There are still various and conflicting considerations that lead people to
make different choices. I originally partitioned my QuickSilver G4 in the
OS X 10.0 days when everyone was on pins and needles about how to deal with
the new stuff. With the review in this thread, I'm doing to simplify my
partitioning scheme when I install Panther.
Kim Gammelgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I beg to differ.
SNIP
>
> A partitioning scheme like Al's is also bound to make problems with updates
> of OSX and applications, that trust to find the applications folder at
> /Applications and not at /Volumes/Applications. Sometimes you can fool it
> with a link or alias, but not always.
I'll take this point. Note my quote from David Pogue below.
>
> Similarly I am not convinced that carving up the Very Good Notion of a home
> directory that is given by a standard installation of OSX is a good idea and
> can make it very difficult to troubleshoot if you get into problems.
David Pogue seems not to agree.
> And you
> are bound to encounter problems, as you will run low on space on a
> partition or two now and then, with so many partitions.
Space may be a concern for some folks.
>
> For backups, just take the home folder, then you will get both your
> documents, but also your photos, your video, your email and whatever that
> can be found in the Library folder, and most backup applications will let
> you make incremental backups anyway.
Another good point.
SNIP
>
> On 03/02/04 16:44, "Al Poulin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You might consider partitions as follows, ins descending order of priority:
>> OS 9.2.2 (about 4 or 5 GB)
>> OS 10.3.2 plus any recent updates (about 10 GB)
>> Applications (for OS 9 and X applications)
>> Documents (your own stuff, you back this one up most often)
>> Scratch (if you use Photoshop or similar application)
>> Emergency (where you put extra copy of either OS 9 or X with repair
>> utilities like DiskWarrier and TechTools Pro to administer your other
>> partitions)
>> Backup (not a genuine backup place because it will not help with most hard
>> drive problems, but a handy place for a second copy just in case you
>> yourself mess up one of your documents or applications -- just a quick way
>> of getting back to work or play)
>> CD Burn (about 650MB, a place to load up stuff you want to move to CD; it
>> limits the amount to the capacity of the CDs and you can reformat it each
>> time to clear the old stuff and set up again)
And Jim Foster (President of a Mac Users Group) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another possible issue in partitioning hard drives for separate OS X
> and OS 9 volumes is I think similar to the issue of whether it is
> better to be running OS X off a single large volume versus having OS X
> boot from a moderate sized hard drive and then running an auxiliary
> internal or external hard drive. That is that my understanding is that
> OS X can only implement its Unix based account environment on the OS X
> boot volume. If you have a secondary volume for OS 9, or for any reason
> whatsoever, anything that is on that volume is accessible by ANY of the
> OS X boot volume accounts. So I think this just boils down to a matter
> of whether or not that could be an issue. I think for many of us this
> would not be a big concern, but on the other hand if you to to all the
> trouble of setting up separate OS X accounts for all your family
> members, and then have everything on that second volume being wide open
> to all account holders, it would give one pause to think whether that's
> really a good scheme.
If I understand this statement correctly, this issue seems to be a security
and data integerity concern. It may not apply in the case where one or two
people work in one user account.
>
> Personally, I began my OS X adventure using separate partitions for
> each OS, but I have kind of come around to the view that, for me, it's
> better to just run one full internal partition for everything, using
> easily demountable firewire external drives where appropriate for
> backups or for whatever other reasons.
Ah! Another reason to buy a firewire drive! My second drive is an internal
one, going cheap at the time I bought my QuickSilver. My idea was that I
can always put it into an external box later, if necessary.
>
> Apple puts everything on a single volume, or certainly did for as long
> as they were configuring their products with both OS X and OS 9 (not
> sure if they are still doing this), so that was another factor in my
> thinking.
Apple also supports partitioning, for whatever reasons users may have.
Now here is what DAVID POGUE says in his latest book: Mac OS X Panther
Edition The Missing Manual:
QUOTE:
There are some very good reasons not (italics) to partition a drive these
days: A partitioned hard drive is more difficult to resurrect after a
serious crash, requires more navigation when you want to open a particular
file, and offers no speed or safety benefits.
But there's one very good reason to (italics) do it too: On older Macs that
can still restart in Mac OS 9, keeping Mac OS 9 and Mac OS 10 on different
partitions can save you time when you switch between them,....
UNQUOTE
In later pages David Pogue says:
QUOTE:
In the coming months and years, you'll save yourself a lot of trouble and
time if you keep Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X on two different drives. This kind of
setup offers several advantages:
* It's much easier to switch between the two operating systems at
startup time. (You may hear this feature called dual booting (italics).)
* Troubleshooting Mac OS 9 or Mac OS X is much easier.
* You don't have to see, and try to distinguish, your Mac OS 9 and Mac
OS X folders all mixed together in the single hard drive window (two
Applications folders, two System folders, and so on).
The easy and expensive way to achieve this happiness is, of course, to
install Mac OS X on a second hard drive (like an iPod).
Fortunately, there's also a free method: partitioning (italics) your Mac's
main hard drive....
UNQUOTE
Then, after discussing the chores of backing up and recopying files, he
says: "It's perfectly OK to install Mac OS X right onto your Mac OS 9 hard
drive."
So now, while I ponder how many partitions I want to kill, does anyone know
whether Adobe Photoshop recommends a separate "scratch" disk in OS X? I
still have Photoshop Elements v1.
Thanks again for all the good pointers.
--
Al Poulin
Anger, hate, and revenge are for the devil, forgiveness is for God,
proactive self-defense is for the rest of us.
--
The iMac List is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and...
Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives |
- Epson Stylus Color 580 Printers - new at $69 | & CDRWs on Sale! |
Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html>
iMac List info: <http://lowendmac.com/imac/list.shtml>
--> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/imac-list%40mail.maclaunch.com/>
---------------------------------------------------------------
>The Think Different Store
http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
