
>
>>>>>> Yea, and then those apps that would only install
>>>>>> to C, can fill in all the fragments of 10gig instead
>>>>>> of 2, leaving you with an app that runs really slow.
>
>>>>> Doesnt work like that. Fragmentation is no big deal
>>>>> on a very large partition like that. Fragmentation is
>>>>> much more of a problem with multiple partitions.
>
>>>> Please explain that one.
>
>>> Partions become fragmented quickest when there is less free
>>> space. A single partition for the whole drive inevitably sees more free
>>> space in the partition, so fragmentation is rather less of a problem.
>
>> Oh, that is why a drive that has half the space available
>> always has most of the data in the first half of the drive.
>> Free space doesn't matter as much as you think.
>
>Sure does when there isnt much free space as far as fragmentation is concerned.
>
>> Ever look at the details view of Defrag?
>
>I might well have done.
>
>> On any disk that is not full, there is almost no data at the very end
>> of  the disk, where the last bastions of free space would be dug in.
>
>Got SFA to do with how quickly a drive fragments
>when there isnt much free space and there is quite
>a bit of activity on that drive with larger files.

Right.  Activity and large files.  If the large FAT32 20GB drive has
all the files at the beginning of the drive, within the first 5GB,
and doesn't use the rest of the drive, the files are getting fragmented.
If the files were instead spread evenly over the disk, being placed into
the available free space, than they would not be fragmented.
Since they are not being put in the free space, they are being
fragmented and placed in many open spaces in the first part of the drive.
>
>>>> If I install some applications to drive H:, then defrag
>>>> H:, it doesn't get very fragmented because I am not
>>>> constantly writing to it, and removing files from it.
>
>>>Yes, but a decent defragger doesnt mindlessly move that stuff around much too.
>
>>>> With one drive, you are constantly writing and
>>>> deleting files on that drive.  No way around it.
>
>>> Yes, but if its got plenty of free space, and thats common with a single
>>> partition for the big drives we are discussing, they dont fragment much.
>
>> Again, you don't appear to understand how the free space is used.
>
>Again, you dont appear to have a clue about
>what produces significant fragmentation.
>
>And fragmentation is about FILES being fragmented and
>increasing the time to access that file because its fragmented.

Right, FILES being broken into many pieces, and those pieces being
placed into various available places on the disk.  Those places are
near the front of the drive.  Newly formed files are not simply places
at the end of the 'used area' of the drive, they are usually fragmented
and placed in available holes in that used area.
>
>> Ever see a drive with data spread evenly across the surface,
>> when only a third of the clusters are full?  Neither have I.
>
>Got nothing to do with fragmentation.

Obviously you can't get the picture in your brain of what a fragmented
drive looks like.  If you never use a defragger program, and you
are creating and deleting files, or adding to them, such as business
reports that take you several days to finish, your data is going to be
fragmented.  No question about that.

If, as you say, the magical properties of free space on a drive were
enough to keep the drive from being fragmented, than why are the files
fragmented.  They are fragmented because the system doesn't care
about how much free space is at the end of the drive.  For the most
part, it breaks up files, and places them in available holes in the
front part of the drive.  If the free space were used by the system to
write larger files, without them being fragmented, than a disk
which is only half full, would have data spread across the entire
surface of the drive.

So, I ask, have you looked at the details view of Defrag?
If this is what you see, after going for a few  months without
defragging the drive, then you would be correct.  The free space
made a difference.  But this is not what you would see.  There is
only significant use of the second half of a drive when the drive
is over half full of data.  There is only significant use of the end
of the drive when the drive is about 3/4 full.  The end is not used
just because you have 2GB of files on a 20GB drive, no matter how
much you manipulate that 2GB of files.  The files will be fragmented
no matter how much free space you have.

That is what an even spread of data has to do with fragmentation.

>
>>>> I keep my working files on one partition, and it
>>>> does get fragmented, the others generally don't.
>
>>> And single partitions for the whole large drive
>>> being discussed dont get fragmented much either.

Since I haven't added anything to my Apps drive for a few months,
and fragmented it after installing anything, which do you think is
more fragmented?  My apps drive, or your 20GB drive?

>
>> If you can figure out what you meant, let the rest of us know.
>
>Gone blind yet ?
>
>>>>>> Not to mention the need to defrag the
>>>>>> entire drive when only one partition needs it.
>
>>>>> And defragging is needed much less with a single partition for the entire drive.
>
>>>> You are still causing file fragmentation to occur,
>>>> no matter the size of the partition or drive.
>
>>> Its more complicated than that.
>
>> Yes it is, but I didn't have time to write a thesis paper.
>
>Or have a clue about fragmentation either.
>
When you manipulate files on a disk, they get fragmented.
Fragmentation doesn't go much deeper than that.
>