🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

>> 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.

> 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.

>> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> This point is moot,

Nope.

> even though you have valid arguments on some others.

This one too.

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

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

> At the DOS prompt,

Hardly anyone uses the DOS prompt anymore. Dinosaur stuff.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

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

And many arent prepared to use it yet.

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

> Plus there's always the chance that you could have it mess up a drive.

Just as true with your multiple partitions too.

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

> 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.

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

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

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

> I just eliminated most of their possible causes.

Taint the only way to do that.

> 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.

> 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.

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