🚀 go-pugleaf

Whut'tha?? Interpret that reply, will ya?
It's purely a matter of preference! 
Try and format one big partition, and not lose your compressed files,
install files, and cab files.[Which I keep on those other partitions.]
And as far as backup is concerned. Unless you are backing up to cdrom,
And I only see them in 650 meg size, a 6 gig drive will not fit on any
medium now available. NOw lets see, Travan 3 gig tape, 14 hours
format,two tapes, 28 hours plus about the same for each taping, Do
that everyday, YES< ONe BIG Partition, YES!!!
Oh, did I forget to mention that 80% of users have trouble getitng
100% recovery with tape backups??

To suggest you can 'find' stuff easier in a hangar size room, instead
of in smaller rooms, is ludicrous. Of course, I don't suppose you have
any sub dirs on YOUR BIG DRIVE, so everything is all in the root,
RIGHT??? A separate partition or drive is like a subdir.
I suggest you make one big drive of 5 or 6 gig, and FILL IT UP?
NO Subdirs, just all zip and open files, and see what happens.
heh heh heh,
 Have fun. 
js

On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 23:42:24 +1000, nameless <nameless@start.com.au>
wrote:

>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.