Guest JethroUK© Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 i just ordered a new machine which has x2 300 gig drives - i intend to use one drive as system/software drive (C:) and the other for data (D:) my question is that because the drives are so big (my current C: drive is only 20 gig) should i partition them? i do realise that new software uses a lot more space 300 g seems very big just for a system - obviously it's not so easy to change my mind later so i'm fishing for recommendations really
Guest sgopus Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 RE: partition or not to partition? Mostly it's a personal preference. I have mine set at 40 Gig (with an 80 Gig main HD) and a 300 Gig Secondary, dived in three partitions. and I have lots of room left "JethroUK©" wrote: > i just ordered a new machine which has x2 300 gig drives - i intend to use > one drive as system/software drive (C:) and the other for data (D:) > > my question is that because the drives are so big (my current C: drive is > only 20 gig) should i partition them? i do realise that new software uses a > lot more space 300 g seems very big just for a system - obviously it's not > so easy to change my mind later so i'm fishing for recommendations really > > >
Guest Pegasus \(MVP\) Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 Re: partition or not to partition? "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message news:9Sfni.30369$%Z3.14691@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net... >i just ordered a new machine which has x2 300 gig drives - i intend to use > one drive as system/software drive (C:) and the other for data (D:) > > my question is that because the drives are so big (my current C: drive is > only 20 gig) should i partition them? i do realise that new software uses > a > lot more space 300 g seems very big just for a system - obviously it's not > so easy to change my mind later so i'm fishing for recommendations really > > On each and every one of the systems I am responsible for, I place Windows and all applications on drive C: (20 GBytes) and all data on drive D:. Doing so makes it much easier to create, maintain and restore images. Here is an example: One day I find that my Windows installation has gone South for unexplained reasons. I am unable to fix the problem within a reasonable period of time. I will now boot the machine with my Acronis Recovery CD and restore drive C: from the image I took a few weekes ago. Thirty minutes later I'm back in business. My data (including my EMail files) is still intact because it resides on drive D:.
Guest Dave Moore Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 Re: partition or not to partition? "Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com> wrote in message news:un%237TkQyHHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... : : "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message : news:9Sfni.30369$%Z3.14691@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net... : >i just ordered a new machine which has x2 300 gig drives - i intend to use : > one drive as system/software drive (C:) and the other for data (D:) : > : > my question is that because the drives are so big (my current C: drive is : > only 20 gig) should i partition them? i do realise that new software uses : > a : > lot more space 300 g seems very big just for a system - obviously it's not : > so easy to change my mind later so i'm fishing for recommendations really : > : > : : On each and every one of the systems I am responsible for, : I place Windows and all applications on drive C: (20 GBytes) : and all data on drive D:. Doing so makes it much easier to : create, maintain and restore images. Here is an example: : : One day I find that my Windows installation has gone South : for unexplained reasons. I am unable to fix the problem : within a reasonable period of time. I will now boot the : machine with my Acronis Recovery CD and restore drive : C: from the image I took a few weekes ago. Thirty minutes : later I'm back in business. My data (including my EMail files) : is still intact because it resides on drive D:. And if you do that with 98, and also install all your programs to the D: drive, you can even image the entire C: drive (OS) onto a single CD I usually set people with 98 up this way. Once, the next day after I de-virused and de-malwared a 98 based computer for a guy, he called up and said that the computer stopped working, Turned out, the HD had taken a dive. No problemo. I simply put a new HD in and copied the C: drive back from an Image of his system that I had burned to a CD. Voila, back in action. With XP, since the size is so large, I usually image of to a spare HD, then yank it and put it on the shelf for a rainy day, Now, if I can just find a DOS app with DVD support :-) : :
Guest Ken Blake Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 Re: partition or not to partition? JethroUK© wrote: > i just ordered a new machine which has x2 300 gig drives - i intend > to use one drive as system/software drive (C:) and the other for data > (D:) > > my question is that because the drives are so big (my current C: > drive is only 20 gig) should i partition them? i do realise that new > software uses a lot more space 300 g seems very big just for a system > - obviously it's not so easy to change my mind later so i'm fishing > for recommendations really First, note that partitioning them is a *requirement*, not an option. A drive must have at least one partition on it to be used, and to "partition" means to create one or more partitions. So what you really mean to ask is should you have *multiple* partitions on the drives. There's no answer to your question that's right for everyone. A lot depends on how you plan to use the drives, what your backup scheme is, and even personal preference. I would ignore any answers you get that read something like "I partition my drives like this--xxxxx--and you should do the same." -- Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User Please reply to the newsgroup
Guest JethroUK© Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 Re: partition or not to partition? "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message news:#WoGL9UyHHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... | JethroUK© wrote: | | > i just ordered a new machine which has x2 300 gig drives - i intend | > to use one drive as system/software drive (C:) and the other for data | > (D:) | > | > my question is that because the drives are so big (my current C: | > drive is only 20 gig) should i partition them? i do realise that new | > software uses a lot more space 300 g seems very big just for a system | > - obviously it's not so easy to change my mind later so i'm fishing | > for recommendations really | | | First, note that partitioning them is a *requirement*, not an option. A | drive must have at least one partition on it to be used, and to "partition" | means to create one or more partitions. So what you really mean to ask is | should you have *multiple* partitions on the drives. | | There's no answer to your question that's right for everyone. A lot depends | on how you plan to use the drives, what your backup scheme is, and even | personal preference. | | I would ignore any answers you get that read something like "I partition my | drives like this--xxxxx--and you should do the same." | | -- i think i'll just stick to plan A of single partitions (Drive C & D) - my own reasons are that my machine starts to slow down after a few months and i find it so easy just to do a clean install of Windows and Apps & my precious data remains undisturbed - not that it wouldn't be safe on a partition - unless of course i get involved :o)
Guest Ken Blake Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 Re: partition or not to partition? JethroUK© wrote: > "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message > news:#WoGL9UyHHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> JethroUK© wrote: >> >>> i just ordered a new machine which has x2 300 gig drives - i intend >>> to use one drive as system/software drive (C:) and the other for >>> data (D:) >>> >>> my question is that because the drives are so big (my current C: >>> drive is only 20 gig) should i partition them? i do realise that new >>> software uses a lot more space 300 g seems very big just for a >>> system - obviously it's not so easy to change my mind later so i'm >>> fishing for recommendations really >> >> >> First, note that partitioning them is a *requirement*, not an >> option. A drive must have at least one partition on it to be used, >> and to "partition" means to create one or more partitions. So what >> you really mean to ask is should you have *multiple* partitions on >> the drives. >> >> There's no answer to your question that's right for everyone. A lot >> depends on how you plan to use the drives, what your backup scheme >> is, and even personal preference. >> >> I would ignore any answers you get that read something like "I >> partition my drives like this--xxxxx--and you should do the same." >> >> -- > > i think i'll just stick to plan A of single partitions (Drive C & D) OK, but read on. > - my own reasons are that my machine starts to slow down after a few > months Then you are clearly maintaining your computer poorly--probably allowing it to get infested with spyware or other malware. With a little care, computers don't slow down after a few months, or even many months. I have run Windows 3.0, 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, 2000, XP and now Vista, on multiple machines here, each from the time it was released until the next version, and have *never* needed to reinstall any of them. > and i find it so easy just to do a clean install of Windows > and Apps & my precious data remains undisturbed - not that it > wouldn't be safe on a partition - unless of course i get involved :o) The above statement suggests that you are relying on the wrong thing to secure your precious data. There is only one way to make sure you don't lose your precious data, and that's by backing it up to external media. Anything other than that, and you are just kidding yourself. If you don't have a good backup, it is always possible that a drive crash, user error, virus attack, severe power glitch, such as a nearby lightning strike, theft of th ecomputer, etc. can wipe out everything you have. There can be good reasons for separating Windows and data on multiple drives or partitions, but being able to reinstall Windows without losing your data isn't one of them. In, fact, in my view, the best reason for doing it is to facilitate backing up your data. -- Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User Please reply to the newsgroup
Guest Lil' Dave Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 Re: partition or not to partition? Don't partition them. Let us know how it works out... :) Partitioning, number of partitions, the amount of data, the file size maximum, partitioning schemes, file security, laziness or adaptiveness of the user to adapt to multiple partitions for everyday use, and their intended usage determine a decent answer. Others will grope in the dark in hopes of providing a solution reply for that based on the information you've provided. Dave "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message news:9Sfni.30369$%Z3.14691@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net... >i just ordered a new machine which has x2 300 gig drives - i intend to use > one drive as system/software drive (C:) and the other for data (D:) > > my question is that because the drives are so big (my current C: drive is > only 20 gig) should i partition them? i do realise that new software uses > a > lot more space 300 g seems very big just for a system - obviously it's not > so easy to change my mind later so i'm fishing for recommendations really > >
Guest Plato Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Re: partition or not to partition? JethroUK© wrote: > > i just ordered a new machine which has x2 300 gig drives - i intend to use > one drive as system/software drive (C:) and the other for data (D:) > > my question is that because the drives are so big (my current C: drive is > only 20 gig) should i partition them? i do realise that new software uses a > lot more space 300 g seems very big just for a system - obviously it's not > so easy to change my mind later so i'm fishing for recommendations really Of course every drive needs at least one partition. Personally, I'd just partition the entire drive to one drive letter. -- http://www.bootdisk.com/
Guest Lil' Dave Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Re: partition or not to partition? Sounds like a one physical hard drive system with 2 partitions. The recovery process is quick, easy, and simple. However, an image backup should also be made to removable media in case of hard drive failure. If using Outlook (not OE) for email, the optional update should be installed for backing up the personal folder contents to an removable location. Dave "Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com> wrote in message news:un%237TkQyHHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > > "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message > news:9Sfni.30369$%Z3.14691@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net... >>i just ordered a new machine which has x2 300 gig drives - i intend to use >> one drive as system/software drive (C:) and the other for data (D:) >> >> my question is that because the drives are so big (my current C: drive is >> only 20 gig) should i partition them? i do realise that new software uses >> a >> lot more space 300 g seems very big just for a system - obviously it's >> not >> so easy to change my mind later so i'm fishing for recommendations really >> >> > > On each and every one of the systems I am responsible for, > I place Windows and all applications on drive C: (20 GBytes) > and all data on drive D:. Doing so makes it much easier to > create, maintain and restore images. Here is an example: > > One day I find that my Windows installation has gone South > for unexplained reasons. I am unable to fix the problem > within a reasonable period of time. I will now boot the > machine with my Acronis Recovery CD and restore drive > C: from the image I took a few weekes ago. Thirty minutes > later I'm back in business. My data (including my EMail files) > is still intact because it resides on drive D:. >
Guest JethroUK© Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Re: partition or not to partition? I've often wondered about using drive imaging software instead of reinstalling windows but i couldn't get my head around how you can make a copy of an 80 gig h/drive does this software just ignore empty space - e.g. if you just have system installed it would create a 'smaller' image? if so how many cd's would i need to keep a basic ghost? "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message news:#36RDDfyHHA.5964@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... | Sounds like a one physical hard drive system with 2 partitions. The | recovery process is quick, easy, and simple. However, an image backup | should also be made to removable media in case of hard drive failure. If | using Outlook (not OE) for email, the optional update should be installed | for backing up the personal folder contents to an removable location. | Dave | "Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com> wrote in message | news:un%237TkQyHHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... | > | > "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message | > news:9Sfni.30369$%Z3.14691@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net... | >>i just ordered a new machine which has x2 300 gig drives - i intend to use | >> one drive as system/software drive (C:) and the other for data (D:) | >> | >> my question is that because the drives are so big (my current C: drive is | >> only 20 gig) should i partition them? i do realise that new software uses | >> a | >> lot more space 300 g seems very big just for a system - obviously it's | >> not | >> so easy to change my mind later so i'm fishing for recommendations really | >> | >> | > | > On each and every one of the systems I am responsible for, | > I place Windows and all applications on drive C: (20 GBytes) | > and all data on drive D:. Doing so makes it much easier to | > create, maintain and restore images. Here is an example: | > | > One day I find that my Windows installation has gone South | > for unexplained reasons. I am unable to fix the problem | > within a reasonable period of time. I will now boot the | > machine with my Acronis Recovery CD and restore drive | > C: from the image I took a few weekes ago. Thirty minutes | > later I'm back in business. My data (including my EMail files) | > is still intact because it resides on drive D:. | > | |
Guest easymike29 via WindowsKB.com Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Re: partition or not to partition? Dave: Ghost 2003 will write an image to DVD. Gene Dave Moore wrote: >: >i just ordered a new machine which has x2 300 gig drives - i intend to use >: > one drive as system/software drive (C:) and the other for data (D:) > >: later I'm back in business. My data (including my EMail files) >: is still intact because it resides on drive D:. > > And if you do that with 98, and also install all your >programs to the D: drive, >you can even image the entire C: drive (OS) >onto a single CD > I usually set people with 98 up this way. > >Once, the next day after I de-virused and de-malwared > a 98 based computer for a guy, > he called up and said that the >computer stopped working, Turned out, the HD had >taken a dive. No problemo. I simply put a new HD in >and copied the C: drive back from an Image of >his system that I had burned to a CD. Voila, back >in action. > >With XP, since the size is so large, I usually image of to >a spare HD, then yank it and put it on the shelf for a rainy >day, Now, if I can just find a DOS app with DVD >support :-) -- Message posted via http://www.windowskb.com
Guest Pegasus \(MVP\) Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Re: partition or not to partition? Good quality imaging software will create an image file whose size is around 50% of the total amount of data stored on the imaged partition, regardless of the partition's size. It will restore this image onto any partition that is large enough to take all the data. In other words, if your WinXP installation resides on an 80 GByte partition and requires 12 GBytes, then the image file will be around 6 GBytes and it could be restored to a partition of perhaps 15 GBytes. "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message news:sYHni.40$aU3.13@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net... > I've often wondered about using drive imaging software instead of > reinstalling windows but i couldn't get my head around how you can make a > copy of an 80 gig h/drive > > does this software just ignore empty space - e.g. if you just have system > installed it would create a 'smaller' image? if so how many cd's would i > need to keep a basic ghost? > > "Lil' Dave" <spamyourself@virus.net> wrote in message > news:#36RDDfyHHA.5964@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > | Sounds like a one physical hard drive system with 2 partitions. The > | recovery process is quick, easy, and simple. However, an image backup > | should also be made to removable media in case of hard drive failure. > If > | using Outlook (not OE) for email, the optional update should be > installed > | for backing up the personal folder contents to an removable location. > | Dave > | "Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com> wrote in message > | news:un%237TkQyHHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > | > > | > "JethroUK©" <reply@the.board> wrote in message > | > news:9Sfni.30369$%Z3.14691@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net... > | >>i just ordered a new machine which has x2 300 gig drives - i intend to > use > | >> one drive as system/software drive (C:) and the other for data (D:) > | >> > | >> my question is that because the drives are so big (my current C: > drive > is > | >> only 20 gig) should i partition them? i do realise that new software > uses > | >> a > | >> lot more space 300 g seems very big just for a system - obviously > it's > | >> not > | >> so easy to change my mind later so i'm fishing for recommendations > really > | >> > | >> > | > > | > On each and every one of the systems I am responsible for, > | > I place Windows and all applications on drive C: (20 GBytes) > | > and all data on drive D:. Doing so makes it much easier to > | > create, maintain and restore images. Here is an example: > | > > | > One day I find that my Windows installation has gone South > | > for unexplained reasons. I am unable to fix the problem > | > within a reasonable period of time. I will now boot the > | > machine with my Acronis Recovery CD and restore drive > | > C: from the image I took a few weekes ago. Thirty minutes > | > later I'm back in business. My data (including my EMail files) > | > is still intact because it resides on drive D:. > | > > | > | > >
Guest Zilbandy Posted July 19, 2007 Posted July 19, 2007 Re: partition or not to partition? On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:53:03 +0200, "Pegasus \(MVP\)" <I.can@fly.com> wrote: >Good quality imaging software will create an image file >whose size is around 50% of the total amount of data >stored on the imaged partition, I think you're being a bit optimistic here. I find the percentage to be more like 70 to 75% of the original size, but I do have several encrypted files (PGP Disks) that, because of their nature, do not compress. I tend to tell people that a typical mix of files will compress around 2/3, or around 65-70%. With more and more people keeping jpgs and mp3s on their systems, I would except compression to be even lower, because those files are already compressed. -- Zilbandy
Guest Pegasus \(MVP\) Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: partition or not to partition? "Zilbandy" <zil@zilbandyREMOVETHIS.com> wrote in message news:76tv93p43d0135h8kriustlri5u6ito42i@4ax.com... > On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:53:03 +0200, "Pegasus \(MVP\)" <I.can@fly.com> > wrote: > >>Good quality imaging software will create an image file >>whose size is around 50% of the total amount of data >>stored on the imaged partition, > > I think you're being a bit optimistic here. I find the percentage to > be more like 70 to 75% of the original size, but I do have several > encrypted files (PGP Disks) that, because of their nature, do not > compress. I tend to tell people that a typical mix of files will > compress around 2/3, or around 65-70%. With more and more people > keeping jpgs and mp3s on their systems, I would except compression to > be even lower, because those files are already compressed. > > -- > Zilbandy You're probably correct but then you've moved away from my preferred configuration. None of the system drives I image contain jpg or mp3 files. These are data files and on my systems they are kept away from drive C:.
Guest Zilbandy Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: partition or not to partition? On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:25:42 +0200, "Pegasus \(MVP\)" <I.can@fly.com> wrote: >You're probably correct but then you've moved away from >my preferred configuration. None of the system drives I image >contain jpg or mp3 files. These are data files and on my >systems they are kept away from drive C:. During the Windows 3 era, I kept my operating system files on C. Dos applications lived on D, Windows apps on E, and Data files on F. I maintained this scheme as best I could through Win3, Win95, and Win98. With XP, I finally gave up. Even if I installed apps on E drive, Windows still put bits and pieces of stuff in docs and settings \ username \ application data... blah blah blah. It finally became easier for me to just integrate everything into c drive. The only files I keep on other partitions / drives is MP3's and my backup images. :( -- Zilbandy
Guest JethroUK© Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: partition or not to partition? "Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com> wrote in message news:#y4yr5oyHHA.3696@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... | | | You're probably correct but then you've moved away from | my preferred configuration. None of the system drives I image | contain jpg or mp3 files. These are data files and on my | systems they are kept away from drive C:. | | likewise for me too - i was only interested in ghosting the system - you also answered another question i forgot to ask which was that i always assumed a drive image must be remounted on the same drive it came from & i see that it doesn't and provided there's enough space it can be remounted on any drive - although i imagine that it would lead to problems even if the machines were very similar set up
Guest Terry R. Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Re: partition or not to partition? On 7/19/2007 11:03 PM On a whim, Zilbandy pounded out on the keyboard > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:25:42 +0200, "Pegasus \(MVP\)" <I.can@fly.com> > wrote: > >> You're probably correct but then you've moved away from >> my preferred configuration. None of the system drives I image >> contain jpg or mp3 files. These are data files and on my >> systems they are kept away from drive C:. > > During the Windows 3 era, I kept my operating system files on C. Dos > applications lived on D, Windows apps on E, and Data files on F. I > maintained this scheme as best I could through Win3, Win95, and Win98. > With XP, I finally gave up. Even if I installed apps on E drive, > Windows still put bits and pieces of stuff in docs and settings \ > username \ application data... blah blah blah. It finally became > easier for me to just integrate everything into c drive. The only > files I keep on other partitions / drives is MP3's and my backup > images. :( > On my main workstation, I still use a multi drive system, but I do it for multiple OS access. My OS's all boot as C:, all data is on D:, and all programs are on E:. That way I can maintain small OS partitions (5-6 gig), and I install all apps in all OS's to E, which saves considerable space as there is only one installation of each program (unless programs won't allow drive selection, but that list is relatively small). -- Terry R. ***Reply Note*** Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
Recommended Posts