not so, everybody who's pro partitions.
I't's much more then nanoseconds when you are on ntfs, though some expeerts have a fetish for partitions, due to the old fat technology...there is no reason, (that anyone can show me), to use actual partions, versus virtual partitions, (good file system).
here's the huge differance, and no one can deny it, though in the past they've said the differance is unnoticeable.
when you want to transfer information, or copy information, this has to be written to an actual partition, and everyone knows about how slow hard writes are.
when you do this with a virtual partion, the transfer is instantaneous.
every expert that I've been in personal contact with who uses ntfs either uses multiple drives, or does not partition...
now, people will come in here and tell you otherwise, and claim some "housekeeping " benefit, but housecleaning is surely easier and faster with virtual partitions.
they will also claim some sort of benenfit when you reinstall, but as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't make sense to use some old registry settings on a reformat, and that defeats the purpose.
more;
when you have partitons, you need seperate head room on each partiton for defragging, among othere things...a clear waste of resources.
partitions are definately, (in my humble opinion), MUCH slower, and very counter productive
now, there is greater data integrety with real partions, but I've never seen that being any issue at all
IF YOU ARE ON FAT, of course, you must partion, and there is a performance benefit to it on fat, otherwise, I don't see it, and compared to anyone that has partitons, performing everyday computing, I will definately be faster then they
more;
when you do not partition, xp can lay certain files out in the best location for speed...they went so out of their way to design this feature into this os.
it can not be done accross volumes, so, it does not optimize these files when you partion.
there