Re: ntfs, fat32 vista and xp and line wrap

["Patricia M. Godfrey" priscamg@xxxxxxxx]

J R FOX wrote:
> If I might add a few things here:
>
> Starting size for Windows boot partitions (because
> they have a tendency to grow and grow and grow):
Indeed they do.
> W98 -- I don't really know. Is 1G adequate ?
No way. My Windows partition (drive c:) on this box is 6 g, of which
2.6 are in use. That's Win and all Win-native apps (because I long ago
gave up fighting Corel, which insists on putting everything in
c:\Program Files, and will duplicate itself--with subsequent
confusion--if you don't).
> W2K -- suggest 4 - 6 G. I've made a few that were
> only 3G in size, and lived to regret it. (Multi-boot
> drive migrations are not pretty.)
Let me check what we did at the office. But the Win2K box has a
humongous drive, and it has to run the mailing list software, which
includes some huge USPS databases.
> XP -- suggest more like 8 - 10 G. It's more of a hog
> than 2K.

Ditto.
> Vista -- I'm afraid to ask.
>
> the legions of Win
> users who just have one enormous C:.
DON'T. Seventy times seven, Don't. It's a prescription for disaster.
There's a free partitioning utility, Partition Logic, that I'm going
to use the next time I have to repartition anything
> 4G is a lot of RAM.
It's what I'm hearing Vista takes, if you want to run any apps along
with the opsys. (And if you don't have Robert's skills at cleaning out
the garbage. Robert, maybe you ought to write a white paper on that.
For a more savvy list, of course. And for a fee. I bet a lot of
corporations would love something like that.)
> The traditional formula pegs
> swapfiles at 1.5 x installed RAM. In this case, that
> might be an Ouch. I'd be curious to hear what Flash
> or Robert have to say about that. Lately, I've been
> experimenting with much smaller swapfiles, but the
> jury is still out on this for me. The effects on
> performance probably depend on what apps you run, and
> how many of them are being multi-tasked at one time.
Yes, I was wondering about that too.
> Whatever is going to be on C:, having it be NTFS will
> increase the risks of a lockout at some point, where
> something like Winternals or Bart PE will be necessary
> to access it. Personally, I wouldn't want to go
> there, and wonder if a user like Avrom would either.
A valid point.
> Patricia, I like your idea about the install CD
> contents + drivers stored on the hard drive somewhere.
Yes, well, CDs have a habit of vanishing. Better to be sure than
sorry. I always make several copies of the install key too.


--
Patricia M. Godfrey
PriscaMG@xxxxxxxx