🚀 go-pugleaf

Rod Speed wrote in message <894v3.5278$O_1.36421@ozemail.com.au>...
>
>Daniel Grimwood <reaper@crystal.uwa.edu.au> wrote
>in message news:7pidlm$aff$1@enyo.uwa.edu.au...
>> Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
>> How can the single partition drive be filled, but the
>> the multiple partioned drive's c: still have room?
>
>It is theoretically possible due to the cluster size. With the
>multiple partitions having smaller clusters, less wasted space.

Do you theoretically breath air?

>
>Its pretty theoretical tho when you get the other effect, the total free
>space on the drive being scattered over the multiple partitions and
>with the FAT32 we were discussing how to partition the drive with.


Breathing more of that theoretical air?

>
>>> Other than having sizes of drives set right, what is limited?
>>> At the DOS prompt, 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.
>>> With one drive, you have to continuously retype in the entire
>>> path for which directory you are going to.  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.
>
>> Try doskey, 4dos, or ndos.  You can then
>> use the up arrow to get previous commands.
>
>Or toss the entire dos command line in the bin for that sort of thing.

Better yet, toss your entire system.

>
>> As for my opinion on a separate partition for data, it's a good idea,
>
>I'm not convinced that its is anymore. It really doesnt have any advantage
>over the much more flexible approach of keeping that data in a single
>directory tree under a data directory in the root of a single partition.

Your not convinced the sky is blue.

>
>> but not necessary.  Regardless of how it's done, you should
>> keep a backup anyway, so when it comes to reformatting c:,
>> it's not too hard to get your data from the backup.
>
>And drives inevitably die or get stolen.

I wish yours would.

>
>> If you have a 2nd partition for data, you would still keep
>> a backup, just in case the whole drive gets trashed, but
>> you wouldn't need to do anything during the actual reinstall.
>
>Sure, but its no harder to delete everything
>from the single partition except the data tree.

Speaking of trees...anyone got some rope?

>
>> So the only difference would be that for a single partition,
>> you would have to copy the backup stuff back.
>
>You dont necessarily even have to do that.

What, you gonna will it there?

>
>> Personally, I keep my data on a separate drive, and backup to c:, so
>> I don't have a problem regardless of how the first drive is partitioned.
>
>It can make more sense to have a data tree on the boot drive and use
>the separate drive as a fast backup destination. The main boot drive is
>usually the highest performance drive and if your data is of any size,
>you will normally get rather better performance with it on the main drive.

Thanks for the tip, I would have never guessed.

>
>> As for a separate partition for apps, I don't see any point, unless
>> they're DOS based, which tend to confide themselves to their own
>> directory trees.  Seeing we're talking about Win95 though, usually
>> when you delete the registry, you'll have to reinstall all your apps
>> anyway, so their location is pretty much irrelevent.  Most have a
>> tendency also to overwite configuration files during reinstall, so
>> you would have to back these up regardless of what partition it is.
>
>And they mostly install themselves by default
>in the Progam Files tree off the root now too.

Wrong! There is always a opportunity to select somewhere else. Unless your
talking shitware you don't need anyway.

>
>Whenever you dont use the default install location, there is always
>some risk that an install wart will bite you just because its nothing like
>as well debugged when using other than the default install location.

Bullshit!!!

>
>Which is what bit him in the first place.

More Bullshit!!! He reset the machine during the install process. As I
recall there is a period of inactivity with Quicktime's install. Hmmm, why
don't you try it and see.

>
>> For a separate partition for games, maybe yes, but not for me.
>> I say yes because games tend to put the save-games in their own
>> directories, and you won't want to lose them.  Even if you reinstall
>> the game, you won't wipe the save-games.  It's not hard however
>> to work out where save-games are, and it doesn't take long to back
>> them up, hence it's not for me.  If you had lots of little games, each
>> with their own save-games in their own directories, then the effort
>> involved in backing these up might warrant a separate partition.
>
>Maybe, but there is a lot to be said for using a proper
>backup app. Semi manual backups can bite, its very
>easy to forget something and its too late when its gone.

Same is true with a single partition too.

>
>> Personally, I keep my games on the second drive,
>> mainly for performance reasons, so for again for
>> me it doesn't matter what happens to the first drive.
>
>Yeah, but lets not forget that most only have a single drive.

Absolutely correct. Hence Partitions!!!

>
>> As for the fragmentation arguement before, then whether it's
>> one partition or many, the OS and apps and games take up
>> the first part of the partition, and are fairly static.  The temp
>> files and documents etc come later, and these are usually the
>> only bits that need defragging.  It's only a problem if you install
>> something to an already fragmented drive, which shouldn't happen
>> anyway, so fragmentation doesn't really affect either arguement.
>
>Specially with the very large drives being discussed.

I don't suppose you ever upgrade, right?

>
>
>