> > (In the unlikely event that it matters, the following is in the context of
> > an i386.  But, I think that the discussion should be machine independant.)
> 
> You take architectures seriously!

(^& I spent a long time on an Amiga.  The ``everyone's an i386'' attitude
that I sometims encountered always irritated me.  I try very hard not to
cave into it, now that I have an i386 machine, too.

99% of the world may be an i386, but everyone else deserves some
respect.


> > (Or, contrary to the impression that I received when raising the topic
> > before, am I just asking for trouble by having partitions that don't
> > respect cylinder boundaries?  If so, and this is almost certainly
> > i386-specific, should I repartition with BIOS-level fake geometry
> > cylinders, or real cylinders?)
> 
> I remember overhearing that with newer hard drives, the "real cylinders"
> might not truly be "real", and that it does not make a difference whether
> one respects cylinder boundaries or not.

I've heard something along those lines, too.  Whether that's a common
situation, or only applies to certain drives, I'm not sure.

Regardless of that, I reasoned that since (on the i386) one has to deal
with ``fake geometries'' with larger drives (well, typical drives, now, I
guess), the notion of a cylinder boundary is probably iffy at best.


  "I probably don't know what I'm talking about." --rauch@eecs.ukans.edu