🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

> You name them just like you do with folders.

Nope, quite differently in fact.

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

>>> 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.

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.

> 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.