Return to Answer

Just because you don't need dual boot doesn't mean you don't need partitions.

One argument that existed then and still is relevant is that you may want to put the operating system and user data on different partitions for multiple reasons.

Also, DOS was designed for floppy disks, not hard drives. When hard drives were introduced, they were significantly larger than floppy disks, and the larger size exposed issues in the filesystems that made it inefficient or impossible to use the larger sizes without partitioning the disk into pieces.

Over time, these filesystems (FAT12, FAT16) were updated to handle larger sizes (FAT32 ext2fs), and eventually replaced with new filesystems with new larger limits (vfat ext4) ...that were eventually still not big enough. History repeats. (xfat ntfs xfs zfs)

These issues existed then, and they still exist today, and we partition disks now for the same reasons...and a few more.

Just because you don't need dual boot doesn't mean you don't need partitions.

One argument that existed then and still is relevant is that you may want to put the operating system and user data on different partitions for multiple reasons.

Also, DOS was designed for floppy disks, not hard drives. When hard drives were introduced, they were significantly larger than floppy disks, and the larger size exposed issues in the filesystems that made it inefficient or impossible to use the larger sizes without partitioning the disk into pieces.

Over time, these filesystems (FAT12, FAT16) were updated to handle larger sizes (FAT32 ext2fs), and eventually replaced with new filesystems with new larger limits (fat+ ext4) ...that were eventually still not big enough. History repeats. (exfat ntfs xfs zfs)

These issues existed then, and they still exist today, and we partition disks now for the same reasons...and a few more.

Just because you don't need dual boot doesn't mean you don't need partitions.

One argument that existed then and still is relevant is that you may want to put the operating system and user data on different partitions for multiple reasons.

Also, DOS was designed for floppy disks, not hard drives. When hard drives were introduced, they were significantly larger than floppy disks, and the larger size exposed issues in the filesystems that made it inefficient or impossible to use the larger sizes without partitioning the disk into pieces.

Over time, these filesystems were updated to handle larger sizes, and eventually replaced with new filesystems with new larger limits...that were eventually still not big enough. History repeats.

These issues existed then, and they still exist today, and we partition disks now for the same reasons...and a few more.

Just because you don't need dual boot doesn't mean you don't need partitions.

One argument that existed then and still is relevant is that you may want to put the operating system and user data on different partitions for multiple reasons.

Also, DOS was designed for floppy disks, not hard drives. When hard drives were introduced, they were significantly larger than floppy disks, and the larger size exposed issues in the filesystems that made it inefficient or impossible to use the larger sizes without partitioning the disk into pieces.

Over time, these filesystems (FAT12, FAT16) were updated to handle larger sizes (FAT32 ext2fs), and eventually replaced with new filesystems with new larger limits (vfat ext4) ...that were eventually still not big enough. History repeats. (xfat ntfs xfs zfs)

These issues existed then, and they still exist today, and we partition disks now for the same reasons...and a few more.

Just because you don't have dual boot doesn't mean you don't need partitions.

One argument that existed then and still is relevant is that you may want to put the operating system and user data on different partitions for multiple reasons.

Also, DOS was designed for floppy disks, not hard drives. When hard drives were introduced, they were significantly larger than floppy disks, and the larger size exposed issues in the filesystems that made it inefficient or impossible to use the larger sizes without partitioning the disk into pieces.

Over time, these filesystems were updated to handle larger sizes, and eventually replaced with new filesystems with new larger limits...that were eventually still not big enough. History repeats.

These issues existed then, and they still exist today, and we partition disks now for the same reasons...and a few more.

Just because you don't need dual boot doesn't mean you don't need partitions.

One argument that existed then and still is relevant is that you may want to put the operating system and user data on different partitions for multiple reasons.

Also, DOS was designed for floppy disks, not hard drives. When hard drives were introduced, they were significantly larger than floppy disks, and the larger size exposed issues in the filesystems that made it inefficient or impossible to use the larger sizes without partitioning the disk into pieces.

Over time, these filesystems were updated to handle larger sizes, and eventually replaced with new filesystems with new larger limits...that were eventually still not big enough. History repeats.

These issues existed then, and they still exist today, and we partition disks now for the same reasons...and a few more.