hard drive partitioning

[tdog44632]

Newbie question, I am going to build my first computer and I have a question about the hardrive. I will probably use a 60Gb or higher hard drive. I will probably use windows 2k, or maybe 98se. Do I need to partition the hard drive? I was thinking the new IBM 120xp series, any opinions? Thanks in advance

Tony

 

[StrangeRanger]

You don't HAVE to partition, but if you don't you will quickly learn how much it sucks to defrag or scan disc a 60g drive.
j

 

[PerfectFit]

Go with two partitions - one for the O/S, the other for your apps and data files. In addition to the defrag point raised above, you may have to reinstall your O/S and this will make life easier.

If you are setting up a dual boot, then you need a third partition for the second O/S.

 

[SUOrangeman]

Or you could be a true partition fiend, such as yours truly. I think I'm up to 14 or so partitions on an IBM 40GB (living dangerously? Hehe.). However, you must also realize that I've installed 6 (trying for 7) operating systems, so I needed a few partitions.

If you're thinking about two Windows OSes, think about this:

1GB Primary FAT16/32 C: for temp and swap files
10GB Logical NTFS D: for Win2K/XP (won't show up in Win9x/ME)
10GB Logical FAT32 D: for Win9x/ME (you can hide this in 2K/XP)
xxGB Logical FAT32 E: for personal files, games, MP3s, downloads (split into their own partitons, if you like)

Why do I recommend this?

If one OS goes kaput, the other should still be unaffected. You can reinstall the bad one and everything is intact. Your personal files are physically separated from the OS and apps, in the event of FUBAR.

THERE IS NO POINT IN INSTALL APPS IN BOTH OSES. I repeat. THERE IS NO POINT INSTALLING APPS IN BOTH OSES. (Aside from web browser and junk.) You will find out that one OS will get used 90% of the time. Put all of the important stuff there. Only use the other OS when something doesn't work in the main OS.

Any questions? E-mail me.

-SUO

 

[tdog44632]

Thanks for the answer SUOrangeman. I will probably e-mail with more specific questions. Anybody else?
Tony

 

[Deceiver]

I definately would recommend at least two partitions. I have two 30GB IBM drives in a Raid 0 array, so a total of 60 GB. I have a 10GB partition and a 50 GB partition. The OS, programs, and games go on the first partition, while mp3s, movies, downloads, etc go on the second partition. It's a lot easier defragging the 10 GB than it would be to 60 GB. I have yet to do defrag the 50 GB partion, since everything on their is data and it would take forever to do.

Unless you plan on using multiple OS's all the time, I wouldn't recommend installing more than one. Win2k is extremely stable, so you shouldn't need to reinstall, and even if you do it doesn't take that long. Every app I use runs under win2k too. If you have two OS's, one will more than likely hardly ever be used.

 

[killmeplease]

<< I definately would recommend at least two partitions. I have two 30GB IBM drives in a Raid 0 array, so a total of 60 GB. I have a 10GB partition and a 50 GB partition. The OS, programs, and games go on the first partition, while mp3s, movies, downloads, etc go on the second partition. It's a lot easier defragging the 10 GB than it would be to 60 GB. I have yet to do defrag the 50 GB partion, since everything on their is data and it would take forever to do.

Unless you plan on using multiple OS's all the time, I wouldn't recommend installing more than one. Win2k is extremely stable, so you shouldn't need to reinstall, and even if you do it doesn't take that long. Every app I use runs under win2k too. If you have two OS's, one will more than likely hardly ever be used. >>



I'll ditto having a second for your "documents" drive. If you screw your OS, you can reload everything easily and keep them all intact. I do this as a standard for every machine I do for myself or others.

 

[HalfCrazy]

I'm planning on doing what UOrangeman said. When I build my new computer system I'm going to duel boot. Both Win98 SE and Win2k pro and only use win98 for software that don't want to work under win2k. I'm planning on getting a AMD XP 1700+ with DDR ram. But I'm still looking for a nice mobo yet.

 

[Apoptosis]

Consider a Epox 8KHA+ for mobo...cheap and high quality...just my two cents

 

[Lord Evermore]

Using a second partition for data files is good. Using it for applications is kinda senseless. How many major applications do you know that don't copy some files to the C drive no matter what? How many do you know that can run without having created any registry entries during installation, or associated files during installation? If you have to wipe your OS, you're going to render many applications useless anyway. A lot of things like shareware would probably still work, since they're made to just recreate their registry entries and only use it for settings which they default to without the registry entries. But major things like Office or Norton apps, I doubt they'd work.

 

[JoPalm]

Lets say this, if you make 2 partitions and have the OS on one and Programs and personal files on the second drive what happens if you reformat your first partition and re-install the OS on it. Will the programs still work even though they were installed on the second partition? Did I word that all right?

 

[Lord Evermore]

That's exactly what I just said (though much shorter). The answer is most likely that a lot of apps are NOT going to work properly, or you'll lose things like file associations. You'll end up having to reinstall most of the major programs anyway, so it really doesn't make it better to have them on a second partition.

 

[JoPalm]

Oh. So you install all your programs and OS on the first one and the second one is all personal, downloaded files etc..?

 

[flippinfleck]

That's what a fileserver is for!

Plus, it adds an extra layer of security if you've got a snoopy spouse/s.o./roommate

 

[Strych9]

I use three partitions. First one for OS, second for Apps and third for Data, etc. True you probably don't need a separate partition for apps but it keeps me organized. I keep all of my drivers, updates, cd images, etc. on my file server.

 

[Lord Evermore]

flippinfleck: that's what the LOCK function is for If you're geek enough to be running a file server, you should probably be running an OS that can be locked. At the very least, a passworded screensaver in Win9x so that nosy people have to actually do more than just move the mouse to see your stuff. I think I'd notice if I came back and programs I had running weren't running anymore due to a reboot. Of course, if you're that concerned, maybe you shouldn't be living with those people. I don't see how just having them on a fileserver does much good, since most people will just map the network drive anyway. If you're going to the hassle of password protecting them through the file sharing, then the same applies, you should have better ways to protect them than that.

I actually have 4 partitions, but that's just because of the way I ended up doing things. I don't like HUGE partitions, 8GB is a nice size because I can keep my OS/app partition defragged, and then just a large partition for data storage or temporary space. But I use two hard drives, and then I installed XP into a different partition to protect Win98's installation and so I could install apps separately without screwing up anything. So I have two OS partitions and then two separate data partitions on the second drive (just for performance, not much other reason).

As for organization, that's why the directory structure exists. Putting things onto a different drive doesn't REALLY make it easier to find things, having say a "videos" partition, it's exactly like having a directory under root named "videos".

 

[Radboy]

Modus' 'Why partitioning ain't worth it'

 

[bacillus]

<< Modus' 'Why partitioning ain't worth it' >>


that's just another opinion surely!

 

[Lord Evermore]

It's also one of modus's opinions. Not always something I agree with. Even not often.

#1) mostly agree with, however he notes that Win2k's NTFS uses only 512 byte clusters. That's wrong. By default NTFS uses 4k clusters for anything over 2GB. 512byte clusters are for 512MB or smaller drives. (Also if you convert from FAT to NTFS, it formats with 512byte clusters due to data alignment issues.) While the issue of slack space is still minimal, it's not quite as minimal with NTFS as he makes it seem.

#2) What "hassle" and "wrestling" with partitions? It's pretty damn easy to make a partition and store files on it. And while the performance gains from optimizing the swap file's location may be minimal, some people are trying to eak out every last drop and will begrudge you even a few points in benchmarks.

#3) There are freely available partitioning tools besides FDISK, however none are really user friendly. But if you're considering partitioning, it's not due to not having enough drive space or because you expect huge performance increases. It's because you feel a need for partitioning, and just getting a bigger drive is likely to just make you feel the need even more (for example thinking that you want to organize files easier; larger hard drive means you're going to feel a need to fill it up, meaning MORE files you want to organize).

#4) Already expressed most of this myself, partitioning doesn't save any time with restoring your system. However I do disagree with the idea that having your data files on a separate partition is stupid. It's certainly faster to have your data on a partition that's NOT being erased, than to have to go dig out your backup media which may contain days or weeks old copies of your data. Even with a fast CD drive or something, it's still easier having it already on the drive. A backup is still obviously a good idea in case of a real crash, but if you just screw up the system so you can't boot and need to wipe the drive, it's easier with a separate partition. I also disagree that one can always just install over the existing OS. I'd never attempt that except in dire need to get the system working at base functionality to save some data, and then I'd wipe it when I got that data. (Oh yeah, and DI4.0 crashed while writing to my CDRW drive.)

#5) Agree that it's not really any easier organizing, but I don't think it's HARDER to have separate partitions. He makes it sound like selecting a different drive from a drop-down is somehow more difficult than selecting a different folder (oftentimes having to move UP in the file system first in order to get out of the default folder).

Heck, I wonder about his last comment. I don't know why he doesn't suggest that you install compatible OSes like Win98 and Win2k to the same partition in different directories.

Modus tends to have opinions geared toward the lowest common denominator of users. I.e., the people that just want a computer that works, isn't expensive, and doesn't take much know-how. His ideas are NOT geared towards power users or people that want to get the best performance they can, whether it costs more money or not (or who want to squeeze as much performance for their money as they can).

 

[Strych9]

<< Modus tends to have opinions geared toward the lowest common denominator of users. I.e., the people that just want a computer that works, isn't expensive, and doesn't take much know-how. His ideas are NOT geared towards power users or people that want to get the best performance they can, whether it costs more money or not (or who want to squeeze as much performance for their money as they can). >>

Agreed.

 

[c0rv1d43]

My point of view is that multiple partitions for one hard drive are not necessary.

1. A lot of people seem to think that you can't get a clean installation of an OS on a partition that contains programs and data. NTFS is a pretty darned good file system. The best I've seen, and I've used a lot of them. An unrecoverable NTFS partition is extremely unlikely to occur on a decently maintained machine unless you use a third party partition management proggy that screws up on you. If you want a clean install of the OS on a single-partition system you blow away the \WINNT or \Windows directory and the "\Program Files" directory (plus any other little special directorys like you get with other installations -- like SQL Server for instance) and then go to town. Your data is just as safe on that partition as it would be on another partition. And, if your data means anything to you, you have it backed up to external media anyway.

2. A lot of people seem to think that power users benefit by doing all sorts of wird things with various partitioning arrangements. They say that single partitions are for dorks, not power users. Huh? I beg to differ. Anyone who thinks this hasn't looked very hard into system optimization. There are a lot of "power users" out there running spanned volumes (one drive letter or volujme name for multiple physical drives) under the new OSes. This is on systems that are absolutely required to perform. These systems don't become fragmented because they make use of system utilities that prevent it. And they provide flexibility in organization that simply isn't available when one is working with multiple partitions.

A person should configure his drives in a manner in keeping with his personal preferences and needs. But for that person to claim that having multiple partitions and drive letters for a single physical is the best way to use Win2K or WinXP means that he is taking a lot for granted. The multiple partition approach might be a useful paradigm for some purposes, but it is definitely not the only game in town -- especially for power users. A power user uses what works best, not what he's tied to emotionally.

- Collin

 

[dunkster]

I prefer two partitions.

C: has OS (98SE), apps and games.

D: is strictly data, including all downloads, drivers, images and destination partition for app files such as .doc, .xls, etc.

For quick disaster recovery, I keep current Ghost Images of both partitions - updated whenever anything critical is added to either partition, such as Windows updates or new drivers.

With few exceptions, Norton 2002 Pro has everything required for routine system maintenance.

I'm not a guru geek, just my preferences. Even the worst disaster (HD or mobo failure) requires only failed-device replacement and about 30 minutes to restore the system to the state of the most recent partition clone images.

If I knew a simpler way or a better system recovery method, I'd adopt it quickly.

 

[Lord Evermore]

c0rv1d43: yes, there are reasons for both multiple partitions and single partitions and even spanned drives, and it is possible for one to be preferable to another in one situation, and another to be preferable in another situation. Some people though (like Modus) make it sound like there's absolutely no reason one should consider multiple partitions (while acting condescending to people that DO disagree with him), and there are people that seem to think a single partition should never ever be used and couldn't possibly be functional.

For me, the lower defrag and scandisk times for a smaller partition are worth having at least one small (8GB is damn small these days) partition for my OS and apps and then using another partition for data that changes so often that defragging isn't worth doing often (large numbers of files being deleted and created in chunks, not just a few files going back and forth or being modified).

As for clean installation into an existing partition, yes, by wiping out particular directories you can get mostly a clean install. However you still end up with files that got tossed around by applications during their install and uninstall, or apps that you don't use which you don't have any idea where it might have stored files. I personally troll my directory structure once in a while looking for files and directories that got created for no reason, but I can't do that with EVERY part of the system because it's often hard to tell what's valid and what's not. Completely wiping the partition and installing ONLY what I need means ONLY the files that are need for the things I use are on there, rather than leftover's from stuff I haven't used for months or years. Since if I wipe out Windows and reinstall, I'm going to have to reinstall applications anyway, this doesn't take any more or less time than erasing the partition completely, and doing a total reinstall means a cleaner system, so keeping data backed up and close at hand on another partition means I can do that.

 

[dejacky]

My hard drive = 40.0GB 7200 maxtor d740x
here is what i did:

Partition c: win98se OS
partition D: Audio Drive
partition E: Apps
Partition F: Games
G: cdrw

one problem i have is trying to partition my hard disk with another OS (win2kpro) using Partition Magic v5.5. It seems to want to take space away from the other partitions in order to do this. How can I create another partition of a specifically desired size without taking space away from other partitions? I'd appreciate any help in this, since I have still not figured it out.

-dejacky

 

[Lord Evermore]

Do you actually have that much free space available as the size of the partition you're trying to create? Keep in mind also that when you specify a size, PM has to align it to the cylinder boundaries, so often it'll need to make it a bit larger or smaller than the exact size you chose.

Also note that you are limited to 4 primary partitions total, one of which can be an extended partition where you can create 27 logical partitions. Perhaps you're using 4 primary partitions now and PM is trying to move the others into an extended partition for you?

What do you mean you're trying to partition it with another OS using PartitionMagic? You didn't indicate you had Win2k pro installed.