🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

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'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.

> 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.

> Rather than having another level of subdirectories,
> I use the different drives.  So simple.

So much more limited.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.