XP install/usage requirements

[Chuck]

Hi again, All.
I will soon be formatting/reinstalling XP. it's my understanding that as
part of the process, I will be able to repartition the HDD. My question is,
how much HDD space does XP require for proper running? I would like to
install XP on its own partition so that if I have to re-reinstall in future,
I can do so w/o having to backup/restore all my data and programs.

Thanks!
Chuck

 

[LVTravel]

Hi again, All.
I will soon be formatting/reinstalling XP. it's my understanding that as
part of the process, I will be able to repartition the HDD. My question
is,
how much HDD space does XP require for proper running? I would like to
install XP on its own partition so that if I have to re-reinstall in
future,
I can do so w/o having to backup/restore all my data and programs.

Thanks!
Chuck

Chuck, even if you put XP in one partition and your programs in another, if
you reinstall XP you will have to reinstall all of your programs. The
reason is that the registry is held in the XP partition and almost all
programs install data in the registry. Your idea is good in that you want
to keep your data separate but don't try it with the programs.

Another issue with programs is that they like to save data more and more
where they like to by default. You need to change your user defaults to the
data drive also (Documents and Settings, Temp file settings, etc.) If you
don't you will find that the size of the XP drive will continue to grow with
orphaned temp and data files.

Depending on the size of your entire drive I would recommend at least 40 GB
minimum (even though you can get by with less depending on what programs you
have to install and the amount of hard drive space required for the virtual
memory, 1 1/2 times size of your system memory.) I have one system that was
shipped with a 100 GB drive split into 20 & 80 GB partitions. Have
installed or moved all data and temps to the larger partition but have also
had to enlarge the OS partition to 40 GB to allow for installation of
programs and still have a little breathing room.

 

[Chuck]

AAARRRRGGGHHH!!!

Chuck, even if you put XP in one partition and your programs in another, if
you reinstall XP you will have to reinstall all of your programs. The
reason is that the registry is held in the XP partition and almost all
programs install data in the registry. Your idea is good in that you want
to keep your data separate but don't try it with the programs.

Another issue with programs is that they like to save data more and more
where they like to by default. You need to change your user defaults to the
data drive also (Documents and Settings, Temp file settings, etc.) If you
don't you will find that the size of the XP drive will continue to grow with
orphaned temp and data files.

Depending on the size of your entire drive I would recommend at least 40 GB
minimum (even though you can get by with less depending on what programs you
have to install and the amount of hard drive space required for the virtual
memory, 1 1/2 times size of your system memory.) I have one system that was
shipped with a 100 GB drive split into 20 & 80 GB partitions. Have
installed or moved all data and temps to the larger partition but have also
had to enlarge the OS partition to 40 GB to allow for installation of
programs and still have a little breathing room.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:22:00 -0800, Chuck

I will soon be formatting/reinstalling XP.

Why? It's seldom true that you have to reinstall, and it's
usually a very bad thing to do, for two reasons:

1. It's a lot of work to back up your data, reinstall Windows, reload
all your drivers, restore your data, reload all your programs,
reconfigure Windows and all your programs the way you like to have
them, etc.

2. When you take that approach, you never find out what was wrong, and
almost certainly what is wrong is something you did incorrectly or
didn't do. That means that you are extremely likely to make the same
mistake and very quickly find yourself back in the same situation.

So my recommendation is that you do *not* do this, but instead
describe your problems and your environment here, giving us the
chance to help you and fix the problems without reinstallation.

it's my understanding that as
part of the process, I will be able to repartition the HDD.

Yes.


My question is,
how much HDD space does XP require for proper running?

It varies quite a bit, depending on what version you have and what
choices you make.

I would like to
install XP on its own partition so that if I have to re-reinstall in future,
I can do so w/o having to backup/restore all my data and programs.

Nope, not true. It's true of data, but not of programs. Most programs
have many references within registry and elsewhere within the \Windows
folder. If Windows is reinstalled, all that is lost, and the programs
have to be reinstalled too.

I recommend that you read this article I recently wrote:
"Understanding Disk Partitioning" at
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326

 

[BillW50]

In LVTravel typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:09:02 -0800:

Chuck, even if you put XP in one partition and your programs in
another, if you reinstall XP you will have to reinstall all of your
programs. The reason is that the registry is held in the XP
partition and almost all programs install data in the registry. Your
idea is good in that you want to keep your data separate but don't
try it with the programs.
Another issue with programs is that they like to save data more and
more where they like to by default. You need to change your user
defaults to the data drive also (Documents and Settings, Temp file
settings, etc.) If you don't you will find that the size of the XP
drive will continue to grow with orphaned temp and data files.

Depending on the size of your entire drive I would recommend at least
40 GB minimum (even though you can get by with less depending on what
programs you have to install and the amount of hard drive space
required for the virtual memory, 1 1/2 times size of your system
memory.) I have one system that was shipped with a 100 GB drive
split into 20 & 80 GB partitions. Have installed or moved all data
and temps to the larger partition but have also had to enlarge the OS
partition to 40 GB to allow for installation of programs and still
have a little breathing room.

As an owner of 5 netbooks with small SSD drives... I disagree with LVTravel.
As in my experience, Windows XP SP2 needs 2.7GB just for itself. Now you
need to add pagefile and hibernation files. Plus you need room for
applications. This depends on you. If you only need like 12 or so
applications, this is easy to figure out.

Since I use both 4GB and 8GB SSD netbooks, I can tell you that 4GB is a bit
tight for me. Yes it can be done of course, but 8GB is plenty of room for
me. As for data, well that can be saved and stored on something else.

As for the idea of reinstalling, I suggest making complete backups on
occations. Thus you don't have to reinstall the OS and all of the
applications either.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[sgopus]

Whats to disagree with?
in essence you said the same thing as travel, (Give yourself enough room for
growth), with the costs of hd's being so cheap these days, why limit your
growth,
buy a big enough drive to allow for all future possibilities of growth, I'd
say 20Gig is min, and 40 would be better, but each to his own.

 

[BillW50]

In sgopus typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:02:16 -0800:

Whats to disagree with?
in essence you said the same thing as travel, (Give yourself enough
room for growth), with the costs of hd's being so cheap these days,
why limit your growth,
buy a big enough drive to allow for all future possibilities of
growth, I'd say 20Gig is min, and 40 would be better, but each to his
own.

You don't get it. Hard drives is old technology (almost as old as 8 inch
floppies). And SSD is the future. Stick with the old if you want too, but
some of us are really for the future. You can join now, or later. The choice
is up to you.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[John John (MVP)]

In sgopus typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:02:16 -0800:



You don't get it. Hard drives is old technology (almost as old as 8 inch
floppies). And SSD is the future. Stick with the old if you want too, but
some of us are really for the future. You can join now, or later. The choice
is up to you.

If joining now means that we will have to run Windows on tiny 4 or 8GB
drives you can rest assured that there will not be many takers! For
almost all users, especially desktop users, a 4 or even 8GB drive for a
Windows XP installation is almost certainly absurdly too small! I
wouldn't bother installing Windows XP on anything smaller than 15GB.

John

 

[BillW50]

In John John (MVP) typed on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:50:06 -0400:

If joining now means that we will have to run Windows on tiny 4 or 8GB
drives you can rest assured that there will not be many takers! For
almost all users, especially desktop users, a 4 or even 8GB drive for
a Windows XP installation is almost certainly absurdly too small! I
wouldn't bother installing Windows XP on anything smaller than 15GB.

That is fine John! That just tells us that people like you have no clue how
to do so. That is okay though, only the really intelligent people know how
to do so right now. And if I had to trust my life on somebody, I would trust
somebody who knows how vs. somebody that doesn't.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:50:06 PM, and on a
whim, John John (MVP) pounded out on the keyboard:

If joining now means that we will have to run Windows on tiny 4 or 8GB
drives you can rest assured that there will not be many takers! For
almost all users, especially desktop users, a 4 or even 8GB drive for a
Windows XP installation is almost certainly absurdly too small! I
wouldn't bother installing Windows XP on anything smaller than 15GB.

John

32/64 gig drives are readily available. Larger than that isn't cost
effective yet IMO.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[John John (MVP)]

In John John (MVP) typed on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:50:06 -0400:



That is fine John! That just tells us that people like you have no clue how
to do so. That is okay though, only the really intelligent people know how
to do so right now. And if I had to trust my life on somebody, I would trust
somebody who knows how vs. somebody that doesn't.

Oh please, Bill! Any idiot can install Windows XP on a small 4GB drive,
it can be installed on a way smaller drive than that if you really have
no other choice, don't think that we have never seen Eee PCs! On a
desktop installing Windows XP on such a small drive will make it next
to impossible to properly service the installation, it will be a
constant battle to try to keep the installation within bounds. Any
idiot can install Windows XP on a 4GB drive but unless a person has no
other choice and if there is more available drive space than 4GB only an
idiot would chose to install on such a small drive!

John

 

[BillW50]

In John John (MVP) typed on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:27:01 -0400:

Oh please, Bill! Any idiot can install Windows XP on a small 4GB
drive, it can be installed on a way smaller drive than that if you
really have no other choice, don't think that we have never seen Eee
PCs! On a desktop installing Windows XP on such a small drive will
make it next to impossible to properly service the installation, it
will be a constant battle to try to keep the installation within
bounds. Any idiot can install Windows XP on a 4GB drive but unless a
person has no other choice and if there is more available drive space
than 4GB only an idiot would chose to install on such a small drive!

Really John? No only intelligent people can keep a Windows XP install with
updates on a 4GB system and do what others are doing with lots more. The
dummies of course can't do so. Thus if you hear of somebody who can, you
know they are smarter than you.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[John John (MVP)]

In John John (MVP) typed on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:27:01 -0400:



Really John? No only intelligent people can keep a Windows XP install with
updates on a 4GB system and do what others are doing with lots more. The
dummies of course can't do so. Thus if you hear of somebody who can, you
know they are smarter than you.

Suit yourself, Bill. Windows XP can be installed on as little as a
1.5GB drive if that is what you want. Being "able" or "needing" to do
it and wanting to do it are different things. I don't know anyone in
their *right* mind who would want to bother with this kind of a setup if
they can at all avoid it, but do as you please.

John

 

[BillW50]

In John John (MVP) typed on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:06:17 -0400:

Suit yourself, Bill. Windows XP can be installed on as little as a
1.5GB drive if that is what you want. Being "able" or "needing" to do
it and wanting to do it are different things. I don't know anyone in
their *right* mind who would want to bother with this kind of a setup
if they can at all avoid it, but do as you please.

That is okay John! If I had a class of very smart people, this would be a
test. I understand that many would fail, but that is okay. Because not
everybody can be smart.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[John John (MVP)]

In John John (MVP) typed on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:06:17 -0400:



That is okay John! If I had a class of very smart people, this would be a
test. I understand that many would fail, but that is okay. Because not
everybody can be smart.

Obviously, you're the perfect example of that.

John

 

[Bill in Co.]

The date and time was Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:50:06 PM, and on a
whim, John John (MVP) pounded out on the keyboard:


32/64 gig drives are readily available. Larger than that isn't cost
effective yet IMO.

1) How much does a 32 GB SSD cost?
2) Isn't there a limit on the max number of SSD write or access cycles?

I mean, I think it was as high as 100,000 (or so), but since there are
hundreds of write or disk access cycles going on to a HD every day
(including behind the scenes), then at that rate, 100,000 / 100 = 1000 days,
or 3 years.

 

[BillW50]

In Bill in Co. typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 20:38:35 -0700:

1) How much does a 32 GB SSD cost?
2) Isn't there a limit on the max number of SSD write or access
cycles?
I mean, I think it was as high as 100,000 (or so), but since there are
hundreds of write or disk access cycles going on to a HD every day
(including behind the scenes), then at that rate, 100,000 / 100 =
1000 days, or 3 years.

No MTBF is 228 years.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[BillW50]

In John John (MVP) typed on Wed, 07 Jan 2009 23:33:01 -0400:

Obviously, you're the perfect example of that.

Nothing intelligent from you, John? I thought much more from you.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[Bill in Co.]

In Bill in Co. typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 20:38:35 -0700:

No MTBF is 228 years.

You're suggesting that there isn't a limited number of write cycles for
SSDs? That's not what I've read. (I'm not talking about just leaving the
device on, and then it can last up to 228 years).

 

[John John (MVP)]

You're suggesting that there isn't a limited number of write cycles for
SSDs? That's not what I've read. (I'm not talking about just leaving the
device on, and then it can last up to 228 years)

You are right and he is wrong.

John