🚀 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.
>
>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. "weren't right"?

>
>> 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.

How many times are you going repeat this in a day? We see all your posts.

>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. So
what are you gaining really?

>
>> 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.

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

>
>> 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.

>
>> 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.

>
>>> 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.


Bla, Bla, Bla.

>
>> 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?

>
>>> 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?

Volume in drive E is GAMES
Volume Serial Number is 154B-1A1B
Directory of E:\

ATTILA20       <DIR>        02-07-98  3:16a Attila20
BALLONS        <DIR>        02-16-98  2:30p Ballons
BARBIE         <DIR>        02-07-98 11:39a BARBIE
BOG2           <DIR>        03-24-98 11:46a BOG2
BOWEP          <DIR>        02-16-98  2:21p BOWEP
CENTIP~1       <DIR>        02-05-98  2:14p Centipede
CHECKERS       <DIR>        02-16-98  2:32p Checkers
CHINES~1       <DIR>        02-16-98  1:38p Chinese Checkers
CONNECT4       <DIR>        02-16-98  2:05p Connect4
DDSOL          <DIR>        02-09-98  1:15p DDSOL
DESCENT        <DIR>        02-07-98  3:01a Descent
DOMINOS        <DIR>        02-16-98  2:07p Dominos
DUKE3D         <DIR>        06-21-98  6:55p DUKE3D
EUCKRE         <DIR>        02-16-98  2:12p Euckre
GEOMETRY       <DIR>        02-12-98  2:07p Geometry
GINRUM~1       <DIR>        02-16-98  2:40p Gin Rummy
GIZMOS         <DIR>        04-06-98 11:30a Gizmos
HOVER          <DIR>        02-07-98 10:56a HOVER
INTHE1ST       <DIR>        02-07-98 11:59a INTHE1ST
MATH           <DIR>        02-12-98  2:36p Math
PINOCHLE       <DIR>        02-16-98  2:25p Pinochle
QUATRA         <DIR>        03-07-98 10:07p QUATRA
RESCUE         <DIR>        05-31-99 10:59p Rescue
RETURN~1       <DIR>        03-21-98  5:43a Return of Arcade
SCAT101        <DIR>        02-16-98  2:28p Scat101
SCRABOUT       <DIR>        02-16-98  2:27p Scrabout
VLEAPER        <DIR>        02-07-98  3:16a Vleaper
WEPPB          <DIR>        02-05-98 10:11a WEPPB
WHEREI~1 0     <DIR>        02-07-98 11:49a Where in the World is Carmen
Sandiego v3.0
WHEREI~2 0     <DIR>        02-07-98 11:55a Where in the USA is Carmen
Sandiegov3.0
         0 file(s)              0 bytes
        32 dir(s)     234,684,416 bytes free


>
>> 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.

Well on his there is.

>
>> 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.

So type DIR and read the label.

>
>> 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.

No, he only has to type DIR and read the label.

>
>> This point is moot,
>
>Nope.

Small vocabulary you have.

>
>> even though you have valid arguments on some others.
>
>This one too.

To quote you "Nope".

>
>>>> 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
>>> 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.


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.

That's why drives have labels.

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

Why not?

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

That's the only place your arguments had any meaning! Geez, get with the
program.

>
>> 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.

And so should you.

>
>> 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.

So what's your problem?

>
>> 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.

Hey, you don't suppose batch files are shortcuts do you.

>
>>>> 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.

>
>>>> 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.

>
>> 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.

>
>>>> 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.

He has moved on, so should you.

>
>>>> 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.

>
>> Plus there's always the chance that you could have it mess up a drive.
>
>Just as true with your multiple partitions too.

Only *IF* he changes them.

>
>>>> 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.


Your opinion is your problem.

>
>>>> 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.


Your opinion is your problem.

>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>>>> 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.

You probably didn't format it right.

>
>> 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.

>
>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.

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

Taint?

>
>> 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.

Not that he did.

>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.

Bla, Bla, Bla...

>
>And multiple partitions wont help anyway, as should
>be obvious from the dropped hard drive situation.
>
>

Which it wasn't.