🚀 go-pugleaf

Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>
>Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote in message news:7pgmkb$d2s$1@mochi.lava.net...
>> Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>>> Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote
>>>>>> Hyper wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, and I'd move to a 12GB C drive now if it was me.
>
>>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>>> 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 |-)
>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>>>> If I have any problem with a single drive, I can always
>>>>>> copy the data on it to another drive, and reformat the
>>>>>> problem drive, as long as it isn't C: of course.
>
>>>>> The trouble is that its normally only the C drive that you need to do that
>>>>> much with. There isnt much need with the data partition, with the app
>>>>> partition you've still got the problem with all the registry changes etc.
>
>>>>> If the problem is at the hardware level, its very unlikely that a partition
>>>>> of a single hard drive will go bad in the sense that a reformat will help.
>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>>>> I only want system data or programs on C:.  Reference on D:,
>>>>>> Games on G:, Apps on H:, and a 300MB I: drive for my swap file,
>
>>>>> Achieves SFA.
>
>>>>>> just to keep it orderly.
>
>>>>> You can have exactly the same orderly with trees
>>>>> off directorys in the root if you are that obsessive.
>
>>>> So your point is that what I do with my drives, partitioned from
>>>> C: to I:, is exactly what I could do with one partition of C: only.
>
>>> Yes.
>
>>>> What is the difference, really?
>
>>> Your approach of separate partitions means there is a significant
>>> hassle penalty if you dont get the partitions sizes right when your
>>> partition the drive and its a real hassle to change them later when
>>> you say find that your games partition isnt big enough etc.
>
>> Haven't had a problem with size of partitions
>> yet. I personally have never had that problem,
>
>Plenty have when using that multiple partitions approach. Specially
>with the large number of small partitions you are talking about.
>
>> although I have seen others with one partition completely fill their hard drive.
>
...snipped rambling...
>
>> So they need a second hard drive,
>
...snipped more rambling about a primary dos partition on a new disk
   to be installed as a second drive,  of course you would use an extended
   partition for this, why can't he realize this?
>
>> and then move something to it so there is room for the system to work.
>
>Just as true if the boot drive has multiple partitions and it runs
>out of free space. It will happen sooner with multiple partitions
>because the free space is scatter thru the multiple partitions.

Why can't you read the whole paragraph, rather than one sentence at a time?
>
>> The hardest part was explaining to them that they ran out of drive space.
>
>Even harder if the boot drive has multiple partitions, explaining
>why there is free space on the drive, which aint in the partition you
>are trying to add something to. Doesnt happen if there is a single
>partition on the boot drive, there is either free space or there aint.
>
>> With multiple partitions, I might run out of space on one of
>> them, although I haven't ever ran out of space.  But if I did,
>> it would only be on one drive, like G: Games, or H: Apps.
>> I still can install other programs to another drive, and there is
>> no problem with Windows working, because drive C: is not full.
>
>Just as true with a single partition on that drive.

Sorry, I forgot to draw the diagram for the slow one.  If I have many
partitions, and one fills up, I know that my drive is getting full,  before
it makes it impossible to boot the computer.  As I said earlier, I have
had  many customers that had drive that was so full that Windows
would not function.  Sometimes it might boot, but programs would
not work, other times it would be OK.  If they had multiple partitions,
and knew how to use them, they would have been able to take action
earlier, especially since some of them were losing money, because
their business machine wouldn't work.

Now stop talking about how fast one small partition will fill up faster
than one large partition.  That is a given, if the person lets it.  But
wouldn't it be nice to have the warning before it gets that bad?
Especially for people who are not at aware of this as us "experts"?
And stop bringing in a Primary Dos partition as an arguement,
new drives don't have them unless some idiot adds it.  Is that why
you are stuck on that point, do you always put a primary partition
on second drives, so you can tell your friends/coworkers/customers
about the evil of multiple FAT16 partitions?

>
>>> If you put another hard drive in the system, all the partitions on the
>>> boot drive will have their letters changed apart form the C drive when
>>> the second hard drive has a primary dos partition. Total pain in the arse.
>
>> You said it, "when the second hard drive has a primary
>> dos partition." So don't have a second dos partition.
>
>Easier said than done with some situations. If you are upgrading the main
>boot drive to a larger one, the simplest approach for those who dont have
>a large capacity backup device is to install the new drive, do a clean install
>of Win and the apps for the cleanup of the registry etc that produces, with
>the original drive not connected for the safety of your data. Then put the
>original drive back in so you can copy all the stuff like data and shortcuts
>and favorites and toolbars and log files etc etc etc to the new drive.
>But its inevitably got a primary dos partition on it so if you installed the
>new hard drive with multiple partitions on it, all the drive letters change
>except for the C drive. Which means you cant conveniently run for a few
>weeks just copying stuff you find you didnt remember like toolbars or log
>files from the original drive while using the new drive, and with the original
>drive as protection against infant mortality of the new drive. And as a quick
>backup destination for the data you care about after that etc.

Right, so install the new drive, with multiple partitions (insert cheesy b-movie
sound effects here), install windows, hook up the old drive, copy everything
you need to the new drive.  Why unhook the old drive to install apps?
If you are going to have it hooked up anyway, it won't matter if it's installed
while you install apps to the new drive.  Personally, I would leave the old
drive unhooked from both data and power cables so that the data is there
in case the new drive messes up.  If it is that important, why risk it.
Just copy everything over to an available area of the new drive,
there will be enough room for it, unless you buy another 2GB drive.

I'm not saying that this is the only way, I'm saying that your way is not
the only way.  Too bad you can't see that.

>> Or use WinNT, and you have the option to change
>> drive letters.  That is a very good feature.
>
>What was being discussed was how to organise the boot drive when
>running Win98 with FAT32. Sure, there are other options OS wise.
>But NT still has that major downside, not being able to use FAT32.
>
>>> You're stuck with remembering which drive letter has which use with
>>> your approach. With trees under a directory in the root instead, you
>>> can have meaningful names that dont require you to remember anything.
>
>> Except the name of the directory that the program is in.
>
>Its obviously gunna be a lot easier to remember a
>name like Games than E and Application Data than F.
>
>> I said that my drive are labeled according to what is in them.  G: is
>> labeled GAMES. Guess where Starcraft is loaded.  On drive G: GAMES.
>
>And what was being discussed originally was 2-3
>partitions, where there aint gunna be no G drive.
>
>> My encyclopedia and movie/music guides are on D: REFERENCE.
>
>It would make a lot more sense to have that D: Data.
>
>But you cant have A: Apps or P: Programs.

Sorry, I didn't explain it so well I guess.  Drive G: is labeled GAMES
because that is what drive I was on when I made the label.  As I also
said drive H: is APPS.  The volume label does not have to start with
the letter of the drive it is on.  I didn't mean to imply that is my strategy.
>
>> Why is this not as easy as using the same directory names on one drive.
>
>You've gotta remember that D is Reference.
>Hardly as easy as a Reference directory name.

When I am in Windows Explorer or My Computer, there is not
need to remember what a drive is labeled. The volume labels are
shown plain as day.  Besides, even thought I have many things
that I do need to memorize to exist and work in this world, the
volume labels of a few more drives will not the be straw that
broke the camel's back.

>
>> This point is moot,
>
>Nope.
>
>> even though you have valid arguments on some others.
>
>This one too.
>
>>>> I find it easier to find stuff this way, because
>>>> I know which drive I have certain things on.
>
>>> Just as true of trees under a single directory in the root

Not when the typical computer has a few dozen directories
in the root, but I only have drives C: thru I:, and only have
to remember four of those anyway.  C: only has system stuff,
and I: is for virtual memory.  And F: is for Daggerfall, have
the entire game on the drive so I don't have to use that
slow CD.  So I have to remember D:, E:, G:, and H:,
which, again, have the volume labels clearly and distinctly
displayed in My Computer and Windows Explorer.

That is not true of "a single directory in the root" which contains
50 other directories.

>>> and with that approach the name can be meaningful and
>>> you dont have to get the size right at partitioning time.
>
>> Read the above responses.  I don't want to repeat it all.
>
>Read the above responses.  I don't want to repeat it all.
>
>>>> Rather than having another level of subdirectories,
>>>> I use the different drives.  So simple.
>
>>> So much more limited.
>
>> Other than having sizes of drives set right, what is limited?
>
>A single letter for the drive is obviously much more limited
>than a meaningful name like Reference or Program Files.

A volume label like REFERENCE is more limited that a
directory named REFERENCE.  And water boils faster if
you are using a Celcius thermometer, because it only has
to get to 100 degrees instead of 212.

>
>And you cant have a hierarchy like \Program Files\Reference either.

Thank God I don't have more than one \Program Files folder
on my computer.  Thanks for making that point for me.

>
>> At the DOS prompt,
>
>Hardly anyone uses the DOS prompt anymore. Dinosaur stuff.

Only because most new people are only able to use Windows,
and can't figure out how to use the DOS prompt.  This isn't a
jab at anyone, just a fact.

And if it is a dinosaur, why is MS adding it to Win2k/WinNT 5.0,
after not having it in WinNT 4.0.  Obviously many computer
experts explained to Uncle Bill why that would be a good idea.
So just because you don't use it, don't assume that it's useless.

>
>> I can go from a directory three levels deep on one
>> drive, to a directory five levels deep on another drive.
>> I can go back and forth just by typing the drive letter.
>
>And its even easier with shortcuts etc. The world's moved on.

What shortcuts do you use at the DOS prompt to change
from one folder in one drive to another folder in another drive?

>
>> With one drive, you have to continuously retype in
>> the entire path for which directory you are going to.
>
>No one with any sense types stuff like that anymore.

Until your machine won't boot to the nice pretty, mouse-clickable
desktop, and you have to go in to retrieve files, or fix something.
Then you will know why you should have play with the DOS prompt
more often.  If the machine will power on and read the drive,
the DOS prompt can save your ass, and your job as well.  If anyone
besides us two were actually reading this, someone would be able
to tell of just this happening to them.

>
>> I have had to do this, don't ask why, I don't remember specificly, but this
>> was a great benefit.  Sure, limited use of it, but better than the alternative.
>
>Nope, not better than a single partition
>with meaningful names and shortcuts etc.

Sorry, I thought my paragraph was about using the DOS prompt, and
here you are back at partitions and names.
>
>>>> Two points, I have two hard drives, so there would be C: and D: anyway,
>
>>> Yes, but at least the letters the partitions on the boot drive
>>> get dont change if you remove the second hard drive.
>
>> They don't anyway, there is no primary dos partition on my second hard disk.
>
>Not always possible, most obviously with that hard drive upgrade
>situation. When most dont have full backups anymore, its by far
>the safest way to upgrade the boot drive to a bigger one.

Yes, then unhook the old drive to keep it and its data safe, just in case
it is needed if the new drive dies, or even get a bad virus.  If that old
drive is my only backup, I'm not about to risk it by having it hooked up.

>
>>>> and my system shipped with the original Win95, so no FAT32 allowed then.
>
>>> The world's move on an it makes absolutely no
>>> sense to be using FAT16 on a 12GB drive today.
>
>>>> With FAT16 I always want a small C: drive because
>>>> of the cluster size.  8K is quite large enough.
>
>>> Makes a lot more sense to upgrade with large drives.
>
>> Sure if I bought the new 22GB drives, I probably would.
>
>Just as true of even 6GB drives.
>
>> Only because I have moved from WinNT 4.0
>> to WinNT 5.0, which can see FAT32 drives.
>
>And many arent prepared to use it yet.
>
>>>> If I had FAT32, maybe I would have a larger C: drive
>
>>> Thats what was being discussed, how to do the C drive when using FAT32.
>
>> Which when dual booting WinNT 4.0, you need FAT16,
>> and many small drives if you want WinNT to see them.
>
>We werent discussing how to do the boot drive when running NT.

Yes, but you kept throwing in that 'Primary DOS partition' line, so
I thought what the hell.  I'll not follow the thoughts of the paragraph
this time, just throw out an irrelevant argument to bug you this time.
Annoying isn't it.

>
>>>> The best part of this design, is that I was able to move data from
>>>> part of my second hard drive, wipe out the extended partition there,
>>>> create a smaller extended partition, and then install WinNT in an
>>>> NTFS partition to get experience wtih it for the classes and tests.
>
>>> I said already that thats one of the few remaining
>>> situations where a separate partition is justified.
>
>>>> If I had simply one drive with one huge partition, I would not be able to do that.
>
>>> Thats wrong too, its still possible with Partition Magic etc.
>
>> Yeah, if I want to add another step in trying to
>> figure out how to install WinNT.  Why bother with it.
>
>Because you wont necessarily have allowed for wanting
>to install extra OSs when the drive was initially partitioned.
>
>> Plus there's always the chance that you could have it mess up a drive.
>
>Just as true with your multiple partitions too.
>
>>>> So that alone convinces me that two hard drives, partitioned to several
>>>> small drives is better that one large drive with one large partition.
>
>>> Your problem.
>
>> No, my opinion.
>
>Your opinion is your problem.

Oh so well put.  Touche.
>
>>>> And this did help me diagnose a bad drive earlier, when
>>>> my original drive developed a bad sector in the D: drive area.
>>>> Scandisk kept locking up at the same area, so maybe bad sector.
>>>> I copied the data files from it to E:, and formatted the drive, to
>>>> see if it was a physical defect.  Format locked up half way thru.
>
>>> That aint the only way to decide if the hard drive has a problem.
>
>> Yes, i could have used some other programs, which I did.
>
>So it aint good reason for always having multiple partitons on the boot
>drive, particularly when that approach has other undesirable side effects.
>
>> I imagine I could have brought it to a
>> wizard and have him cast a spell on it too.
>
>Careful you dont go blind now.

Again with the irrelevant but touching concern for my vision.

>
>> My point was formatting is the fastest and most
>> sure way to see if the drive has a bad sector.
>
>Wrong.
>
>> If the format fails, I don't care what another program says about it.
>
>What you care about is your problem.

Oh you are so articulate in your responses.  Say, can you turn
the page in your "Responces For All Occasions" manual?
You seem to be repeating the same irrelevant drivel every other
time you type something.

>
>>>> Moved data files from C: and E: to my
>>>> second drive, and sent it in for replacement.
>
>>> Just as feasible with one partition.
>
>>>> Divided the new drive in the same way. Reinstalled Windows
>>>> and apps.   What was good is that I used the hard drive for
>>>> a few weeks after finding the problem, and trying the Format.
>>>> It didn't affect my other partitions to test it.
>
>>> It aint the only way to test that possibility.
>
>>>> And trying to get an RMA number from Maxtor was a lot easier
>>>> when I explained that I used Scandisk in both Windows and booting
>>>> up to the command prompt, and tried to format the drive.  The
>>>> person on the phone didn't want to admit that the drive _might_
>>>> be defective, but he had no choice when I let him know this.
>
>>> Its completely silly to be deciding on how to partition a drive based
>>> on what a single Maxtor employee may or may not have done.
>
>>> And it aint their option to refuse to issue an RMA anyway.
>
>> You have so much experience with getting RMA numbers from companies?
>
>Yep. And with a hard drive failure relatively recently too.

One?
>
>> They can refuse if they want, providing they have sufficient cause.
>
>And they dont with a hard drive that has bad sectors.

And how do you prove it has bad sectors?  They have rules
that the customer must follow to get an RMA.  It isn't a given
that they have to issue one.

>
>And they cant refuse an RMA anyway,

yes they can

> they can only

>return the drive claiming that it doesnt have a fault.

Nope.  Since they have to pay their tech the time he or she
spend looking at it, and have to pay shipping to return it if
there is not defect, they have the right to refuse to issue the
RMA, if they can show that the customer is responsible for
the damage.

Imagine if you were the company, and someone called in to
say that his drive won't work anymore, and all that happened
was that his power supply had blown up, with smoke coming
out of it.  He had a repair shop replace the power supply, but
the drive is inoperable.  Are you going to issue an RMA to him
for that drive?  Or are you going to say that the damage from
the power supply is the reason the drive died?  If he wants to
send the drive in anyway, and pay for a replacement, then fine,
he gets the RMA.  If he says thats not fair, why should he have
to pay for a new drive, he's not going to pay you,  then no RMA.

>
>> I just eliminated most of their possible causes.
>
>Taint the only way to do that.

As I said, I didn't take it to the wizard for the spell "Detection
of Bad Sectors or Physical Defects"
>
>> Of course it wasn't like I would confess dropping a drive on the floor, not that I did.
>
>And the droid cant just refuse to issue you with an RMA by
>proclaiming to you over the phone that you must have dropped
>it. And even if you had dropped it, the fact that it fails the
>format proves SFA about you having dropped it anyway.

If I stated over the phone that I had dropped the drive, they
would certainly be able to deny giving me the RMA.  Same
as if you tell one that your laptop fell in the toilet and is dead,
they will say, "Sorry that is not covered."  Sure, if you want to
pay them to fix it, they will issue an RMA number, but they
don't have to if they can determine over the phone that it
is the customer's fault that the unit is inoperational.

>
>> But if that happened to someone, and they called for the
>> RMA number, and for some reason mentioned that they
>> had dropped the drive, I doubt they would get an RMA.
>
>Yes. But thats just true regardless of whether it fails a
>format or not, so your partition so you can do one on part
>of the drive would be completely useless in that situation.

????  So I can do one what on part of the drive????
>
>> By the way, I have been on the phone with several companies a
>> couple dozen time for RMAs where I worked.  It is like pulling teeth
>> with some of them.  I like to have a little Novacaine to use on them.
>
>Makes a lot more sense to deal with operations which
>dont operate like that than it does to use multiple partitions
>on your hard drive so you can get RMAs out of those.
>
>And multiple partitions wont help anyway, as should
>be obvious from the dropped hard drive situation.

That was an example I used to refute your blanket statement
that the company has no right to refuse to issue an RMA.
It is not in any way connected to my partitions.

Multi-partitions != RMA
Dropped drive != RMA
Bad sectors = RMA
>
>