Re: Partitions & technological efficiency
From: Carey Frisch [MVP] (mrxp2004_at_nospamyahoo.com)
Date: 07/06/04
- Next message: R. C. White: "Re: Shut down and reboot, with error message"
- Previous message: N9LYA: "Missing Paging file"
- In reply to: Kirby: "Partitions & technological efficiency"
- Next in thread: Kirby: "Thank you, excellent info"
- Reply: Kirby: "Thank you, excellent info"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:36:12 -0500
When performing a clean install, Microsoft recommends that NTFS be used
and that the system be installed in a single partition on each disk. Under
Windows XP, big partitions are better managed than in previous versions
of Windows. Forcing installed software into several partitions on the disk
necessitates longer seeks when running the system and software.
Benchmarking on Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/benchmark.mspx
NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/winpreinst/ntfs-preinstall.mspx
-- Carey Frisch Microsoft MVP Windows XP - Shell/User Be Smart! Protect your PC! http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Kirby" <Kirby@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message: news:6B6B17BD-5A0C-4416-9257-08E3795817A2@microsoft.com... | Hello all. | | I'll be switching to Windows XP later this week when a new motherboard and CPU arrives. In preparation, I've been giving some thought to the differences between Win98 and Windows XP because of the time I spent using Windows 2000. Part of my thinking preparation is about partitions and dividing up the 'tasks' and locations of the OS and types of files, for improved efficiency in the technological way anyway, of less wear-and-tear and increased ease or whatever the word would be, of accessing and reading/loading system files and running programs. | | So far, my thinking is to have a partition for only Windows XP -- i.e., installing Windows XP into that partition and no programs. So only the system files and only the folder 'Program Files' and 'Documents And Settings' and then of course any and all other folders and files that are created and installed when the operating system is being installed. Of course I know that installing Windows XP to its own partition means having to allow for extra disk space required by Windows XP so the partition needs to be created with plenty of excessive space, an example being additional system files that are put into various places in the Windows folder when programs are installed. | | Then, also have a partition for installing programs into. Making two partitions on drive C. | | Then on a second hard drive (since I have two hard drives), a partition for only the swap file and also temporary swap/working space that some programs use (for example, audio programs while doing edits and changes) before the file is again saved. | | Then on that second hard drive, another partition that uses the remaining space for anything and whatever....but the main point being on the second hard drive, to have a partition for only the Windows swap file (also called 'Page File') for increased efficiency and less wear-and-tear by the swap file being isolated and separated. | | I already know that having the swap file isolated and separate increases efficiency and decreases wear-and-tear and fragmentation. If a 2nd hard drive exists, definitely use it for the swap file even though Windows will still work decently well with the swap file being on the same drive as Windows. "As excellently and as best as possible," is what I'm driving at here. I know that computer manufacturers ship their computers with only one partition on the hard drive and the operating system and programs installed all on the same drive and it's only one partition. But I'm driving at going beyond "what is common" and "what is commonly provided because it still works OK." | | But how much increased efficiency and how much decreased wear-and-tear and searching/racing around by the drive heads will result from having WinXP installed in its own partition separate from programs? Seems like the biggest benefit would be significantly reduced fragmentation. The drive heads would still have to go from one partition to another as a program is run when various Windows system files need to be read while that program is being loaded, but it seems that the reduced fragmentation would be a good benefit. Any input? | | Thank You, | | Kirby | | P.S. My e-mail address is different from when I got this Passport account and I'm writing it at length here because of the automated address scanning that happens in newsgroups. It is the word 'Lifes' and the word 'graces' as one word, the '@' character, then 'sbc' and then the word 'global' followed by a period and then the word 'net'.
- Next message: R. C. White: "Re: Shut down and reboot, with error message"
- Previous message: N9LYA: "Missing Paging file"
- In reply to: Kirby: "Partitions & technological efficiency"
- Next in thread: Kirby: "Thank you, excellent info"
- Reply: Kirby: "Thank you, excellent info"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
