Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 21 Jun 1998 09:49:05 -0400 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
All of this recent talk about FAT-16 vs FAT-32 and the cluster sizes etc
has got me wondering about a related issue that I would like to hear
opinions about.
Aside form issues of cluster size and reclaimed hard drive space etc, I
cannot understand why someone would want a huge single C: partition in the
first place. My own drive is a puny 1.6G, but I have it partitioned into 4
logical drives of less than 500K each to avoid wasted space. But even if I
had a larger drive, and FAT-32, my inclination would still be to go to
multiple smaller partitions.
Wouldn't a huge (say 8Gig) single partition slow many system functions
down? When you went into explorer, or searched for a file, or did any of a
number of "housekeeping" functions, my assumption would be that the time
taken to refresh windows, and refresh explorer views etc would be
noticeably slower for a single huge partition than for smaller multiple ones.
Maybe I have just never had a fast enough system :( to allow me the luxury
of thinking of such a huge partition?
Any thoughts as to the functioning of a single large, vs several smaller
partitions?
Michael
==============================
Michael A. Wosnick
Richmond Hill, Ontario
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|