Win XP in its own partition

[open_source]

Partitioning is a great way to keep you files and data organinzed. With the speed of todays drives you are going to notice little if any performance hit when doing this. The only reason I do not partition is because I use separate drives in place of this.

 

[chastity]

Also if u were to download a file and it had a virus and for some reason u forgot to scan it u install the program or what ever it was u downloaded that had a virus and most of them will only trash whatever partion u install or ran the program from meaning for the most part the OS is pretty safe from virus and stuff like that.

 

[open_source]

Originally posted by Chastity
Also if u were to download a file and it had a virus and for some reason u forgot to scan it u install the program or what ever it was u downloaded that had a virus and most of them will only trash whatever partion u install or ran the program from meaning for the most part the OS is pretty safe from virus and stuff like that.

Sorry but this is not true.

 

[Hipster Doofus]

A lot of viruses atack the OS/important files. Once executed you're knackered no matter where you open them from.

 

[djmorgan]

I take dealer's point BUT the performance hit by having a partition is very very small certainly I would not know what to do with the nanosecond savings by not partitioning.

I have 2 HD my swap file is off my main drive and on the second - why? because I wanted it that way and I figure the pagefile gets a lot of writes and reads therefore no bottle neck with main OS.

Another point if you have UT and run it you'll notice it swaps a lot of data in and out of it's compressed files if you did a snap shot of your drive before and after running UT you'd see what I mean, I'd prefer that level of fragmentation well away from my OS.

Given that their are many schools of thought on this subject would lead me to believe there is no right or wrong way, until recently I believed that both HD's should be on the same IDE cable and your CD/DVD on another (secondary) I just found out this matters little and there is no performance hit, as a matter of fact if you do a lot of copying on the fly with the new high speed copiers it's better to have your reader and writer on different cables!

Same with the 'old wives tale' that if you have 2 different HD spindle speeds 5400/7200 both only travel at 5400 - not true.

Anyway that's another topic.

Enjoy

 

[Perris Calderon]

well, I still don't get it...my file system is just as organized, and just as easy to use as any partition.

in point of fact, I have virtual partitions, just with my file system

We all know prefessionals who partition, I see an abundance of tech professionals that no longer partition...and these people also don't see the love affair associated with partitions.

Mictosoft claims it's not a small issue, and they strongly advise manufacturers not to install xp on partitions, as they say the performance is that much stronger without them...I don't care either way, since there's nothing anyone can do with there partitions that I can't do with my virtual partitions.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of partitioning, I'm just making sure you're informed about a small price you do pay for having them

 

[open_source]

May I ask what the hell a virtual partition is?

 

[Perris Calderon]

Originally posted by open_source
May I ask what the hell a virtual partition is?

yes, but I'll only answer when it's done nicely.

 

[Perris Calderon]

never mind...I won't make you wait for the answer;

every file an dfolder you have is a virtual partition;

if you make an umbrella folder, with subfiles within, what you have virtually created is a partition.

 

[open_source]

You responded that way because you know this is something you just made up. There is no such thing as a virtual partition. A folder and a partition are not even remotely similar.

 

[Perris Calderon]

yes, I did make the terminology up, I was pretty sure I made that clear...I am incredible the way I can put ideas and concepts into every day language, aren't I

...if you can't appreciate the similar application, then the concept is lost on you

 

[open_source]

In personal computers, a partition is a logical division of a hard disk created so that you can have different operating systems on the same hard disk or to create the appearance of having separate hard drives for file management, multiple users, or other purposes.


See, not even remotely close to a folder.

 

[Perris Calderon]

Originally posted by open_source
In personal computers, a partition is a logical division of a hard disk created so that you can have different operating systems on the same hard disk or to create the appearance of having separate hard drives for file management, multiple users, or other purposes.


See, not even remotely close to a folder.

ah...see, you're using the word partition, and I'm using the word "virtual partition"

I can do everything you just pointed out with my virtual partitions...see...pretty much the same, no, actually, it's practical use is exactly the same\...except in the case of multiple os's, and this is not possible unless you have an actual partition (obviously)...I do hope you don't think I' against partitions when youare dual booting

 

[djmorgan]

Dealer is like a woman I was once married to, had to have the last word

I have just finished installing a new 80 gig Seagate Barracuda due to my IBM hitting the floor, I knew it was coming and had loaded a second drive with a 'mirror' of my system - great idea poor execution.

Anyway had to do a fresh install did that but something was just not right with the XP install, I had then loaded all programs Office XP full plus fs2002, UT Q3 all very big loads but all on seperate partitions. (system, Prgms, games)

Then I found I was not able to move files from folders!!! something had occured in the initial load that set the security wrongly on my drives (using NTFS) so soughted that out and gave myself the necessary permissions but in doing so MSI refused to work anymore.

Only practical way out was to reinstall the OS again, as I had already done a Drive Image 2002 plus save the registry all I had to do was format the active partition and load the OS then the registry fixes rather than having to reload all of Office XP and the mentioned games.

That to me is the biggest advantage of partitions.

 

[Perris Calderon]

Originally posted by djmorgan
Dealer is like a woman I was once married to, had to have the last word

I suppose you stuck this in here so I wouldn't respond, or maybe you knew I'd repond...don't know either way, but I do know I've never insulted you.

as far as your points, well I agree, the rare instance you just brought up is indeed the best reason I've ever heard to partition...I agree with your post...

 

[djmorgan]

Sense of humour!!!! WARNING I'm Australian, no insult meant.

 

[2z]

My Turn

Installing Apps to a separate partition is only good for a few Apps. A lot of apps have a direct connection to XP such as
an entry in
MSCONFIG, Services & windows shared / system folders.
The biggest noticeable difference is when windows first loads & it has to look at another partition - this will delay the desktop from being usable (dreaded hour glass).
Installing games to a separate partition is a good idea
Usually its just the CD key thats stored in the registry
1. dont lose saved games,
2. keep large files away from the boot drive.
Pro partition
Storing back ups
" Drive Image
" movies - MPEG, AVI ect.
" gigs of MP3s
" Setup programs
Installing games
DownLoads (incoming)
Dedicated page file
XP is very good at handling partitions
Start run C:\WINDOWS\system32\diskmgmt.msc
from here you can alter the format of the partitions.
For example my MP3s are in a FAT32 16KB cluster
Drive Image & Movies are in a FAT32 32KB cluster
Temporary internet files are in FAT16 8KB cluster
& my pagefile is in a FAT16 16KB cluster

 

[allan]

To those of you reading this thread in the hope of finding some information that can be of help to you, please allow me to explain the following:

1) There is no such thing as a virtual partition.

2) Folders and subfolders have been a staple in file organization since DOS 1.0 (prior to Windows 98 they were referred to as Directories and Sub-directories - same thing).

3) Organizing your files and programs in folders and sub-folders is in no way even similar to partitioning your hard disk. There is truly not even a distant correlation between the two.

4) If you partition your hard disk there may indeed be some delay when the heads have to move from one partition to another (from OS to programs or data). I assure you that with the speed of today's disks, ram and processors not one half of one percent of the typical PC users will ever notice that delay. It is nominal at best.

5) The advantages of partitioning far outweigh any possible disadvantages. I give you my word on this. I further assure you I do know what I'm talking about.

6) Does NTFS prefer one large partition to several smaller ones? Yes. But again, if you choose to partiton the average user will never notice any difference.

Now, if you prefer not to partition your hard drive that's just fine. But don't avoid partitioning because of any potential noticeable degradation in performance - because there is none.

Open_Source's style and wording may have been a little direct for some, but his statements are technically accurate.

 

[Friend of Bill]

If everyone is worried about access time and read, get a Ultra 160 card and a Cheetah.

 

[Perris Calderon]

ah...this is interesting...everyone here already knows that I made the term up virtual partitions...it's a very good, and acurate term...I'm very proud of the term, and fully expect it to be used more often to describe good file management, as I point out, though it's lost on a couple of you, the practical use of my vitual partitions is ABSOLUTELY IDENTICLE to the vast majority of the practical use of actual partitions...and anyone who performs normal computing realizes.

It's very interesting; we all agree that there is a performance issue, and we all agree that it is probably a small issue...for some resason, there are people here that don't want me to point out that microsoft believes the issue is important enough to urge manufacturers to not partition...Sorry, to those of you that don't want me to do so, if microsoft says there is an issue, I will point it out.

As I originally said, I and most of the peoplle I know, including experts hardly see any pervasive reason to partition at all.

Everyone who's read my posts has seen that from my very first post, I have urged those of you who want to partition, to do so...I then went on to give you the information most of you would prefer to have...I'm very surprised this is such an issue.

So, once again, and I hope for the last time, and as I said from the very beginning of this thread, I agree with allan...if you want to partition for your personal preferance, you certainly should... many people find some kind of advantage to it as has been pointed out...I find no advantage to it, as has been pointed out.

If you are doing it for the purpose of performance, no, it's counter productive, so much so, microsoft urges manufactureres to not partition.

So what new has been said here?...nothing by me, so now I feel bad for trying to get the last word...ok, if someone else has an additional post, if again, it's just a rehash of all of this, which is all the last few posts have been, I will definately not try to get the last word in...