There has been a lot of traffic on this question, and it goes back to the early days of Macs. The answer is that, "it all depends." Yes, Apple ships its new machines with a single partition. But then Apple assumes that you are going to use the OS that comes pre-installed. Right out of the box that is usually the case. Then after time goes by, a newer, better OS comes along (like 10.2) and you the owner of the single partition disk holding OS 9 and a slew of classic apps want to install 10.2 on that machine. This is the issue that I personally am facing right now. I have a single partition disk with 9.2.2 and GBs of data. Is Apple's 10.2 installer savvy enough 100% of the time to safely install 10.2 on that disk without disrupting the existing contents? Take a look at all of the user comments on macintouch.com's 10.2 list of user comments...seriously, take a look and read them...or those on many of the other Mac related sites that maintain user comment lists. The capability in the 10.2 installer that we are discussing here is the one that I believe is called archive; that is, the ability to install 10.2 on an existing disk and retain that disk's contents. >From my reading of the comments on macintouch.com, it appears that this archive and install ability works well sometimes !!?? Certainly not 100% of the time. Some commenters have stated that the archive and install method results in a useable 10.2, but a trashed 9.2 along with inability to access the old data.
This gets away from the partitioning question, but is certainly associated to it. If doing a totally clean install on a totally clean disk, partitions are not necessary. If doing an install on a disk holding existing data that you don't wish to re-install (which I don't want to) but you wish to have access to, you are confronted with either biting the proverbial bullet and letting the 10.2 installer perform its magic, which appears to be successful ~ 90+% of the time (and of course accepting the risk that you may be one of the unlucky few), or installing on a totally separate drive. I think this gets to Brian's original question. To be absolutely and totally safe, you must do one of the following: 1) accept the clean install of 10.2 and reinstall OS 9, if necessary, reinstall your apps your previously backed-up data; 2) cleanly install 10.2 and apps on your drive, and keep your old data and apps on an archive that you can access as needed; or 3) cleanly install 10.2 on a new drive and keep the old drive with your classic environment and related apps and data. Option 3 is what I intend to do. Granted, most people who have performed the archive and install option of 10.2 have not experienced any problems, but unfortunately some have; and there doesn't yet appear to be any rhyme nor reason for it. So, being a risk adverse person when it comes to computers, I am not going to risk it. Leave the gusto for someone else. When I get my new drive, and big drives are pretty darn cheap now-a-days, I will remove my existing internal drive, install it in a FireWire external enclosure, which is very simple and costs ~ $70, install the new drive into my iMac 400 DV SE, boot up in 9.2.2 from the external drive, and install 10.2 cleanly onto the new internal drive. Yes, this will cost me ~$200 for the drive and enclosure, but what do I get as a benefit? I get peace of mind. I get 10.2 cleanly installed; a clean install for major OS changes is always Apple's recommended way even though the provide the means to do updates. I also keep my working and usable classic environment and all my old data on my old disk which I can access and run any time I want without worry. What I haven't yet decided is whether to partition that new disk. Maybe I'll keep it as one partition with just a 10.2 environment on it. Or, maybe I'll make two partitions: one for 10.2 and one for 9.2 ( I could copy the 9.2.2 folder over to the 2nd partition). No matter, partitioning isn't necessary. It has been recommended by some, that if you are going to have two systems on a single disk that the systems reside in separate partitions to ease crash recovery problems and conflicts, but it isn't absolutely necessary. Having both OS's on the internal disk would improve the performance of an OS over having to run it from an external drive. What's the bottom line? What is your pain tolerance? What kind of environment do you want in the end? Partitioning boils down to a convenience...a personal preference. Even Apple's vaunted archive and install tool for 10.2 doesn't (I don't think) create two partitions; it puts 10.2 and your existing data on a single partition. Should you trust that tool with your precious existing data? That depends upon you. Not me though...personal preference. Jerry -- 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/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
