🚀 go-pugleaf

Hey Andy,  Noone is right in my opinion.  But win95 osr2 or 950b supports what
we call fat32 which would allow you to make one big HD of 6.4Gb but I always
find it wise to partition your drive in a minimum of 3 drives.  I use one drive
c for nothing more than my operating system and programs that are utilities to
my OS ex. norton anti virus or norton utilities.  I then use a d drive to load
all my programs into.  Then the e drive is for nothing but my data files.  This
way is easy to back up all you have to do is back up your entire e drive and
your data is backed up. If you need info on partitioning I found this link that
will give you this info.
http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardware/hdrives/partitions/
Best of luck to you        feel free to e-mail me at freemanc@earthlink.net

Andy K wrote:

> 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?
> Andy K

Windows (any version) has trouble with partitions larger than 4MB.  I
recommend dividing it in half

SOmebody tell me if I'm wrong but I think Win 95 (or DOS) has to partition
the HD otherwise it will only recognize 2gb of hard drive.

Right or Wrong?

Its common with early pentiums (60 & 66Mhz)

On Sun, 29 Nov 1998 15:56:32 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rspeed@dragnet.com.au> wrote:

>
>Matt Jenner wrote in message <3660D30A.EBBF19AF@ozemail.com.au.spam_off>...
>> Derek Morton wrote:
>
>>> You have been misinformed.
>
>>> The 2Gb and 8Gb limits are bios limits.
>
>> and you are doing your own share of 'misinforming'
>
>> the two common BIOS limits are 528M and 8G
>
>There is also a 2GB bios limit, tho I agree it isnt that common.
>
>

You may wish to check your information before misinforming us.

On Sun, 29 Nov 1998 14:52:26 +1000, Matt Jenner
<jennerm@ozemail.com.au.spam_off> wrote:

>
>
>Derek Morton wrote:
>> 
>> Keith
>> 
>> You have been misinformed.
>> 
>> The 2Gb and 8Gb limits are bios limits.
>
>and you are doing your own share of 'misinforming'
>
>the two common BIOS limits are 528M and 8G
>
>theGoob
>
>> win95a cannot do bigger that 2Gb
>> ALL other win (win95b and higher including winnt) can do partitions as big as
>> you can buy.
>> 
>> On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 10:42:53 -0500, "Keith D. Robinson"
>> <chipwizz@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >Windows (any version) has trouble with partitions larger than 4MB.  I
>> >recommend dividing it in half
>> >

Derek Morton wrote in message <3676da69.164077861@24.192.3.17>...

> Its common with early pentiums (60 & 66Mhz)

I think its overstating it to say its common even just with those.

> Rod Speed <rspeed@dragnet.com.au> wrote
>> Matt Jenner wrote
>>> Derek Morton wrote:

>>>> You have been misinformed.

>>>> The 2Gb and 8Gb limits are bios limits.

>>> and you are doing your own share of 'misinforming'

>>> the two common BIOS limits are 528M and 8G

>> There is also a 2GB bios limit, tho I agree it isnt that common.

No argument on that score.

On Sun, 29 Nov 1998 19:54:26 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rspeed@dragnet.com.au> wrote:

>
>Derek Morton wrote in message <3676da69.164077861@24.192.3.17>...
>
>> Its common with early pentiums (60 & 66Mhz)
>
>I think its overstating it to say its common even just with those.
>
>> Rod Speed <rspeed@dragnet.com.au> wrote
>>> Matt Jenner wrote
>>>> Derek Morton wrote:
>
>>>>> You have been misinformed.
>
>>>>> The 2Gb and 8Gb limits are bios limits.
>
>>>> and you are doing your own share of 'misinforming'
>
>>>> the two common BIOS limits are 528M and 8G
>
>>> There is also a 2GB bios limit, tho I agree it isnt that common.
>
>

On Sun, 29 Nov 1998 12:54:01 +1100, "Alan b" <alan_b@bigfoot.com>
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?
>>Andy K
>>
>>-------------------------REPLY ---------------------------------------
>
>It all depends on what you want to do.
>  Advantages of partitioning to small drives are
>1.  You can assign each drive to different jobs or persons.  (For example I
>have partitions for  CD copying,  Kids ,  Software and data.  The advantage
>is you can format and restart each partition without the worry about the
>loss of  info. on other partitions.  You can stops kids filling the hard
>disk with all the games they can find.
>
>2.  You can defrag and scan the drives independently.  Also fragmentation of
>the drive will be less if you keep only programs on one drive  and data on
>another.
>
>Regards
>
>Alan b
>
>Flexisoft Computers,  35, Watton St, Werribee Vic 3030
>Open 10:30 - 6:30 week days and 10:00 -2:00pm weekends
>
>Australia's Best Computer Discounts
>http://www.abcd.com.au
>
	Well said, Alan !

Also the time taken to defragment a very large partition should be
taken into concideration - in a perfect world defragmentation would
always  performed when the computer would not otherwise be in use,
but in the real world.........

John.


== Remove TEETH to reply ==

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.

Chris Freeman wrote in message <365FD4D1.BFF2B36A@earthlink.net>...

> I always find it wise to partition your drive in a minimum of 3 drives.
> I use one drive c for nothing more than my operating system and
> programs that are utilities to my OS ex. norton anti virus or norton
> utilities. I then use a d drive to load all my programs into.  Then the
> e drive is for nothing but my data files.

The very fundamental problem with this approach is that its hard
to get the 3 partition sizes right, particularly as things change over
time, and damned awkward to change their sizes unless you spend
substantial money on something like Partition Magic.

And what have you really achieved by having separate partitions anyway ?

> This way is easy to back up all you have to do is back
> up your entire e drive and your data is backed up.

That's just as easy to do if you keep all your data in a /Data tree in the
root. And done like that you dont need to get the size right at install time.

Monte and Dorian Goodyk wrote in message
<4oV72.1958$Cp3.16789@news13.ispnews.com>...

> SOmebody tell me if I'm wrong but I think Win 95 (or DOS) has to
> partition the HD otherwise it will only recognize 2gb of hard drive.

> Right or Wrong?

Mostly wrong. What you are talking about is the 2GB limit
on partition size with FAT16. That limitation has gone now
with FAT32 which is supported by Win95 OSR2 and later.

On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 02:47:45 -0800, Chris Freeman <freemanc@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Hey Andy,  Noone is right in my opinion.  But win95 osr2 or 950b supports what
>we call fat32 which would allow you to make one big HD of 6.4Gb but I always
>find it wise to partition your drive in a minimum of 3 drives.  I use one drive

Wise has nothing to do with the choice.
This is your experience, and that is fine.
Andy has to decide what he wants to do.  1 big partition has disadvantages, 3
partitions have disadvantages.

Neither way is best.


>c for nothing more than my operating system and programs that are utilities to
>my OS ex. norton anti virus or norton utilities.  I then use a d drive to load
>all my programs into.  Then the e drive is for nothing but my data files.  This
>way is easy to back up all you have to do is back up your entire e drive and
>your data is backed up. If you need info on partitioning I found this link that
>will give you this info.
>http://www.hardwarecentral.com/hardware/hdrives/partitions/
>Best of luck to you        feel free to e-mail me at freemanc@earthlink.net
>
>Andy K wrote:
>
>> 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?
>> Andy K
>

Keith

You have been misinformed.

The 2Gb and 8Gb limits are bios limits.

win95a cannot do bigger that 2Gb
ALL other win (win95b and higher including winnt) can do partitions as big as
you can buy.


On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 10:42:53 -0500, "Keith D. Robinson"
<chipwizz@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Windows (any version) has trouble with partitions larger than 4MB.  I
>recommend dividing it in half
>

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?
>Andy K
>
>-------------------------REPLY ---------------------------------------

It all depends on what you want to do.
  Advantages of partitioning to small drives are
1.  You can assign each drive to different jobs or persons.  (For example I
have partitions for  CD copying,  Kids ,  Software and data.  The advantage
is you can format and restart each partition without the worry about the
loss of  info. on other partitions.  You can stops kids filling the hard
disk with all the games they can find.

2.  You can defrag and scan the drives independently.  Also fragmentation of
the drive will be less if you keep only programs on one drive  and data on
another.

Regards

Alan b

Flexisoft Computers,  35, Watton St, Werribee Vic 3030
Open 10:30 - 6:30 week days and 10:00 -2:00pm weekends

Australia's Best Computer Discounts
http://www.abcd.com.au

Derek Morton wrote:
> 
> Keith
> 
> You have been misinformed.
> 
> The 2Gb and 8Gb limits are bios limits.

and you are doing your own share of 'misinforming'

the two common BIOS limits are 528M and 8G

theGoob

> win95a cannot do bigger that 2Gb
> ALL other win (win95b and higher including winnt) can do partitions as big as
> you can buy.
> 
> On Sat, 28 Nov 1998 10:42:53 -0500, "Keith D. Robinson"
> <chipwizz@mindspring.com> wrote:
> 
> >Windows (any version) has trouble with partitions larger than 4MB.  I
> >recommend dividing it in half
> >

Matt Jenner wrote in message <3660D30A.EBBF19AF@ozemail.com.au.spam_off>...
> Derek Morton wrote:

>> You have been misinformed.

>> The 2Gb and 8Gb limits are bios limits.

> and you are doing your own share of 'misinforming'

> the two common BIOS limits are 528M and 8G

There is also a 2GB bios limit, tho I agree it isnt that common.

ANDY!!!!

you may ask wizard, he knows best.



Wizard <davicomp.killspam@nh.ultranet.com> wrote:

>X-No-Archive:Yes

>Matt Jenner wrote:
>> 
>> Derek Morton wrote:
>> >
>> > Keith
>> >
>> > You have been misinformed.
>> >
>> > The 2Gb and 8Gb limits are bios limits.
>> 
>> and you are doing your own share of 'misinforming'
>> 
>> the two common BIOS limits are 528M and 8G
>> 
>> theGoob
>> 
>The 2Gb limit is a limitation of fat-16

fat 16 limitation - RIGHT....(tell em bout fat16)

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, with a p300,128 mem.Those that haven't experienced this just
haven't d/l enough programs.
I run one 5 gig for storage, but limit all others to 3g or less.
js


On Wed, 2 Dec 1998 18:45:01 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rspeed@dragnet.com.au>
wrote:

>
>P_II_Man@Intel.com wrote in message <3664046D.4F3E@Intel.com>...
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Andy K wrote in message <73od90$3c2$1@otis.netspace.net.au>...
>
>>> 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.
>
>

Another advantage to creating multiple partitions or rather leaving space
available is you may play around with other OS in future such as NT, Unix or
Novell. So if you are a stable computer user you most likely wont need more
than 1 partition but if you like to tinker and are scared you might wipe
everything one day multiple is the way to go.

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?
>Andy K
>
>

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, with a p300,128 mem.Those that haven't experienced this just
>haven't d/l enough programs.
>I run one 5 gig for storage, but limit all others to 3g or less.
>js
>
>
>On Wed, 2 Dec 1998 18:45:01 +1100, "Rod Speed" <rspeed@dragnet.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>P_II_Man@Intel.com wrote in message <3664046D.4F3E@Intel.com>...
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Andy K wrote in message <73od90$3c2$1@otis.netspace.net.au>...
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>
What is the best Way to Partition a drive, and where can I download a
copy From, Thanks.
-- 
Nick McKee