Should my OS and apps go together?

...or not? I started reading this thread, but it got a bit bogged down in bickering. My current setup is as follows:

20GB drive:
-6GB Partition (Windows XP, Office, other necessary apps)
-2GB Partition (Page File)
-12GB Partition (Excess space, I plan to merge this space into the 6GB on my next format)

160GB drive:
Games, My Documents, Data Storage

My main question is this: Would I get better performance lumping the games in with the OS and apps on the same partition/drive? I'm talking fragmentation, read/write, access time. Both are 7200 drives, so there should be no difference.

There has been quite a bit of debate about this lately, and several people will swear you should separate them. However, there won't be much of a performance difference, and no one has been able to show noticeablely better gaming performance by doing so. In fact, I'd call your current setup "overpartitioned". There isn't any reason to create a separate partition for the page file. Some people believe in putting it on a different physical drive, but again, there isn't much of a difference. The only tweak you should do regarding that file is to set it to a static size. There's a sticky created to help you determine what your optimal size is.

One other reason many of us leave everything at their default locations (OS, apps, and games) is that we use a drive imaging program like Ghost to back up and/or restore the entire C drive/partition.

With your current setup, I'd format the entire 20 GB drive as C, and the entire 120 GB drive as D. Keep you're OS and apps on C...and games if they fit...if not, making a folder called D:\Games would be okay. Then use MS's SyncToy to grab important files, like e-mail, favorites, etc from C and copy them to D. I'd keep a clean Ghost image of my C drive on D as well, along with any user-created data, such as mp3s, etc.

This way, if something happens to your C drive, you can quickly restore anything you need.

I completely agree with djnes, I think the main reason people either partition their drive or use another physical drive is to keep all of our important documents, music, videos, etc. on a secondary drive. If the OS fails on C then your really not out any data, nor do you need to figure out a way to get the data off of the drive. You can simply boot your machine off of your windows install CD and reinstall the OS on your C drive and you are back in business. As far as performance is concerned I have not seen any compelling evidence to support an increse in performance.

Hope this helps!

I third this motion. I have a 74G raptor for my OS and games, and all applications. I use a small static swap file on the raptor since i have 2 gigs of ram, and i have a 250G SATA drive as storage. I backup with Acronis once a week.

Agreed with most of the above. I personally like to reserve about 20Gb for Windows and the basic apps I use, and bung all the rest on different partitions. On that system, if the 20Gb drive was the system one I'd basically use it all for the OS and perhaps have Office and a few other apps there also. Games, other programs and data files can reside either in folders or on dedicated partitions on the second drive. It doesn't really matter which, and the choice is basically a matter of organisation rather than performance.

One slight exception to the above. Leave a few Gb as unallocated space on the system drive. As explained in that tip, a quick default install is the easiest way to recover data from inside Documents and Settings in the event of a major system crash, before the system partition is wiped and reinstalled. I came across that tip recently, as mentioned, and it's a very clever one.

God kills a kitten everytime you partition without really-really good reasons.

Good...the final solution finally being applied to those fucking furballs.

What is the downside of partitioning? Primarily the wear on the arm?

This is getting really old really quick.

The question isn't whether not partitioning provides a compelling argument, it is whether extra partitioning provides a compelling argument. Outside of multi-user networked environments (domains, whether AD or not), all the extra patitioning provides no realistic and provable (repeatable) benefits. Making your drive schema overly complex solves nothing and only adds more complexity. If you want more reliability, set up RAID. If you want faster performance, buy faster hard drives. Splitting your OS over multiple partitions offers no single-user benefits.

And the search function is your friend.

Check the sig, and substitute "Search" for Google

I made this thread because the last one like it went to pot.

Let me offer some more advice: Reading is Fundemental.

You should read some of the other threads. I know I've posted in about half a dozen of them with more than one explanation of the same damned points. If your "friend" isn't finding those explanations, then you are not using your "friend" correctly. That's a YP.

Oh dear!

I hadn't noticed that there were so many threads existant and recent about this topic, and I'd have to agree, after reading them, that quite a few have been rendered somewhat less than useful by belligerent arguing.

There are reasons why keeping applications on a separate partition can be of benefit to a single user, and they have nothing to do with performance. They're related to practicality and data security. Matter of fact I'd argue that the first thing people should do after installing Windows is to move the My Documents folder to a separate drive partition and the next thing they should do is point the default program installation directory setting to a separate drive or partition.

Simple fact. Not everybody is a highly skilled network admin, who pays meticulous attention to just how their programs are configured and where they are writing files.
Simple fact. Many, many programs write at least some of the data files they create to directories inside the program installation folder or to obscure folders inside the Documents and Settings folder.
Simple fact. Most people sooner or later screw up their install so badly that a fresh start is the best way forward, and most people lose shit they regret losing when this occurs.

So you create a partition for the OS, leaving plenty of room for the page file, system restore and whatever else to operate in, and bung programs and data somewhere's else. When things go awry and you need to wipe and start over again, make a backup copy of the Documents and Settings folder first, wipe and reinstall the system partition, make the couple of changes to ensure that My Documents and the default program install directory are reconfigured, and then get busy reinstalling any apps that need to be reinstalled.

Afterwards all data files will still be existent, including the ones people didn't even realise existed, either immediately available or recoverable from the backed up Documents and Settings. Program configuration setting changes will still be there.

Sorry, but even users who are quite sophisticated in many ways lose shit they didn't want to lose if everything is kept on the one partition and then disaster visits.

If it's the stupid arguing that turns threads to shit then how about you guys stop arguing and turn threads to shit.

I don't particularly care if someone asks the same/similar question more than once in a 30-60 day period, but the way some of you like to turn those threads into your own personal cesspools is annoying.

If you don't want to contribute to those threads or if you just want to tell someone to search, please do everyone a favor just ignore the thread. If no one replies, it will die and your world will go on.

I made this thread because the last one like it went to pot.

Click to expand...

I don't blame you for wanting to make a thread seperate from one that went to crap. That's fine.

Now if you guys can keep the crap out of legitimate threads, that would be even better.

I'm 100% for discussion, even some heated discussions, but a lot of the time it just turns into thread crapping.

I use a 60gb as my OS drive, full sized, and install most of my normal stuff like Office, etc., onto it, but I install all my games, winamp, MBM5, etc. to a seperate drive. that way if I feel a compelling need to reinstall windows, all I have to do is back up my emails and format the bitch. All my data is elsewhere....

I also run any betas (like Vista) onto a second 60gb drive and share the games directory with both OS's....easy to do, that way I don't have 2 full installs of every game...

My third drive is my 250gb where all the games and mission critical stuff goes.....

Very simple drive scheme and easy to recover in case windows goes belly up.....not to mention I reinstall every 6-8 months anyway, I get bored and having a fresh install is always nice anyway....

one thing ive seen some high end manufactureres do, and i did as well, was to put the games (and sometimes the paging file) on a fat32 partition, its not as stable, but it is faster.

(not my conclusion, but i have seen benchies in magazines that verify it)

Ocean said:

one thing ive seen some high end manufactureres do, and i did as well, was to put the games (and sometimes the paging file) on a fat32 partition, its not as stable, but it is faster.

(not my conclusion, but i have seen benchies in magazines that verify it)

Click to expand...

I wouldn't use a FAT32 partition in my system right now even if it showed performance gains, which I doubt. Even the idea of putting games on a second physical drive makes sense in theory, but doesn't show enough results to declare it as better. That's why these threads turn to shit, because someone will give this wild partitioning scheme, claming some wonderful benefit, when the reality shows that there isn't any difference in performance or reliability. Now factor in how much easier it is to maintaining a backup scheme with a disk imaging program if your install apps and games are in one place, and a winner starts to emerge.

These threads turn to shit because of the usual happenstance on these boards. Someone makes a wild claim of greater performance, but fails to give any proof. Then when others come in giving answers, and proof to the contrary, all hell breaks loose because someone doesn't feel so l33t anymore. It happened with the page file debate...then the RAID0 debate...now partitioning schemes. The pattern is the same however. One side makes wild claims, while the other side gives proof to the contrary. As soon as people realize it's okay to be wrong, everyone will benefit. I used to think RAID0 was great. After doing the real testing myself, I realized it wasn't, so I split my array and sold my drives. And you know what? My e-wang didn't shrink! Go figure.

Why would you want games included in a disk image?

Aelfgeft said:

Why would you want games included in a disk image?

Click to expand...

I personally include them just because they are part of my program files directory. I only have one or two installed at a time anyway, and Ghost only takes a few minutes to do the whole drive.

Others like to include their games because of custom configs and add-ons to the game. Remember all the map packs for the UT series? Those would all be included in my restore image.

Ah, I gotcha. I still forget that now we have DVD-Rs so ghost images can be even bigger than they used to be.

Aelfgeft said:

Why would you want games included in a disk image?

Click to expand...

Because it's so easy, and you can be up and running in your desired configuration much quicker that way (DVDs are wonderful). Alternatively, why not? The more inclusive the image is to your regular operation, the better.