I myself don't know that why i created 8 drives. Can you please point me in
the right direction in this matter. Actually i had 4 drives in my old
computer which have 40GB HD . i thought creating more drives is better for
larger hard drives!.
No, it's certainly not automatically "better." In general, partitions
are an organizational structure and it's up to you as to how you want
to organize your drive. We don't all *have to* do it the same way.
But you certainly shouldn't create some number of drives haphazardly.
How many to have should be part of a rational plan, and that plan
should include knowing what you plan to put on each partition, and
making sure that there's a sound technical basis for each separation.
Just partitioning into x drives and randomly putting files on whatever
drive you think of makes no sense.
Here are some general thoughts on how to partition:
I think many people over-partition, but that doesn't mean it's always
bad to have more than one partition. My view is that most people's
partitioning scheme should be based on their backup scheme. If, for
example, you backup by creating a clone or image of the entire drive,
then a single partition might be best. If, on the other hand, you
backup only your data, then the backup process is facilitated by
having all data in a separate partition.
Except for those running multiple operating systems, there is seldom
any benefit to having more than two partitions. Note the word "seldom"
rather than "never." I'm sure there are many exceptions.
Some people make a separate partition for installed programs, because
they think that separating programs from Windows will let them
reinstall Windows and keep their installed programs. That's false,
since all installed programs (except for an occasional trivial one)
have pointers to them within Windows, in the registry and elsewhere.
So if Windows goes, the pointers go with it. Since programs have to be
reinstalled if Windows does, this rationale for a separate partition
for programs doesn't work.
Some people erroneously think that having the page file on a separate
partition will improve performance. That of course is also false; it
hurts performance, because it increases head movement to get back and
forth from the page file to the other frequently-used data on the
drive.
Some people make a separate partition to store backups of their other
partition(s). People who rely on such a "backup" are just kidding
themselves. It's only very slightly better than no backup at all,
because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original
and backup to many of the most common dangers: head crashes and other
kinds of drive failure, 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.
Separating different kinds of files on partitions is a organizational
technique, but so is separating different kinds of files in folders.
The difference is that partitions are static and fixed in size (their
size can only be changed with special third-party software), while
folders are dynamic, changing size automatically as necessary to meet
your changing needs. That generally makes folders a much better way to
organize, in my view.
What frequently happens when people organize with partitions instead
of folders is that they miscalculate how much room they need on each
such partition, and then when they run out of room on the partition
where a file logically belongs, while still having lots of space left
on the other, they simply store the file in the "wrong" partition.
Paradoxically, therefore, that kind of partition structure results in
*less* organization rather than more.
