Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Dream Machine ( Build your own PC ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Spots who wrote (5728)	1/31/1999 12:24:00 AM
From: Zeuspaul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14778

Second partition on drive then becomes a problem because it's letter depends on the number of drives. Agreed. I have a guy that wants me to tell him how many drives in my machines and then not to change them!! He claims he needs to know so he can configure the network properly. My answer to that is to leave a bunch of space so I can add drives when I need to. The problem is I am up to J with just local drives. Over the years there have been many attempts to split my drives. The first was on a laptop with a 60 MB drive. The drive was SO BIG that it was determined that two would be better. I never liked it. Users had trouble finding things from day one. It is OK if you want to hide things but I want a straight forward intuitive machine. The outside forces ( am I paranoid?) are always trying to force me to divide and squash my drives. I have been rescued by by harddrive manufacturers that have almost able to keep up with my needs. Current harddrive capacities are not restrictive IMO. The software guys also throw punches. I have 9 gig drives that are partitioned into 4 pieces just so two operating systems can share the space. As opportunities knock gravity draws me back to a one drive 'primary' system. I do not like making unnecessary decisions once a system is setup. Trying to decide if something belongs on the first of two partitions or the second is stressful for me. Trying to remember where something is is the second kicker. I want to know where it is. So what is the big deal with FAT? Do we have to partition a drive just so we have a FAT partition? Does a second physical drive cure the problem? You can pick up a six gig drive for about $100. Are you short on cash<g>? Trying to operate/maintain a system with one harddrive is like trying to pick one's self up in the air IMO. Isn't the backup OS best on a second drive? Somewhere where it will not cause an otherwise unnecessary partition of the main drive? Organization can be maintained on the main drive with folders. I do not see an organizational issue. I do not believe a second partition will help keep a clean OS either. No fewer drivers and registry entries will be made. Other than the FAT issue which I do not yet understand there is the backup issue. Backing up a small partition (gig or less..and growing as you indicate) is certainly easier than backing up a large partition. What good is a backup if it is not a stand alone backup? It introduces another level of complexity. To backup a 'working system' one has to backup the 'primary' and the 'apps' partitions at the same time and somehow designate the two as a combo. I vote for backing up the OS and apps..ie everything that is required to operate the machine and its applications with one execution. Gravity says one drive letter for one system unless the contrary evidence is clear and convincing. Zeuspaul