🚀 go-pugleaf

Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>
>Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote in message
>news:7pbg26$1p8$1@mochi.lava.net...
>> 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! What was lost in this thread is the original posters problem.

>
>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.

>
>> 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. You name them just like you do with
folders.

>
>> 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.

>
>> 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.

>
>> 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.

>
>> 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.

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. Not to mention the need to defrag the entire drive when only one
partition needs it.

>
>
>