🚀 go-pugleaf

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.