🚀 go-pugleaf

Todd <Post_to_group_only@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:rrqc9e4iboh33@corp.supernews.com...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>>>> Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote
>>>>>>> Hyper wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote

I've flushed all your childish stuff and ignored your posts with
nothing but childish stuff. There isnt much left, but what there is...


>>> although I have seen others with one
>>> partition completely fill their hard drive.

>> Got absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed. In
>> that situation the drive will fill even quicker with multiple partitions
>> because the free space is scattered across the multiple partitions.
>> And its much more likely that one partition will be full with free
>> space in others when the initial partition sizes werent right.

> Quicker? Where files are stored on a physical
> HD has nothing to do with how quickly you fill it.

Fraid so. With multiple partitions you often get a situation
where one partition has no free space, with the physical
drive still having free space, particularly when you attempt
a tidy use of partitions for particular types of files.

>>> So they need a second hard drive,

>> And when you have multiple partitions on the boot drive,
>> the partition lettering will change when you add the
>> second hard drive if its got a primary dos partition on it.

>> They wont if there is only a single partition on the boot drive.

> All other physical drives will move up a letter. Zip, Jaz, Tape, CD, Ram
> you name it, the drives are now one letter higher by adding another drive.

Not if you have chosen to lock their letters. You can
with removables, you cant with hard drive partitions.

> So what are you gaining really?

The letters dont change if you fix the letters the removables use.

>>> 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 scattered thru the multiple partitions.

> Sooner? If you don't put anything in the boot
> drive except the OS, how will it fill up sooner?

That wasnt what was being discussed. What was being discussed
was having extra partitions on that boot drive, for the non OS files.

>>> 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.

> Not likely to happen since you don't get free space info
> about a drive your not installing to, only the one you are.

Very likely when they are aware that some of the
partitions on that drive have free space and they keep
getting the system complaining about lack of free space.

>>> 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.

> No, when it's full...it's full.

And its gunna be full later with a single partition.

>>> 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.

> Why do suppose that is?

Its mostly due to the flip flopping MS has been doing on how
long they will continue to add to Win9x instead of ending up
with a single replacement for both Win9x and NT.

>>>> 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.

> You don't know how to type DIR?

Might well have been doing that before you were born.

Reams of your juvenalia flushed. Again.

>>>>> 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.

> In that case you replace the second one
> since it's the smaller physical drive anyway.

Not necessarily, it can make economic sense to replace them
both with a much bigger drive and you'll normally get a rather
faster drive, which would normally be best as the boot drive.

>>>>> 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.

> That's small by today's standards.

Still get people buying them. I think it makes more sense
to buy rather larger drives than that, but not everyone does,
and plenty of new systems come with drives of that size too.

>>> Only because I have moved from WinNT 4.0
>>> to WinNT 5.0, which can see FAT32 drives.

>> And many aren't prepared to use it yet.

> Same is true of FAT32.

Nope, not many at all now stick with FAT16. Specially on those large drives.

>>>>> 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.

> You can't read the future any more than a psychic can.

Never said I could, thats when PM can be handy.

>>>>> 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.

> You probably didn't format it right.

Wrong.

>>> They can refuse if they want, providing they have sufficient cause.

>> And they dont with a hard drive that has bad sectors.

> Bad sectors are normal.

New ones aint.

>> And they cant refuse an RMA anyway, they can only
>> return the drive claiming that it doesnt have a fault.

> As they no doubt did.

They didnt.