🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <20@kulath.demon.co.uk>,
timl@kulath.demon.co.uk (Tim Lyons) wrote:

> I have just got a 2.1 GB disc to upgrade (replace) my 230 MB disc.
> 
> The question is: is partitioning it to
> decrease the allocation block size worth
> the hassle of not having a single resource
> into which to juggle my files?

Since you're used to a 230 Meg disk, it's gonna take you at least,
say, six months before you really need all that space.

I would strongly recommend you repartition it to include one
partition of around 600 to 650 Meg.  This should cover the last
part of your disk and include a (compressed ?) backup of the
important changable parts of your main disk and some rescue tools
such as a minimal system installation, Disk First Aid, and Norton.

Should your main disk ever get drastically corrupted you can boot
with no INITs (or from a floppy), use the 'Startup Disk' CP to
switch to this backup partition, and then reboot to an uncorrupted
partition with all the rescue tools you need.  It's far faster to
do this than to have to scratch everything off and start again.
I use this technique on my PowerBook while travelling around many
miles from my stack-of-disks and have always been able to rescue
my data without resorting to anything more than a System CD.

PS: Explaining about the spelling.  I use 'disk' and 'program' when
    I'm writing about the computing things, and the British English
    spellings for frisbees and TV schedules.

Simon.
-- 
Simon Slavin -- Computer Contractor. | Excessive quoting from Shakespeare:
   http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk    |                  gag me with a folio.
Check email address for spam-guard.  | -- sclerc@ernie.bgsu.edu (Susan Clerc)
Junk email not welcome at this site. | I receive about 2.5 junk emails a day.