Parkash said:
Can I jump in and ask "What is harm if I leave my 160 GB hard drive with
one patition?" with XP Proffessional. How about if I am not going to use
even 40 GB in next few months? Sorry Sean for interrupting.
Parkash...
Since Alex Nichol has informed the OP that in his case he will need a
third-party program to create multiple partitions on his single-partitioned
drive, we can turn to your query...
First of all, the fact that you anticipate adding this or that amount of
data to your drive over the next few months is irrelevant to the question as
to whether you should multi-partition your drive.
There are advantages and disadvantages with each partitioning scheme. The
big advantage of a single partition per physical drive is simplicity. You
never encounter the situation where the free space is in the wrong
partition; you never need to adjust the partition size.
The most obvious valid reason for more than one partition on the boot drive
is when you run more than one OS, i.e., a multi-boot configuration. Though
there is a lot to be said for having each one on its own physical drive if
you have more than one physical drive. Having each OS on its own hard drive
avoids all sorts of potential configuration/installation/program access/file
manipulation, etc. problems arising from having multiple OSs on the same
hard disk. An additional advantage of equipping your computer with a second
internal HD is that by using a disk imaging program to clone the contents of
your day-to-day working HD to the second drive, you maintain a practical and
comprehensive backup system.
Many advocates of multi-partitioning schemes invoke the presumed advantage
of thereby separating the operating system from one's programs/data.
However, as Ken Blake has pointed out...
"There's little if any advantage to having a separate partition for
programs. Some people do this because they think that if they have to
reinstall the operating system, they can keep their installed programs. But
because all programs (except for a very few simple ones) have many entries
all over the Windows folder (in the registry and elsewhere), a clean
reinstallation of Windows means loss of these entries and requires
reinstallation of all programs as well. Thus any advantage of separating
the programs vanishes."
And quoting from another recent poster (unfortunately I neglected to save
his/her name)...
"In theory, installing software on a separate partition should be a good
idea.
However, due to the design of the Windows operating system, most software
that you will install to that partition will probably have many registry
keys
as well as additional files that will reside on your main partition. When
you
restore your system (like if you are using a manufacturer restore CD),
frequently the only option is to completely wipe out your hard drive (which
will include your partition that you install to). Even if your restore CD
does just let you restore your system partition, most of your apps that you
have installed will not function until reinstalled due to the registry keys
and other system files that reside on your system partition."
And according to another poster on this newsgroup Microsoft has this to say
about partitioning a hard drive...
"When performing a clean install, Microsoft recommends that
NTFS be used and that the system be installed in a single partition
on each disk. Under Windows XP, big partitions are better managed
than in previous versions of Windows. Forcing installed software
into several partitions on the disk necessitates longer seeks when
running the system and software."
Interesting to me since I never knew MS took a stand against partitioning a
hard drive. Incidentally, the poster did not give the citation for this
quote. I'm assuming it's an accurate one that reflects MS's thinking on this
issue.
You can of course organize your drive any way you want, but you could just
as easily have a single place called a "folder" as have a single place
called a "partition" in which to store your valuable programs and data. In
my view. most people without special needs are best served by having a
single partition. A partition-based organization scheme is static--with
rigid boundaries between the partitions--but a folder-based scheme is
dynamic and flexible, automatically changing its boundaries as necessary to
meet one's changing needs.
Every time I come across someone who has created a partition-based
organization scheme, it seems it's just a matter of time before he or she
runs out of space on one partition while still having lots left on others.
What he then usually does is take the expedient route, putting the next file
where there's room for it, instead of where the organization scheme dictates
it should go. The result, paradoxically, is *less* organization, rather than
more. Or the user complains that he/she will have to purchase a partitioning
program to manipulate the partitions.
You are vulnerable to losing data no matter where you put it. The solution
to that problem is having an adequate backup system and ensuring that you
systematically adhere to your backup plan, not how you organize your drive
from a partitioning point of view. My advice (excepting single-drive
multi-boot considerations as previously noted) to most users is that they
create a simple structure on their working HD, i.e., one partition per
physical drive and use folders to organize their programs/data. Equip your
computer with a second HD (just look how cheap they are in today's market!)
and/or external hard drive for backup purposes. The rule is KISS.
Anna
