🚀 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

This part is starting to look neat.
>
>>>>>>>> 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.

And your point is?  That part of the thread hasn't been talked about
for the last dozen responses.
>
>> Don't use defects in the OS to support your opinions.
>
>Dont try to order me about.


Grow up too.  Just because you don't have a valid response
except to agree, you get pouty.
>
>>>> 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.

Right, you have to right click on the drive, choose properties
and then change the volume label.  So awkward.  And how
many letters do you think are in "GAMES" or "DATA".
I would use the same directory names for such a general
area if I used you  'one large drive' model.  Get over it.
>
>> When did MS change it so we have to
>> call tech support to change a volume label?
>
>Careful you dont go blind now.

?????
>
>> 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.

Your point here is wrong, just plain wrong.
When you open My Computer on the desktop, what do you see?
My system displays a windows with the icons for the drives.
And guess what is under each drive icon?  The volume label.
So tell me, which is "less visible".  Even in explorer the
volume label is more visible that a directory name in
the root directory of C: drive.  The volume label is right next
to a drive icon, again, and is visible even if the root directory
of the drive is not expanded in the left pane.  What is your
definition of more visible?
>
>> 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.

If I was blind, how could I see above, not that seeing a
warning about going blind explains your point any.
>
>>>>> 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.
>
>>>> Nor was wether or not partitions are good or bad.
>
>>> Fraid so.

I thought you just said above that the discussion was about
dual booting when the guy had FAT32.  Here you are saying
that the discussion is about the good, the bad, and the partitioned.
>
>> 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.
>
>> I have partitions on my PC. Do you have any partitions on yours?
>
>One per drive.
>
>>>>>> 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.

Yes.
>
>> Are you Bill Clinton by any chance?
>
>See above on your eyesight.

Oh, I see, you are an opthamologist.
>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>>>> 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.

Oh, that is why a drive that has half the space available
always has most of the data in the first half of the drive.
Free space doesn't matter as much as you think.  Ever
look at the details view of Defrag?  On any disk that is
not full, there is almost no data at the very end of the disk,
where the last bastions of free space would be dug in.

>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.

Again, you don't appear to understand how the free space is used.
Ever see a drive with data spread evenly across the surface,
when only a third of the clusters are full?  Neither have I.
>
>> 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.

Maybe you should see the lines you wrote above about going blind.
If you can figure out what you meant, let the rest of us know.
>
>>>> 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.

Yes it is, but I didn't have time to write a thesis paper.
>
>