>>Partially a time issue for me
It's primarily a time issue for all of us, I think. Time plays
a big role in my weighting factors. The technical aspects
are one thing, not so hard; the methodolgy is the time sink.
>>IMO the context of the Image discussion has been Clarence's
machine
Ok, in the context of What We Think Clarence Should Do,
we can disagree. I agree to that. Now we've agreed, so
let's force Clarence to do whatever we agree to <g>.
>>I have had concerns about a large C drive. My current thinking is apps on a second ...
And so on. This is a VERY thorny issue, which I would love to
have good advice about. In this case I disagree with myself
nightly (wee hours are a good time to work on this problem
if you lie awake at all ... well, not if you want to go back
to sleep). Maybe there's a simple answer someone's hiding
from us ...
I propose partitioning as the next major debate topic here.
I'll start on a minor (and therefore fairly simple) sub
topic. For a BACKUP OS, one which you will minimally maintain,
the ultimate KOT cluge for when all else fails to keep from
resorting to booting from floppy, a smallish FAT partition
is arguably (I argue) the right strategy. Smallish, for
me, used to be 512 mb. I have now upped that to 1GB owing
to having 51+ GB of disk space in shrink wrap in the basement.
I would also argue simultaneously that the first primary
partition on the C drive should be a FAT partition because
of universal accessibility, and probably that backup OSs
should go there for the same reason.
End of opening gambit. Gambit's not quite the right word,
it's not a trap, but there are things wrong with it I'm
not elaborating on not to prejudice responses. |
