My computer has a 60 GB hard drive that's almost full, so I've installed
a 250 GB drive. Right now the 60 GB drive is the boot drive, but I'm
going to transfer the Windows files (using Western Digital's Data
Lifeguard software) over to the 250 GB drive and use that as the boot
drive. I've partitioned the 250 GB drive as follows:
First partition: 30 GB
Second partition: 72 GB
Third partition: 72 GB
Fourth partition: 61 GB
Am I overdoing it with the partitions? I was going to use the first
partition for the Windows and program files, and the other partitions
for storage. I don't really need four partitions, is it more efficient
to have multiple partitions on a drive this size or does it not really
matter?

"Mikey" <Not_Here@Not_There_Either.Nope> wrote in message
news:466AE915.F863D1D@Not_There_Either.Nope...
> My computer has a 60 GB hard drive that's almost full, so I've installed
> a 250 GB drive. Right now the 60 GB drive is the boot drive, but I'm
> going to transfer the Windows files (using Western Digital's Data
> Lifeguard software) over to the 250 GB drive and use that as the boot
> drive. I've partitioned the 250 GB drive as follows:
> First partition: 30 GB
> Second partition: 72 GB
> Third partition: 72 GB
> Fourth partition: 61 GB
> Am I overdoing it with the partitions? I was going to use the first
> partition for the Windows and program files, and the other partitions
> for storage. I don't really need four partitions, is it more efficient
> to have multiple partitions on a drive this size or does it not really
> matter?
>

My view is that these days it doesn't really matter. You could make a
Windows partition, a program partition and a data partition. Perhaps others
have a view?

or simply leave win where it is and move your data to the new, in a slave
config

"Maincat" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Mikey" <Not_Here@Not_There_Either.Nope> wrote in message
> news:466AE915.F863D1D@Not_There_Either.Nope...
> > My computer has a 60 GB hard drive that's almost full, so I've installed
> > a 250 GB drive. Right now the 60 GB drive is the boot drive, but I'm
> > going to transfer the Windows files (using Western Digital's Data
> > Lifeguard software) over to the 250 GB drive and use that as the boot
> > drive. I've partitioned the 250 GB drive as follows:
> > First partition: 30 GB
> > Second partition: 72 GB
> > Third partition: 72 GB
> > Fourth partition: 61 GB
> > Am I overdoing it with the partitions? I was going to use the first
> > partition for the Windows and program files, and the other partitions
> > for storage. I don't really need four partitions, is it more efficient
> > to have multiple partitions on a drive this size or does it not really
> > matter?
> >
>
> My view is that these days it doesn't really matter. You could make a
> Windows partition, a program partition and a data partition. Perhaps
others
> have a view?
>
>

Mikey <Not_Here@Not_There_Either.Nope> wrote:

>My computer has a 60 GB hard drive that's almost full, so I've installed
>a 250 GB drive. Right now the 60 GB drive is the boot drive, but I'm
>going to transfer the Windows files (using Western Digital's Data
>Lifeguard software) over to the 250 GB drive and use that as the boot
>drive. I've partitioned the 250 GB drive as follows:
>First partition: 30 GB
>Second partition: 72 GB
>Third partition: 72 GB
>Fourth partition: 61 GB
>Am I overdoing it with the partitions? I was going to use the first
>partition for the Windows and program files, and the other partitions
>for storage. I don't really need four partitions, is it more efficient
>to have multiple partitions on a drive this size or does it not really
>matter?


There is no real technical reason for having multiple partitions on a
hard drive (unless you are using FAT32 on a drive larger than 128 gb).
In fact having multiple partitions as you describe can have a slight
negative effect on overall computer performance as the drive head
mechanism must often travel longer distances (and therefore take more
time) when respositioning to get needed items.

The main advantage of partitioning is for multi-boot situations where
you have more than one operating system (such as different versions of
Windows and/or Linux) installed. Partitioning as you propose does
have some advantages for backups and for organizing things. But it
is purely a matter of personal choice and preference. And what works
well for one person might seem overly complex and cluttered to someone
else. I currently have 5 different partitions on my hard drive,
primarily because I often have 2 or 3 different versions of Windows
installed.

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2008)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
Syberfix Remote Computer Repair

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

Maincat wrote:

> "Mikey" <Not_Here@Not_There_Either.Nope> wrote in message
> news:466AE915.F863D1D@Not_There_Either.Nope...
> > My computer has a 60 GB hard drive that's almost full, so I've installed
> > a 250 GB drive. Right now the 60 GB drive is the boot drive, but I'm
> > going to transfer the Windows files (using Western Digital's Data
> > Lifeguard software) over to the 250 GB drive and use that as the boot
> > drive. I've partitioned the 250 GB drive as follows:
> > First partition: 30 GB
> > Second partition: 72 GB
> > Third partition: 72 GB
> > Fourth partition: 61 GB
> > Am I overdoing it with the partitions? I was going to use the first
> > partition for the Windows and program files, and the other partitions
> > for storage. I don't really need four partitions, is it more efficient
> > to have multiple partitions on a drive this size or does it not really
> > matter?
> >
>
> My view is that these days it doesn't really matter. You could make a
> Windows partition, a program partition and a data partition. Perhaps others
> have a view?

I'm thinking that maybe I'll just re-partition the drive into one partition.

The new drive has an 8 meg buffer, the old one has only a 2 meg buffer, that's
why I want to move Windows onto the new drive and have it as the boot drive.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I figure that Windows will be faster on a drive with an 8
meg buffer than it is now on the old drive with a 2 meg buffer.

DL wrote:

> or simply leave win where it is and move your data to the new, in a slave
> config
>
> "Maincat" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > "Mikey" <Not_Here@Not_There_Either.Nope> wrote in message
> > news:466AE915.F863D1D@Not_There_Either.Nope...
> > > My computer has a 60 GB hard drive that's almost full, so I've installed
> > > a 250 GB drive. Right now the 60 GB drive is the boot drive, but I'm
> > > going to transfer the Windows files (using Western Digital's Data
> > > Lifeguard software) over to the 250 GB drive and use that as the boot
> > > drive. I've partitioned the 250 GB drive as follows:
> > > First partition: 30 GB
> > > Second partition: 72 GB
> > > Third partition: 72 GB
> > > Fourth partition: 61 GB
> > > Am I overdoing it with the partitions? I was going to use the first
> > > partition for the Windows and program files, and the other partitions
> > > for storage. I don't really need four partitions, is it more efficient
> > > to have multiple partitions on a drive this size or does it not really
> > > matter?
> > >
> >
> > My view is that these days it doesn't really matter. You could make a
> > Windows partition, a program partition and a data partition. Perhaps
> others
> > have a view?
> >
> >

Ron Martell wrote:

> Mikey <Not_Here@Not_There_Either.Nope> wrote:
>
> >My computer has a 60 GB hard drive that's almost full, so I've installed
> >a 250 GB drive. Right now the 60 GB drive is the boot drive, but I'm
> >going to transfer the Windows files (using Western Digital's Data
> >Lifeguard software) over to the 250 GB drive and use that as the boot
> >drive. I've partitioned the 250 GB drive as follows:
> >First partition: 30 GB
> >Second partition: 72 GB
> >Third partition: 72 GB
> >Fourth partition: 61 GB
> >Am I overdoing it with the partitions? I was going to use the first
> >partition for the Windows and program files, and the other partitions
> >for storage. I don't really need four partitions, is it more efficient
> >to have multiple partitions on a drive this size or does it not really
> >matter?
>
> There is no real technical reason for having multiple partitions on a
> hard drive (unless you are using FAT32 on a drive larger than 128 gb).
> In fact having multiple partitions as you describe can have a slight
> negative effect on overall computer performance as the drive head
> mechanism must often travel longer distances (and therefore take more
> time) when respositioning to get needed items.
>
> The main advantage of partitioning is for multi-boot situations where
> you have more than one operating system (such as different versions of
> Windows and/or Linux) installed. Partitioning as you propose does
> have some advantages for backups and for organizing things. But it
> is purely a matter of personal choice and preference. And what works
> well for one person might seem overly complex and cluttered to someone
> else. I currently have 5 different partitions on my hard drive,
> primarily because I often have 2 or 3 different versions of Windows
> installed.
>
> Good luck
>
> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
> --
> Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2008)
> On-Line Help Computer Service
> http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
> Syberfix Remote Computer Repair
>
> "Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
> has never been in bed with a mosquito."

No, I won't be multi-booting the new drive. I may install Linux on the old
60 GB drive, but the new drive will have just one version of Windows, XP.
And no, no FAT32, the partitions are all NTFS.

>> "Mikey" <Not_Here@Not_There_Either.Nope> wrote in message
>> news:466AE915.F863D1D@Not_There_Either.Nope...
>> > My computer has a 60 GB hard drive that's almost full, so I've
>> > installed
>> > a 250 GB drive.
>> > Am I overdoing it with the partitions?

Ya I think so... Unless you've got a specific reason to split up a drive, a
single partition is probably best.

Once you have the system moved over to the new drive, and working properly,
the old drive would be OK for backups, swapspace, etc.

Just remember to disconnect the old drive once your transfer has completed,
before you start Windows again, so the system can transition properly.

"Mikey" <Not_Here@Not_There_Either.Nope> wrote in message
news:466AE915.F863D1D@Not_There_Either.Nope...
> My computer has a 60 GB hard drive that's almost full, so I've installed
> a 250 GB drive. Right now the 60 GB drive is the boot drive, but I'm
> going to transfer the Windows files (using Western Digital's Data
> Lifeguard software) over to the 250 GB drive and use that as the boot
> drive. I've partitioned the 250 GB drive as follows:
> First partition: 30 GB
> Second partition: 72 GB
> Third partition: 72 GB
> Fourth partition: 61 GB
> Am I overdoing it with the partitions? I was going to use the first
> partition for the Windows and program files, and the other partitions
> for storage. I don't really need four partitions, is it more efficient
> to have multiple partitions on a drive this size or does it not really
> matter?
>

Here's what I like to do and why. I like to use separate partitions on the
same drive for downloads, installation software, and my own personal files.
All individual partitions. I like to use FAT32 for those partitions as I
can access them without windows XP or other OS that recognizes NTFS. Am
sure you can imagine losing XP usage, and needing access to some of your
personal data. The download partition is a test bed for a virus and spyware
scan after the download hits the hard drive. You might make another
partition in NTFS format for large files over 4GB. I like all the
partitions, other than the OS partition, as logical drives within an
extended partition. Give the XP partition plenty of breathing room
regarding size. 25% or less freespace, and I consider a change myself.
Amount of RAM is an important consideration, especially in older systems.
Dave

Lil' Dave wrote:

> "Mikey" <Not_Here@Not_There_Either.Nope> wrote in message
> news:466AE915.F863D1D@Not_There_Either.Nope...
> > My computer has a 60 GB hard drive that's almost full, so I've installed
> > a 250 GB drive. Right now the 60 GB drive is the boot drive, but I'm
> > going to transfer the Windows files (using Western Digital's Data
> > Lifeguard software) over to the 250 GB drive and use that as the boot
> > drive. I've partitioned the 250 GB drive as follows:
> > First partition: 30 GB
> > Second partition: 72 GB
> > Third partition: 72 GB
> > Fourth partition: 61 GB
> > Am I overdoing it with the partitions? I was going to use the first
> > partition for the Windows and program files, and the other partitions
> > for storage. I don't really need four partitions, is it more efficient
> > to have multiple partitions on a drive this size or does it not really
> > matter?
> >
>
> Here's what I like to do and why. I like to use separate partitions on the
> same drive for downloads, installation software, and my own personal files.
> All individual partitions. I like to use FAT32 for those partitions as I
> can access them without windows XP or other OS that recognizes NTFS. Am
> sure you can imagine losing XP usage, and needing access to some of your
> personal data. The download partition is a test bed for a virus and spyware
> scan after the download hits the hard drive. You might make another
> partition in NTFS format for large files over 4GB. I like all the
> partitions, other than the OS partition, as logical drives within an
> extended partition. Give the XP partition plenty of breathing room
> regarding size. 25% or less freespace, and I consider a change myself.
> Amount of RAM is an important consideration, especially in older systems.
> Dave

Okay, thanks.