Best way to partition my new 120 GB HD?

[Renegade23216]

I'm thinking to split it three ways. Tell me if this makes sense.

1. Partition for Windows XP (how much space?)
2. Partition for Apps (the stuff that usually goes into "program files" by default)
3. Partition for Files (downlaods, mp3's, pr0n)

What would be the benefits of this? Should I NOT split "Apps" from "Windows XP"? If so, why? If not, why not?

I'm thinking that putting Win XP on it's own partition would make defragging much faster, but then again, wouldn't I want my Apps defraged too?

In any case, I think "files" separate is a great idea so that I could save that stuff in case I formatted.

Please advise.

 

[Renegade23216]

Oh, also...

I don't have a copy of Win XP yet (i'm getting one). Until then, I'll have to use Windows 98.

So what type of partition should I create? Can I do NTFS and use 98? Or will I HAVE to do FAT32 first since I won't install XP until later?

Please advise on your best suggestion. (P.S. It's a Western Digital Serial ATA)

 

[ScrapSilicon]

Originally posted by: Azo313
Oh, also...

I don't have a copy of Win XP yet (i'm getting one). Until then, I'll have to use Windows 98.

I'd wait

So what type of partition should I create?

FAT32 only w/ 98

Can I do NTFS and use 98? Or will I HAVE to do FAT32 first since I won't install XP until later?

XP can run either FAT32 or NTFS ..can also convert FAT32 to NTFS

Please advise on your best suggestion. (P.S. It's a Western Digital Serial ATA)

I'd wait for the XP ..

 

[crimson117]

It gets tedious telling each new install to go to d: instead of c:, for me. I'd say just do two partitions, one system/apps and one media/data.

 

[So]

I partition my systems as follows:

1: OS ~8 gigs for XP
2: My docs: ~10 gigs for my documents folder only (mostly images)
3: MP3 a partition strictly for music files
4: Video a partition strictly for video files
5: Programs: for all my programs, games, downloads and other various bits of junk.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: crimson117
It gets tedious telling each new install to go to d: instead of c:, for me. I'd say just do two partitions, one system/apps and one media/data.

The benefits far outweigh changing one letter once a day at most.

 

[screw3d]

A lot of applications will require you to reinstall after wiping out the OS.. I just put all apps on the same drive as the OS - except for a few programs like foobar2000, firefox and a few misc. programs.

 

[Blain]

I'm with crimson117...
Just go 20GB for your OS & apps, the other 100GB for your media files and saved data.

Make sure and backup to some DVDs or CDRs if yopu're going with a WD drive. 😛

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Blain
I'm with crimson117...
Just go 20GB for your OS & apps, the other 100GB for your media files and saved data.

thirded.

on my 36 GB raptor, I have a 20 gig partition for Windows + programs, the rest of the hard drive space is devoted to Linux, and I have a separate 250 GB drive (one partition) for all of my documents / media files.

makes security easy too... none of the accounts except for mine have any read/write access to the 250 GB drive.

 

[KingofFah]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but what is the point?
If the data is on the same platter, how much of a benefit can be had?
If I am not mistaken, partitions are done on a sector basis.

Or is this only for organization and backup purposes (also benefits of having a fat32 for data partitions??)?

Just curious, depending on the size of a partition, amount of platters, tracks per side, sectors per......
couldn't partitioning actually end up taking more time to read a file (wouldn't be too noticeable if at all outside a benchmark).

If you were last accessing something on a partition at the outter end of one side of a platter, then went to a partition on the inner end of the side it would take longer than accessing something on the same partition.

Or maybe I am way off as far as today's hard drives are concerned. Don't mean to be rude, I am just curious.

Ideally, wouldn't you want something like this:
Disk 1: OS
Disk 2: Swap/Page File
Disk 3: Apps
Disk 4: Data
(no raid)

If you had one 36gb raptor and 3 80gb 8mb drives, how would you arrange it? (hate to waste 80gb on a swap 🙂 )

It would be interesting to do a test with 4 drives and find out which one has the most read/writes.
Just babbling.

 

[nageov3t]

I don't know about speed benefits, but I've always kept a separate OS partition so that I could reformat without worrying about the integrity of all my documents (I still make backups on a regular basis, of course, but it's nice to have that safeguard there, and my backups aren't always 100% up-to-date).

only benefit I can see to having a separate partition for programs would be for saved game files and stuff, in the event of an OS corruption that requires a complete C reformat.

 

[KingofFah]

yeah i figured it would be for organization and backup

 

[Calin]

XP can convert FAT32 to NTFS !!!BUT!!! it cannot convert the system drive.
If you are disturbed by changing a disk letter when installing programs, search in registry - there is an entry with the default "program files" folder. Change it to d:\bla bla bla

Calin

 

[Fuchs]

Yeah I would go OS on 1 partition and all the rest on another.

I dont see the point in makeing a seperate one for applications, since most wont run unless you keep the OS.

I have a 120, and have 15gig for OS and the rest for data. It's just convenience in case I wanna reload the OS, which I have done quite a few times. It's also good for people that only have one or two drives, so they can organize things better.

On a 36gig raptor I would just use the whole drive for OS without partitioning...thats just my opinion.

 

[howdyduty]

Its a performance enhancement to have the swap file on a seperate physical drive than the OS. The less ram or more swapping, the more this would be noticiable.