🚀 go-pugleaf

Plato <25@62.4> wrote in message news:37BA0B0F.5145@62.4...
> Rod Speed wrote:

>>>> It eliminates the problem of the drive lettering changing when you put another
>>>> hard drive into the system, if only as a destination for quick backups etc.

>>> Thats why on every new system or redone system the cdrom get
>>> to be drive R and any other IDE nonHDD get letters after that

>> Doesnt help with a boot drive with more than one partition
>> when you add a hard drive with a primary dos partition on it.

> sure it does,

Nope.

> your not going to reach drive R unless you have
> what, 18 partitions or so which is so unlikely no?

The letters the partitions on the main boot drive get change when you
put another hard drive in the system which has a primary dos partition.

Plato <25@62.4> wrote in message news:37BA0C41.289C@62.4...
just more childish stuff.

Hyper <jimb@snip.net> wrote in message news:37B9FF4E.32F52290@snip.net...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> Hyper <jimb@snip.net> 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???

>> Yeah, and have in fact just done so relatively recently in fact.

>>> i'd split it up into maybe 3 partitions, one for
>>> windows, one for apps/games, and one for data.

>> There's no point in splitting them at all now. If you want
>> simplistic backups or something, its easy enough to have
>> say the data in one tree under the root instead.

>> Then you dont have to get the partition sizes right, and you
>> dont have the small risk of apps not being as well debugged
>> when installing on other than the C drive that just bit him.

>>> two would be ok also, one for windows and one for apps/data

>> Completely pointless in my opinion.

> it makes it easier to trouble shoot, reformatting
> and installing windows becomes easier,

I'm not convinced. With the apps on the second
partition, you'll have to uninstall them and reinstall
them again if you reformat the C drive and reinstall Win.

> if windows manages to damage something (i've seen it happen to
> me), and you lose your C partition then you don't lose everything.

I think you have to backup the data that matters properly anyway, just
because hard drives die and you'll lose both partitions in that case.

> it is in general safer in my opinion

I'm notice convinced there is any real increased safety with more than
one partition, even if you hope for the best and never backup at all.

In some ways there is more risk of a problem unless you backup the
partition table because if that gets buggered, most people wont be
able to restore it so you can get access to the second partition again.
Rather easier to restore the partition table to something usable if there is
only a single partition because there's only one possible partition structure.

And if you want increased safety, there is only really one viable
approach, proper backups of what you'll slash your wrists if you lose.

Tom MacIntyre <tmacinty@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:37b9ee2d.70889486@news1.ns.sympatico.ca...
> Plato <25@62.4> wrote:
>
> >Rod Speed wrote:
> >>
> >> >> It eliminates the problem of the drive lettering changing when you
put another
> >> >> hard drive into the system, if only as a destination for quick
backups etc.
> >>
> >> > Thats why on every new system or redone system the cdrom get
> >> > to be drive R and any other IDE nonHDD get letters after that
> >>
> >> Doesnt help with a boot drive with more than one partition
> >> when you add a hard drive with a primary dos partition on it.
> >
> >sure it does, your not going to reach drive R unless you have what, 18
> >partitions or so which is so unlikely no?
>
> My CD was at drive O once, for awhile...
>
> Tom

I have a drive Z, but only 6 partitions plus cd-rom and internal zip drive.

Doug Ramage

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.

>
>
>

tom parker wrote in message <7pa1p4$32i$1@ffx2nh5.news.uu.net>...
>Running win 95 with fat 16.  Have 12 gig hard drive divided into 6 two gig
>partitions C through H.  (I being my cdrom drive.)  Well here is what
>happened.
>
>
>            Had adobe Pagemaker V.65 and Photo Shop loaded on C drive.
Well
>it was getting pretty full so I decided to move it to a drive that was
>empty.  This being f drive.  The first thing I did was delete it out of C
>drive.  Did this through add remove programs in control panel.  While doing
>this it said there were some shared files do i want to delete them?  I said
>no to all.
>
>            Next step, load Adobe pagemaker V.65 and Photo shop into F
>drive.  Went through the process of installation and when it ask which
>directory to put it in i chose (F).  After all the files and so on and so
>forth were installed it ask about quick time.  This is probably used by
>adobe or something.  Well anyway it ask if I wanted to delete the existing
>version and install this one I said yes.  so it installed Quick time.  Next
>it ask if I wanted to restart the computer I said yes.
>
>            Well I restarted and this is the screen I got.  A fatal
>exception OD has occured at IF77:00000032.  The current application will be
>terminated.  Windows will not start.  I can only go into windows through
the
>safe mode.  I have a start up disk I made in add remove programs but there
>is no cdrom driver on it.  So I can't reinstall windows from cd.  but then
>again maybe this isn't the route to take.

Sounds like the problem wasn't with the uninstall, but instead the
reinstall, since it never finished with installing QuickTime. Did you try
pressing F8 during boot without using the floppy, and accessing safe mode
that way? While your in safe mode, run scandisk to check for drive errors,
then try rebooting normally afterwards. It's possible only one critical file
was damaged and once removed you may be able boot normally. If not then
reinstall windows.

>
>            Maybe it is something with the shared files or the quick time.
>Remeber I said don't delete the shared files and I did say delete the
>exsisting version of quick time is it shared or what?  I know i should have
>left everything  in C drive and left well enough alone.  But anyway this is
>the problem.  If anyone out there can help it would be greatly appreciated.
>THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>

Yes, QuickTime is shared among, just about any games from Borland, and other
stuff like some encyclopedias for example and apparently PageMaker since
that's what was installing it.

"Aaron" <chaaron@lave.net> wrote:

>
>Plato <25@62.4> wrote in message <37BA0B0F.5145@62.4>...
>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>> >> It eliminates the problem of the drive lettering changing when you put
>another
>>> >> hard drive into the system, if only as a destination for quick backups
>etc.
>>>
>>> > Thats why on every new system or redone system the cdrom get
>>> > to be drive R and any other IDE nonHDD get letters after that
>>>
>>> Doesnt help with a boot drive with more than one partition
>>> when you add a hard drive with a primary dos partition on it.
>>
>>sure it does, your not going to reach drive R unless you have what, 18
>>partitions or so which is so unlikely no?
>
>Shows the stupidity of using the letters for drive names anyway.  You can
>put a label on each drive, but you can't access them with the label. Why?
>
>That is one of the nice things I remember from Linux, and the little Unix
>I saw in the military.  You create a partition, either the whole hard disk,
>or only part of it, and give it a volume label.  Then you can access it
>with that volume label.
>
>Why didn't Microsoft think of this when they started?
>--
>Aaron Marks
>
>
One example of how being different for the sake of it, if that's what
happened, isn't always the best way. Wrestling with changing drive
assignments, given the way Windows works, IS not fun.

Tom

I smell an overnight computer wizard.

Rod Speed <rodspeed@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:KDwu3.4394$O_1.26477@ozemail.com.au...
>
> 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.
>
>
> The discussion had moved on from there, with Hyper
> asking that quite specific question about partitioning.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Fraid so.
>
>
> Nope.
>
>
> Thats often easier said than done.
>
> 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.
>
>

Hyper <jimb@snip.net> wrote:

>
>> > A reinstall-over is all that is usually necessary when Windows is fully refreshed...
>> 
>> Nope, a clean reinstall on a freshly formatted partition often
>> produces a much cleaner and more stable install. Specially if
>> there has been much installing and uninstalling of apps to try them.
>
>he's saying that after you reinstall windows clean, you reinstall the apps over
>them selves to refresh the registry and any dll's that might need to be in
>windows\system, not installing windows over itself

Yes, that's what I meant...

Tom

>> 
>> > that will just set the links and registry entries while over-writing
>> > application original files only, leaving original configuration files, if any...
>> 
>> Just as true with a single partition instead of 2 or 3.
>
>
>-- 
>My heart goes out to the families of Gene Hart and Dimitri Tertyshny
>Who both died tragically during the month of July, in two seperate instances
>May both of your souls rest in peace
>Personal page -- http://members.xoom.com/Hyper_Hands/

"Mr. T" <no@no.com> wrote:

>I smell an overnight computer wizard.

Just someone who won't accept that others' computer requirements may
be quite different, and that there can be right, wrong, and different,
with different being the biggest chunk of the pie. My opinion is that
FAT32 has removed probably the biggest motivation for multiple
partitions, but there are others - they can be personal, and they can
be preferential, and they can supercede what some expert has put in a
book or on a web-site, and they are up to the individual.

Tom

>
>Rod Speed <rodspeed@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>news:KDwu3.4394$O_1.26477@ozemail.com.au...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> The discussion had moved on from there, with Hyper
>> asking that quite specific question about partitioning.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>

Todd wrote:
> 
> partition. That seems to be what's best for you. You will no doubt forget
> where you put your files or loose your temper installing new hardware
> anyway. :)

LOL

<snip>
> 
> What actually matters is what rational advantages
> and disadvantages the two approach have.

What actually matters is that there is only one way to do something,your
way and that you will go to the ends of the earth to make that point.
Point taken so give it a break please.Thanks.
ClydeH

Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote in message news:7pgnc8$dd7$1@mochi.lava.net...
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Todd <Post_to_group_only@nospam.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote
>>>>>> Hyper wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote

This part is starting to look neat.
>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>>> 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.
>
>What was being discussed was how to partition
>a drive when running FAT32 Win95 or Win98.

And your point is?  That part of the thread hasn't been talked about
for the last dozen responses.
>
>> Don't use defects in the OS to support your opinions.
>
>Dont try to order me about.


Grow up too.  Just because you don't have a valid response
except to agree, you get pouty.
>
>>>> 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?
>
>Nope, the volume label is rather more restricted than the directory
>name with long file names. And more awkward to change too.

Right, you have to right click on the drive, choose properties
and then change the volume label.  So awkward.  And how
many letters do you think are in "GAMES" or "DATA".
I would use the same directory names for such a general
area if I used you  'one large drive' model.  Get over it.
>
>> When did MS change it so we have to
>> call tech support to change a volume label?
>
>Careful you dont go blind now.

?????
>
>> My point is that you can name a drive just like you can name a folder.
>
>My point is that your 'just like' is wrong. And that
>while you can certainly name a drive, that name
>you have given it is far less visible than a root
>directory name. Your 'just like' is just plain wrong.

Your point here is wrong, just plain wrong.
When you open My Computer on the desktop, what do you see?
My system displays a windows with the icons for the drives.
And guess what is under each drive icon?  The volume label.
So tell me, which is "less visible".  Even in explorer the
volume label is more visible that a directory name in
the root directory of C: drive.  The volume label is right next
to a drive icon, again, and is visible even if the root directory
of the drive is not expanded in the left pane.  What is your
definition of more visible?
>
>> Not that you use the exact same movements for each.
>> Didn't think I had to fully explain that one to you.
>
>See above on going blind.

If I was blind, how could I see above, not that seeing a
warning about going blind explains your point any.
>
>>>>> 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.

I thought you just said above that the discussion was about
dual booting when the guy had FAT32.  Here you are saying
that the discussion is about the good, the bad, and the partitioned.
>
>> OK, are partitions good or bad?
>
>If you dont run multiple OSs, a single partition per
>drive has lots of advantages when running FAT32.
>Didn't think I had to fully explain that one to you.
>
>> I have partitions on my PC. Do you have any partitions on yours?
>
>One per drive.
>
>>>>>> 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?
>
>Nope.

Yes.
>
>> Are you Bill Clinton by any chance?
>
>See above on your eyesight.

Oh, I see, you are an opthamologist.
>
>>>>>> 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
>
>See above on your eyesight.
>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>Partions become fragmented quickest when there is less free
>space. A single partition for the whole drive inevitably sees more free
>space in the partition, so fragmentation is rather less of a problem.

Oh, that is why a drive that has half the space available
always has most of the data in the first half of the drive.
Free space doesn't matter as much as you think.  Ever
look at the details view of Defrag?  On any disk that is
not full, there is almost no data at the very end of the disk,
where the last bastions of free space would be dug in.

>
>> 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.
>
>Yes, but a decent defragger doesnt mindlessly move that stuff around much too.
>
>> With one drive, you are constantly writing and
>> deleting files on that drive.  No way around it.
>
>Yes, but if its got plenty of free space, and thats common with a single
>partition for the big drives we are discussing, they dont fragment much.

Again, you don't appear to understand how the free space is used.
Ever see a drive with data spread evenly across the surface,
when only a third of the clusters are full?  Neither have I.
>
>> I keep my working files on one partition, and it
>> does get fragmented, the others generally don't.
>
>And single partitions for the whole large drive
>being discussed dont get fragmented much either.

Maybe you should see the lines you wrote above about going blind.
If you can figure out what you meant, let the rest of us know.
>
>>>> 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.
>
>Its more complicated than that.

Yes it is, but I didn't have time to write a thesis paper.
>
>

> > A reinstall-over is all that is usually necessary when Windows is fully refreshed...
> 
> Nope, a clean reinstall on a freshly formatted partition often
> produces a much cleaner and more stable install. Specially if
> there has been much installing and uninstalling of apps to try them.

he's saying that after you reinstall windows clean, you reinstall the apps over
them selves to refresh the registry and any dll's that might need to be in
windows\system, not installing windows over itself
> 
> > that will just set the links and registry entries while over-writing
> > application original files only, leaving original configuration files, if any...
> 
> Just as true with a single partition instead of 2 or 3.


-- 
My heart goes out to the families of Gene Hart and Dimitri Tertyshny
Who both died tragically during the month of July, in two seperate instances
May both of your souls rest in peace
Personal page -- http://members.xoom.com/Hyper_Hands/

Hyper <jimb@snip.net> wrote in message news:37BB908C.855BF641@snip.net...

>>> A reinstall-over is all that is usually necessary when Windows is fully refreshed...

>> Nope, a clean reinstall on a freshly formatted partition often
>> produces a much cleaner and more stable install. Specially if
>> there has been much installing and uninstalling of apps to try them.

> he's saying that after you reinstall windows clean, you
> reinstall the apps over them selves to refresh the registry

Most people do a clean install of windows by formatting
the partition. So there aint no registry to 'refresh'.

Even if you just delete the \Windows tree, the registry is still gone.

Most app installs use the registry to decide if its already installed.

> and any dll's that might need to be in windows\system,
> not installing windows over itself

Dunno, 'reinstall-over' appears to be saying that. Only he can
say for sure but your interpretation has some logical holes in it.

Rod, If you can't remember where you put your files, and you need to add
another HD every other day, week, or month, and use only one OS on your
system which supports FAT32 (pirated or not), then by all means use only one
partition. That seems to be what's best for you. You will no doubt forget
where you put your files or loose your temper installing new hardware
anyway. :)

<snipped a bunch of nonsense>

Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>
>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.

Haven't had a problem with size of partitions yet.  I personally
have never had that problem, although I have seen others
with one partition completely fill their hard drive.  So they need
a second hard drive, and then move something to it so
there is room for the system to work.  The hardest part was
explaining to them that they ran out of drive space.
With multiple partitions, I might run out of space on one of them,
although I haven't ever ran out of space.  But if I did, it would
only be on one drive, like G: Games, or H: Apps.  I still can
install other programs to another drive, and there is no problem
with Windows working, because drive C: is not full.
>
>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 said it, "when the second hard drive has a primary dos partition."
So don't have a second dos partition.  Or use WinNT, and you have
the option to change drive letters.  That is a very good feature.
>
>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.

Except the name of the directory that the program is in.  I said that
my drive are labeled according to what is in them.  G: is labeled GAMES.
Guess where Starcraft is loaded.  On drive G: GAMES.  My encyclopedia
and movie/music guides are on D: REFERENCE.  Why is this not
as easy as using the same directory names on one drive.  This point
is moot, even though you have valid arguments on some others.
>
>> 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.

Read the above responses.  I don't want to repeat it all.
>
>> Rather than having another level of subdirectories,
>> I use the different drives.  So simple.
>
>So much more limited.

Other than having sizes of drives set right, what is limited?
At the DOS prompt, I can go from a directory three levels
deep on one drive, to a directory five levels deep on another
drive.  I can go back and forth just by typing the drive letter.
With one drive, you have to continuously retype in the entire
path for which directory you are going to.  I have had to do this,
don't ask why, I don't remember specificly, but this was a
great benefit.  Sure, limited use of it, but better than the
alternative.
>
>> 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.

They don't anyway, there is no primary dos partition
on my second hard disk.

>
>> 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.

Sure if I bought the new 22GB drives, I probably would.
Only because I have moved from WinNT 4.0 to WinNT 5.0,
which can see FAT32 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.

Which when dual booting WinNT 4.0, you need FAT16, and
many small drives if you want WinNT to see them.
>
>> 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.

Yeah, if I want to add another step in trying to figure out how
to install WinNT.  Why bother with it.  Plus there's always the
chance that you could have it mess up a drive.
>
>> 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.

No, my opinion.
>
>> 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.

Yes, i could have used some other programs, which I did.
I imagine I could have brought it to a wizard and have him cast
a spell on it too.  My point was formatting is the fastest and
most sure way to see if the drive has a bad sector.  If the
format fails, I don't care what another program says about it.
By the way, Norton Disk Doctor didn't detect the bad sector.
>
>> 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.

You have so much experience with getting RMA numbers from
companies?  They can refuse if they want, providing they have
sufficient cause.  I just eliminated most of their possible causes.
Of course it wasn't like I would confess dropping a drive on the
floor, not that I did.  But if that happened to someone, and they
called for the RMA number, and for some reason mentioned
that they had dropped the drive, I doubt they would get an RMA.
By the way, I have been on the phone with several companies
a couple dozen time for RMAs where I worked.  It is like pulling
teeth with some of them.  I like to have a little Novacaine to use
on them.
--
Aaron Marks
>
>
>

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
>
>

Rod Speed wrote:
> 
> Hyper <jimb@snip.net> wrote in message news:37BB908C.855BF641@snip.net...
> 
> >>> A reinstall-over is all that is usually necessary when Windows is fully refreshed...
> 
> >> Nope, a clean reinstall on a freshly formatted partition often
> >> produces a much cleaner and more stable install. Specially if
> >> there has been much installing and uninstalling of apps to try them.
> 
> > he's saying that after you reinstall windows clean, you
> > reinstall the apps over them selves to refresh the registry
> 
> Most people do a clean install of windows by formatting
> the partition. So there aint no registry to 'refresh'.
> 
> Even if you just delete the \Windows tree, the registry is still gone.
> 
> Most app installs use the registry to decide if its already installed.
> 
> > and any dll's that might need to be in windows\system,
> > not installing windows over itself
> 
> Dunno, 'reinstall-over' appears to be saying that. Only he can
> say for sure but your interpretation has some logical holes in it.

um, no it doesn't.  you format your c; drive (you have more than one partition,
remember?), leaving your apps on d: or e: or whatever.  reinstall windows, have
registry with no additional software keys in it.  install apps over themselves,
registry keys added, missing dll's added, stuff works, windows clean, all good. 
now 1 partition only, format c:.  reinstall windows, reinstall software, hey,
where's my report?  crap i forgot to backup my word documents folder, off the
"Documents" tree in my extremely huge c: partition, this wouldn't never have
happened if i'd have made a partition for my documents and apps would it have?"
-- 
My heart goes out to the families of Gene Hart and Dimitri Tertyshny
Who both died tragically during the month of July, in two seperate instances
May both of your souls rest in peace
Personal page -- http://members.xoom.com/Hyper_Hands/

Rod Speed wrote in message <1awu3.4354$O_1.26500@ozemail.com.au>...
>
>Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote in message news:7pdp53$fcc$1@mochi.lava.net...
>> Plato <25@62.4> wrote in message <37BA0B0F.5145@62.4>...
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>>>>>> It eliminates the problem of the drive lettering changing when you put another
>>>>>> hard drive into the system, if only as a destination for quick backups etc.
>
>>>>> Thats why on every new system or redone system the cdrom get
>>>>> to be drive R and any other IDE nonHDD get letters after that
>
>>>> Doesnt help with a boot drive with more than one partition
>>>> when you add a hard drive with a primary dos partition on it.
>
>>> sure it does, your not going to reach drive R unless you
>>> have what, 18 partitions or so which is so unlikely no?
>
>> Shows the stupidity of using the letters for drive names anyway.
>
>True, its a real nuisance.
>
>> You can put a label on each drive, but you
>> can't access them with the label. Why?
>
>Its designed like that.

No shit Sherlock, you win the prize.  My mothers vacuum cleaner
was designed with a headlight too.  But stating that does not
explain why it was built that way.
>
>> That is one of the nice things I remember from Linux, and the
>> little Unix I saw in the military.  You create a partition, either
>> the whole hard disk, or only part of it, and give it a volume
>> label.  Then you can access it with that volume label.
>
>> Why didn't Microsoft think of this when they started?
>
>There are awkwiditys with any OS.
>
>You dont have to fart around recompiling the kernal, unlike unix quite a bit of the time.

Did I mention recompiling kernals and such?  I asked about
one simple feature that Microsoft, in its infinite wisdom, did
not implement.  And by now they wish they had.  Why do you
think they finally have the Active Directory?  Not to mention
the industry standard things like fully qualified domain names,
URLs, and UNCs.
Networked computers being able to use 26 resources is
a joke.

--
Aaron Marks
>
>

Mr. T <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:7ph2e3$prm$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...

> I smell an overnight computer wizard.

You have absolutely no idea how many are laughing themselves
silly at the spectacular fool you have just made of yourself.

I might just have been doing it since before you were even born boy.

> Rod Speed <rodspeed@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:KDwu3.4394$O_1.26477@ozemail.com.au...

Tom MacIntyre <tmacinty@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:37bc3d43.222231087@news1.ns.sympatico.ca...

> Just someone who won't accept that others'
> computer requirements may be quite different,

I've already said that some may well be,
most obviously when running multiple OSs.

It wasnt what was being discussed, how to partition
the boot drive when running FAT32 Win9x.

> and that there can be right, wrong,

And I provided plenty of rational reasons on the advantages
and disadvantages are of multiple partitions on the boot drive
when running FAT32 Win9x.

> and different, with different being the biggest chunk of the pie.

And when different has some real downsides, like with
multiple partitions on the boot drive with FAT32 Win9x, which
is pretty crude in how it allocates drive letters, it may well make
sense to stop using what made sense in the past with the limitations
of FAT16 and do it differently now with FAT32. With plenty of rational
reasons for changing the approach to partitioning the boot drive.

> My opinion is that FAT32 has removed probably
> the biggest motivation for multiple partitions,

It has indeed, and we are still stuck with the relatively crude approach
Win9x takes to the allocation of drive letters to hard drive partitions.
Which is quite easy to bypass by using a single partition on the boot drive.

> but there are others - they can be personal, and they can be preferential,

And the two alternatives can be rationally analysed on the
advantages and disadvantages of the two approach, one or
multiple partitions on the boot drive when running FAT32 Win9x.

> and they can supercede what some expert has put in a
> book or on a web-site, and they are up to the individual.

And many dont actually give a FRF what 'some
expert has put in a book or on a web-site'

What actually matters is what rational advantages
and disadvantages the two approach have.

In aus.computers Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote:

> With multiple partitions, I might run out of space on one of them,
> although I haven't ever ran out of space.  But if I did, it would
> only be on one drive, like G: Games, or H: Apps.  I still can
> install other programs to another drive, and there is no problem
> with Windows working, because drive C: is not full.

How can the single partition drive be filled, but the the multiple
partioned drive's c: still have room?  For this to occur, you must have
more stuff installed in the first case compared to the second, in which
case it's not a valid comparison.

> Other than having sizes of drives set right, what is limited?
> At the DOS prompt, I can go from a directory three levels
> deep on one drive, to a directory five levels deep on another
> drive.  I can go back and forth just by typing the drive letter.
> With one drive, you have to continuously retype in the entire
> path for which directory you are going to.  I have had to do this,
> don't ask why, I don't remember specificly, but this was a
> great benefit.  Sure, limited use of it, but better than the
> alternative.

Try doskey, 4dos, or ndos.  You can then use the up arrow to get previous
commands.


As for my opinion on a separate partition for data, it's a good idea, but
not necessary.  Regardless of how it's done, you should keep a backup
anyway, so when it comes to reformatting c:, it's not too hard to get your
data from the backup.  If you have a 2nd partition for data, you would
still keep a backup, just in case the whole drive gets trashed, but you
wouldn't need to do anything during the actual reinstall.  So the only
difference would be that for a single partition, you would have to copy
the backup stuff back.  Personally, I keep my data on a separate drive,
and backup to c:, so I don't have a problem regardless of how the first
drive is partitioned.

As for a separate partition for apps, I don't see any point, unless
they're DOS based, which tend to confide themselves to their own directory
trees.  Seeing we're talking about Win95 though, usually when you delete
the registry, you'll have to reinstall all your apps anyway, so their
location is pretty much irrelevent.  Most have a tendency also to overwite
configuration files during reinstall, so you would have to back these up
regardless of what partition it is.

For a separate partition for games, maybe yes, but not for me.  I say yes
because games tend to put the save-games in their own directories, and you
won't want to lose them.  Even if you reinstall the game, you won't wipe
the save-games.  It's not hard however to work out where save-games are,
and it doesn't take long to back them up, hence it's not for me.  If you
had lots of little games, each with their own save-games in their own
directories, then the effort involved in backing these up might warrant a
separate partition.  Personally, I keep my games on the second drive,
mainly for performance reasons, so for again for me it doesn't matter what
happens to the first drive.

As for the fragmentation arguement before, then whether it's one partition
or many, the OS and apps and games take up the first part of the
partition, and are fairly static.  The temp files and documents etc come
later, and these are usually the only bits that need defragging.  It's
only a problem if you install something to an already fragmented drive,
which shouldn't happen anyway, so fragmentation doesn't really affect
either arguement.

Daniel.

Daniel Grimwood <reaper@crystal.uwa.edu.au> wrote
in message news:7pidlm$aff$1@enyo.uwa.edu.au...
> Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote:

>> With multiple partitions, I might run out of space on one of
>> them, although I haven't ever ran out of space.  But if I did,
>> it would only be on one drive, like G: Games, or H: Apps.
>> I still can install other programs to another drive, and there is
>> no problem with Windows working, because drive C: is not full.

> How can the single partition drive be filled, but the
> the multiple partioned drive's c: still have room?

It is theoretically possible due to the cluster size. With the
multiple partitions having smaller clusters, less wasted space.

Its pretty theoretical tho when you get the other effect, the total free
space on the drive being scattered over the multiple partitions and
with the FAT32 we were discussing how to partition the drive with.

>> Other than having sizes of drives set right, what is limited?
>> At the DOS prompt, I can go from a directory three levels
>> deep on one drive, to a directory five levels deep on another
>> drive.  I can go back and forth just by typing the drive letter.
>> With one drive, you have to continuously retype in the entire
>> path for which directory you are going to.  I have had to do this,
>> don't ask why, I don't remember specificly, but this was a great
>> benefit.  Sure, limited use of it, but better than the alternative.

> Try doskey, 4dos, or ndos.  You can then
> use the up arrow to get previous commands.

Or toss the entire dos command line in the bin for that sort of thing.

> As for my opinion on a separate partition for data, it's a good idea,

I'm not convinced that its is anymore. It really doesnt have any advantage
over the much more flexible approach of keeping that data in a single
directory tree under a data directory in the root of a single partition.

> but not necessary.  Regardless of how it's done, you should
> keep a backup anyway, so when it comes to reformatting c:,
> it's not too hard to get your data from the backup.

And drives inevitably die or get stolen.

> If you have a 2nd partition for data, you would still keep
> a backup, just in case the whole drive gets trashed, but
> you wouldn't need to do anything during the actual reinstall.

Sure, but its no harder to delete everything
from the single partition except the data tree.

> So the only difference would be that for a single partition,
> you would have to copy the backup stuff back.

You dont necessarily even have to do that.

> Personally, I keep my data on a separate drive, and backup to c:, so
> I don't have a problem regardless of how the first drive is partitioned.

It can make more sense to have a data tree on the boot drive and use
the separate drive as a fast backup destination. The main boot drive is
usually the highest performance drive and if your data is of any size,
you will normally get rather better performance with it on the main drive.

> As for a separate partition for apps, I don't see any point, unless
> they're DOS based, which tend to confide themselves to their own
> directory trees.  Seeing we're talking about Win95 though, usually
> when you delete the registry, you'll have to reinstall all your apps
> anyway, so their location is pretty much irrelevent.  Most have a
> tendency also to overwite configuration files during reinstall, so
> you would have to back these up regardless of what partition it is.

And they mostly install themselves by default
in the Progam Files tree off the root now too.

Whenever you dont use the default install location, there is always
some risk that an install wart will bite you just because its nothing like
as well debugged when using other than the default install location.

Which is what bit him in the first place.

> For a separate partition for games, maybe yes, but not for me.
> I say yes because games tend to put the save-games in their own
> directories, and you won't want to lose them.  Even if you reinstall
> the game, you won't wipe the save-games.  It's not hard however
> to work out where save-games are, and it doesn't take long to back
> them up, hence it's not for me.  If you had lots of little games, each
> with their own save-games in their own directories, then the effort
> involved in backing these up might warrant a separate partition.

Maybe, but there is a lot to be said for using a proper
backup app. Semi manual backups can bite, its very
easy to forget something and its too late when its gone.

> Personally, I keep my games on the second drive,
> mainly for performance reasons, so for again for
> me it doesn't matter what happens to the first drive.

Yeah, but lets not forget that most only have a single drive.

> As for the fragmentation arguement before, then whether it's
> one partition or many, the OS and apps and games take up
> the first part of the partition, and are fairly static.  The temp
> files and documents etc come later, and these are usually the
> only bits that need defragging.  It's only a problem if you install
> something to an already fragmented drive, which shouldn't happen
> anyway, so fragmentation doesn't really affect either arguement.

Specially with the very large drives being discussed.

ClydeH <CC@TT.com> wrote in message news:37BC8A5B.6C44@TT.com...

>> What actually matters is what rational advantages
>> and disadvantages the two approach have.

> What actually matters is that there is only one way to do something, your way

Complete crap. I have already said that there are some situations where
multiple partitions make sense, most obviously with multiple OSs.

> and that you will go to the ends of the earth to make
> that point. Point taken so give it a break please.Thanks.

You get no say what so ever on anything at all. Specially
when you cant even manage to get the simplest detail right.

In aus.computers Rod Speed <rodspeed@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> How can the single partition drive be filled, but the
>> the multiple partioned drive's c: still have room?

> It is theoretically possible due to the cluster size. With the
> multiple partitions having smaller clusters, less wasted space.

Fair enough, but that's usually only a few %.

>> If you have a 2nd partition for data, you would still keep
>> a backup, just in case the whole drive gets trashed, but
>> you wouldn't need to do anything during the actual reinstall.
> Sure, but its no harder to delete everything
> from the single partition except the data tree.

True, I was mainly talking about accidentally killing partition c though.
I suppose it's just as likely to kill the whole disk rather than one
partition, so yeah there's not much call for a data partition.

>> Personally, I keep my data on a separate drive, and backup to c:, so
>> I don't have a problem regardless of how the first drive is partitioned.
> It can make more sense to have a data tree on the boot drive and use
> the separate drive as a fast backup destination. The main boot drive is
> usually the highest performance drive and if your data is of any size,
> you will normally get rather better performance with it on the main drive.

Not for me, but I see your point.
I've got my narrow SCSI drive as C, and my wide SCSI drive as D, due to
their SCSI IDs and search order.  I used to have the SCSI search order
reversed in the BIOS, but this stuffed me around too much with LILO in
Linux, so I've set it up this way.  I've got the swap space and my games
on D, and that's all I use Windows for anyway, so it's not that bad.

> Maybe, but there is a lot to be said for using a proper
> backup app. Semi manual backups can bite, its very
> easy to forget something and its too late when its gone.

I'm a manual backup person (with xcopy, argh!), but it wouldn't be too
hard to configure to backup savegames too.

Agree most people should have theirs on C.  I would if I had one drive.
I really like the home directory system in unix, where all your personal
config and saved stuff goes under the one tree.  Very easy to manage.

Daniel.

Daniel Grimwood <reaper@crystal.uwa.edu.au> wrote
in message news:7pil77$edo$1@enyo.uwa.edu.au...
> Rod Speed <rodspeed@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>>> How can the single partition drive be filled, but the
>>> the multiple partioned drive's c: still have room?

>> It is theoretically possible due to the cluster size. With the
>> multiple partitions having smaller clusters, less wasted space.

> Fair enough, but that's usually only a few %.

Not necessarily with FAT16 with those very large
drives being discussed. Certainly true with FAT32.

>>> If you have a 2nd partition for data, you would still keep
>>> a backup, just in case the whole drive gets trashed, but
>>> you wouldn't need to do anything during the actual reinstall.

>> Sure, but its no harder to delete everything
>> from the single partition except the data tree.

> True, I was mainly talking about accidentally killing partition c though.

Sure, it is a bit safer for those that bugger up almost anything they touch |-)

> I suppose it's just as likely to kill the whole disk rather than
> one partition, so yeah there's not much call for a data partition.

>> Maybe, but there is a lot to be said for using a proper
>> backup app. Semi manual backups can bite, its very
>> easy to forget something and its too late when its gone.

> I'm a manual backup person (with xcopy, argh!),

I used to be, but it bit me too often. Corse thats mainly due to mostly
using Win9x which has an amazing variety of little bits scattered all
over the place, what with various toolbars and log files etc. Even now
when I upgrade the boot drive, I still occasionally have to go and get
something off the drive it replaces, like Netscape bookmarks etc.

> but it wouldn't be too hard to configure to backup savegames too.

Yeah, but it would be easier to just do a backup of files
that have their archive flag set in the games tree in that
situation. Corse thats quite viable with just xcopy too.

> Agree most people should have theirs on C.  I would if I had one drive.
> I really like the home directory system in unix, where all your personal
> config and saved stuff goes under the one tree.  Very easy to manage.

True.

Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>
>Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote in message
news:7pgnc8$dd7$1@mochi.lava.net...
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Todd <Post_to_group_only@nospam.com> wrote
>>>> 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.
>
>>>>> 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.
>
>What was being discussed was how to partition
>a drive when running FAT32 Win95 or Win98.

Was it?

>
>> Don't use defects in the OS to support your opinions.
>
>Dont try to order me about.

Shut up!!!

>
>>>> 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?
>
>Nope, the volume label is rather more restricted than the directory
>name with long file names. And more awkward to change too.

How many characters do you need to label a drive GAMES or PROGRAMS or APPS
or DOS622.

>
>> When did MS change it so we have to
>> call tech support to change a volume label?
>
>Careful you dont go blind now.

That's real intelligent.

>
>> My point is that you can name a drive just like you can name a folder.
>
>My point is that your 'just like' is wrong. And that
>while you can certainly name a drive, that name
>you have given it is far less visible than a root
>directory name. Your 'just like' is just plain wrong.

You apparently don't actually use Win9x or know how to use it.

>
>> Not that you use the exact same movements for each.
>> Didn't think I had to fully explain that one to you.
>
>See above on going blind.

More nonsense.

>
>>>>> 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 wasn't the situation being discussed tho.
>
>>>> Nor was wether or not partitions are good or bad.
>
>>> Fraid so.
>
>> OK, are partitions good or bad?
>
>If you dont run multiple OSs, a single partition per
>drive has lots of advantages when running FAT32.
>Didn't think I had to fully explain that one to you.

Please do, as I'm just a newbie looking for some pointers here.

>
>> I have partitions on my PC. Do you have any partitions on yours?
>
>One per drive.

That's one too many for you to keep track of.

>
>>>>>> 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?
>
>Nope.
>
>> Are you Bill Clinton by any chance?
>
>See above on your eyesight.

More nonsense.

>
>>>>>> 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
>
>See above on your eyesight.

More nonsense.

>
>>>>>> 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.
>
>Partions become fragmented quickest when there is less free
>space. A single partition for the whole drive inevitably sees more free
>space in the partition, so fragmentation is rather less of a problem.


Now I really need an explanation on this 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.
>
>Yes, but a decent defragger doesnt mindlessly move that stuff around much
too.

Oh so now we need 3rd party software for housekeeping.

>
>> With one drive, you are constantly writing and
>> deleting files on that drive.  No way around it.
>
>Yes, but if its got plenty of free space, and thats common with a single
>partition for the big drives we are discussing, they dont fragment much.

You don't turn it on much do you?

>
>> I keep my working files on one partition, and it
>> does get fragmented, the others generally don't.
>
>And single partitions for the whole large drive
>being discussed dont get fragmented much either.

Yes, they do! So there.

>
>>>> 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.
>
>Its more complicated than that.


I still a newbie remember, so explain if you can.

Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>
>Tom MacIntyre <tmacinty@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:37bc3d43.222231087@news1.ns.sympatico.ca...
>
>> Just someone who won't accept that others'
>> computer requirements may be quite different,
>
>I've already said that some may well be,
>most obviously when running multiple OSs.
>
>It wasnt what was being discussed, how to partition
>the boot drive when running FAT32 Win9x.

That was already discussed. We've moved on already.

>
>> and that there can be right, wrong,
>
>And I provided plenty of rational reasons on the advantages
>and disadvantages are of multiple partitions on the boot drive
>when running FAT32 Win9x.

Where was that?

>
>> and different, with different being the biggest chunk of the pie.
>
>And when different has some real downsides, like with
>multiple partitions on the boot drive with FAT32 Win9x, which
>is pretty crude in how it allocates drive letters, it may well make
>sense to stop using what made sense in the past with the limitations
>of FAT16 and do it differently now with FAT32. With plenty of rational
>reasons for changing the approach to partitioning the boot drive.

And throw out any non FAT32 compatible software too. If knew which ones will
bite you.

>
>> My opinion is that FAT32 has removed probably
>> the biggest motivation for multiple partitions,
>
>It has indeed, and we are still stuck with the relatively crude approach
>Win9x takes to the allocation of drive letters to hard drive partitions.
>Which is quite easy to bypass by using a single partition on the boot
drive.

That option is the individuals choice to do so.

>
>> but there are others - they can be personal, and they can be
preferential,
>
>And the two alternatives can be rationally analysed on the
>advantages and disadvantages of the two approach, one or
>multiple partitions on the boot drive when running FAT32 Win9x.

Did you always repeat yourself? Please go on.

>
>> and they can supercede what some expert has put in a
>> book or on a web-site, and they are up to the individual.
>
>And many dont actually give a FRF what 'some
>expert has put in a book or on a web-site'

Nor what some loser posts in a newsgroup.

>
>What actually matters is what rational advantages
>and disadvantages the two approach have.

That's already been discussed, move on already.

>
>
>

Rod Speed wrote in message <9b4v3.5279$O_1.36081@ozemail.com.au>...
>
>ClydeH <CC@TT.com> wrote in message news:37BC8A5B.6C44@TT.com...
>
>>> What actually matters is what rational advantages
>>> and disadvantages the two approach have.
>
>> What actually matters is that there is only one way to do something, your
way
>
>Complete crap. I have already said that there are some situations where
>multiple partitions make sense, most obviously with multiple OSs.

And you have been asked nicely to move on already.

>
>> and that you will go to the ends of the earth to make
>> that point. Point taken so give it a break please.Thanks.
>
>You get no say what so ever on anything at all. Specially
>when you cant even manage to get the simplest detail right.

Would you please shut the hell up already.

>
>

Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>
>Mr. T <no@no.com> wrote in message
>news:7ph2e3$prm$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>> I smell an overnight computer wizard.
>
>You have absolutely no idea how many are laughing themselves
>silly at the spectacular fool you have just made of yourself.

HA HA HA HA HA HA. You bowl me over with your wit.

>
>I might just have been doing it since before you were even born boy.

Some of us wish your momma didn't.

>
>> Rod Speed <rodspeed@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:KDwu3.4394$O_1.26477@ozemail.com.au...
>
>
>

Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>
>Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote in message
news:7pgmkb$d2s$1@mochi.lava.net...
>> Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>>> Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote
>>>> 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.
>
>> Haven't had a problem with size of partitions
>> yet. I personally have never had that problem,
>
>Plenty have when using that multiple partitions approach. Specially
>with the large number of small partitions you are talking about.
>
>> although I have seen others with one partition completely fill their hard
drive.
>
>Got absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed. In
>that situation the drive will fill even quicker with multiple partitions
>because the free space is scattered across the multiple partitions.
>And its much more likely that one partition will be full with free
>space in others when the initial partition sizes werent right.


Quicker? Where files are stored on a physical HD has nothing to do with how
quickly you fill it. "weren't right"?

>
>> So they need a second hard drive,
>
>And when you have multiple partitions on the boot drive,
>the partition lettering will change when you add the
>second hard drive if its got a primary dos partition on it.

How many times are you going repeat this in a day? We see all your posts.

>They wont if there is only a single partition on the boot drive.

All other physical drives will move up a letter. Zip, Jaz, Tape, CD, Ram you
name it, the drives are now one letter higher by adding another drive. So
what are you gaining really?

>
>> and then move something to it so there is room for the system to work.
>
>Just as true if the boot drive has multiple partitions and it runs
>out of free space. It will happen sooner with multiple partitions
>because the free space is scatter thru the multiple partitions.

Sooner? If you don't put anything in the boot drive except the OS, how will
it fill up sooner?

>
>> The hardest part was explaining to them that they ran out of drive space.
>
>Even harder if the boot drive has multiple partitions, explaining
>why there is free space on the drive, which aint in the partition you
>are trying to add something to. Doesnt happen if there is a single
>partition on the boot drive, there is either free space or there aint.

Not likely to happen since you don't get free space info about a drive your
not installing to, only the one you are.

>
>> With multiple partitions, I might run out of space on one of
>> them, although I haven't ever ran out of space.  But if I did,
>> it would only be on one drive, like G: Games, or H: Apps.
>> I still can install other programs to another drive, and there is
>> no problem with Windows working, because drive C: is not full.
>
>Just as true with a single partition on that drive.

No, when it's full...it's full.

>
>>> 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 said it, "when the second hard drive has a primary
>> dos partition." So don't have a second dos partition.
>
>Easier said than done with some situations. If you are upgrading the main
>boot drive to a larger one, the simplest approach for those who dont have
>a large capacity backup device is to install the new drive, do a clean
install
>of Win and the apps for the cleanup of the registry etc that produces, with
>the original drive not connected for the safety of your data. Then put the
>original drive back in so you can copy all the stuff like data and
shortcuts
>and favorites and toolbars and log files etc etc etc to the new drive.
>But its inevitably got a primary dos partition on it so if you installed
the
>new hard drive with multiple partitions on it, all the drive letters change
>except for the C drive. Which means you cant conveniently run for a few
>weeks just copying stuff you find you didnt remember like toolbars or log
>files from the original drive while using the new drive, and with the
original
>drive as protection against infant mortality of the new drive. And as a
quick
>backup destination for the data you care about after that etc.


Bla, Bla, Bla.

>
>> Or use WinNT, and you have the option to change
>> drive letters.  That is a very good feature.
>
>What was being discussed was how to organise the boot drive when
>running Win98 with FAT32. Sure, there are other options OS wise.
>But NT still has that major downside, not being able to use FAT32.

Why do suppose that is?

>
>>> 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.
>
>> Except the name of the directory that the program is in.
>
>Its obviously gunna be a lot easier to remember a
>name like Games than E and Application Data than F.

You don't know how to type DIR?

Volume in drive E is GAMES
Volume Serial Number is 154B-1A1B
Directory of E:\

ATTILA20       <DIR>        02-07-98  3:16a Attila20
BALLONS        <DIR>        02-16-98  2:30p Ballons
BARBIE         <DIR>        02-07-98 11:39a BARBIE
BOG2           <DIR>        03-24-98 11:46a BOG2
BOWEP          <DIR>        02-16-98  2:21p BOWEP
CENTIP~1       <DIR>        02-05-98  2:14p Centipede
CHECKERS       <DIR>        02-16-98  2:32p Checkers
CHINES~1       <DIR>        02-16-98  1:38p Chinese Checkers
CONNECT4       <DIR>        02-16-98  2:05p Connect4
DDSOL          <DIR>        02-09-98  1:15p DDSOL
DESCENT        <DIR>        02-07-98  3:01a Descent
DOMINOS        <DIR>        02-16-98  2:07p Dominos
DUKE3D         <DIR>        06-21-98  6:55p DUKE3D
EUCKRE         <DIR>        02-16-98  2:12p Euckre
GEOMETRY       <DIR>        02-12-98  2:07p Geometry
GINRUM~1       <DIR>        02-16-98  2:40p Gin Rummy
GIZMOS         <DIR>        04-06-98 11:30a Gizmos
HOVER          <DIR>        02-07-98 10:56a HOVER
INTHE1ST       <DIR>        02-07-98 11:59a INTHE1ST
MATH           <DIR>        02-12-98  2:36p Math
PINOCHLE       <DIR>        02-16-98  2:25p Pinochle
QUATRA         <DIR>        03-07-98 10:07p QUATRA
RESCUE         <DIR>        05-31-99 10:59p Rescue
RETURN~1       <DIR>        03-21-98  5:43a Return of Arcade
SCAT101        <DIR>        02-16-98  2:28p Scat101
SCRABOUT       <DIR>        02-16-98  2:27p Scrabout
VLEAPER        <DIR>        02-07-98  3:16a Vleaper
WEPPB          <DIR>        02-05-98 10:11a WEPPB
WHEREI~1 0     <DIR>        02-07-98 11:49a Where in the World is Carmen
Sandiego v3.0
WHEREI~2 0     <DIR>        02-07-98 11:55a Where in the USA is Carmen
Sandiegov3.0
         0 file(s)              0 bytes
        32 dir(s)     234,684,416 bytes free


>
>> I said that my drive are labeled according to what is in them.  G: is
>> labeled GAMES. Guess where Starcraft is loaded.  On drive G: GAMES.
>
>And what was being discussed originally was 2-3
>partitions, where there aint gunna be no G drive.

Well on his there is.

>
>> My encyclopedia and movie/music guides are on D: REFERENCE.
>
>It would make a lot more sense to have that D: Data.
>
>But you cant have A: Apps or P: Programs.

So type DIR and read the label.

>
>> Why is this not as easy as using the same directory names on one drive.
>
>You've gotta remember that D is Reference.
>Hardly as easy as a Reference directory name.

No, he only has to type DIR and read the label.

>
>> This point is moot,
>
>Nope.

Small vocabulary you have.

>
>> even though you have valid arguments on some others.
>
>This one too.

To quote you "Nope".

>
>>>> 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.
>
>> Read the above responses.  I don't want to repeat it all.
>
>Read the above responses.  I don't want to repeat it all.


Read the above responses.  I don't want to repeat it all.

>>>> Rather than having another level of subdirectories,
>>>> I use the different drives.  So simple.
>
>>> So much more limited.
>
>> Other than having sizes of drives set right, what is limited?
>
>A single letter for the drive is obviously much more limited
>than a meaningful name like Reference or Program Files.

That's why drives have labels.

>
>And you cant have a hierarchy like \Program Files\Reference either.

Why not?

>
>> At the DOS prompt,
>
>Hardly anyone uses the DOS prompt anymore. Dinosaur stuff.

That's the only place your arguments had any meaning! Geez, get with the
program.

>
>> I can go from a directory three levels deep on one
>> drive, to a directory five levels deep on another drive.
>> I can go back and forth just by typing the drive letter.
>
>And its even easier with shortcuts etc. The world's moved on.

And so should you.

>
>> With one drive, you have to continuously retype in
>> the entire path for which directory you are going to.
>
>No one with any sense types stuff like that anymore.

So what's your problem?

>
>> I have had to do this, don't ask why, I don't remember specificly, but
this
>> was a great benefit.  Sure, limited use of it, but better than the
alternative.
>
>Nope, not better than a single partition
>with meaningful names and shortcuts etc.

Hey, you don't suppose batch files are shortcuts do you.

>
>>>> 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.
>
>> They don't anyway, there is no primary dos partition on my second hard
disk.
>
>Not always possible, most obviously with that hard drive upgrade
>situation. When most dont have full backups anymore, its by far
>the safest way to upgrade the boot drive to a bigger one.

In that case you replace the second one since it's the smaller physical
drive anyway.

>
>>>> 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.
>
>> Sure if I bought the new 22GB drives, I probably would.
>
>Just as true of even 6GB drives.

That's small by today's standards.

>
>> Only because I have moved from WinNT 4.0
>> to WinNT 5.0, which can see FAT32 drives.
>
>And many aren't prepared to use it yet.

Same is true of FAT32.

>
>>>> If I had FAT32, maybe I would have a larger C: drive
>
>>> Thats what was being discussed, how to do the C drive when using FAT32.
>
>> Which when dual booting WinNT 4.0, you need FAT16,
>> and many small drives if you want WinNT to see them.
>
>We werent discussing how to do the boot drive when running NT.

He has moved on, so should you.

>
>>>> 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.
>
>> Yeah, if I want to add another step in trying to
>> figure out how to install WinNT.  Why bother with it.
>
>Because you wont necessarily have allowed for wanting
>to install extra OSs when the drive was initially partitioned.

You can't read the future any more than a psychic can.

>
>> Plus there's always the chance that you could have it mess up a drive.
>
>Just as true with your multiple partitions too.

Only *IF* he changes them.

>
>>>> 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.
>
>> No, my opinion.
>
>Your opinion is your problem.


Your opinion is 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.
>
>> Yes, i could have used some other programs, which I did.
>
>So it aint good reason for always having multiple partitons on the boot
>drive, particularly when that approach has other undesirable side effects.


Your opinion is your problem.

>
>> I imagine I could have brought it to a
>> wizard and have him cast a spell on it too.
>
>Careful you dont go blind now.
>
>> My point was formatting is the fastest and most
>> sure way to see if the drive has a bad sector.
>
>Wrong.
>
>> If the format fails, I don't care what another program says about it.
>
>What you care about is your 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.
>
>> You have so much experience with getting RMA numbers from companies?
>
>Yep. And with a hard drive failure relatively recently too.

You probably didn't format it right.

>
>> They can refuse if they want, providing they have sufficient cause.
>
>And they dont with a hard drive that has bad sectors.

Bad sectors are normal.

>
>And they cant refuse an RMA anyway, they can only
>return the drive claiming that it doesnt have a fault.

As they no doubt did.

>
>> I just eliminated most of their possible causes.
>
>Taint the only way to do that.

Taint?

>
>> Of course it wasn't like I would confess dropping a drive on the floor,
not that I did.
>
>And the droid cant just refuse to issue you with an RMA by
>proclaiming to you over the phone that you must have dropped
>it. And even if you had dropped it, the fact that it fails the
>format proves SFA about you having dropped it anyway.

Not that he did.

>
>> But if that happened to someone, and they called for the
>> RMA number, and for some reason mentioned that they
>> had dropped the drive, I doubt they would get an RMA.
>
>Yes. But thats just true regardless of whether it fails a
>format or not, so your partition so you can do one on part
>of the drive would be completely useless in that situation.
>
>> By the way, I have been on the phone with several companies a
>> couple dozen time for RMAs where I worked.  It is like pulling teeth
>> with some of them.  I like to have a little Novacaine to use on them.
>
>Makes a lot more sense to deal with operations which
>dont operate like that than it does to use multiple partitions
>on your hard drive so you can get RMAs out of those.

Bla, Bla, Bla...

>
>And multiple partitions wont help anyway, as should
>be obvious from the dropped hard drive situation.
>
>

Which it wasn't.

Rod Speed wrote in message <894v3.5278$O_1.36421@ozemail.com.au>...
>
>Daniel Grimwood <reaper@crystal.uwa.edu.au> wrote
>in message news:7pidlm$aff$1@enyo.uwa.edu.au...
>> Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote:
>
>>> With multiple partitions, I might run out of space on one of
>>> them, although I haven't ever ran out of space.  But if I did,
>>> it would only be on one drive, like G: Games, or H: Apps.
>>> I still can install other programs to another drive, and there is
>>> no problem with Windows working, because drive C: is not full.
>
>> How can the single partition drive be filled, but the
>> the multiple partioned drive's c: still have room?
>
>It is theoretically possible due to the cluster size. With the
>multiple partitions having smaller clusters, less wasted space.

Do you theoretically breath air?

>
>Its pretty theoretical tho when you get the other effect, the total free
>space on the drive being scattered over the multiple partitions and
>with the FAT32 we were discussing how to partition the drive with.


Breathing more of that theoretical air?

>
>>> Other than having sizes of drives set right, what is limited?
>>> At the DOS prompt, I can go from a directory three levels
>>> deep on one drive, to a directory five levels deep on another
>>> drive.  I can go back and forth just by typing the drive letter.
>>> With one drive, you have to continuously retype in the entire
>>> path for which directory you are going to.  I have had to do this,
>>> don't ask why, I don't remember specificly, but this was a great
>>> benefit.  Sure, limited use of it, but better than the alternative.
>
>> Try doskey, 4dos, or ndos.  You can then
>> use the up arrow to get previous commands.
>
>Or toss the entire dos command line in the bin for that sort of thing.

Better yet, toss your entire system.

>
>> As for my opinion on a separate partition for data, it's a good idea,
>
>I'm not convinced that its is anymore. It really doesnt have any advantage
>over the much more flexible approach of keeping that data in a single
>directory tree under a data directory in the root of a single partition.

Your not convinced the sky is blue.

>
>> but not necessary.  Regardless of how it's done, you should
>> keep a backup anyway, so when it comes to reformatting c:,
>> it's not too hard to get your data from the backup.
>
>And drives inevitably die or get stolen.

I wish yours would.

>
>> If you have a 2nd partition for data, you would still keep
>> a backup, just in case the whole drive gets trashed, but
>> you wouldn't need to do anything during the actual reinstall.
>
>Sure, but its no harder to delete everything
>from the single partition except the data tree.

Speaking of trees...anyone got some rope?

>
>> So the only difference would be that for a single partition,
>> you would have to copy the backup stuff back.
>
>You dont necessarily even have to do that.

What, you gonna will it there?

>
>> Personally, I keep my data on a separate drive, and backup to c:, so
>> I don't have a problem regardless of how the first drive is partitioned.
>
>It can make more sense to have a data tree on the boot drive and use
>the separate drive as a fast backup destination. The main boot drive is
>usually the highest performance drive and if your data is of any size,
>you will normally get rather better performance with it on the main drive.

Thanks for the tip, I would have never guessed.

>
>> As for a separate partition for apps, I don't see any point, unless
>> they're DOS based, which tend to confide themselves to their own
>> directory trees.  Seeing we're talking about Win95 though, usually
>> when you delete the registry, you'll have to reinstall all your apps
>> anyway, so their location is pretty much irrelevent.  Most have a
>> tendency also to overwite configuration files during reinstall, so
>> you would have to back these up regardless of what partition it is.
>
>And they mostly install themselves by default
>in the Progam Files tree off the root now too.

Wrong! There is always a opportunity to select somewhere else. Unless your
talking shitware you don't need anyway.

>
>Whenever you dont use the default install location, there is always
>some risk that an install wart will bite you just because its nothing like
>as well debugged when using other than the default install location.

Bullshit!!!

>
>Which is what bit him in the first place.

More Bullshit!!! He reset the machine during the install process. As I
recall there is a period of inactivity with Quicktime's install. Hmmm, why
don't you try it and see.

>
>> For a separate partition for games, maybe yes, but not for me.
>> I say yes because games tend to put the save-games in their own
>> directories, and you won't want to lose them.  Even if you reinstall
>> the game, you won't wipe the save-games.  It's not hard however
>> to work out where save-games are, and it doesn't take long to back
>> them up, hence it's not for me.  If you had lots of little games, each
>> with their own save-games in their own directories, then the effort
>> involved in backing these up might warrant a separate partition.
>
>Maybe, but there is a lot to be said for using a proper
>backup app. Semi manual backups can bite, its very
>easy to forget something and its too late when its gone.

Same is true with a single partition too.

>
>> Personally, I keep my games on the second drive,
>> mainly for performance reasons, so for again for
>> me it doesn't matter what happens to the first drive.
>
>Yeah, but lets not forget that most only have a single drive.

Absolutely correct. Hence Partitions!!!

>
>> As for the fragmentation arguement before, then whether it's
>> one partition or many, the OS and apps and games take up
>> the first part of the partition, and are fairly static.  The temp
>> files and documents etc come later, and these are usually the
>> only bits that need defragging.  It's only a problem if you install
>> something to an already fragmented drive, which shouldn't happen
>> anyway, so fragmentation doesn't really affect either arguement.
>
>Specially with the very large drives being discussed.

I don't suppose you ever upgrade, right?

>
>
>

Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>
>Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote in message
news:7pgnu1$dle$1@mochi.lava.net...
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote
>
>>>> That is one of the nice things I remember from Linux, and the
>>>> little Unix I saw in the military.  You create a partition, either
>>>> the whole hard disk, or only part of it, and give it a volume
>>>> label.  Then you can access it with that volume label.
>
>>>> Why didn't Microsoft think of this when they started?
>
>>> There are awkwiditys with any OS.
>
>>> You dont have to fart around recompiling
>>> the kernal, unlike unix quite a bit of the time.
>
>> Did I mention recompiling kernals and such?
>
>You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly
irrelevant.


That's awfully grownup.

>
>Yes, unix does the drive labelling better, and the install
>etc much worse. There are awkwiditys with any OS.

And losers such as yourself too.

>
>> I asked about one simple feature that Microsoft, in its infinite
>> wisdom, did not implement. And by now they wish they had.
>
>Its always easy with 20/20 hindsight.

Hint, Hint, Wink, Wink.

>
>> Why do you think they finally have the Active Directory?  Not to mention
>> the industry standard things like fully qualified domain names,  URLs,
and
>> UNCs. Networked computers being able to use 26 resources is a joke.
>
>Having to recompile the kernal is a joke.

As are you.

>
>All OSs have their awkwiditys.

As do pud whackers like you.

>
>

Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>
>Tom MacIntyre <tmacinty@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:37bc1252.211235669@news1.ns.sympatico.ca...
>> Hyper <jimb@snip.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> it makes it easier to trouble shoot, reformatting
>>>>>>> and installing windows becomes easier,
>
>>>>>> I'm not convinced. With the apps on the second
>>>>>> partition, you'll have to uninstall them and reinstall
>>>>>> them again if you reformat the C drive and reinstall Win.
>
>>>>> A reinstall-over is all that is usually necessary
>>>>> when Windows is fully refreshed...
>
>>>> Nope, a clean reinstall on a freshly formatted partition often
>>>> produces a much cleaner and more stable install. Specially if
>>>> there has been much installing and uninstalling of apps to try them.
>
>>> he's saying that after you reinstall windows clean, you reinstall the
>>> apps over them selves to refresh the registry and any dll's that might
>>> need to be in windows\system, not installing windows over itself
>
>> Yes, that's what I meant...
>
>Still no advantage over a single partition boot drive on that app install
>stuff. With a major downside of the drive letters changing if you add
>another hard drive with a primary dos partition on it as a backup
>destination or just when upgrading to a new larger boot drive etc.
>
>
>

With as much time as you spent on this being a moron, you could have
installed and partitioned 20 HD's already.

"Todd" <Post_to_group_only@nospam.com> wrote:

>>
>>> My encyclopedia and movie/music guides are on D: REFERENCE.
>>
>>It would make a lot more sense to have that D: Data.
>>
>>But you cant have A: Apps or P: Programs.
>
>So type DIR and read the label.

DIR/S is even better, if necessary...

>>
>>> At the DOS prompt,
>>
>>Hardly anyone uses the DOS prompt anymore. Dinosaur stuff.
>
>That's the only place your arguments had any meaning! Geez, get with the
>program.

Here's where I disagree with both of you...DOS is still relevant for
me...

>
>>
>>> I can go from a directory three levels deep on one
>>> drive, to a directory five levels deep on another drive.
>>> I can go back and forth just by typing the drive letter.
>>
>>And its even easier with shortcuts etc. The world's moved on.
>
>And so should you.
>
>>
>>> With one drive, you have to continuously retype in
>>> the entire path for which directory you are going to.
>>
>>No one with any sense types stuff like that anymore.

In DOS, DOSKEY lessens this type of activity...when Windows is in
trouble, one still has to be able to use DOS...

Tom

Todd wrote:
> 
> >Sure, but its no harder to delete everything
> >from the single partition except the data tree.
> 
> Speaking of trees...anyone got some rope?

as Mr. T. once said, my ribs hurt LOL

"Rod Speed" <rodspeed@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

>
>Daniel Grimwood <reaper@crystal.uwa.edu.au> wrote
>in message news:7pil77$edo$1@enyo.uwa.edu.au...
>> Rod Speed <rodspeed@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>> How can the single partition drive be filled, but the
>>>> the multiple partioned drive's c: still have room?
>
>>> It is theoretically possible due to the cluster size. With the
>>> multiple partitions having smaller clusters, less wasted space.
>
>> Fair enough, but that's usually only a few %.
>
>Not necessarily with FAT16 with those very large
>drives being discussed. Certainly true with FAT32.

I don't recall exactly how much slack I retrieved when I converted to
FAT32, but it was a considerable amount. Consider my G: drive, a
catch-all drive...18,616 files, 2.3 G used...cluster size of 4k
instead of 32, or 64 (I don't remember what the value is for larger
than 2G)...assuming that, on average, you save half the difference in
cluster size over a large drive like that, I have saved slack space in
the order of 250-500M...NOT an insignificant amount, either from a %
viewpoint or in an absolute amount. Not as much space advantage as
compression, but...

Tom

I got some. Hold on a sec lemme find my sheet too.

Todd <Post_to_group_only@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:rrqc9louboh17@corp.supernews.com...

>
> Speaking of trees...anyone got some rope?

Tom MacIntyre wrote:

> "Todd" <Post_to_group_only@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >>> My encyclopedia and movie/music guides are on D: REFERENCE.
> >>
> >>It would make a lot more sense to have that D: Data.
> >>
> >>But you cant have A: Apps or P: Programs.
> >
> >So type DIR and read the label.
>
> DIR/S is even better, if necessary...
>
> >>
> >>> At the DOS prompt,
> >>
> >>Hardly anyone uses the DOS prompt anymore. Dinosaur stuff.
> >
> >That's the only place your arguments had any meaning! Geez, get with the
> >program.
>
> Here's where I disagree with both of you...DOS is still relevant for
> me...
>

I agree completely.  I can do just about anything in DOS 20 times faster than
I can do it in Windows.  Not to mention the fact that if you can't get into
Windows, you need to know DOS to get Windows working again.  DOS maybe old,
but it's still an extremely important thing to know.  I had someone that
wanted to come work for me, the first thing I did was give him a book on DOS.

Ken Williams
kbs@xmission.com.zz
(Remove .zz when replying.)

>            Next step, load Adobe pagemaker V.65 and Photo shop into F
>drive.  Went through the process of installation and when it ask <snip>

Just out of curiosity, did pagemaker change the line in your Sysetm.ini
from:
System.drv=System.drv
to:
System.drv=atm.sys

?

I've seen it do this to install the Adobe Type Manager  and wind up bringing
Windows to its knees.


                                         John

> 
> I still a newbie remember, so explain if you can.

It's the on-line equivalent of an argument in the street.

Absolutely correct. The wonderful thing about having someone learn DOS
before getting into Windows, is because DOS forces you to visualize the
file system through the command line interface. After they grasp that
concept, windows is much easier to digest for the novice user. I can't tell
you how many people I deal with that use computers (windows) on a daily
basis, and still have absolutely no grasp of how files are stored, and
where to retrieve them later. They only see, and understand what the native
application's file/open window shows them. Put that file in another folder,
and they are completely lost. For the technician side of things, there are
often situations when Windows is hosed to the point of not even running in
safe mode. It's in these cases that a working knowledge of DOS is an
invaluable tool. I don't think ANY PC technician should be without those
basic skills.



> Well, they still teach DOS in most/many computer certification
> programs, and there are times when a knowledge of DOS will help in the
> event of a crash. It is also a basic knowledge of "DOS" that allows
> setting up of folders, correctly unzipping files into temporary
> folders, and using the Start-Run. I recently had to look at a laptop
> computer which had a defective video circuit, and was a write-off (no
> display on its own or external VGA port). I was able to get a
> directory printout and back up some files to floppy using DOS...with
> Windows 3 or 95/98 it would have been just about impossible, but with
> DOS it was easy. It's starting to look like you're so blinded by the
> opposition you've gotten to some of your ideas that you're lashing out
> without even considering what you're lashing out at.
>
> Tom

Rod Speed wrote:

<snip>

> >> Todd <Post_to_group_only@nospam.com> wrote
>
> >>>> Hardly anyone uses the DOS prompt anymore. Dinosaur stuff.
>
> >>> That's the only place your arguments had
> >>> any meaning! Geez, get with the program.
>
> >> Here's where I disagree with both of you...
> >> DOS is still relevant for me...
>
> > I agree completely.  I can do just about anything
> > in DOS 20 times faster than I can do it in Windows.
>
> Thats only because you havent setup the Win properly.
>

Okay, I'm up for suggestions.  Tell me how can I in one step do the following
command through Windows.

COPY *A*.* C:\TEMP

That is, copy all files with the letter A anywhere in the file name from the
current directory to the temp directory?

>
> > Not to mention the fact that if you can't get into Windows,
> > you need to know DOS to get Windows working again.
>
> Complete crap.
>

Bullshit!  If Windows will not start, how do you get Windows running again?
Perhaps a reinstall from the boot disk, and if that fails also?  If Windows
is really screwed up, you're going to have to use DOS to either FDISK &/or
FORMAT, or you're going to have to use DELTREE to delete the Windows
directory, or some other *DOS* option.  These are *ALL* DOS commands and
there is no fucking way of doing them through Windows.  When you buy a new
hard drive, how do you partition, through the fucking DOS prompt.  You must
know DOS in order to truly be able to fix all Windows problems!

>
> > DOS maybe old, but it's still an extremely important thing to know.
>
> Wrong, because that hardly ever happens, that you 'cant get into Windows'
>

It may hardly ever happen on a personal basis, but it happens all of the time
in the real world.  This is part of the reason that Windows is such a large
piece of shit.  Also, you still need to know DOS to partition a drive,
correct.

>
> > I had someone that wanted to come work for me,
> > the first thing I did was give him a book on DOS.
>
> Your problem.

No, it's not a problem at all, it's an extremely good way to go.

This argument is practically over, it's obvious I'm the last one to realize
what a waste of time it is arguing with you.

Ken Williams
kbs@xmission.com

Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote in message news:7pgnu1$dle$1@mochi.lava.net...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote

>>> That is one of the nice things I remember from Linux, and the
>>> little Unix I saw in the military.  You create a partition, either
>>> the whole hard disk, or only part of it, and give it a volume
>>> label.  Then you can access it with that volume label.

>>> Why didn't Microsoft think of this when they started?

>> There are awkwiditys with any OS.

>> You dont have to fart around recompiling
>> the kernal, unlike unix quite a bit of the time.

> Did I mention recompiling kernals and such?

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

Yes, unix does the drive labelling better, and the install
etc much worse. There are awkwiditys with any OS.

> I asked about one simple feature that Microsoft, in its infinite
> wisdom, did not implement. And by now they wish they had.

Its always easy with 20/20 hindsight.

> Why do you think they finally have the Active Directory?  Not to mention
> the industry standard things like fully qualified domain names,  URLs, and
> UNCs. Networked computers being able to use 26 resources is a joke.

Having to recompile the kernal is a joke.

All OSs have their awkwiditys.

Hyper <jimb@snip.net> wrote in message news:37BBE275.9D5C10E8@snip.net...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> Hyper <jimb@snip.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote:

>>>>>> it makes it easier to trouble shoot, reformatting
>>>>>> and installing windows becomes easier,

>>>>> I'm not convinced. With the apps on the second
>>>>> partition, you'll have to uninstall them and reinstall
>>>>> them again if you reformat the C drive and reinstall Win.

>>>>> A reinstall-over is all that is usually necessary
>>>>> when Windows is fully refreshed...

>>>> Nope, a clean reinstall on a freshly formatted partition often
>>>> produces a much cleaner and more stable install. Specially if
>>>> there has been much installing and uninstalling of apps to try them.

>>> he's saying that after you reinstall windows clean, you
>>> reinstall the apps over them selves to refresh the registry

>> Most people do a clean install of windows by formatting
>> the partition. So there aint no registry to 'refresh'.

>> Even if you just delete the \Windows tree, the registry is still gone.

>> Most app installs use the registry to decide if its already installed.

>>> and any dll's that might need to be in windows\system,
>>> not installing windows over itself

>> Dunno, 'reinstall-over' appears to be saying that. Only he can
>> say for sure but your interpretation has some logical holes in it.

> um, no it doesn't.

um, fraid so, particularly on that 'fully refreshed'

> you format your c; drive (you have more than one partition, remember?),
> leaving your apps on d: or e: or whatever.  reinstall windows, have
> registry with no additional software keys in it.  install apps over
> themselves, registry keys added, missing dll's added, stuff
> works, windows clean, all good. now 1 partition only, format c:.

Like I said originally, if you have to do a clean reinstall of Win, you have
to reinstall all the apps too. You're no better off with them on a separate
partition. The original claim that 'it makes it easier to trouble shoot,
reformatting and installing windows becomes easier' is just plain wrong.

And you're stuck with the problem that the drive letters change
if you put another hard drive in the system which has a primary
dos partition on it. You have to uninstall and reinstall all those
apps again. You dont if the boot drive just has one partition.

> reinstall windows, reinstall software, hey, where's my report?  crap
> i forgot to backup my word documents folder, off the "Documents"
> tree in my extremely huge c: partition, this wouldn't never have happened
> if i'd have made a partition for my documents and apps would it have?"

Thats only a justification for a separate partition for the data,
not the apps. And it makes a hell of a lot more sense just to
keep the data in a data tree under the root of the boot partition
and back that up properly so you dont go into wrist slashing
mode when the hard drive dies, as some inevitably do.

Its normally quite feasible to back up data and just accept the fact that a
full reinstall of Win and the apps is going to be needed if the hard drive dies.

And with a single partition boot drive, it becomes much more convenient
to have a smaller older hard drive as a backup location for your data tree
on the main hard drive, giving you less hassles on a hard drive failure.
And no farting around with drive letters changing when you add it.

Tom MacIntyre <tmacinty@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:37bc1252.211235669@news1.ns.sympatico.ca...
> Hyper <jimb@snip.net> wrote:

>>>>>> it makes it easier to trouble shoot, reformatting
>>>>>> and installing windows becomes easier,

>>>>> I'm not convinced. With the apps on the second
>>>>> partition, you'll have to uninstall them and reinstall
>>>>> them again if you reformat the C drive and reinstall Win.

>>>> A reinstall-over is all that is usually necessary
>>>> when Windows is fully refreshed...

>>> Nope, a clean reinstall on a freshly formatted partition often
>>> produces a much cleaner and more stable install. Specially if
>>> there has been much installing and uninstalling of apps to try them.

>> he's saying that after you reinstall windows clean, you reinstall the
>> apps over them selves to refresh the registry and any dll's that might
>> need to be in windows\system, not installing windows over itself

> Yes, that's what I meant...

Still no advantage over a single partition boot drive on that app install
stuff. With a major downside of the drive letters changing if you add
another hard drive with a primary dos partition on it as a backup
destination or just when upgrading to a new larger boot drive etc.

Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote in message news:7pgmkb$d2s$1@mochi.lava.net...
> Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>> Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote
>>> 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.

> Haven't had a problem with size of partitions
> yet. I personally have never had that problem,

Plenty have when using that multiple partitions approach. Specially
with the large number of small partitions you are talking about.

> although I have seen others with one partition completely fill their hard drive.

Got absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed. In
that situation the drive will fill even quicker with multiple partitions
because the free space is scattered across the multiple partitions.
And its much more likely that one partition will be full with free
space in others when the initial partition sizes werent right.

> So they need a second hard drive,

And when you have multiple partitions on the boot drive,
the partition lettering will change when you add the
second hard drive if its got a primary dos partition on it.
They wont if there is only a single partition on the boot drive.

> and then move something to it so there is room for the system to work.

Just as true if the boot drive has multiple partitions and it runs
out of free space. It will happen sooner with multiple partitions
because the free space is scatter thru the multiple partitions.

> The hardest part was explaining to them that they ran out of drive space.

Even harder if the boot drive has multiple partitions, explaining
why there is free space on the drive, which aint in the partition you
are trying to add something to. Doesnt happen if there is a single
partition on the boot drive, there is either free space or there aint.

> With multiple partitions, I might run out of space on one of
> them, although I haven't ever ran out of space.  But if I did,
> it would only be on one drive, like G: Games, or H: Apps.
> I still can install other programs to another drive, and there is
> no problem with Windows working, because drive C: is not full.

Just as true with a single partition on that drive.

>> 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 said it, "when the second hard drive has a primary
> dos partition." So don't have a second dos partition.

Easier said than done with some situations. If you are upgrading the main
boot drive to a larger one, the simplest approach for those who dont have
a large capacity backup device is to install the new drive, do a clean install
of Win and the apps for the cleanup of the registry etc that produces, with
the original drive not connected for the safety of your data. Then put the
original drive back in so you can copy all the stuff like data and shortcuts
and favorites and toolbars and log files etc etc etc to the new drive.
But its inevitably got a primary dos partition on it so if you installed the
new hard drive with multiple partitions on it, all the drive letters change
except for the C drive. Which means you cant conveniently run for a few
weeks just copying stuff you find you didnt remember like toolbars or log
files from the original drive while using the new drive, and with the original
drive as protection against infant mortality of the new drive. And as a quick
backup destination for the data you care about after that etc.

> Or use WinNT, and you have the option to change
> drive letters.  That is a very good feature.

What was being discussed was how to organise the boot drive when
running Win98 with FAT32. Sure, there are other options OS wise.
But NT still has that major downside, not being able to use FAT32.

>> 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.

> Except the name of the directory that the program is in.

Its obviously gunna be a lot easier to remember a
name like Games than E and Application Data than F.

> I said that my drive are labeled according to what is in them.  G: is
> labeled GAMES. Guess where Starcraft is loaded.  On drive G: GAMES.

And what was being discussed originally was 2-3
partitions, where there aint gunna be no G drive.

> My encyclopedia and movie/music guides are on D: REFERENCE.

It would make a lot more sense to have that D: Data.

But you cant have A: Apps or P: Programs.

> Why is this not as easy as using the same directory names on one drive.

You've gotta remember that D is Reference.
Hardly as easy as a Reference directory name.

> This point is moot,

Nope.

> even though you have valid arguments on some others.

This one too.

>>> 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.

> Read the above responses.  I don't want to repeat it all.

Read the above responses.  I don't want to repeat it all.

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

>> So much more limited.

> Other than having sizes of drives set right, what is limited?

A single letter for the drive is obviously much more limited
than a meaningful name like Reference or Program Files.

And you cant have a hierarchy like \Program Files\Reference either.

> At the DOS prompt,

Hardly anyone uses the DOS prompt anymore. Dinosaur stuff.

> I can go from a directory three levels deep on one
> drive, to a directory five levels deep on another drive.
> I can go back and forth just by typing the drive letter.

And its even easier with shortcuts etc. The world's moved on.

> With one drive, you have to continuously retype in
> the entire path for which directory you are going to.

No one with any sense types stuff like that anymore.

> I have had to do this, don't ask why, I don't remember specificly, but this
> was a great benefit.  Sure, limited use of it, but better than the alternative.

Nope, not better than a single partition
with meaningful names and shortcuts etc.

>>> 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.

> They don't anyway, there is no primary dos partition on my second hard disk.

Not always possible, most obviously with that hard drive upgrade
situation. When most dont have full backups anymore, its by far
the safest way to upgrade the boot drive to a bigger one.

>>> 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.

> Sure if I bought the new 22GB drives, I probably would.

Just as true of even 6GB drives.

> Only because I have moved from WinNT 4.0
> to WinNT 5.0, which can see FAT32 drives.

And many arent prepared to use it yet.

>>> If I had FAT32, maybe I would have a larger C: drive

>> Thats what was being discussed, how to do the C drive when using FAT32.

> Which when dual booting WinNT 4.0, you need FAT16,
> and many small drives if you want WinNT to see them.

We werent discussing how to do the boot drive when running NT.

>>> 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.

> Yeah, if I want to add another step in trying to
> figure out how to install WinNT.  Why bother with it.

Because you wont necessarily have allowed for wanting
to install extra OSs when the drive was initially partitioned.

> Plus there's always the chance that you could have it mess up a drive.

Just as true with your multiple partitions too.

>>> 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.

> No, my opinion.

Your opinion is 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.

> Yes, i could have used some other programs, which I did.

So it aint good reason for always having multiple partitons on the boot
drive, particularly when that approach has other undesirable side effects.

> I imagine I could have brought it to a
> wizard and have him cast a spell on it too.

Careful you dont go blind now.

> My point was formatting is the fastest and most
> sure way to see if the drive has a bad sector.

Wrong.

> If the format fails, I don't care what another program says about it.

What you care about is your 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.

> You have so much experience with getting RMA numbers from companies?

Yep. And with a hard drive failure relatively recently too.

> They can refuse if they want, providing they have sufficient cause.

And they dont with a hard drive that has bad sectors.

And they cant refuse an RMA anyway, they can only
return the drive claiming that it doesnt have a fault.

> I just eliminated most of their possible causes.

Taint the only way to do that.

> Of course it wasn't like I would confess dropping a drive on the floor, not that I did.

And the droid cant just refuse to issue you with an RMA by
proclaiming to you over the phone that you must have dropped
it. And even if you had dropped it, the fact that it fails the
format proves SFA about you having dropped it anyway.

> But if that happened to someone, and they called for the
> RMA number, and for some reason mentioned that they
> had dropped the drive, I doubt they would get an RMA.

Yes. But thats just true regardless of whether it fails a
format or not, so your partition so you can do one on part
of the drive would be completely useless in that situation.

> By the way, I have been on the phone with several companies a
> couple dozen time for RMAs where I worked.  It is like pulling teeth
> with some of them.  I like to have a little Novacaine to use on them.

Makes a lot more sense to deal with operations which
dont operate like that than it does to use multiple partitions
on your hard drive so you can get RMAs out of those.

And multiple partitions wont help anyway, as should
be obvious from the dropped hard drive situation.

Todd <Post_to_group_only@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:rrnnca27boh25@corp.supernews.com...
nothing but a bunch of nonsense

Aaron <chaaron@lave.net> wrote in message news:7pgnc8$dd7$1@mochi.lava.net...
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Todd <Post_to_group_only@nospam.com> wrote
>>> 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.

>>>> 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.

What was being discussed was how to partition
a drive when running FAT32 Win95 or Win98.

> Don't use defects in the OS to support your opinions.

Dont try to order me about.

>>> 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?

Nope, the volume label is rather more restricted than the directory
name with long file names. And more awkward to change too.

> When did MS change it so we have to
> call tech support to change a volume label?

Careful you dont go blind now.

> My point is that you can name a drive just like you can name a folder.

My point is that your 'just like' is wrong. And that
while you can certainly name a drive, that name
you have given it is far less visible than a root
directory name. Your 'just like' is just plain wrong.

> Not that you use the exact same movements for each.
> Didn't think I had to fully explain that one to you.

See above on going blind.

>>>> 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?

If you dont run multiple OSs, a single partition per
drive has lots of advantages when running FAT32.
Didn't think I had to fully explain that one to you.

> I have partitions on my PC. Do you have any partitions on yours?

One per drive.

>>>>> 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?

Nope.

> Are you Bill Clinton by any chance?

See above on your eyesight.

>>>>> 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

See above on your eyesight.

>>>>> 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.

Partions become fragmented quickest when there is less free
space. A single partition for the whole drive inevitably sees more free
space in the partition, so fragmentation is rather less of a problem.

> 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.

Yes, but a decent defragger doesnt mindlessly move that stuff around much too.

> With one drive, you are constantly writing and
> deleting files on that drive.  No way around it.

Yes, but if its got plenty of free space, and thats common with a single
partition for the big drives we are discussing, they dont fragment much.

> I keep my working files on one partition, and it
> does get fragmented, the others generally don't.

And single partitions for the whole large drive
being discussed dont get fragmented much either.

>>> 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.

Its more complicated than that.