cross post: mount partition as folder?

[Guest]

Thank you all for your dedication to this site. I have learned so much in
the few weeks I have been reading. I started reading because I have been
planning a clean re-install-- the basics of which I am fairly familiar with
since having installed/upgraded XP for several friends. My target date is
this weekend. So I will likely be posting several times until then. My
question of the moment is in regards to Larry Gardner's recent reply about
partitions:

<snip>

My system is setup this way:

1. C: - Windows XP OS
2. D: - Documents ans Settings for all profiles
3. E: - Third-Party/Additionally installed Software (software not part of
basic Windows out-of-the-box XP OS)
4. F: - Backup

<snip>

My current setup is similar (except for a copy of Win98SE on C, thus XP
enumeration starts at letter D) but I have apparently set it up in a rather
cumbersome fashion. I sometimes find myself fiddling with partitions instead
of working.

My question is this: would it be better to mount partitions to folders,
i.e.- E: as the Program Files folder and F: as the Docs & Settings folder,
rather than "forcing" 3rd party software to install onto a folder on the E:
partition? If so, should one mount before or after installing the bulk of
applications (does it even matter?).

Also, as regards to taking system images, if one has mounted partitions as
folders, I assume that Norton Ghost would include the contents of a mounted
partition as part of the backup since it should read the partition just as if
it WAS the folder. Is this asuumption correct? Further, in the event of
restoring said image, would Ghost automatically "re-mount" the partition to
its original configuration? or would it try to stuff it all onto the same
partition as the OS?

System:
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition, v2002, SP2
Intel Celeron CPU 2.40GHz
2.39 GHz, 512 RAM
40GB hard drive (more than I need)

 

[DL]

This is a multi post, not a cross post

 

[Guest]

Sorry. My bad. Tried to cross post this in General and one other. The
website indicated "unsuccessful due to traffic", so posted again and got two
seperate posts. I am using the 'net interface since Outlook has become
"cranky"--along with some other annoyances-- after downloading an update for
my HP printer which seems to have clobbered the registry. Interaction with
HP Help and Support has led to incremental degradation of the OS, thus the
desire for a re-install.

Thanks for your help and understanding.
Mark

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Thank you all for your dedication to this site. I have learned so
much in the few weeks I have been reading. I started reading because
I have been planning a clean re-install-- the basics of which I am
fairly familiar with since having installed/upgraded XP for several
friends. My target date is this weekend. So I will likely be
posting several times until then. My question of the moment is in
regards to Larry Gardner's recent reply about partitions:

<snip>

My system is setup this way:

1. C: - Windows XP OS
2. D: - Documents ans Settings for all profiles
3. E: - Third-Party/Additionally installed Software (software not
part of basic Windows out-of-the-box XP OS)
4. F: - Backup

<snip>

My current setup is similar (except for a copy of Win98SE on C, thus
XP enumeration starts at letter D) but I have apparently set it up in
a rather cumbersome fashion.

Yes, I think so. I see no good reason to isolate what you have in C, D, and
E in separate partitions.

I sometimes find myself fiddling with
partitions instead of working.

My question is this: would it be better to mount partitions to
folders, i.e.- E: as the Program Files folder and F: as the Docs &
Settings folder, rather than "forcing" 3rd party software to install
onto a folder on the E: partition? If so, should one mount before or
after installing the bulk of applications (does it even matter?).

If you're planning a clean reinstallation, I would just put all those three
into a single C partition.

Also, as regards to taking system images, if one has mounted
partitions as folders, I assume that Norton Ghost would include the
contents of a mounted partition as part of the backup since it should
read the partition just as if it WAS the folder. Is this asuumption
correct? Further, in the event of restoring said image, would Ghost
automatically "re-mount" the partition to its original configuration?
or would it try to stuff it all onto the same partition as the OS?

Regarding taking system images, and your backup strategy, I think what you
are doing is better than no backup at all, but just barely. I don't
recommend backup to a second partition (or even a second non-removable hard
drive) because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the
original and backup to many of the most common dangers: head crashes and
other drive failures, severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus
attacks, even theft of the computer.

In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept in
the computer. For really secure backup (needed, for example, if the life of
your business depends on your data) you should have multiple generations of
backup, and at least one of those generations should be stored off-site.

My computer isn't used for business, but my personal backup scheme uses two
identical removable hard drives, I alternate between the two, and use
Acronis True Image to make a complete copy of the primary drive.

 

[Guest]

11:59 AM 6/16/2006

Thanks Ken. That is exactly what I am deciding before I do the clean
install. I have read (including here at times) that keeping Program Files
and My Docs on partitions seperate from the OS partition is a good idea.
However, after having this setup for a year now, I have not found that to be
so; it just seems overly complicated. I can see how seperate partitions
might facilitate a speedier backup if I had large amounts of data but my 40G
hard drive is likely to serve my needs indefinitely:

The nature of my work requires that I backup each completed project (about 3
per week at about 100M each) on a CD and send it to the "home office" along
with attendant paperwork. I also keep a duplicate copy of each project in a
file cabinet at my office. Once the project has reached the age of 6 weeks,
there is really no need to keep any detailed info so I can delete it from my
hard drive with impunity. In the rare event (only 3% over the last two
years) I need to re-open a particular project, it exists on CD in two
different files in two different locations so, for me, backup is not a
strenuous issue other than making sure I can get working again quickly after
a mishap.

I think that for this re-install I will set it all up on D: (C: is
dedicated) and format a smallish partiton just as a staging area for backups.

Thanks again

mark

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

11:59 AM 6/16/2006

Thanks Ken.

You're welcome. Glad to help.

That is exactly what I am deciding before I do the clean
install. I have read (including here at times) that keeping Program
Files and My Docs on partitions seperate from the OS partition is a
good idea.

People often advise doing those because they think that if they ever have to
do a clean reinstallation, it won't cause the loss of their programs and
data. I think that point of view is largely mistaken, and I have two
comments to make regarding this:

1. Installed programs (except for an occasional trivial one) have many
components and entries referring to them throughout Windows (in the registry
and elsewhere). If you reinstall Windows, all of that is lost and the
programs need to be reinstalled anyway. Fot that reason, there is generally
no advantage to separating programs from the partition Windows is installed
on.

2. Having data in a separate partition so it's not lost if you reinstall
Windows would be valuable only to those who have no external backup of their
data. Since, in my view, having no external backup of your data would be a
foolhardy situation to be in, I don't consider this a good reason for
separating data (although there can be a different good reason; see the
paragraph below).

I think most people should choose a partitioning scheme that's based on
their backup scheme. If your backup scheme is one that backs up your data,
but not the operating system, separating the operating system and your data
on different partitions facilitates that backup. For those whose backup
scheme consists of making an image of everything on the hard drive, there is
much less value to separating data on its own partition.

However, after having this setup for a year now, I have
not found that to be so; it just seems overly complicated. I can see
how seperate partitions might facilitate a speedier backup if I had
large amounts of data but my 40G hard drive is likely to serve my
needs indefinitely:

A 40GB drive is very small these days, and with such a small drive, a single
partition may well be best for you.

The nature of my work requires that I backup each completed project
(about 3 per week at about 100M each) on a CD and send it to the
"home office" along with attendant paperwork. I also keep a
duplicate copy of each project in a file cabinet at my office. Once
the project has reached the age of 6 weeks, there is really no need
to keep any detailed info so I can delete it from my hard drive with
impunity. In the rare event (only 3% over the last two years) I need
to re-open a particular project, it exists on CD in two different
files in two different locations so, for me, backup is not a
strenuous issue other than making sure I can get working again
quickly after a mishap.

That sounds fine for your use, but I'm somewhat confused. You talk here
about backing up to CDs, but in your previous message you spoke about a
backup partition.

 

[Guest]

5:32 PM 6/16/2006

Yes I know 40G is ridiculously small by today's standards, but I rarely go
over 10G used. As I said, there is no need for me to keep work data past 6
weeks so it passes through my computer like fat through a goose. Any
graphics, sound or other "entertainment" media I keep on CD (always 2 copies).

Also, I generally do "minimal" installs of applications. My recent
adventure with HP was due to a download which THEY said I needed but which
turns out to be nothing more than patches all the "fancy" stuff they seem to
want to WOW users with, NOT for the basic printing/scanning. Crashed me good
it did. LOL Alas, software companies are more and more bundling all this up
and not giving the user much chance to elect a minimal install. In the case
of HP, my driver updates took less than 5 minutes to download and install but
then I sat there helplessly watching as the HP downloaded 10 more minutes of
junk for "memories disk", "Photo and imaging organizer" and who knows what
other blah blah blah, with no way to stop it.

I DID use the term "backup" partition-- what I meant was a "scratch area"
for temp storage. This extra partition I have found very useful for staging
backups before burning to CD and as a place to destroy any sensitive data.
This I will keep in my new installation scheme. So with the wise advice from
many in here I have decided to wipe the current C: partition (Win XP),
eliminate all other partitions (except my scratch area at the end of the
drive) , and let XP do its thing on C: as the sole OS. The only thing I
might decide to do later is carve out a small, bootable partition for an
entry level version of Linux- just for play. Its my understanding Linux is
not very picky as to where it is installed.

Thanks again for your input.

Mark

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Yes I know 40G is ridiculously small by today's standards, but I
rarely go over 10G used.

No, I don't think there's anything "ridiculous" about it. If it meets your
needs, that's fine. The only reason I mentioned the size is that much f the
rationale for multiple partitions is based on drives being larger.

I DID use the term "backup" partition-- what I meant was a "scratch
area"
for temp storage. This extra partition I have found very useful for
staging backups before burning to CD and as a place to destroy any
sensitive data.

OK, I understand now.

Thanks again for your input.

You're welcome again.