🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

> Don't use defects in the OS to support your opinions.

Dont try to order me about.

>>> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

>>>> 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.

> 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.

> Are you Bill Clinton by any chance?

See above on your eyesight.

>>>>> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

>>> 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.