Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!phil
From: phil@Apple.COM (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Apple HD SC Setup partitionning
Message-ID: <31563@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 24 May 89 19:14:16 GMT
References: <892@cnetlu.UUCP> <12994@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <1847@ccnysci.UUCP> <30867@apple.Apple.COM> <2084@ccnysci.UUCP>
Organization: Apple Computer A/UX Group
Lines: 25

In article <2084@ccnysci.UUCP> alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) writes:
>Someone else from Apple has already said that this was basically correct
>(it had to do with different manufacturers' drive sizes, not defects, though).
>But I suppose one thing can fulfill two needs. The question now is, why is
>there a need to have unallocated partitions?

I'm one of the designers of the partitioning scheme. Unallocated partitions
are just that. In disk management, we were allowing for multiple OS's to
use the disk.

You could start out with 40MB for the Mac OS, later take another 80MB for
A/UX, and later more for an MS/DOS card's disk space. Of course, you could
also use it to handle "slop" of slightly different drive capacities.

Unallocated partitions were specifically design with the thought of
multiple operatings systems and/or multiple logocal volumes on a disk drive.
Never even thought of handle drive capacity "slop" at the time.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Philip K. Ronzone, Apple Computer, 10440 Bubb Rd, MS 58A, Cupertino, CA 95014|
|{amdahl,decwrl,sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual,unisoft,...}!apple!phil             |
+-----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| All "IMHOs" disclaimed and copyrighted. | Self defense is a human right ... |
+-----------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+