🚀 go-pugleaf

Having fat 32 where the operating system is stored and have a fat16 that is
compressed as storage etc.

Rod Speed wrote:

> Andy K wrote in message <73od90$3c2$1@otis.netspace.net.au>...
>
> > I will be installing a 6.4Gb second hard drive soon. I am running Windows
> > 95 version 4.00.950.B. and was told that with this version I may not need
> > to partition the HD. I was also told by another person that it is always
> > better to partition a HD into smaller partitions. Who is right?
>
> I personally think that it makes more sense today to have just one
> large partition formatted with FAT32. Its just so much more convenient
> over time and you dont suffer the waste of space that FAT16 produces
> with very large partitions. It would only allow 2GB anyway.
>
> The main contrary argument is that theoretically FAT32 can be a bit
> slower with very large partitions like that. Thats pretty theoretical tho
> and you usually need to actually time things to see any real effect.
>
> The other argument is that if you manage to trash a partition, its better
> if you havent trashed everything. I think this is a pretty silly argument in
> many ways because its rather nutty to not be adequately backed up
> and its a bit silly to use multiple partitions to help when you arent.
>
> The very fundamental problem with multiple partitions is that
> its nowhere near as easy to keep track of where things are.
> You can forget about that completely with a single partition.