🚀 go-pugleaf

NOw why doin't you just offer some sincere help and stop picking on
what others do offer, Rod ??
I have more systems running on my own lan and more gig of crap than
you'll ever see.
So,
Just suck on your thumb if you can't offer an opinion instead of
picking my post apart.
YOUr sniping demonstrates your lack of depth.
If you want to use a 11 gig single partition, do it.
I won't.
js



On Fri, 4 Dec 1998 12:00:13 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rspeed@dragnet.com.au>
wrote:

>
>In article <3666081f.223918092@news.intellisys.net>,
>Guamy <graflex@geocities.com> writes
>
>> I agree with making smaller partitions/drives. First 'initialize' after
>> boot take a long time when yo have the drive full.Let's say a minute,
>
>Dont get that with 5-6GB partitions.
>
>> with a p300,128 mem.
>
>That isnt particularly relevant.
>
>> Those that haven't experienced this just haven't d/l enough programs.
>
>Cant say that about my main system.
>
>> I run one 5 gig for storage, but limit all others to 3g or less.
>
>Dont believe that's warranted.
>
>> Rod Speed <rspeed@dragnet.com.au> wrote
>>>P_II_Man@Intel.com wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Andy K wrote
>
>>>>> 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.
>
>>>> Have to disagree with you there Rod buddy.
>>>> I installed a 6.4 to a few Pent II boxes and after a while when the
>>>> get say half full or more they really start to drag thier arse big time.
>
>>> Never seen anything like that.
>
>>>> I used norton to defrag the things, but no real improvement there either...
>>>> So I recomend to keep partition size to below 3 Gig.
>
>>>I've done plenty over that size, no problem.
>
>
>