 The magazine of the Melbourne PC User Group Disk-overies Tom Coleman |
 |
Quite some time ago now I installed a 40 MB hard disk in my XT. When I got the disk it was partitioned into a 32 MB drive C: and an eight MB drive D:
Being the idle fellow I really am, I did not bother to change the size of the partitioning, although I know that DOS gets more files per megabyte out of disks larger than 16 megabytes because the clusters are smaller on the larger disks.
Recently I had a fit of housekeeping and reorganized the hard disk. It is now two 20 MB drives.
As a result I have realized that we are being conned by the sales hype about at least one aspect of DOS 4 and 5.
At first I did not realize the reason why I found a 20 MB drive easier to use than a 32 MB drive. It was fairly subtle at first but now I
know: The root directory is smaller.
There are four files and 22 subdirectories in the root directory of drive C: There are two files and 18 subdirectories in drive D:.
Now the full DIR listing only just overflows the screen on drive C: and I can see it all on drive D:.
Visually, mentally, I can cope with that much information. I do not think that I am alone in getting confused or at least a bit lost when 30 or 40 or more files go whizzing off the screen.
Any more than a screenful of files and directories is too much. We all try to parcel it into smaller packages with DIR/P or DIR/W but it is not the same as having the lot on screen at once.
Then it struck me that if I were to partition the disk using DOS 4 or 5, I could have a 40 MB single partition with 40 subdirectories and six files.
Far too much. I would want to find a better way of looking at so much information. Maybe I could put
some subdirectories below others and reduce the number in the root directory but that would make for longer paths and that's an inconvenience too.
It was while I was cogitating on this that the reality of this hyped up business of larger disk partitions struck me.
How would you be with a 60 MB hard disk with about 70 entries in the root directory. Worse still for the 100 MB disk with its 110 or 120 entries.
You would finish up having subdirectories four to six levels down to be able to cope with the root directory.
A horrible can of worms.
If we were to partition the disk into as many 20 MB drives as would be required, it all fits into nice manageable packets.
It strikes me that this business of larger partitions may have a narrow application for some obscure purpose but for you and me it smacks of bigger numbers for salesmen to sell computers with.
I do not think that large partitions are very practical.
Reprinted from the October 1991 issue of PC Update, the magazine of Melbourne PC User Group, Australia
