🚀 go-pugleaf

Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>
>Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote in message
news:7pgnc8$dd7$1@mochi.lava.net...
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Todd <Post_to_group_only@nospam.com> 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.
>
>>>> 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.

Was it?

>
>> Don't use defects in the OS to support your opinions.
>
>Dont try to order me about.

Shut up!!!

>
>>>> 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.

How many characters do you need to label a drive GAMES or PROGRAMS or APPS
or DOS622.

>
>> When did MS change it so we have to
>> call tech support to change a volume label?
>
>Careful you dont go blind now.

That's real intelligent.

>
>> 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.

You apparently don't actually use Win9x or know how to use it.

>
>> 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.

More nonsense.

>
>>>>> 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 wasn't the situation being discussed tho.
>
>>>> Nor was wether or not partitions are good or bad.
>
>>> Fraid so.
>
>> OK, are partitions good or bad?
>
>If you dont run multiple OSs, a single partition per
>drive has lots of advantages when running FAT32.
>Didn't think I had to fully explain that one to you.

Please do, as I'm just a newbie looking for some pointers here.

>
>> I have partitions on my PC. Do you have any partitions on yours?
>
>One per drive.

That's one too many for you to keep track of.

>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>> That's why backups are not kept on the same physical drive.
>
>>> Nope.
>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>> Are you Bill Clinton by any chance?
>
>See above on your eyesight.

More nonsense.

>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>> Right, SFA--Simplest Fix Available, lol
>
>See above on your eyesight.

More nonsense.

>
>>>>>> 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.


Now I really need an explanation on this one.

>
>> 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.

Oh so now we need 3rd party software for housekeeping.

>
>> 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.

You don't turn it on much do you?

>
>> 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.

Yes, they do! So there.

>
>>>> 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.


I still a newbie remember, so explain if you can.