Desperate! What's the best way to partition 160GB hard disk

[johns]

Up that c-drive to 60gig. You need 40 plus room for
"noise".

johns

 

[johns]

Hi all,

Hi yourself, old spongebob. Something spook you
out of here, or what ? You guys notice anything weird
about that post ?

johns

 

[Tweek]

Data loss is possible at any time with any program, especially if you are
manipulating partitions and file systems. It was implied that the use of
partition magic would result in guaranteed data loss.

 

[Rod Speed]

Data loss is possible at any time with any program, especially if you are manipulating
partitions and file systems.

Yes, but PM manages to screw a drive when resizing partitions
much more often than say XP does when just using the drive.

It was implied that the use of partition magic would result in guaranteed data loss.

No that was not implied.

 

[Tweek]

Yes, but PM manages to screw a drive when resizing partitions
much more often than say XP does when just using the drive.

I should not have said 'any program', I should have said any disk utility
program. I have never had a problem using partition magic to resize or merge
partitions unless there was something wrong with the drive (or partition) to
begin with. That doesn't stop me from being safe and imaging every drive I
work with first.

No that was not implied.

Maybe I read to much into it, but johns stated that if you use partion
magic, you will have problems. Just like he claims that every ASUS board
will eventually die. I could just as easily make the claim that I have never
had an ASUS board fail (I haven't) and conclude that ASUS boards never ever
fail.

 

[Rod Speed]

I should not have said 'any program', I should have said any disk utility program. I
have never had a problem using partition magic to resize or merge partitions unless
there was something wrong with the drive (or partition) to begin with.

Irrelevant to whether others have seen PM **** their drive's contents.

That doesn't stop me from being safe and imaging every drive I work with first.

Maybe I read to much into it,

No maybe about that.

but johns stated that if you use partion magic, you will have problems.

No he didnt.

Just like he claims that every ASUS board will eventually die. I could just as easily
make the claim that I have never had an ASUS board fail (I haven't) and conclude that
ASUS boards never ever fail.

Sure he wildly exagerrates, but you did too that time.

 

[Tweek]

Irrelevant to whether others have seen PM **** their drive's contents.



No maybe about that.


No he didnt.

"Partition Magic creates a "partition magic"
partition. It is NOT AN NTFS PARTITION, and
it will give you a world of grief down the road.
Don't touch that piece of garbage for any reason,
and if anybody comes on this thread and says
otherwise, I wil eat him alive. Partition Magic
is a good way to lose all your data if you crash
and try to recover."

I don't know any other way to read this than 'use partition magic and you
will have problems'.
I ignored his completely wrong comment about it not creating a real NTFS
partition. I guess he will "eat me alive" now.

 

[John Doe]

Tweek <shawnwinget123 hotmail.com> wrote

Irrelevant to whether others have seen PM **** their drive's
contents.

Potty mouth troll. Is that how your parents taught you to speak?

No maybe about that.
Troll.


No he didnt.

:
"Don't touch that piece of garbage [PartitionMagic] for any reason"

That's what he said, troll.

Sure he wildly exagerrates, but you did too that time.

What are you talking about, troll?

 

[Rod Speed]

Potty mouth troll.

Jackbooted ****wit.

Is that how your parents taught you to speak?

For some strange reason I tend to do quite a bit that they had
nothing to say about at all. Can't imagine why for the life of me.

Could have something to do with the fact that I am currently
MUCH older than they were when they taught me anything, child.

****wit.

What are you talking about, troll?

You have absolutely no idea at all, eh ****wit ?

So stupid that you keep filling your posts with this shit below too.

 

[John Weiss]

I don't know any other way to read this than 'use partition magic and you will
have problems'.
I ignored his completely wrong comment about it not creating a real NTFS
partition. I guess he will "eat me alive" now.

In case you haven't caught on yet, rodless seedless gets off on arguing for the
sake of arguing, even though he's usually also rodless clueless. It's not worth
getting heartburn over, but it is often worth correcting his egregious BS.

You KNOW rodless has run out of BS as well when he resorts to the profanity,
"pig...", and "puerile..." stuff.

 

[John]

I previously used a separate partition for the pagefile for the same reason you
do, but I did not use such a large partition. However, I found a permanent
solution to the fragmentation problem -- mine has been contiguous for over 2
years on my current machine.

Defrag the C: drive.

Delete the pagefile from C: and create one temporarily on a different
logical drive. Reboot.

Defrag again. Move the pagefile back to C:, using the min = max size to
create a "permanent" file. Reboot.

Check the drive again with the defragger. You should find a contiguous
pagefile (Diskeeper shows the pagefile in a separate color; other defraggers may
not do so, but the large unmovable/system file should be obvious).

I did that when I set up this machine 2+ years ago, and the pagefile has not
fragmented.

And, you are correct that even this may be "too hard" for the OP. OTOH, the
multiple-partition scheme you suggested is not much less complicated... ;-)

If you limit both the minimum and maximum size of the pagefile to the
same value it can't fragment no matter where you put it. A dedicated
partition only makes sense if its located on a hard drive that is *much*
faster than the XP OS's drive.

John

 

[John]

Jackbooted ****wit.


For some strange reason I tend to do quite a bit that they had
nothing to say about at all. Can't imagine why for the life of me.

Could have something to do with the fact that I am currently
MUCH older than they were when they taught me anything, child.



You have absolutely no idea at all, eh ****wit ?

So stupid that you keep filling your posts with this shit below too.

Ah ... the PigMaster speaks ... better listen children.

A public service by ...

John

 

[coolsti]

Up that c-drive to 60gig. You need 40 plus room for
"noise".

johns

Wow, are you serious? My "current" hard disks are only 40 GB in total
size! Talk about software bloat!

I would really hope that 20GB would be enough for Windows and the handful
of programs that I use (MS Office and about 4 or 5 others). All games and
other nonessential things (programs that I may not use forever) I
usually install on other partitions.

/Steve

 

[Rod Speed]

johns wrote

Wow, are you serious? My "current" hard disks are
only 40 GB in total size! Talk about software bloat!

I would really hope that 20GB would be enough for Windows and the
handful of programs that I use (MS Office and about 4 or 5 others).

Yeah, that'll be fine.

 

[AP]

Is there any benefit to installing applications in a separat
partition or can they be installed alongside the OS? I have a 100G
hard drive and I'm planning 10GB for XP and applications. Is tha
enough? I don't do heavy gaming, just normal use
Thanks

 

[Sjouke Burry]

Wow, are you serious? My "current" hard disks are only 40 GB in total
size! Talk about software bloat!

I would really hope that 20GB would be enough for Windows and the handful
of programs that I use (MS Office and about 4 or 5 others). All games and
other nonessential things (programs that I may not use forever) I
usually install on other partitions.

/Steve

2 years of xp usage and about 120 installed
applications, my c disk is 8.5 gigabyte.(out of 80)

 

[Rod Speed]

Is there any benefit to installing applications in a separate partition
Nope.

or can they be installed alongside the OS?

Yes, and should be. Thats the config that most use and so that is
much better tested. If you install the apps in a separate partition
there is more chance that the uninstall doesnt work properly just
because that isnt tested as thoroughly.

I have a 100GB hard drive and I'm planning 10GB
for XP and applications. Is that enough?

It isnt for me. Mine fits fine in 20G tho on one machine
and 30G on the other. The main machine has the Outlook
Express files in the partition too and they aint small in my case.

 

[John Weiss]

Is there any benefit to installing applications in a separate
partition or can they be installed alongside the OS? I have a 100GB
hard drive and I'm planning 10GB for XP and applications. Is that
enough? I don't do heavy gaming, just normal use.

10G is enough for XP alone, but not for XP plus apps.

Personally, I prefer to put apps and data on a separate partition. There is
quite a difference of opinion on this, though. While most people concur
that data is better on a separate partition, the opinion on apps is much
more divided.

If you put apps on your boot partition, make it at least 30 GB. Note that
you want a lot of slack space (no more than 70% full on any logical drive)
to accommodate defragmentation, restore files, and temporary files.

 

[John Weiss]

Yes, and should be. Thats the config that most use and so that is
much better tested. If you install the apps in a separate partition
there is more chance that the uninstall doesnt work properly just
because that isnt tested as thoroughly.

Tested by who? What are the test protocols of the major software vendors?

In over 10 years of testing, I have found that uninstall from a D: drive is
no more problematic than uninstall from C:.

 

[Rod Speed]

Tested by who?

By those who install it.

What are the test protocols of the major software vendors?

In over 10 years of testing, I have found that uninstall from a D: drive is no more
problematic than uninstall from C:.

It is with some apps anyway.