Partitioning Hard Drive #2

[Travis King]

Let's conduct a survey about partitioning my hard drive! Whichever choice
is selected the most is probably the way I'll go about partitioning my hard
drive. (Or I could draw from a hat.) If I have to reinstall Windows XP,
that's not a big deal.

Here's my second partitioning my hard drive question. My original plan was
partitioning my 80 gig hard drive in half - one half for XP and one half for
Vista. Here are a couple different ways. Which way do you think is the
best? I plan on installing all the software on Vista that I have installed
on XP also to test to see what software works with Vista and what doesn't.
No matter which way I go from what's below, it should work, correct?

As a little throw in, what actual difference would I see in performance
between a 2MB cache and an 8MB cache hard drive in Vista?

(Firstly, I have two hard drive - an 80 gig WD 7200RPM 2MB Cache IDE hard
drive MASTER and a 120 gig WD 7200RPM 8MB Cache IDE hard drive SLAVE)
PRIMARY currently has 61.9GB free with 12.5GB used (one partition with XP)
SECONDARY currently has 102GB free with 9.65GB used (one partition used for
storage)

Method 1) (The original method)
Partition 80GB hard drive
40GB partition C: - Windows XP
40GB partition D: - Windows Vista
Leave 120GB hard drive alone (will become drive E

Method 2)
Partition 80GB hard drive
40GB partition C: - Windows XP
40GB partition D: - Storage
Leave 120GB hard drive alone (will become drive E: and will have Vista)

Method 3)
Leave 80GB hard drive alone (will stay drive C: and have XP on it - no need
to reinstall XP)
Partition 120GB hard drive
80GB partition D: - Windows Vista
40GB partition E: - Storage

Method 4)
Leave 80GB hard drive alone (will stay drive C: and have XP on it - no need
to reinstall XP)
Partition 120GB hard drive
40GB partition D: - Windows Vista
80GB partition E: - Storage

Method 5)
Leave 80GB hard drive alone (will stay drive C: and have XP on it - no need
to reinstall XP)
Partition 120GB hard drive
60GB partition D: - Windows Vista
60GB partition E: - Storage

Method 6)
Switch the hard drives around in my computer and make the 120GB master and
the 80GB slave (will this mess with XP's activation if I still use the same
hard drives just in a different order?)
Partition 120GB hard drive
60GB partition C: - Windows XP
60GB partition D: - Windows Vista
80GB E: will have storage

 

[Pierre Szwarc]

An 8MB cache drive will always give you better performance than a 2MB cache
one, whatever the OS you run on it. Before you commit a whole drive to
Vista, however, remember that when it becomes RTM, the recommended upgrade
path is to do a clean install. At least this has been true for every past
Microsoft OS, and in my experience a clean install has always yielded
better, more stable, results than an in-place upgrade, even with fully
released OSes.
--
Pierre Szwarc
Paris, France
PGP key ID 0x75B5779B
------------------------------------------------
Multitasking: Reading in the bathroom !
------------------------------------------------

"Travis King" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de (e-mail address removed)...
| Let's conduct a survey about partitioning my hard drive! Whichever choice
| is selected the most is probably the way I'll go about partitioning my
hard
| drive. (Or I could draw from a hat.) If I have to reinstall Windows XP,
| that's not a big deal.
[snip]

 

[Travis King]

I've always done clean installs of OSs in the past. I tried doing an
upgrade once with XP once on a different computer that had Windows ME and it
was a mess. From driver conflicts, software not working, to more hard disk
usage. I regretted that decision and started over with a fresh install and
have always done a clean install since.
Now a question:
How much of a difference *will I notice* between the 8MB cache hard drive
and a 2MB cache hard drive? If we're talking something like 1% or less, I
probably won't bother, but otherwise, I will consider switching the hard
drives' positions around. (Especially since it won't cost me anything to
make my OS run faster.) Spring break's coming up this week, so I might
begin the transformation. I probably should do it at the same time that I
get my new video card. The 120-gig hard drive is a year newer than my
80-gig.

 

[Pierre Szwarc]

I can't tell you how much of a difference *you* will notice, because it
depends a lot on the type of applications you run. If you do a lot of
RAM-intensive work such as 3D rendering or image processing, you'll only
notice a difference upon opening or saving files. If you do database
development, OTOH, the benefit will be quite obvious.
--
Pierre Szwarc
Paris, France
PGP key ID 0x75B5779B
------------------------------------------------
Multitasking: Reading in the bathroom !
------------------------------------------------

"Travis King" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de [email protected]...
| I've always done clean installs of OSs in the past. I tried doing an
| upgrade once with XP once on a different computer that had Windows ME and
it
| was a mess. From driver conflicts, software not working, to more hard
disk
| usage. I regretted that decision and started over with a fresh install
and
| have always done a clean install since.
| Now a question:
| How much of a difference *will I notice* between the 8MB cache hard drive
| and a 2MB cache hard drive? If we're talking something like 1% or less, I
| probably won't bother, but otherwise, I will consider switching the hard
| drives' positions around. (Especially since it won't cost me anything to
| make my OS run faster.) Spring break's coming up this week, so I might
| begin the transformation. I probably should do it at the same time that I
| get my new video card. The 120-gig hard drive is a year newer than my
| 80-gig.

 

[Travis King]

Would DAZ Bryce 5.5 be considered intense 3D rendering?

 

[Pierre Szwarc]

I think so.

 

[Grok]

Travis King wrote:
| Let's conduct a survey about partitioning my hard drive! Whichever choice
|

If performance differences between 2MB and 8MB cached harddrives is your
concern, you probably should join www.tomsharware.com forums. Such
ponderings turn their cranks all the live-long day.

Now regrading your vote. I would vote whichever one disrupts your Windows XP
installation and setup least. Why? Remember, you are installing a Beta 2
which will be usurped in April by the public release beta which in turn will
be replaced by an even later build not too long after that. Why do anything
that busts in on your Windows XP installation?