Best way to partition my hard drive

[pbj75]

HA! You assume people at home have backup device outside a CD/DVD-R. You also assume nightly/weekly incremental system backups, excuse me while I laugh again...

Phoenix, aren't you assuming the same thing? You and djnes keep saying it is not worth it to segregate data because it is so easy to just backup everything. It is only easy if you are using a storage medium that can handle all that data.

True, if you are backing up to HD or tape it is just a matter of time. However, assuming 40 GB of Windows, Apps and data, it is going to take over 8 separate DVD's to back all that up. Even at 8X, that is going to take 2+hours to burn. And the restore is going to be alot of fun too.

You don't think being able to backup Windows in 15 minutes versus 2+ hours is worth it?

rcolbert, there are definitely some poorly written apps and some old legacy apps that insist on being in the "Program files" folder. My solution is to install those apps where they want, every other app goes to my E drive.


Phoenix86, how exactly do you backup your system/data? To another HD, tape, DVD, what?

 

[Phoenix86]

Phoenix, aren't you assuming the same thing? You and djnes keep saying it is not worth it to segregate data because it is so easy to just backup everything.

True, if you are backing up to HD or tape it is just a matter of time. However, assuming 40 GB of Windows, Apps and data, it is going to take over 8 separate DVD's to back all that up. Even at 8X, that is going to take 2+hours to burn. And the restore is going to be alot of fun too.

You don't think being able to backup Windows in 15 minutes versus 2+ hours is worth it?

rcolbert, there are definitely some poorly written apps and some old legacy apps that insist on being in the "Program files" folder. My solution is to install those apps where they want, every other app goes to my E drive.

No, I'm not assuming anything. I'm assuming what the OP says, they didn't say they make backups.

I'm not saying it's easy to back up either, it's easier, whatever method you choose. Given the data (OS, apps, user data) backing up just user data is less than user data + apps and/or OS. Remember the typical case does a backup so they CAN reinstall, not in case...

However, if you do actually backup *prior* to the problem, and can restore that way, your already the exception. The OP didn't mention this, so I don't assume they do it.

Also, when re-formatting the object is often a clean load, why? because they are frequently repairing an unknown problem. Just hang around here for a bit, and you'll see why people re-format. Virus, and spyware are big ones. Do you trust any data on a system that's been infected, when you can't even clean it? I wouldn't.

edit: sorry, missed your question. I have a seperate HDD on the network I store data to, so I just keep redundant copies of the data on different system. I'll also keep CD backups of static data, like say pics. I don't have a lot of data I conside "important", things I can re-download are not saved for the most part.

 

[rcolbert]

rcolbert, let's get one thing straight before we continue. Don't EVER accuse anyone else of looking for an argument. All anyone has to do is search by your username to see what your all about.

I did nothing in this thread but offer my opinion about a solution to the question until my opinion was called out and challenged.

That being said, our advice, along with what everone else besides you is saying, is still the best practice

So you're right and I'm wrong. And further, your position is the defacto and self-evident truth. What a deviant I am.

 

[O[H]-Zone]

Seriously, how are you even allowed to post here? You don't add anything to the board, and throw gasoline to a fire. Sadly this isn't even a "heated" discussion like the firewall thread, where you also haven't added a damn thing to the conversation.

You're obviously still bitter from the quote in my sig and it shows every time you pop into a thread, quote me, and make one-liners.

Well, either that or I have consistently disagreed with the drivel you continually post. Which do you think it is? Of course you think I'm "attacking" you...I disagree with you, and that is heresy for the self-important. Now, on a different level, do you really consider

HA!

to be something a normal, well adjusted adult human being might say?
Oh, and by the way...PLEASE leave the quote in...it makes one of us look foolish, and brother...it ain't me!

 

[Phoenix86]

More gasoline, no content. Add to the conversation or leave...

 

[rcolbert]

HA! You assume people at home have backup device outside a CD/DVD-R. You also assume nightly/weekly incremental system backups, excuse me while I laugh again...

Or a user could use the built in backup utility to backup the C: drive and system state to a file on the E: drive.

You have now moved tagets from home environment to corporate. We're discussing home environments, as always, unless the OP states otherwise. That's just what people discuss most often, esp. when they fire off 3 sentence questions. The scenario that's comes up 95% of the time goes like this.

No, I'm talking about home PC's. Ignore my corporate anecdotes if you don't see the applicability. As far as the technology goes, it's 95% the same. The differences are in the use-cases, the resources, and the requirements for availability. Is it too much of a stretch to think that I could learn something on the job and use it at home?

OP: My system is FUBAR.
P1: patch XYZ
OP: no go.
P2: check drivers.
OP: no go.
P1: system restore.
OP: no go.
P2: backup/reinstall.

At this point the OP copies crucial data to CD/DVDs or other HDDs. Formats system, moves on. They *rarely* have ghost images, and *never* have backups previous to the issue. Heck, I don't even have them. I just keep redundant copies of important data.

So you're saying that all you are concerned with is a data recovery plan. That's fine. That's likely all that you'll ever need. As for the scarcity of backups, you might not do them often, but you may choose to do one right before you make a change to your system that you believe might have a high degree of risk. All you gain by doing so is a few more possibilities and the potential to get your system back to the way it was in less than a few hours. If you don't want that option, you don't need to design for it. I think a full OS backup before upgrading to the 64-bit OS might be a wise choice for most folks.

OK, so your method is useless for removing spyware that may install to d:\. It also has glaring holes for plugins to IE. I like the use of "usally don't have much overlap", that sounds very confident. Do you realize sometimes it's VERY difficult to tell the difference between software/OS/driver issues, and that very reason is why people re-format? If people knew where the problem was, they could likely fix it, but they don't and give up. I see plenty of techs get frustrated and say "I'm spending more time TSing than fixing" and ghost as opposed to finding the problem.

I'm not saying that my hammer is the tool to install your sink. What I am saying is that the more options you have the better off you are. Reformatting and reinstalling is sometimes the cure. Sometimes there's an easier solution. This option is available for those who feel that it complements what they feel are best practices for their own situation. I have no doubt that if I restore my OS, that all my games and productivity applications on D: won't need to be reinstalled. Other stuff, who knows? Depends on the problem, doesn't it?

Again, I see your line of thinking, in a business environment. At home, 30min. vs. 3 hours it's moot.

In a household with an infant, time is golden. 30min vs. 3 hours to me is night and day.

As far as backup set see above. Home users don't do "backups" like at work. They backup on demand. Also, I would only be backing up the user data, not system data, which would take less time/space.

Home users are not [H] users. Backups on demand are fine. OS backups BY FAR take less time than data backups for many of us. I have less than 10GB of OS to backup, and more than 200GB of data. Home movies and pictures of the kid are a big part of that. If you don't think that's mission critical stuff, try ever explaining to your wife how you lost every single picture of your child that was ever taken. (I haven't had to do this, knock on wood) That's why in my case I store that kind of data on a server with mirrored drives, shadow copy to a separate spindle, and periodic backups as well.

That one flew right over your head... Think "640k ought to be enough for anyone" you're just saying 20GB ought to be enough, when in the past people said 5GB ought to be enough.

It didn't fly over my head at all. The point being that 20GB is relative to this moment in time. When you install Longhorn expect a different number quite possibly. 640K was a limit built into the OS that we inherited from when DOS was QDOS all the way through Win95, (and beyond for some of you.) The sizing of the boot drive on a given computer is a little less sticky than that.

Meh, I think this is probably splitting hairs as the cause of the failures would come in to play...

Yep, you're assuming there is a backup in place prior to the issue, which I have pretty much never seen on these board.

True. People don't often back up. Still, it's nice to have the option available. Maybe people only do it when they apply a service pack or perform a major upgrade. I'm not going to avoid recommending something to an individual just because the dirty unwashed masses run with scissors.


Final thought: Much of the value of the dedicated C: drive is not in the backup and recovery area at all. I am far more concerned about running out of drive space on the OS drive. I enjoy the flexibility of moving anything that's on D:, E:, or any other drive for that matter to any new disk that I might buy, at any time, simply by copying data and re-assigning drive letters. Keeping C: down to the bare essentials makes that possible.

That is the main thrust of my advice. However, in your reply, you are only talking about recovery. Bear in mind that recovery and troubleshooting is your emphasis, not mine.

 

[atomic3]

Drive 1:
C:\ OS and apps
D:\ Data

Drive 2:
M:\ Media (songs, pictures, videos)

That is my exact setup. Having the OS and applications on a separate partion is a bad idea. I have tried it and it's just a pain in the ass. First of all, if you need to reinstall the OS the programs aren't going to work anyway. Secondly, whenever you go to install a program, by default it wants to install to C:\Program Files, and its annoying to change that path everytime if you want to install somewhere else.

I keep data and media separate for back up purposes. I back up my data (school work, websites, personal docs, financial data) much more often than media because it changes much more often, and is only a few gig's worth of stuff. This means it'll only take a few mins to back up with ghost. Media however, is 30+ gigs of stuff and takes a while to backup with ghost. My media drive doesnt have stuff added, removed or changed as often as my Data partion so even if my backup wasnt completly up to date, i probably only loose a few mp3's or something.

I think my setup is ideal. ya'll should try it!

 

[Phoenix86]

So we're not beating a dead horse...

I see they way your setup works, it's just overly complicated for most users because of backups. If you do backup, it's an interesting approach. My main points have already been said, so I'm leaving it at that.

 

[rcolbert]

Drive 1:
C:\ OS and apps
D:\ Data

Drive 2:
M:\ Media (songs, pictures, videos)

That is my exact setup. Having the OS and applications on a separate partion is a bad idea. I have tried it and it's just a pain in the ass. First of all, if you need to reinstall the OS the programs aren't going to work anyway. Secondly, whenever you go to install a program, by default it wants to install to C:\Program Files, and its annoying to change that path everytime if you want to install somewhere else.

I keep data and media separate for back up purposes. I back up my data (school work, websites, personal docs, financial data) much more often than media because it changes much more often, and is only a few gig's worth of stuff. This means it'll only take a few mins to back up with ghost. Media however, is 30+ gigs of stuff and takes a while to backup with ghost. My media drive doesnt have stuff added, removed or changed as often as my Data partion so even if my backup wasnt completly up to date, i probably only loose a few mp3's or something.

I think my setup is ideal. ya'll should try it!

Based on your personal preferences and priorities, your setup is perfect for you. It is also very suitable for many folks here.

My setup happens to be:

C: OS
D: Programs
E: Data
H: Home Drive (mapped drive on home server)
P: Pictures (mapped drive on home server)
M: Music (mapped drive on home server)
V: Videos (mapped drive on home server)

There are a lot of specific reasons why I chose this setup, and many of my reasons are only applicable to my specific situation. I don't advocate this setup for anyone but me. I happen to access the pictures, music, and videos from PC's and other media player appliances throughout the house, as does my wife from her laptop, or the TV, or a digital music player, etc...

Whatever works best for you is fine.

C: + D: is better than C: only.

C: + D: + E: is more flexible at the cost of being slightly more complex.

So we're not beating a dead horse...

I see they way your setup works, it's just overly complicated for most users because of backups. If you do backup, it's an interesting approach. My main points have already been said, so I'm leaving it at that.

The pros and cons of either setup don't make an absolute case for one over the other IMO. People just need to take the pros and cons and weigh them accordingly. I've had a lot of configurations over a lot of PC's, and have tried many different approaches. The only conclusion I can draw is that I've found what's right for me. I only offer that as advice because the advice was sought and I have no problem offering up my own opinion to sit alongside opinions that differ from my own.

I don't view offering up my opinion as an invitation to argue, but I often forget that by the time I join these threads that an argument is already under way. Sometimes however, I would like to simply offer up my differing opinion which makes no reference to anyone else's point of view, and simply have folks accept it as an opinion and say "that's an interesting opinion", or ask "why do you think this or that" instead of whipping out the xacto knife and slicing my response into single sentences, each of which is responded to with an adversarial and sometimes personally insulting paragraph.

I obviously have no problem in writing defenses and justifications at that point, but often question why it is even necesarry. Clearly, no one posts information that the think is wrong, so why is the argument against my opinions "you think you're always right" when you post? Of course I do. If I had misgivings about my opinions I wouldn't post them. Why would anyone post something if they thought it was wrong?

Frankly, Phoenix, you are the more reasonable of the folks that I argue with often, but even you seem to want to attack any of my opinions that differ from your own previously posted opinion. All I ask is that when this kind of thing starts off, please read my post carefully before you lay into me. I feel that my first post in a thread is often directly in response to the question asked by the poster. Even if my opinion varies slightly from a previous poster's point of view, I don't think that I am ever addressing that other poster's opinion directly or indirectly. But for whatever reason, there are times when no one will let any opinions persist so long as they have the slightest deviation from their own. Be secure enough in your own credibility that you can let another person express a slightly different point of view that is in no way directed at you, and let that opinion stand. Even when we're only 10% off an agreement it seems that the adversarial roles that some people assume mean that they must take a stance that is 100% contrarian to any opposing point of view. IMO. even the most wrong-thinking people in the world usually make correct statements about 75% of the time. Let's stop the dead-horse syndrome by recognizing that we need to acknowledge the valid points that other people make. Data is data, facts are facts, but what they mean and what we conclude from them is subject to our experience, judgment, state of mind, and opinion. You can agree with my data without having to agree with my conclusions.

I acknowledge when I agree with you, and if you go back and look you'll find that at the start, when I do have a differing opinion, I usually don't address that opinion towards you. I may make exceptions from time to time, and once the argument starts all bets are off. But in arguing with me you truly don't understand my state of mind in that first post. In my first post I usually am only trying to help, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with you, djnes, or anyone other than the person who asked the question. Keep that thought in mind and it might not seem like such a personal attack.

 

[djnes]

I don't advocate this setup for anyone but me.

If you had said that about 2 pages earlier, we wouldn't have needed to turn this into a debate. No one really cares what you do on your own home system. I mean that in a good way, as in that's your business.

What sparks all of these debates is that we're discussing what's best to offer as advice to the OP, not what our personal preferences are. You seem to always turn it into a debate based on personal preferences. You should keep in mind that when we answer questions, its in the best interests of the situation posed by the OP.

 

[Phoenix86]

If you had said that about 2 pages earlier, we wouldn't have needed to turn this into a debate. No one really cares what you do on your own home system. I mean that in a good way, as in that's your business.

What sparks all of these debates is that we're discussing what's best to offer as advice to the OP, not what our personal preferences are. You seem to always turn it into a debate based on personal preferences. You should keep in mind that when we answer questions, its in the best interests of the situation posed by the OP.

QFT. This isn't a pie in the sky discussion, the OP is looking for the best setup with the least issues for them.

 

[rcolbert]

I understand what both of you are saying. My alphabet-soup solution including all the mapped drives is specific to me. The first post I made which was simply one possible configuration, but it is still the one I believe is best for the particular size and quantity of hard drives presented in the original question. In other words, my original post was specifically designed for the OP's question.

None of this debate has changed my opinion because I look at all the evidence and weigh it differently than you do. No one is presenting misinformation here. We just attribute higher or lower values to the various factors. I happen to think most people on this forum can easily handle either configuration, whereas there is clearly concern on your part that my proposed configuration doesn't provide enough benefit (if any) to justify the difficulty you think it might present.

All I can really say is that it's good that people are getting the information from both our camps, and can make the decision for themselves. Without any disrespect for C: and D: as a solution, I believe that C:, D:, and E: is a very powerful, flexible, and optimal solution should someone feel that they have the aptitude to support it, and the desire to benefit from the features specific to the configuration that I have advocated. If the features or the complexity seem undesirable, then at least an informed choice has been made.

 

[pbj75]

What sparks all of these debates is that we're discussing what's best to offer as advice to the OP, not what our personal preferences are. You seem to always turn it into a debate based on personal preferences. You should keep in mind that when we answer questions, its in the best interests of the situation posed by the OP.

djnes, do you realize that is exactly what you did? Your personal preference is one big partition and that is what you told the OP(Gary King) to do.

However, you don't know if that approach is correct for him, since no one (including me) has asked any follow up questions. Instead of asking some follow up questions such as what, if any, is hisbackup strategy, how much critical data does he have, how often does he tinker with his system, does he back up over a network, external drive, etc., your immediate recommendation was

I would make one and only one primary partition on each drive.

Then, when Whatsisname said

I personally give windows a 3-4 gig partition and use the other partition for my profile and for applications

You responded with

Which offers zero benefit, because in the event of a rebuild, you still have to install your apps and games anyway. I'm not sure why people preach this method. Apps are meant for C:\Program Files, and there's no benefit to moving them elsewhere.

How do you know that? You don't know the details of Whatsisname's situation so how can you say it provides "no benefit"?

As I am typing this, I realize there may be another explanation for your position.

You are sure there is never a reason to partition, and everyone who has suggested partitioning is just wrong.

Is that it?

 

[Phoenix86]

You are sure there is never a reason to partition, and everyone who has suggested partitioning is just wrong.

Is that it?

You don't prove a negative, you prove a positive. So, djnes doesn't need to show why you don't do something, others need to show a reason TO do it.

When those reasons are brought out, they can be compared.

From what I'm reading in this thread, easy of recovery is the only reason for partitioning. I think that's been pretty well shot down.

rcolbert's method is a bit more complex, but should work fine. It's a VERY different way of setting up a machine, and it probably works well for him. It has up and down sides, first of which is explaining how and why it's a good setup. However, it's not a simple "use this setup" type response and take a bit of explaining to understand.

So, I'm betting no one has given him good reason to partition (BTW almost everyone agrees partitioning OS+apps from user datat is kosher, so he's not totally against it). Do you have a good reason for partitioning?

 

[O[H]-Zone]

Again, I see your line of thinking, in a business environment. At home, 30min. vs. 3 hours it's moot.

So there you have it, right from the horse's...well, you know. If you want to blow 3 hours after a problem, do it Phoenix86's way. If you want it to take 30 minutes, don't.

More gasoline, no content. Add to the conversation or leave...

Well, it's kind of you to think about me but I checked, and the word "moderator" doesn't appear under your name, so I'll respectfully decline your offer. Don't like what I say?
Oh well...

 

[pbj75]

Gary King - Obviously, whether or not you partition is completely up to you. You da man! Just be sure to consider a backup strategy and ask yourself some of the questions I mentioned earlier. It would suck [H]ard to lose months of MP3's due to lack of backup

Phoenix86 - Myself, rcolbert, O[H]-Zone, darkpark, DougLite and atomic have all stated that we see benefits to partitioning, and we have cited the real world scenarios where it has helped us.

Note, none of us has said you must partition. Nor have we said that you are wrong if you don't partition. Merely what works best for each of us.

On the other hand, both you and djnes have clearly stated that there is no possible reason to partition just the OS and the rest of us are just plain wrong.

I'll stick to my side, that there's absolutely no possible reason to justify installing the applications away from the default, expected.

From what I'm reading in this thread, easy of recovery is the only reason for partitioning. I think that's been pretty well shot down.

So, I'm betting no one has given him good reason to partition (BTW almost everyone agrees partitioning OS+apps from user datat is kosher, so he's not totally against it). Do you have a good reason for partitioning?

From your question, I guess that means you don't think any of the reasons myself, rcolbert, O[H]-Zone, darkpark, DougLite and atomic have so far given are "good" reasons?

Well, lucky for Gary King that you and djnes were here to tell him what was right.

 

[rcolbert]

You don't prove a negative, you prove a positive. So, djnes doesn't need to show why you don't do something, others need to show a reason TO do it.

That's purely nonsensical. One partitioning scheme over another is not a negative or a positive. You're twisting that theorem completely our of context. Not proving a negative means you can't prove that something didn't happen, only that something did happen. That's not a rule of argument, it's a rule of evidence. You can make an argument for or against anything you choose. In fact, all of the logic djnes is using is not towards proving his positive, he's trying to prove a negative - IOW, why NOT to have an OS only partition.

 

[djnes]

djnes, do you realize that is exactly what you did? Your personal preference is one big partition and that is what you told the OP(Gary King) to do.

No, it's not my personal opinion. It's the recommended method of disc partitioning. As I mentioned before, it's called accepted convention. That's how each OEM does it, aside from hidden partitions, that's how Microsoft has always recommended it in their deployment conferences, and that's how major corporations do it with their internal machines. Now, as Phoenix86 has mentioned several times, we don't need to show proof. You and your buddy rcolbert need to show why it's better to defy convention, and the knowledge of OEMs, Microsoft, and major IT centers worldwide. Until you can show why you do it better than them, this debate is a moot point, and continuing to argue it with no proof only makes your side more foolish.

Here's an example. It's accepted convention to cook chicken before you eat it. If I said I think eating it raw is better, you'd want proof, right? </END ARGUMENT>

It's pure and simple common sense, regardless of the topic. If you are going to defy convention, and argue about it, you better show proof if you expect anyone to buy your story.

 

[djnes]

Just as a note, I passed this thread on to odoe with a recommendation that it be closed. We've asked time and time again for proof of why convention is wrong, but all you two want to do is insist we're wrong, offering no reasoning behind it. I can't speak for Phoenix86, but if creating more partitions is truly better, I'd love to see it. However, no one has bothered to do so. At this point, your both arguing for the sake of arguing, which isn't helping anyone. The OP has his answers, and we've spelled out what the major OEMs do, what Microsoft has recommended in it's deployment conferences, and what is done at the enterprise level. Nothing was offered in return accept meaningless arguments. That being said, I recommended the thread be closed due to a lack of content that will surely turn into a flame-fest.

 

[odoe]

I'm not going to close the thread (but thanks for the heads up). You guys are adults, act like it.
Also, instigators are not welcome. In my opinion, instigating is the same as trolling, so seriously, if that's all you are going to do, get out.

 

[djnes]

In the spirit of trying to find proof, I've been searching high and low for a document from a reputable source on partitioning practices, but all I'm coming up with is debates on cluster size. I'm not finding information to support either side, so we're still stuck with no information vs "that's the way it's done".

 

[odoe]

Look at it this way.
If you want to go through the trouble of backing up two partitions every time you install a new program, then yeah, sure, keep your OS and Programs seperate. But they have to be consistent or it's all for not. If you want to keep it simple, just keep the OS and apps on the same drive, back that up as you go along, keep your data on a seperate partition and your cherry.

It boils down to how you want to do it. Maybe you enjoy backing up after each program install/uninstall, well knock yourself out. To the OP, you just need to decide what is best going to work for you.

 

[Phoenix86]

Did anyone think there was a definitive answer to this? lol

pbj75, I don't think ease of recovery is a good reason, I'm not saying 'there are no good reasons to partition.' Of couse it's easy to recover when you have backups. That's not the topic though now is it. However, if you want to explain all that to the posters, go ahead, it's just not for me or djnes (which is why I said no on has given *HIM* good reasons, not 'there are no good reason...'). You're taking the quotes out of context.'

To answer your question, no I don't think those seutps are good reasons. I think it's over complicated. Do you expect everyone to buy what you're selling?

I never said the setups bad or wrong. I do think that when you split the apps from the OS your not helping yourself.

You can't take the negative of what I'm saying and assume it's true, your mincing words. That's what happens what you guess, try asking direct questions next time.

Again, you seem to miss what I'm saying. I don't recommend splitting up the OS and apps. However, seperating the user data is something I recommend. On a single drive system, that may mean partitioning... BTW, Atomic and darkpark are recommending exactly what I would. Keep the OS+apps together. Doug never explained how to restore keys for software other than games that acutally use the registry. rcolbert and your method require a bit more than just "how do I partition" since they also kinda require a backup method as well. It works, and I have said that more than once now. Not sure what else you want.

O[H]-Zone, again, no content added with your post. The title "moderator" is not required for me to want you to add to a discussion instead of fanning flames.

*Sigh* in the end you have several setups here, pick what works for you. I'm simply trying to explain how I do what I do, and why. I will question what others do when I don't understand, or I think it's wrong.

 

[Mister Natural]

I think it boils down to personal preference. I've multi-partitioned drives before and I really didn't see the point in it and occassionally I would run across a program that didn't like installing to a location that I preferred over the default. I found myself still having to put programs on C:. So I said what's the point.

I will say this however. The original poster mentions that he has 2 hard disks. Put the swap file on the second disk. You'll get a slight performance boost because the disk r/w heads reading windows will be able to access the drive at "the same time" that the swap file can be read on the second disk.
Note some people are confused thinking that putting a swap file on a different partition on the same hard disk will improve performance. This is not true.

 

[rcolbert]

My OS partition has about 5.9 GB of data. I back it up (including the system state) using NT backup automatically every Monday morning at 3:00 AM to a file on my E: drive. This took 5 minutes to setup and it's in set it and forget it mode. The backup itself takes less than 15 minutes. This is using a built-in Windows XP feature.

I have 40 GB of space in use on my D: drive, which is essentially program files. I don't have the free space on my E: drive to backup 45.9GB.

Is this not a benefit? Are you people seriously arguing against having a backup of the OS drive? Would this backup not work to recover my system to the way it was on the previous Monday at 3:00 AM in the event that for whatever reason my boot partition gets hosed (minus any applications that were installed thereafter?) Does anyone have any evidence that Microsoft is opposed to backups?

On another tangent, can people please stop presenting arguments about the elements of arguments and logic to support their theories? The biggest fallacy *by far* that is being committed is that Phoenix and djnes believe that their *opinion* is in fact a self-evident truth. That's almost 100% of what djnes is saying. If I wanted to debate the elements of argument themselves, I'd find a local community college and sign up for a freshman critical thinking course. If someome challenges your point of view, it's not only frustrating, it's infuriating to have the person come back with the self-evident truth, and I don't need to defend my point of view arguments. Not only is that egocentric in the extreme, it also prevents any discussion of the evidence at hand from taking place.

I have mentioned no less than 4 separate very specific functional reasons why I support a particular method. No one has countered any of them with any credible technical evidence whatsoever. The only shit I keep hearing is the *unsupported* assertions that it's the recommended best practice, that Microsoft advocates it, that everyone else agrees. What kind of shit arguments are those? Oh yeah, and I also hear "we don't have to prove ourselves, only you do" as well. WTF is that all about? Do you actually believe that a neutral third party who listens to your opinion is satisfied with your claim of exemption from providing evidence?

Bottom line is that there are a few [H] posters who think that only one way of doing things, their way, is the right way. They feel that they have the full support of everyone else on these forums, that Kyle probably calls them himself for technical support, that Microsoft falls in line when they say things, and that whatever point of view they espouse is not subject to the same burden of proof as the dissenting opinions.

IMO this forum would be a whole lot better off without the self-proclaimed forum-gods who have made this a one-way dialogue between their collective devine opinions and the newbies who ask questions. The message is clear. No additional experienced technical voices are welcome here, and debating with the "gods" is always a personal attack. Phoenix86, I'm especially disappointed in you. You are so much smarter than djnes on so many levels, yet you support even the most pedantic arguments he makes so long as he's on your side. You don't need to team up with a loser like that to make your case.

Fuck it. I'm bored of this place. Might as well rename it to "Phoenix and Djnes Tell it Like it Is.com"

 

[O[H]-Zone]

O[H]-Zone, again, no content added with your post. The title "moderator" is not required for me to want you to add to a discussion instead of fanning flames.

Oh, I guess you missed it then. Here's the content again:
You yourself gave the best reason to put apps on a different partition. In your own words, recovery would take 6 times less time if you do it that way. Your whole argument is that there's no good reason to do that, and yet you then admit there is...saving 2 1/2 hours.
That would be the content. No flames in either post. Once again, we see that to you "flame" is the same as "disagree with". Get over yourself.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally Posted by Phoenix86
So we're not beating a dead horse...

I see they way your setup works, it's just overly complicated for most users because of backups. If you do backup, it's an interesting approach. My main points have already been said, so I'm leaving it at that.

Do I need to count the number of setups that vary from mine in the thread I agree with? Let see so far I have agreed work:
rcolbert, atomic, darkpark, djnes, and have provided my own fucking setup at home and work.

I can see how when someone only pushes only their point of view they can be an ass. You ,however, haven't agreed or commented on any setups other than your own...

Yep, lock 'er up...

 

[Phoenix86]

Oh, I guess you missed it then. Here's the content again:
You yourself gave the best reason to put apps on a different partition. In your own words, recovery would take 6 times less time if you do it that way. Your whole argument is that there's no good reason to do that, and yet you then admit there is...saving 2 1/2 hours.
That would be the content. No flames in either post. Once again, we see that to you "flame" is the same as "disagree with". Get over yourself.

You're taking that out of context, so did rcolbert. You are still not adding content, just repeating another poster's argument.

I guess you count 3 hours of downloading data vs. 30 minuted of typing a word document the same. Because we all know when you're downloading data, you can't walk away from the machine and when your typing a document you can...

In those 3 hours I could fix 20 machines with the same method. In 30 minuted you fix 1. You do the math and tell me what's faster to *you* not the PC.

 

[O[H]-Zone]

Man, that's just pathetic...
"Waaa, a whole bunch of people disagree with me! Lock the thread! They're all wrong"
Once again...get over yourself, and stop whining. You admitted it would take much less time to recover if the apps were on a different partition.
You did.
Yourself.
Your words.
So your whole point all along has been "there's no good reason to do it", and then admit "It takes 1/6 the time to recover if you do". That would be the reason. To save time.

 

[O[H]-Zone]

30 minuted of typing a word document the same. Because we all know when you're downloading data, you can't walk away from the machine and when your typing a document you can...

Word document? WTF are you talking about? We were talking about reinstalling an OS...get back to us when you're lucid.

 

[rcolbert]

In those 3 hours I could fix 20 machines with the same method. In 30 minuted you fix 1. You do the math and tell me what's faster to *you* not the PC.

Isn't that one of your 'pie in the sky' arguments, since we're supposedly talking about a home user's pc here, and not what applies to you at work?

(couldn't resist, no matter how pissed off I am)

 

[djnes]

IMO this forum would be a whole lot better off without the self-proclaimed forum-gods who have made this a one-way dialogue between their collective devine opinions and the newbies who ask questions. The message is clear. No additional experienced technical voices are welcome here, and debating with the "gods" is always a personal attack. Phoenix86, I'm especially disappointed in you. You are so much smarter than djnes on so many levels, yet you support even the most pedantic arguments he makes so long as he's on your side. You don't need to team up with a loser like that to make your case.

Fuck it. I'm bored of this place. Might as well rename it to "Phoenix and Djnes Tell it Like it Is.com"

So now I am a loser, because I challenged you to prove a point, and you couldn't? How big of you. How many more people need to complain about you before you get the hint? You have a serious problem where you have a constant need for validity and correctness. You can't stand it when someone else differs in your opinion. You then result to name dropping, e-wang whipping out, and then eventually childish name-calling. You don't know a damn thing about me, or what I do for a living, but you still feel the need to flame. Odoe gave you a warning once above, and apparently you chose to ignore it.

 

[djnes]

Oh, rcolbert...one more thing. The reason why Phoenix86 and I agree on many things is because we've been around for a long long time. We usually participate in the same debates, doing the same tests, and then sharing our results on here and over IM. Therefore, we usually arrive at the same conclusions. We don't agree on everything. Just ask us what our personal OS of choice is. We don't agree on that. The difference is, we listen to the other's opinion, we both offer good reasons and facts as to why we take the stand we do, and we respect the others opinion. No name calling or other games needed. That's how you earn respect on here. Definitely not by acting the way you do. It's a damn shame, really, because if you opened your mind, dropped the attitude, you probably could add a lot of value here.

 

[Phoenix86]

Word document? WTF are you talking about? We were talking about reinstalling an OS...get back to us when you're lucid.

For those of us who missed it the first time.

Next, what's the difference between 5 minutes and 20 when ghosting? Your loading an OS, not performing a calculation. This is a one time process, also, ghost is automated. Fire and forget, it's not like the additional time is your time, it's the PCs.

Unless you are talking about down time, the amt. of time the system is imaging is pointless. My point is, at home, downtime is irrelevant. This is why you can still be with your screaming infant while reloading the system that "take so much longer to restore".

The word document was a dumbed down example of the difference in a person working at a computer vs. the computers processing data by itself. Sorry I didn't dumb it down enough.

Isn't that one of your 'pie in the sky' arguments, since we're supposedly talking about a home user's pc here, and not what applies to you at work?

(couldn't resist, no matter how pissed off I am)

Yes it is. But then again, you butchered the quote so bad it doesn't really matter because you don't have to be in-front of the PC while it's restoring. Like I said, unless your infant is screaming to have the machine up faster, downtime is neigh irrelevant. Esp the difference in a couple of hours on a home PC.

 

[rcolbert]

So now I am a loser, because I challenged you to prove a point, and you couldn't?

You challenged me to prove a point, I did it, and you ignored it. You simultaneously stated that your position in the argument was self-evident and didn't require proof. I admonished Phoenix86 because the quality of his statements is generally very high. I was simply using you as a negative example because although you don't realize it, the more you trample upon other people's opinions, we all recognize that you believe you are scoring points, yet the poeple you are trying to convince are even further unconvinced. Not very effective. Perhaps if you started measuring the success of your arguments not by your own internal logical scoring system, but by how persuasive those arguments are to other people, then we'd make some progress. The message I hear loud and clear from you is that you are better than me. That's not a very persuasive argument. You may or may not be right, but the argument itself is not likely to convince me of anything. Perhaps I shouldn't have called you a loser, but my intent was to send a strong message to Phoenix. I didn't have much regard for it's impact on you because I pretty much consider you to be deaf ears at this point.

How big of you. How many more people need to complain about you before you get the hint?

Who other than you is complaining? I see several posts agreeing with me, but none complaining.

You have a serious problem where you have a constant need for validity and correctness. You can't stand it when someone else differs in your opinion. You then result to name dropping, e-wang whipping out, and then eventually childish name-calling. You don't know a damn thing about me, or what I do for a living, but you still feel the need to flame.

In this thread, I'm only supporting my point of view. If you can give the psychobable a rest for a moment, my main objective is ensuring that this forum remains open to multiple points of view. You spend much of your energy arguing against my suggestions. My only argument here has been to back up what I say. Note that there are two arguments going on here. There is a technical discussion, and there is a discussion about the technical discussion. If you could see your way clear to refrain from discussing the latter, we could all spend more time on the former.

Odoe gave you a warning once above, and apparently you chose to ignore it.

You have also warned me in the past. I happen to think that you like to come across an an authority figure around here, and that you have at times assumed the mantle of moderator to gain an upperhand. I'd appreciate it if you'd re-direct your energy into telling me the pros about your technical advice, and spent far less time talking about the cons of someone else's. You don't quite grasp the problem you create by setting yourself above everyone else, and then arguing as if you don't have to support anything you say.

 

[MEfreak]

Do you actually believe that a neutral third party who listens to your opinion is satisfied with your claim of exemption from providing evidence?

I certainly hope not. It's a flawed line of logic. I haven't heard someone argue a generalized convention was on their side since debate 101 in high school.

I also think there remains a point of confusion in this thread that has been exacerbated by complimentary cross talk from Pheonix and djnes.

Pheonix does not argue that there is zero benefit to partitioning a hard drive. He is arguing against a very small subset of the proposed benefits (strictly data recovery oriented) based on his opinion and experience, and we can take it at face value. He has not claimed that there are no valid reasons for partitioning a hard drive. I can't argue against your opinion Pheonix, because it's valid. I only wish it wouldn't have been presented from the bully pulpit.

djnes has said outright that partitioning a hard drive has zero benefit, an argument that is drastically different from Pheonix's. The argument is easily proven false if a single benefit can be shown to exist.

Now, for the meat of my post - there are several proposed benefits to partitioning a hard drive. They are all contained within this thread. They are not all related to data recovery. I'd like to see each one addressed and disproved as a benefit instead of continuing this locker-room penis showing that's raging.

The claimed benefits are:

• Segregation of OS and data. Keeping the data on a separate partition will allow the user to wipe the OS partition during a reinstall while preserving data on other partitions.
• Segregation of OS and data will allow easier backup of important data without wasting backup medium space on irrelevent OS specific files.
• Reducing the size of the OS drive to reduce the amount of time spent formatting prior to an OS install.
• Keeping applications on a partition separate from the OS drive reduces the risk that the OS drive will run out of room in the future as space requirements for OS and applications are likely to change (just as they have in the past 5 years).
• Keeping applications on a partition separate from the OS drive allows the OS and applications to be transferred to alternate partitions/drives as required by space, backup strategy, etc. An example - if the application drive is running out of room, it can be transferred to an alternate drive without requiring the OS to be moved with it.
• Under limited circumstances with certain backup techniques, keeping the application partition separate from the OS partition allows for speedier recovery of an OS only drive. This is in reference to pbj75's method, and his relatively quick OS reinstall time.
• Non-windows logo (I'm not sure I understand what that means) programs will store application specific information on the application partition. If the OS drive is reformatted, the non-windows logo application data will be preserved if the applications are on a separate partition.
• Keeping applications on a separate partition allows an easy catalogue of programs that you will probably want to reinstall after an OS partition wipe.
• Keeping applications and the OS on separate partitions allows for more flexible backup schedules.
• Keeping applications separate from the OS reduces the number of read/writes to the OS drive, therefore you're less likely to encounter filesystem issues on the OS partition.

Keeping in mind that the following statements have already been offered to put the claimed benefits in context:

• Separate partitions will not magically allow programs to function after an OS install.
• Ease of recovery alone is typically not a good reason to move to a separate OS and applications partitions.
• Circumstances that allow certain posters to enjoy easy/speedy recovery using separate OS and application partitions are not likely to be enjoyed by all.

Look at how much meat there is to debate. Why on earth can't these benefits be addressed individually and directly?

I'll toss in another question - what about linux partitions? I know it's not what the OP asked. Partioning discs in linux systems is used quite often. Is there any benefit to partitioning a linux disc in a linux system? Is this discussion related solely to a Windows install, or does the linux factor also have relevance?

 

[djnes]

You have never at any point proven a damn thing in this thread. I, however, have told you how OEMs do it, how Microsoft recommends doing it, and how it's done in the corporate setting. Others have commented on the risk of partition corruption. I myself have detailed the simplicity in terms of backing up, and explained in detail how it's easier to have them together (OS and apps). Others have posted to agree, including the moderator of the OS forum.

You lost the argument, you've proven once again that you expect to win without giving any real information outside of personal choice, which is far less than I've done. Than you stooped to name calling. And I'm the loser? Really? Your shit's getting deeper with each post.

 

[rcolbert]

Oh, rcolbert...one more thing. The reason why Phoenix86 and I agree on many things is because we've been around for a long long time. We usually participate in the same debates, doing the same tests, and then sharing our results on here and over IM. Therefore, we usually arrive at the same conclusions.

If you were to perform tests and share results I'd be much more receptive to listening to that kind of information.

We don't agree on everything. Just ask us what our personal OS of choice is. We don't agree on that. The difference is, we listen to the other's opinion, we both offer good reasons and facts as to why we take the stand we do, and we respect the others opinion. No name calling or other games needed. That's how you earn respect on here. Definitely not by acting the way you do. It's a damn shame, really, because if you opened your mind, dropped the attitude, you probably could add a lot of value here.

The problem is that we both see each other as the problem. I'm not overly concerned with name-calling. That pales in comparison to the way ridicule and scorn seeps through the very pores of your technical statements, largely because you focus on why someone else is wrong all the time. You say that you have all of these fine technical discussions where everything is positive and on topic, but I have yet to see you not be the worst offender when it comes to attitude, closed-mindedness, insulting others, smugness, and completely ignoring the technical merits of what anyone else says. Perhaps you should stop trying to score the arguments you are making along the way, and simply say in a positive way the data and the merits that support your point of view. I'm tired of hearing you tell people how wrong they are, and yet at the same time knowing that your assertions are so often in need of a little opening themselves by someone who has a different perspective from your own. You simply don't live in a place where you find that thought comfortable.

 

[djnes]

Why on earth can't these benefits be addressed individually and directly?

I can answer that one. rcolbert insists on arguing without ever adding any type of proof, link, study, or anything of value outside his own personal opinion. Once someone disagrees, it turns right into a childish flame fest, ie, calling other posters losers. Do a search, based on his user name, and you will see this is a behavior he repeats over and over. All we've asked for in the beginning is any proof, and he has failed miserably in providing that, and then tries to deflect that fact by resorting to flaming. Again, repeated over and over again in his other posts. If he doesn't like my comment about over-partitioning, he should post something as proof. But instead, he feels it's more productive to call me a loser.

 

[djnes]

If you were to perform tests and share results I'd be much more receptive to listening to that kind of information.



The problem is that we both see each other as the problem. I'm not overly concerned with name-calling. That pales in comparison to the way ridicule and scorn seeps through the very pores of your technical statements, largely because you focus on why someone else is wrong all the time. You say that you have all of these fine technical discussions where everything is positive and on topic, but I have yet to see you not be the worst offender when it comes to attitude, closed-mindedness, insulting others, smugness, and completely ignoring the technical merits of what anyone else says. Perhaps you should stop trying to score the arguments you are making along the way, and simply say in a positive way the data and the merits that support your point of view. I'm tired of hearing you tell people how wrong they are, and yet at the same time knowing that your assertions are so often in need of a little opening themselves by someone who has a different perspective from your own. You simply don't live in a place where you find that thought comfortable.

Suggest a test, and I'll be happy to do it. You sir, need to really read your posts slowly. The very things you accuse others of doing, you are quite guilty of doing yourself. But what would I know, I'm just a loser, right? You know nothing about me, but I'm a loser. Everything I've posted is learned through first hand experience and testing, not from reading someone else's comments. Your free to post info to prove me wrong, but instead, you just post that I'm a loser. The ball is in your court. Prove me wrong, or STFU.