🚀 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.
>
>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.
What is the difference, really?  I find it easier to find stuff this
way, because I know which drive I have certain things on.
Rather than having another level of subdirectories, I use the
different drives.  So simple.  Two points, I have two hard drives,
so there would be C: and D: anyway, and my system shipped
with the original Win95, so no FAT32 allowed then.  With
FAT16 I always want a small C: drive because of the cluster
size.  8K is quite large enough.  If I had FAT32, maybe I would
have a larger C: drive

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.  If I had simply one drive
with one huge partition, I would not be able to do that.
So that alone convinces me that two hard drives, partitioned
to several small drives is better that one large drive
with one large partition.

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.
Moved data files from C: and E: to my second drive, and sent
it in for replacement.  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.
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.

And the bonus was that I upgraded from the original 1.6GB
drive to a great 2.4GB for only  $80.  Wow, another 800MB
for such a low price.  God, I could buy a new 4GB drive for
that price now, or a used 1.1GB one from the .forsale ng
out here.  Doesn't that feel good.
--
Aaron Marks