Re: Partitions & technological efficiency
From: R. C. White (RCWhite_at_msn.com)
Date: 07/06/04
- Next message: Carey Frisch [MVP]: "Re: spyware"
- Previous message: sammie: "Reply to Rocket"
- In reply to: Kirby: "Partitions & technological efficiency"
- Next in thread: Kirby: "Texas alright; yes good points"
- Reply: Kirby: "Texas alright; yes good points"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 14:27:10 -0500
Hi, Kirby.
For efficiency, a single partition is probably best. But, after 20+ years
of dealing with personal computers, starting before there were hard drives
or even MS-DOS, I've become all too familiar with those times when things
break down and major or minor surgery is required. Or times when, like you
are about to do, we need to switch to a new operating system or a new
version of Windows. Many times, I've been glad that my system had multiple
"drives", so that I can do the surgery on one without involving all the
others. There IS such a thing as too many drives, but it sounds like you
probably would be happy with about 3 to 5.
I've been dual-booting various combinations of Windows since I added WinNT4
to my existing Win95, just before Win98 arrived. For various legacy reasons
(starting with FAT16's 2 GB-per-volume limit), my first HD has a single
primary partition of 715 MB (Drive C:) and an extended partition of the
remaining 8 GB, with a single logical drive (Drive D:) using the whole
extended partition. My second HD is mostly a single logical drive (E:)
holding most of my applications (including MS Office) and data. My 3rd HD
is 120 GB; I've intentionally kept much of that unpartitioned to use as sort
of a "sandbox" where I can create and delete logical drives from time to
time. Half of it, though, is kind of archival space, where I can backup
data and retired programs, plus such space-hogging files as music and
videos.
By having the small "system partition", formatted FAT16 for maximum
compatibility with MS-DOS and Windows, I can install and remove Windows on
other partitions without disturbing the "system files". My other volumes
are formatted NTFS. My main WinXP is in D:; another copy of WinXP is in X:;
I'm trying out Longhorn in L:, etc. Microsoft's native dual-boot
arrangement starts them all from the "system files" on C:, then loads the
rest of whichever version I choose from its own volume, no matter which HD
it is on. If I want - or choose - to reformat the system partition or a
boot volume, that doesn't affect the files on any other volume.
Even if you don't want to use multiple OSes, I think it is a good plan to
keep the system and boot partitions separated and to keep the programs and
data in one or two separate partitions. Whether apps and data should be
mixed depends mostly on the type of programs and data involved, such as
being able to keep confidential data in its own separately-secure volume.
(Even if someone finds my Excel program, they won't find my bank balance in
the file on my CD-RW, for example.) And I can defrag my data volume, which
changes daily, more often than my applications and boot volumes.
Of course, your situation and your philosophy are not the same as mine, so
you probably won't choose the same setup as mine. But maybe you can pick up
some ideas from my experience.
RC
-- R. C. White, CPA San Marcos, TX rc@corridor.net Microsoft Windows MVP "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: Carey Frisch [MVP]: "Re: spyware"
- Previous message: sammie: "Reply to Rocket"
- In reply to: Kirby: "Partitions & technological efficiency"
- Next in thread: Kirby: "Texas alright; yes good points"
- Reply: Kirby: "Texas alright; yes good points"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
