SeaOtter said:
Placing one's data files on a partition or physical hard drive
separate from the operating system and applications is a very good idea.
Doing so can greatly simplify system repairs/recoveries and data back-up.
There's very little point, however, in having a separate partition for
just applications. Should you have to reinstall the OS, you'll also have
to reinstall each and every application and game anyway, in order to
recreate the hundreds (possibly thousands) of registry entries and to
replace the dozens (possibly hundreds) of essential system files back into
the appropriate Windows folders and sub-folders.
Having a current (as in up-to-the-*minute*) image of the OS'
drive/partition image might save you from having to reinstall the
applications, but I've not personally tested the technique, so I can't say
for sure. Anyway, wouldn't such a current image contain the same problems
as the OS that you're having to reinstall?
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
Let me address myself first to Bruce's final question. But before doing so I
should point out that for various reasons which I have given in a recent
posting (and will not go into at this time), I'm not a particular fan of
multi-partitioning one's hard drive except in very special circumstances,
e.g., the user is working with a single HD and is multi-booting different
operating systems. Separating the OS from programs & data via separate
partitions on a single hard drive gives the user, in my view, a false sense
of security and too often is awkward to use on a day-to-day basis for the
majority of users. By & large, my own preference is creating a single HD
partition and using folders for organization of programs & data.
Now as to Bruce's question and his apparent unease about using a disk
imaging program, e.g., Symantec's Norton Ghost or Acronis True Image, to (in
effect) "clone" one's working HD to another HD as a backup system. In my
view, this is the way to go for the great majority of personal computer
users. By imaging one's HD to another HD the result is a near-failsafe
backup system. For all practical purposes the resulting "clone" is a
bit-for-bit copy of the source disk, i.e., its operating system, its
registry & configuration settings, its programs & data - in short everything
that's on the source disk is now on the destination disk. To be sure it
means that the user must equip his computer with either another internal HD
or a USB/Firewire external hard drive and, of course, have a copy of the
disk imaging program. But given the continually falling prices of these
items, it is not a particular financial burden (I would guess) for the vast
majority of PC users to so equip his/her computer.
Using a disk imaging program (such as the ones mentioned) to "clone" one's
HD to another drive is simple, relatively quick, and effective. So when the
day comes (and it will come - just peruse this newsgroup and similar
newsgroups) that the user's system becomes corrupt because of some form of
malware, having a perfectly good clone restores the system to a workable
state. Sure, as Bruce fears, if you use your disk imaging program to clone
"garbage", "garbage" is what you'll get. Obviously you must perform the disk
imaging from a perfectly healthy system on a routine basis. Depending on
your use, that might be daily, weekly, or whatever. As I've previously
stated, the cloning process itself is simple and relatively quick, so from a
time-wise point of view it's not an onerous process to undertake on a
frequent basis.
My personal preference is to equip one's desktop computer (this hardware
configuration is not suitable for laptops/notebooks) with two removable hard
drives to gain the enormous flexibility this arrangement gives the user at a
relatively modest cost. But we'll leave that discussion for another time...
Anna
