Re: partitioning and use thereof

Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 10/6/21 8:19 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
>> OK, the way HDs have been set up is extremely wasteful, one giant 
>> track and sector.
> 
> Please define what you mean by "one giant track and sector".  *ALL* of 
> the hard drives that I've used for the past 30 years, and I do mean 
> /all/, have had many tracks, with each track having many sectors therein.
> 
>> All else there off to the sunset forever.
> 
> And yet we have many different partitioning schemes.  So it seems to me 
> that the first thing used wasn't /forever/.
> 
>> Seems to me, in the old daze where space was supposedly at a premium, 
>> that non-use would have been accounted for.
> 
> The slack space at the end of the files verses the allocation that they 
> consumed has been a form of contention for the entire time that I've 
> been using hard drives.  That's where cluster sizes comes into play with 
> file systems.
> 
>> Well, as a result we have (at least i do not have to take off my shoes 
>> to count) 4 (four) partitions.
> 
> What is a partition?
> 
>   - primary
>   - logical
>   - BSD disk slice
>   - Microsoft dynamic
>   - Logical Volume
>   - something else
> 
>> Then these new(er) OSes go and WASTE one by eating a partition for the 
>> very space-wasting boot sector...more space non-use.
> 
> I suppose that you're talking about Microsoft OSes.  I can still install 
> contemporary Linux in a single partition with the boot loader living in 
> the unused space of the first sector that is not included in a partition.
* THAT is the sane way to go, and the why of my complaint.
   There should be a way to fiddle an M$ install to get that (and have 
the whole thing in the first of the 2 partitions).

> 
>> And they go-ahead and byte all over attempts to (independently) make 4 
>> partitions.
> 
> I think your attempts are significantly different than my ... successes.
> 
>> So, for arguments sake, i would like to put on the hard drive DOS, 
>> Linux, Win7 and Win10.
> 
> DOS will almost certainly need it's own partition.
> 
> Linux will almost certainly need it's own partition.
> 
> Windows 7 and Windows 10 may be able to be installed in the same common 
> partition.  I've done so with Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000, and Windows 
> XP in the past.  --  I'm sure it's contrary to Microsoft's 
> recommendations.  But that doesn't mean that it's not possible.
> 
>> And since i am starting with 4 drives i would naively partition an 
>> empty drive into 4 partitions, and just copy each drive onto a 
>> partition and use a partition manager to select and boot where i want.
> 
> /Partition/ managers and /boot/ managers are distinctly *different* 
> things.  They frequently come as a bundle, but they are quite different 
> things.  The former is meant for altering partition tables.  The latter 
> is meant to allow you to boot different OSs.  Sometimes the latter only 
> automates altering the active partition.  Usually the latter is in and 
> of itself a micro OS that presents you with a menu to choose what OS you 
> want to chain load.
* That is what i am familiar with and works very well.
   The scheme of copy to partition for an OS, then use of a boot manager 
avoids the hassle and hours of re-installing lottza programs.

> 
>> Comments?
> 
> There is a lot of minutia in what you are talking about.  Some minutia 
> is compatible with other minutia, and some is incompatible.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus