B
Blinker
what is normal partition size for windows XP that need to be installed on
new notebook, HDD 320Gb?
new notebook, HDD 320Gb?
P
Pegasus [MVP]
Blinker said:
It's a matter of opinion. My preference would go like this:
- Drive C: 25..30 GBytes
- Drive D: Whatever is left
I would then keep all user files on drive D:.
S
smlunatick
There is none. As long as your use NTFS filesystem to create the
partition, the entire disk can be a partition.
D
db
winxp will need at least 5 gigs
for the pure o.s. only.
however, that amount will easily
exceed as you install programs and
use the o.s.
since you have a large partition
and if you have the option,
I would split it up in three or four
partitions so that you will have a c,
d, e and a f drive.
the practice you want to use with
managing your data is as follows:
never store your personal data /
files on the system partition.
you may want to designate drive d
exclusively for your personal files.
you may also want to use another
partition to store backups of your
c and your d drive.
that way if the c drive ever becomes
infected or faulty and you have to
restore it,
you can use the convenience of one
of the backups for a full restore if the
event occurs.
also you won't have any personal files
on the c if you need to format it and
restore it
and you system will have improved
performance because you are not
co mingling user data with system
data.
as far as the fourth drive is concerned,
you will surely find a need for it in the
future.
for example programs like photo
shop require it own swap drive.
so you can designate that fourth
drive for something like that instead
of using your c drive.
--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
"share the nirvana mann" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
for the pure o.s. only.
however, that amount will easily
exceed as you install programs and
use the o.s.
since you have a large partition
and if you have the option,
I would split it up in three or four
partitions so that you will have a c,
d, e and a f drive.
the practice you want to use with
managing your data is as follows:
never store your personal data /
files on the system partition.
you may want to designate drive d
exclusively for your personal files.
you may also want to use another
partition to store backups of your
c and your d drive.
that way if the c drive ever becomes
infected or faulty and you have to
restore it,
you can use the convenience of one
of the backups for a full restore if the
event occurs.
also you won't have any personal files
on the c if you need to format it and
restore it
and you system will have improved
performance because you are not
co mingling user data with system
data.
as far as the fourth drive is concerned,
you will surely find a need for it in the
future.
for example programs like photo
shop require it own swap drive.
so you can designate that fourth
drive for something like that instead
of using your c drive.
--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
"share the nirvana mann" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
R
Ron Badour
You need to provide more information. For example, why are you creating
partitions and do you intend to install your software on C: or another
partition?
--
Regards
Ron Badour
MS MVP
Windows Desktop Experience
partitions and do you intend to install your software on C: or another
partition?
--
Regards
Ron Badour
MS MVP
Windows Desktop Experience
B
Blinker
Notebook come without OS. So want install win xp, and create some
partitions, at least one.
As to software, just not sure how would be better, to install programs on
C:, together with OS, or into separate partition.
Seems, usually software installed in one partition with OS.
Thanks.
partitions, at least one.
As to software, just not sure how would be better, to install programs on
C:, together with OS, or into separate partition.
Seems, usually software installed in one partition with OS.
Thanks.
M
Mark Adams
Blinker said:
You have to have at least one partition in order to install the operating
sysyem. Applications that must be installed in order to run, should be
installed on the partition with the operating system. Your data can be kept
on a different partition.
I generally keep everything all on one partition and have been happy with
that. With your drive, you might consider a 40 GB C: partition for the OS and
applications, and whatever is left for a D: partition for your data.
M
mac
you may also want to use another
Remember here that storing backups on a second partition on the *same
physical disk* as your online data does not protect you if that disk
fails. In that case, you lose your data and your backups.
Keep a backup copy of your data offline; either on a different physical
disk or some other media (CD, DVD, Tape, etc).
Remember here that storing backups on a second partition on the *same
physical disk* as your online data does not protect you if that disk
fails. In that case, you lose your data and your backups.
Keep a backup copy of your data offline; either on a different physical
disk or some other media (CD, DVD, Tape, etc).
D
db
yeah that’s true.
but the liklihood that loosing the partition
c due to a variety of reasons is much higher
than having a total disk crash.
disks, especially laptop disks are built to
withstand high usage and heat.
so a total failure of the disk is unlikely.
but having copy of the bu images stored off
the laptop is also a good idea for a number
of reasons..
--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
"share the nirvana mann" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
but the liklihood that loosing the partition
c due to a variety of reasons is much higher
than having a total disk crash.
disks, especially laptop disks are built to
withstand high usage and heat.
so a total failure of the disk is unlikely.
but having copy of the bu images stored off
the laptop is also a good idea for a number
of reasons..
--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
"share the nirvana mann" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
R
Ron Badour
As others have said, you must have at least one partition in order to
install the operating system. If you use one partition, use the whole
drive space. If you use multiple partitions with applications installed on
other than C:, I suggest at least 25 GB for C: partition. My system is the
original installation plus all updates and it currently occupies 20 GB--my
applications are on a different partition.
There are some benefits to having multiple partitions. Keeping pictures,
music and other things that do not require frequent virus and malware scans,
defragging, etc., on separate partitions cuts down on running time and hard
drive wear. Keeping your applications on another partition can save data if
you have a system problem and you did not get some data backed up.
Others will tell you that multiple partitions are not required but what it
boils down to is personal preference.
--
Regards
Ron Badour
MS MVP
Windows Desktop Experience
install the operating system. If you use one partition, use the whole
drive space. If you use multiple partitions with applications installed on
other than C:, I suggest at least 25 GB for C: partition. My system is the
original installation plus all updates and it currently occupies 20 GB--my
applications are on a different partition.
There are some benefits to having multiple partitions. Keeping pictures,
music and other things that do not require frequent virus and malware scans,
defragging, etc., on separate partitions cuts down on running time and hard
drive wear. Keeping your applications on another partition can save data if
you have a system problem and you did not get some data backed up.
Others will tell you that multiple partitions are not required but what it
boils down to is personal preference.
--
Regards
Ron Badour
MS MVP
Windows Desktop Experience
R
Ron Badour
Applications that must be installed in order to run, should be
There is no need to install programs on the same partition as the operating
system and I can see no reason why data from a program would be kept
separate from the program's folder.
--
Regards
Ron Badour
MS MVP
Windows Desktop Experience
There is no need to install programs on the same partition as the operating
system and I can see no reason why data from a program would be kept
separate from the program's folder.
--
Regards
Ron Badour
MS MVP
Windows Desktop Experience
B
BillW50
In Ron Badour typed on Sat, 22 Aug 2009 05:44:53 -0500:
Plus many negative ones. Like I have 5GB free on C, 15GB free on D, and
15GB free on W. And I need 20GB free to edit a video file. Oops! I can't
With real-time monitoring, you don't need to do virus or malware scans.
Plus it is just as easy to select folders to scan vs. partitions. So
this excuse just doesn't cut it.
There is no data that exists that supports this claim at all! A hard
drive doesn't care where it is writing or reading. At worst, all it
changes is seek time and nothing else. And that isn't very important
anyway since hard drives comes with buffers for years.
I also *only* defrag my hard drives once every 2 years. I record the
boot time before the defrag and after the defrag. The time difference is
minimal and wasn't even worth all of the time it had taken to defrag in
the first place.
And if you are a believer in lots of reading and writing all over the
place is lots of wear and tear on your hard drive. Then defragging all
of the time is one of the worst things you can do. As the head is flying
all over the place, the drive heats up higher than it normally does, and
it is reading and writing virtually everything on the drive all over
again. This is one of the worst conditions you can do to a drive!
If you don't back up, you lose everything if the drive fails to spin. So
it is your fault, whether you use partitions or not.
You haven't made one reasonable point for supporting multiple partitions
yet. So why should anybody bother?
Plus many negative ones. Like I have 5GB free on C, 15GB free on D, and
15GB free on W. And I need 20GB free to edit a video file. Oops! I can't
do it even though I have 35GB free on the drive. said:
With real-time monitoring, you don't need to do virus or malware scans.
Plus it is just as easy to select folders to scan vs. partitions. So
this excuse just doesn't cut it.
There is no data that exists that supports this claim at all! A hard
drive doesn't care where it is writing or reading. At worst, all it
changes is seek time and nothing else. And that isn't very important
anyway since hard drives comes with buffers for years.
I also *only* defrag my hard drives once every 2 years. I record the
boot time before the defrag and after the defrag. The time difference is
minimal and wasn't even worth all of the time it had taken to defrag in
the first place.
And if you are a believer in lots of reading and writing all over the
place is lots of wear and tear on your hard drive. Then defragging all
of the time is one of the worst things you can do. As the head is flying
all over the place, the drive heats up higher than it normally does, and
it is reading and writing virtually everything on the drive all over
again. This is one of the worst conditions you can do to a drive!
If you don't back up, you lose everything if the drive fails to spin. So
it is your fault, whether you use partitions or not.
You haven't made one reasonable point for supporting multiple partitions
yet. So why should anybody bother?
T
Terry R.
The date and time was Friday, August 21, 2009 9:32:01 AM , and on a
whim, Mark Adams pounded out on the keyboard:
That isn't true at all. For years I have had over 5 OS's on this
workstation. I created a small partition of 5 to 7 gig for each OS (C
on one hard drive. My data resides on another hard drive (D. And I
installed all of my programs for each OS onto another drive (E. That
way I only have one installation of each program for every OS, and even
my Programs drive is small. Windows doesn't care where you install the
programs and they run fine on any installed drive.
Terry R.
whim, Mark Adams pounded out on the keyboard:
That isn't true at all. For years I have had over 5 OS's on this
workstation. I created a small partition of 5 to 7 gig for each OS (C
on one hard drive. My data resides on another hard drive (D
. And Iinstalled all of my programs for each OS onto another drive (E
. Thatway I only have one installation of each program for every OS, and even
my Programs drive is small. Windows doesn't care where you install the
programs and they run fine on any installed drive.
Terry R.
T
Terry R.
The date and time was Saturday, August 22, 2009 3:44:53 AM , and on a
whim, Ron Badour pounded out on the keyboard:
I agree completely. If one has the option, multiple drives (not
partitions) is the way to go. Thing with multiple partitions on a single
drive, too many normal users think when they see C: D: E: etc. that they
have multiple "drives". They don't even know what a partition is and
think if they lose C: they'll still have D: and E:.
If I lose any OS (C on my system, I can replace the drive and copy a
backup partition located on one of the other two drives and be back up
and running in no time. If I lose my data drive (D, I can replace the
drive and copy the backup partition that is on another drive. Same with
the Programs drive (E. The benefits of having 3 drives in a workstation.
Terry R.
whim, Ron Badour pounded out on the keyboard:
I agree completely. If one has the option, multiple drives (not
partitions) is the way to go. Thing with multiple partitions on a single
drive, too many normal users think when they see C: D: E: etc. that they
have multiple "drives". They don't even know what a partition is and
think if they lose C: they'll still have D: and E:.
If I lose any OS (C
on my system, I can replace the drive and copy abackup partition located on one of the other two drives and be back up
and running in no time. If I lose my data drive (D
, I can replace thedrive and copy the backup partition that is on another drive. Same with
the Programs drive (E
. The benefits of having 3 drives in a workstation.Terry R.
T
Terry R.
The date and time was Saturday, August 22, 2009 8:48:30 AM , and on a
whim, BillW50 pounded out on the keyboard:
Proper planning is key. My OS partitions are between 5 & 7 gig. My
data partitions (separate drives) can be enlarged at any time as I keep
empty space available and don't place any backup partitions next to the
data partitions. I do a lot of video work and use the larger partitions
to work on a project, then I move the files to two different external
media so I have 2 copies of everything, and nothing on the workstation.
That's not what he said. A 7 gig partition will take a lot less time
than a 50 gig partition to defrag. Wear is relevant in this issue I
don't think.
I think defragging is mainly for those who like things organized.
And video editing doesn't do the same? When I'm rendering video, it can
take 5 to 6 hours or longer and the hard drives are thrashing away the
whole time. That stresses a drive countless times more than defragging.
I support multiple drives AND multiple partitions. My workstation is
over 5 years old and it outperforms single drive duo core machines
easily. It boots to a Desktop in under 30 seconds (yes, processes are
still loading afterwards, and that includes PageDefrag on every boot).
Terry R.
whim, BillW50 pounded out on the keyboard:
Proper planning is key. My OS partitions are between 5 & 7 gig. My
data partitions (separate drives) can be enlarged at any time as I keep
empty space available and don't place any backup partitions next to the
data partitions. I do a lot of video work and use the larger partitions
to work on a project, then I move the files to two different external
media so I have 2 copies of everything, and nothing on the workstation.
That's not what he said. A 7 gig partition will take a lot less time
than a 50 gig partition to defrag. Wear is relevant in this issue I
don't think.
I think defragging is mainly for those who like things organized.
And video editing doesn't do the same? When I'm rendering video, it can
take 5 to 6 hours or longer and the hard drives are thrashing away the
whole time. That stresses a drive countless times more than defragging.
I support multiple drives AND multiple partitions. My workstation is
over 5 years old and it outperforms single drive duo core machines
easily. It boots to a Desktop in under 30 seconds (yes, processes are
still loading afterwards, and that includes PageDefrag on every boot).
Terry R.
B
BillW50
In Terry R. typed on Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:31:49 -0700:
[...]
I used to do things that way at first too. But they end up being corrupt
and confused. As they also store settings in the registry and with
updates, new definitions, etc. one OS doesn't know of the changes that
the other has made and it goes downhill very fast.
And yes, Windows does care where you install programs. Well Windows
don't care, but many applications do. For example they usually don't
like to be installed on flash drives. Netbook users should know this all
too well. <sigh>
[...]
And I installed all of my programs for each OS onto another drive
(E
every OS, and even my Programs drive is small. Windows doesn't care
where you install the programs and they run fine on any installed
drive.
I used to do things that way at first too. But they end up being corrupt
and confused. As they also store settings in the registry and with
updates, new definitions, etc. one OS doesn't know of the changes that
the other has made and it goes downhill very fast.
And yes, Windows does care where you install programs. Well Windows
don't care, but many applications do. For example they usually don't
like to be installed on flash drives. Netbook users should know this all
too well. <sigh>
B
BillW50
In Terry R. typed on Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:51:11 -0700:
Planning? I planned and my first HDD was 10MB in size. And I planned
that is all I would ever need. Like that lasted very long. Today I
didn't plan on editing a video file and the program needs 20GB of space
to edit it. Nor did I ever plan on buying X-Plane which eats up 60GB of
space. The truth is Terry, planning just doesn't work very well! All you
can plan for is the unexpected. And partitioning is a very poor plan!
Okay, but even still no defragging is even faster. So what's the point?
Could be. I believe even the worst fragged HDD doesn't slow down much
since the I/O is the real bottleneck anyway. But virtually nobody brings
this up at all. And if I am right, people defragging their HDD is just
wasting their time anyway.
Yeah! At least with video editing you *are* actually accomplishing
something.
Sounds okay by me. I have a different method though. As I am a big
believer in multiple computers. And I buy the same models so I can
always swap parts to troubleshoot or get something up and running within
seconds in most cases (no computer service that money can buy could
offer better). And backups are not that important since everything is
generally cloned or close to cloned anyway. And if one computer is
overwhelmed by one very busy application, no big deal. I just fire up
another one. <grin>
Planning? I planned and my first HDD was 10MB in size. And I planned
that is all I would ever need. Like that lasted very long. Today I
didn't plan on editing a video file and the program needs 20GB of space
to edit it. Nor did I ever plan on buying X-Plane which eats up 60GB of
space. The truth is Terry, planning just doesn't work very well! All you
can plan for is the unexpected. And partitioning is a very poor plan!
Okay, but even still no defragging is even faster. So what's the point?
Could be. I believe even the worst fragged HDD doesn't slow down much
since the I/O is the real bottleneck anyway. But virtually nobody brings
this up at all. And if I am right, people defragging their HDD is just
wasting their time anyway.
Yeah! At least with video editing you *are* actually accomplishing
something.
Sounds okay by me. I have a different method though. As I am a big
believer in multiple computers. And I buy the same models so I can
always swap parts to troubleshoot or get something up and running within
seconds in most cases (no computer service that money can buy could
offer better). And backups are not that important since everything is
generally cloned or close to cloned anyway. And if one computer is
overwhelmed by one very busy application, no big deal. I just fire up
another one. <grin>
T
Terry R.
The date and time was Saturday, August 22, 2009 11:52:37 AM , and on a
whim, BillW50 pounded out on the keyboard:
I've been doing it for over 7 years and not one issue. The other OS's
don't need to know of changes. If there's an update to a program, I
install it to the OS's when I go into them. If there would be any
issues at all, it would be using Firefox and Thunderbird, as they are
updated frequently. But I don't, except that they don't run on the
older OS's any longer, but I'm getting ready to retire them anyway due
to clients finally moving away from them.
Flash drives are completely different than fixed disks, which don't
matter at all, regardless of what drive they're installed to. And if
the flash drives ALWAYS kept the same drive letter, that wouldn't even
be an issue.
Terry R.
whim, BillW50 pounded out on the keyboard:
In Terry R. typed on Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:31:49 -0700:
[...]And I installed all of my programs for each OS onto another drive
(E
every OS, and even my Programs drive is small. Windows doesn't care
where you install the programs and they run fine on any installed
drive.
I used to do things that way at first too. But they end up being corrupt
and confused. As they also store settings in the registry and with
updates, new definitions, etc. one OS doesn't know of the changes that
the other has made and it goes downhill very fast.
I've been doing it for over 7 years and not one issue. The other OS's
don't need to know of changes. If there's an update to a program, I
install it to the OS's when I go into them. If there would be any
issues at all, it would be using Firefox and Thunderbird, as they are
updated frequently. But I don't, except that they don't run on the
older OS's any longer, but I'm getting ready to retire them anyway due
to clients finally moving away from them.
Flash drives are completely different than fixed disks, which don't
matter at all, regardless of what drive they're installed to. And if
the flash drives ALWAYS kept the same drive letter, that wouldn't even
be an issue.
Terry R.
T
Terry R.
The date and time was Saturday, August 22, 2009 12:19:49 PM , and on a
whim, BillW50 pounded out on the keyboard:
You didn't plan the 10MB, that was all there was most likely. I first
purchased a Tallgrass 20/20 that was a 20MB hard drive and a 20MG tape
backup, which was the largest available at the time. When the computer
was retired, the drive wasn't full and it was in operation until 1992.
My hard drives now have empty space next to any partition that may need
to expand. If I need to do that, I can enlarge it and be fine for
another year or two. Since I have multiple backup partitions throughout
the 3 hard drives, I planned this very well. If I needed another 20 gig
for something, I could have it right now. Planning works well and
partitioning IS a good plan. Just because it didn't work for you
doesn't mean it doesn't work at all.
Scramble a hard drive with contiguous clusters and one heavily
fragmented and see which one is easier to retrieve files on. Sure it's
no biggie if there is a current backup, but all to many clients I have
(and friends and relatives) DON'T have backups or don't do them
regularly, regardless if they've been told.
I don't see it that way. And I will continue to defrag. You feel
differently.
Regardless, defragging is far from "one of the worst conditions you can
do to a drive".
Having that luxury is nice. But I can't keep multiple workstations like
this one around. Your netbooks are fine if that's all you need. It's
much easier to have my 3 hard drives and be able to get back to work in
30 minutes if a drive dies.
Terry R.
whim, BillW50 pounded out on the keyboard:
You didn't plan the 10MB, that was all there was most likely. I first
purchased a Tallgrass 20/20 that was a 20MB hard drive and a 20MG tape
backup, which was the largest available at the time. When the computer
was retired, the drive wasn't full and it was in operation until 1992.
My hard drives now have empty space next to any partition that may need
to expand. If I need to do that, I can enlarge it and be fine for
another year or two. Since I have multiple backup partitions throughout
the 3 hard drives, I planned this very well. If I needed another 20 gig
for something, I could have it right now. Planning works well and
partitioning IS a good plan. Just because it didn't work for you
doesn't mean it doesn't work at all.
Scramble a hard drive with contiguous clusters and one heavily
fragmented and see which one is easier to retrieve files on. Sure it's
no biggie if there is a current backup, but all to many clients I have
(and friends and relatives) DON'T have backups or don't do them
regularly, regardless if they've been told.
I don't see it that way. And I will continue to defrag. You feel
differently.
Regardless, defragging is far from "one of the worst conditions you can
do to a drive".
Having that luxury is nice. But I can't keep multiple workstations like
this one around. Your netbooks are fine if that's all you need. It's
much easier to have my 3 hard drives and be able to get back to work in
30 minutes if a drive dies.
Terry R.
B
BillW50
In Terry R. typed on Sat, 22 Aug 2009 13:48:40 -0700:
Well I quit this practice about 7 years ago so maybe things has changed
since then. Also I admit some applications are fine with this practice.
But not all of them.
Even keeping the same drive letter, it still doesn't work. As about half
of the applications I install refuses to install on a removable drive at
all. They insist that it has to be a fixed drive. There are tricks to
make it work, but generally the tricks doesn't work if you want to
sometimes remove the drive. Which defeats the purpose of having a
removable drive in the first place.
The date and time was Saturday, August 22, 2009 11:52:37 AM , and on a
whim, BillW50 pounded out on the keyboard:
In Terry R. typed on Sat, 22 Aug 2009 11:31:49 -0700:
[...]And I installed all of my programs for each OS onto another drive
(E
every OS, and even my Programs drive is small. Windows doesn't care
where you install the programs and they run fine on any installed
drive.
I used to do things that way at first too. But they end up being
corrupt and confused. As they also store settings in the registry
and with updates, new definitions, etc. one OS doesn't know of the
changes that the other has made and it goes downhill very fast.
I've been doing it for over 7 years and not one issue. The other OS's
don't need to know of changes. If there's an update to a program, I
install it to the OS's when I go into them. If there would be any
issues at all, it would be using Firefox and Thunderbird, as they are
updated frequently. But I don't, except that they don't run on the
older OS's any longer, but I'm getting ready to retire them anyway due
to clients finally moving away from them.
Well I quit this practice about 7 years ago so maybe things has changed
since then. Also I admit some applications are fine with this practice.
But not all of them.
Even keeping the same drive letter, it still doesn't work. As about half
of the applications I install refuses to install on a removable drive at
all. They insist that it has to be a fixed drive. There are tricks to
make it work, but generally the tricks doesn't work if you want to
sometimes remove the drive. Which defeats the purpose of having a
removable drive in the first place.