🚀 go-pugleaf

Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>
>Todd <Post_to_group_only@nospam.com> wrote in
>message news:rrkt80ge3uk62@corp.supernews.com...
>> 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.
>
>> What was lost in this thread is the original posters problem.
>
>The discussion had moved on from there, with Hyper
>asking that quite specific question about partitioning.
>
>>> 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.
Don't use defects in the OS to support your opinions.
>
>> 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?  When did MS change
it so we have to call tech support to change a volume label?

My point is that you can name a drive just like you can name
a folder.  Not that you use the exact same movements for each.
Didn't think I had to fully explain that one to you.
>
>>>> 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?  I have partitions on my PC.
Do you have any partitions on yours?
>
>>>> 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?  Are you Bill Clinton by any chance?
>
>>>> 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
>
>>>> 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.  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.  With one drive, you are constantly writing
and deleting files on that drive.  No way around it.
I keep my working files on one partition, and it does
get fragmented, the others generally don't.

>
>> 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.
--
Aaron Marks
>
>