Michael A. Wosnick wrote:

> 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?

I use single partitions on all three of my  Western Digital 6.4 gig drives with
FAT32, one converted with the Win98 FAT16 to FAT32 converter.   The only time I
have any real problem with it is when Windows crashes and it runs scandisk since
I keep my OS on one drive and most of my program files on another, then it just
takes a long time to run.  I  do have a 4 gig Western Digital drive that is
partitioned into two 2 gig partitions.  The advantage to me is that I don't have
11 different drive letters for hard disk storage.  That was my  goal.   I much
prefer the single volume per drive then again I'm driving it with an  Intel  400
MHz Pentium II.

Just my take on this,

Robert Kilroy
--
ICQ Number:  4249654
Look, Listen, Learn
Information is being provided for educational purposes only