partition size

[Swi]

sboulema, XP can take up to 2gig (mine is 1.6 plus pagefile, personnals settings and stuff like that) so a 3-4gig would be ok for XP alone. But, as dealer and others say, it would be better to install apps on the same partition so you could think of a bigger (maybe 10gig...) partition for XP and apps, depending of what you want to install after that...

Why do you want to have Win98 on your machine? If it's to run a simple program and intend to use XP for every thing else, use only a few gigs to host win98 and keep the rest for your data partition...

And as i said, i would do it that way but it does not means it's the best way!

 

[Swi]

Damn, all this talking remembres me that someday, i'll have to backup all my 22gig to reformat everything and remove my thirg partition... brrrrrr this is chilling me

 

[2z]

games on ntfs

the problem is the dynamic nature of NTFS it will lay out the files of a game according to some windows algorithm which in effect fragments the files - some games will not run very well under these conditions - also the FAT system is less compressed therefore quicker. For games that is.... I wouldn't dream of putting my XP OS on a FAT32 drive - its like expecting the Monarchy to live in a barn.

 

[Perris Calderon]

Originally posted by NotBold_Fortune
Hi dealer. I wanted to get a little involved with this thread because I've partitioned using Partition Magic and I want to share my experience.



As far as file placement, I use Diskeeper. Diskeeper I noticed, places your files closer to to front of the disk for you, which I think is the proper placement for speed. (dealer and I can disagree about this and still be buddies. )

hey bold...great to see you on this board.

Actually bold, it's pretty well proven that the files are most efficient in the middle of the disk...you see, you want the files where the heads are a greater majority of the time, you do not want freaquently accesed files at the beginning of the disk...I've linked the information that supports these statements on this thread...also, xp will optimiaze the files, in your case within each partion, and the files will be moved to the best location available...you should not circumvent that optimization, and don't move the files back after xp tried to move it to a better spot.

 

[2z]

Isn't Diskeeper & windows defragger the same just souped up ????

 

[Perris Calderon]

Originally posted by Swi
sboulema, XP can take up to 2gig (mine is 1.6 plus pagefile!

to save space, the two os's can actually share the page file...a very good choice in this situation.

 

[Swi]

cool, didn't konw that!

I,ll probably habve to install winme too cause i have an old (but good) scanner that is not supported by xp... SCEPTRE IS CRAP!! oups, sorry, it came out like that

 

[Perris Calderon]

Originally posted by Swi
cool, didn't konw that!

to make a shared pagefile, the sizes have to match. You set up one system as uauall (the pagefile can be in that system's partition or anywhere else) then shut down, boot the other os, go into the VM settings, set its pagefile to zero size, and configure the pagefile on the partition where the first OS install's pagefile is. It will yell at you,,,"there is already a file called pagefile.sys, do you want to use this as the paging file?" Say yes and you're good to go

 

[NotBold_Fortune]

dealer, regarding the placement of files, the defragmenter XP uses is a watered down version of diskeeper.

My thinking, Diskeeper had to hold something back, like file placement, as an incentive for us to purchase the program.

Maybe what you say is true about files being in the center of the drive for better efficiency is true, that that is where the heads are most of the time. That's a little more than I understand about that particular technical aspect.

It would seem to me, however, that noteworthy defragmenters, like Norton Speed Disk and Diskeeper would have incorporated this file arrangement into their programs. They didn't.

You see, I can only rely on my own version of logic for this, because of my lack of understanding the technical aspect.

I'm certain their are some experts here like relder who know all that stuff. But myself, and guys like me, have to rely on our own versions of what sounds logical to us.

That's why a debate like this is a very good thing, so we who are not technically advanced can decide. Even if we take the side of an expert on this subject, as well as on various other subjects, we are usually trusting our instincts to take him at his word, because we really don't know for sure about the technical side of things.

 

[2z]

Originally posted by dealer


to save space, the two os's can actually share the page file...a very good choice in this situation.

can win98 read the page file on a NTFS volume. ??
& the file name is different Win386.swp

 

[sboulema]

Quick question: How do you convert a Fat32 partition to NTFS?
I know you can do it with partition magic, but I am to lazy to install the program.
I know there is a command for, but I forgot it.

And speeddisk Is working on my computer, So i'll wait and see the results of it.

 

[2z]

$MS info
If you do choose an upgrade from Windows 2000 or Windows 9x, you may be working with a FAT32 file system. Performance will generally be better if the file system is left as it is, rather than converted to NTFS. A partition converted from FAT32 to NTFS may have to use 512-byte clusters, rather than 4096-byte or 8192-byte clusters, which can result in a higher number of fragmented files.

 

[sboulema]

A partition converted from FAT32 to NTFS may have to use 512-byte clusters, rather than 4096-byte or 8192-byte clusters, which can result in a higher number of fragmented files.

Ok Twozigzagcolt45 then I'll just wait until I need to refromat and then I will convert it to a ntfs drive.

btw Speeddisk worked, I have more space now and my disk is 0% fragmentated. Thanks for the tip to use speeddisk!

 

[2z]

glad it worked

Dealer any more info on

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dealer


to save space, the two os's can actually share the page file...a very good choice in this situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


can win98 read the page file on a NTFS volume. ??
& the file name is different Win386.swp

 

[Perris Calderon]

Originally posted by NotBold_Fortune
dealer, regarding the placement of files, the defragmenter XP uses is a watered down version of diskeeper.

My thinking, Diskeeper had to hold something back, like file placement, as an incentive for us to purchase the program.

if any program is rearranging the files, other then where xp wants to put them for best optimization , tha'll be counterproductive...xp will put the files in the optimum place, over time...that's a big reason you will suffer performance with partitions in the first place...optimization will only occur within a partition, and xp will not be able to optimize accross the whole volume, but only indidually among each partition

 

[Perris Calderon]

Originally posted by TwoZigzagColt45
glad it worked

Dealer any more info on

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dealer


to save space, the two os's can actually share the page file...a very good choice in this situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


can win98 read the page file on a NTFS volume. ??
& the file name is different Win386.swp

ha...I don't know anything at all about win 98...sorry

 

[2z]

Originally posted by dealer


if any program is rearranging the files, other then where xp wants to put them for best optimization , tha'll be counterproductive...xp will put the files in the optimum place, over time...that's a big reason you will suffer performance with partitions in the first place...optimization will only occur within a partition, and xp will not be able to optimize accross the whole volume, but only indidually among each partition

Norton Speed Disc totally destroys all of XPs file placement & allows you to configure it manually - Now my machine is up to 10% quicker not slower.

 

[Perris Calderon]

Originally posted by TwoZigzagColt45

Norton Speed Disc totally destroys all of XPs file placement & allows you to configure it manually - Now my machine is up to 10% quicker not slower.

now, now, now, you wouldn't know how fast xp would have gotten by the time it finnished optimizing, would you...as far as optimizing manually, that's a differant story, two, you are probably putting the files where they should go in the first place, most people couldn't do that

 

[NotBold_Fortune]

I think, though, as far automaic file placement by Windows, that Windows only is concern is with it' s own files. That leaves data files aside from this process. So placing these on another partition, aside from the partition with the OS, shouldn't matter, as they would be excluded from this process anyway, maybe they would even be out of the way of the Windows optimization process.

Makes sense to me anyway.

 

[Goldy]

partitions are fine
if you install all the progs you want onto the other partitions then back up your registry to 1 of your other partitions then you'll never have to install them again...if winxp gets screwed just re-install xp...restore the back up reg file and everythings the way it was..
just remember that everytime you install another prog you have to re-write the backup of the reg file
it does slow down performance a little but since i have just upgraded from a p1 166 to a p4 2ghz i cant really tell the difference

nice to see u colt