🚀 go-pugleaf

Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>
>Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote in message
>news:7pdocr$esi$1@mochi.lava.net...
>> 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, although I have seen others
with one partition completely fill their hard drive.  So they need
a second hard drive, and then move something to it so
there is room for the system to work.  The hardest part was
explaining to them that they ran out of drive space.
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.
>
>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.  Or use WinNT, and you have
the option to change drive letters.  That is a very good feature.
>
>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.  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.  My encyclopedia
and movie/music guides are on D: REFERENCE.  Why is this not
as easy as using the same directory names on one drive.  This point
is moot, even though you have valid arguments on some others.
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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?
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.
>
>> 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.

>
>> 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.
Only because I have moved from WinNT 4.0 to WinNT 5.0,
which can see FAT32 drives.
>
>> If I had FAT32, maybe I would have a larger C: drive
>
>That 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.
>
>> 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.  Plus there's always the
chance that you could have it mess up a drive.
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
I imagine I could have brought it to a wizard and have him cast
a spell on it too.  My point was formatting is the fastest and
most sure way to see if the drive has a bad sector.  If the
format fails, I don't care what another program says about it.
By the way, Norton Disk Doctor didn't detect the bad sector.
>
>> 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?  They can refuse if they want, providing they have
sufficient cause.  I just eliminated most of their possible causes.
Of course it wasn't like I would confess dropping a drive on the
floor, not that I 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.
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.
--
Aaron Marks
>
>
>