Partions?

[Perris Calderon]

gonaads...you also make a good point.

there are those that for some reason cannot backup off the box.

if this is the case, you surely need to partition...this will give at least a little bit of security in saving your data.

but, of course, these people will eventually lose all there saved files...this will happen, as their hardrivewill eventually fail.

best solution, partiton for these people untill yhey find a way to backup off the box...and then, at the first waking chance, go back to one volume, as it will speed their computing.

and let me say again, if you are using fat, you need to partition for performance sake.

 

[cheezzzz]

My breakdown of a 120gig HD:

C: 15gig - for the OS
D: 85gig - for zipped prog, exe, miscellaneous documents, mp3, pics, etc.
E: 20gig - Several drive images with different saved programs/browsers, etc.
Ready to use.

Advantage C drive: faster defrag with a
smaller size HD.

All downloaded stuff go to a certain folder that I have created in D drive. No confusion there.
Having partitions saves you a lot of time, whether reformatting or defragging. My 2 cents worth, anyway.

 

[Perris Calderon]

I can't see how having partitions can poossible save time, it costs time...but as you say, to each his own

 

[Geffy]

To be completely blunt, hard drives are really not that expensive, I think you can get a 30GB hard drive for £40, that aint bad.
So unless you are on the RIAA's Ten Most Wanted List then that should take care of all of your MP3s, course you could just buy your music on CD, then if your PC crashes and burns then it is all nice and backed up.

 

[SPeedY_B]

Originally posted by Geffy
you could just buy your music on CD, then if your PC crashes and burns then it is all nice and backed up.

I have cd's ripped to hard disk, its easier than popping a cd in and out of the tray (hi-fi or pc) as you can listen to random tracks and skip between CD's easily.

 

[allan]

93tbirdsc - Partitioning is the intelligent move for several reasons. Aside from just plain good housekeeping it's smart for contingency purposes. You really don't want to keep your data files on the same partition as your OS. Now I know you always backup your data. Sure you do . So let's keep it safe.

In the event of a major crash or problem requiring a reformat and reload of your OS, why would you want to lose more than your OS? Unless it's something that effects your entire drive (and that's pretty rare), at least your data will be safe. And if your programs are installed on another partition, reinstalling them will be easier too. You'll be able to install them right "on top of themselves" in their original folders. You'll have a roadmap as it were. And some programs store user preferences in their own folders, and those will be kept for the new install.

Personally, I have my OS & key utilities on C:, Communications related programs, Word Processing, whatever games I have, and my browsers on D:, Most miscellaneous programs and utilities, MS Office, Data, Backup Files and Disk Images on E:, Pagefile, Temporary Internet Folder and other Cache folders, and a program testing folder on F: drive.

Oh yes, the Images on E:. That's another good reason for partitioning. I keep two images of my C: drive on my E: drive. One is an Image of a fresh installation plus MS Office. The other is a current image. Thus, if I ever need to reinstall XP I just need to do a quick basic install and then restore an image -- just takes a few minutes. I find it easer than frequent images to CD's (which I also do, of course, but not as regularly).

I truly can't think of a good reason not to partition. But in the end, it's your system and you do what you feel is right for you. Hope this helps.

 

[gonaads]

Sooooooo, now we have interesting and good points on both sides of the fence... So it's safe to say (yeah rite, when is it ever safe ), Do it the way you want. Personal preference is the flavor of the day.

But remember....... BACK UP!!!
Just in case.

 

[Perris Calderon]

my points stand...

computing is much faster without partitions

the "intelligent choice" is to not partition for those that would like much faster computing.

in the end though, we all agree

those that want to partition certainly should

and those that see partions being counter productive of course should not

who could argue with that?

 

[stuy_b]

Well Ive tried many setups in the past, but now have an easy sollution, two seperate hard drives, so all my documents, pictures, videos, mp3s, files etc go on one drive, XP and programs go on the other.

 

[Alex_is_Axel]

How do you remove Linux Partitions?.. I tried removing it with the FDISK way but it said something like the partition wasnt there or could not be removed .. Why is this doing this? Is this normal? How can i delete them? Please help

Sincerly Alex

 

[93tbirdsc]

I just want to say thanks to everyone for there opinions. And we all know what opinions are like.

Thanks again all

 

[Geffy]

To remove Linux Partitions you can use Ranish Partition Manager (http://www.ranish.com/part/) fairly good free Partition Manager, or you can get Partition Magic from PowerQuest.

 

[Perris Calderon]

GEFFY

I'm going to be dualbooting my xp home with xp pro

will this free partition manager do the trick, or should I get partition magic?

 

[allan]

To remove the Linux partition In fdisk you need to "delete non-dos partitions".

 

[Geffy]

Dealer

Ranish Partition Manager is a boot manager and hard disk partitioner.
It gives users high level of control for running multiple operating systems,
such as Windows 98/NT/XP, Linux, FreeDOS, and FreeBSD on a single disk.
The latest version could create, copy, move, and resize up to 32 primary and extended partitions.
There are, also, included command line interface similar to gdisk and a simulation version that works with the large files instead of messing with the real disks.

So I would think so

Other Info

Q: Why do I need your Partition Manager, if I already have Partition Magic by Powerquest?
A: Partition Manager and Partition Magic are different programs. They are complementing each other. While Partition Magic isolates you from small details and does all work for you, Partition Manager lets you see all those details in the partition table (cylinders', heads', and sectors' numbers) and you have to make all decisions yourself. I use Partition Manager for non-standard tasks, such as creating more than one primary (bootable) FAT partitions on the disk, and use Partition Magic to resize partitions or change their cluster size.


It also seems to be able to resize and things on NTFS disks as well, so I think so.

FAQ section of Ranish Site
http://www.ranish.com/part/faq.htm

 

[Mubbers]

I'm probably repeating some of the stuff already poseted but what the heck!!

I have the following observations:

1. I partition mainly because it appeals to my sense of orginisation.

2. I have three partitions OS, Programmes and Temp stuff like pagefile and Internet. I really like to keep internet stuff separate.

3. I've found that some app's simply will not work if installed to anything but the OS partition. Mostly older ones though.

4. Even if you install app's on another partition I have found that a reformat of C:\ will effectively render them useless. This seemed to be the case with M$ Office as I reckon a bagload of system files DLL's etc are written to C:\ and reactivation after a reformat was impossible.

5. It certainly is easier in my mind to manage a partitioned HDD espcially as they get bigger. We all know how long it takes to run utils on 100GB HDDs!!

Mubbers

 

[2z]

My 2 cents

having NO extended partitions on your drive IS quicker for benchmarking processes

::..BUT..::

once you start adding files to the drive your OS will SLOW down

not only will the heads have to cover more data
the OS will eventually spread out across the drive : - OS updates & driver updates end up being installed further into the disk, which is noticebly slower than the outer edge of the disk.

 

[Perris Calderon]

ahhh...two z...you are starting this discussion again.

ms did not benchmark with an empty hardrive

as you know, I agree with the research that indicates seek time is more important then transfer time.

seek time is improved where the data is in the middle of your information, the heads reside there the majority of the time, (obviosly), and that is the best placement for seek time...not on the edge.

and, no...performance is enhaced with a single partition.

that, combined with the much faster transfer and moving of files if you don't partition is just not to be overvcome.

I will challenge anybody...anybody...I don't care if you have twice the processor, and twice the ram.

I will challenge anybody to compute side by side with me.

I absolutely guarantee...at the end of our tasks, I will be finnished minutes ahead of you

multiple partitions is for those with a fat file system

or those with the habit of partioning

there is nothing said here that can't be done more efficiently with a single partition.

for instance, there is a post here that suggests immaging a drive to save on a crash.

ha...anybody imaging a drive better do it off the box, or they will surely suffer a loss of your work one day...as I said, if you can't backup off the box, you need to partition, but if you can, the partition costs safety, it does not give safety...

here's a great idea to go with that idea of imaging a drive to save time on a reformat;

why don't you make two really big partitions, and image the entire computer back and forth whenever you boot up...now, till the hardrive fails, you will never ever have to reformat...talk about saving time on reformats...that's the ticket

for those of you that claim a housekeeping benefit to partitions????

there is no question...organization is by far, simpler and more organized with a single partition and virtual partitions, rather then multiple partition

so, those that find this convient, the convienience is in your habit, the convienience is surely not in your method

 

[2z]

Originally posted by dealer
ahhh...two x...you are starting this discussion again.

LOL you posted a reply before me

Originally posted by dealer
as you know, I agree with the research that indicates seek time is more important then transfer time.

as you know, I disagree
seek time occurs in a fraction of a second
transfer time can take hours

Originally posted by dealer
seek time is improved where the data is in the middle of your information, no on the edge.

its like being on a merry go round the edge of the disk ( law of physics ) is quickest

Originally posted by dealer
and, no...performance is enhaced with a single partition

as long as its not more than 50% used

Originally posted by dealer
multiple partitions is for those with a fat file system

NTFS drives have no problems with partitions
although I use FAT for the OS I have found NTFS very useful for storing Temporary Internet files

Originally posted by dealer
why don't you make two really big partitions, and image the entire computer back and forth whenever you boot up...now, till the hard drive fails, you will never ever have to reformat.

now thats just silly
hard-drive failure does happen albeit rare, the most common reason I've come across for disk failure has been due too lightning.
the only thing your suggestion is going to cause is depression

 

[Perris Calderon]

we dissagree...I stand my my statements..

and I am even willing to lay a 2 to 1 handycap

single partitions are that much faster, that you can have twice the computer, twice the processor, and twice the ram..and I will be finnished at the end of a common day minutes ahead of anybody that partitions...