better to have OS X on a small partition? <20-30GB?

[edgarbc1]

something way back i recall saying that it is better for OSX to be
on a relatively small partition because of the swap/temp files it
creates during everyday use.. and to keep the location of said files
not all over the disk platter... and to limit the travel of the disk head
reader thingie all over the disks

Is this myth of better performance on a small disk true still?
(was this ever true?) Panther 10.3.9 or Tiger 10.4.x

my plan is to install Panther on a 200GB disk (thx Newt!) and Tiger on
another 80GB disk...

tia
Edgar

[mattkime]

its all myth.

some people loooooove to find reasons to partition.

typically, it means that they annoyingly fill up one while the other has plenty of space.

please don't divide your hard drive against itself.

[WHiiP]

Depending on HOW you like to organize your info, there are perfectly valid reasons to partition. But, it is not necessary and will not speed up your operations in real world situations. Partitioning does make selective backing up of files much easier.

.03¢

o cheers

[DharmaDog]

You will fill up the small partition then be out of space in users home folders.

BTW, how can I move a user's home folder to another drive?

[mattkime]

>>Partitioning does make selective backing up of files much easier.

Except that a mechanical failure of the drive with leave you without a backup.

[WHiiP]

mattkime Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>Partitioning does make selective backing
> up of files much easier.
>
> Except that a mechanical failure of the drive with
> leave you without a backup.


Sorry, I assumed you would be smart enough to be backing up on other media . . . or, at least another hard drive, NOT on the same hard drive as your original info . . . that would be stupid . . .