To: Zeuspaul who wrote (5714 ) 1/30/1999 9:43:00 PM From: Spots Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 14778
>>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.