Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Gary King said:What's the best way to partition my hard drives? I'm going to reformat, and have 2 drives:
Drive 1: 60 GB
Drive 2: 80 GB
Thanks!
darkpark said:Disk 1:
primary partition: 15 gig (OS and apps)
extended partition 45 gig
Disk 2:
extended partition: 80 gig
Having the OS and its applications on its own partition provides for improved reliability.
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.Whatsisname said:I personally give windows a 3-4 gig partition and use the other partition for my profile and for applications
pigster said:How is it more reliable??
OK, first, the OS is software. The HDD is hardware. With VERY few exceptions, software does not corrupt hardware. So "if windows craps out" it will NOT "take the partition down with it". If a partition gets corrupted, it gets corrupted and off to data recovery you go. Doubling the # of partitions isn't going to help, in fact it's giving you x2 the number of partitions that can fail.darkpark said:reliable in that if Windows craps out and takes the partition down with it than your data is still in tact.
i still prefer the OS and applications (not games) to be on a single/seperate partition. 15 GB formats faster than 100 GB, for example. so if i decide to do a clean re-install, i don't have to format the entire drive. additionally, you can use symantec's ghost to create an image of the partition and restore later if things go awry. creating an image from a 80 or 100 GB drive would take long and be very large.
for me, 15 GB is enough for windows xp and all my applications. everything else goes on other partitions/drives.
to Phoenix86: how will partitioning hinder?
It's not... See mixed file hell I describe above. The same is true with windows and office, but at least you have windowsupdate.com and officeupdate.com to fix the patch versions.Gary King said:The Repair function doesn't quite seem as 'fresh' and as 'clean' an install, though
djnes said: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.
Keep the drives partitioned as one single partition. No need to add more unless your dual booting OSes, etc. 60 GB for the C drive with apps, OS, and games, 80 GB for all your storage. Then if something happens to the C drive, all your data is safe, and you can easily rebuild and be back where you started.
djnes said: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.
Keep the drives partitioned as one single partition. No need to add more unless your dual booting OSes, etc. 60 GB for the C drive with apps, OS, and games, 80 GB for all your storage. Then if something happens to the C drive, all your data is safe, and you can easily rebuild and be back where you started.
True, but irrelevant on two different levels. First, if your OS hoses, you *still* have to reinstall the apps, so you would just wind up re-imaging C:\ and D:\. Next, if we're talking images, time is nearly irrelevant. 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.You can Ghost and recover C: alone more quickly.
I already answered, but here goes again. When XP first came out 15-20GB was *NOT* the size recommended by people who suggest c:\OS only. It was more like 4-5GB and that was several years ago. Fast forward to today, and 5GB is not enough. If 5GB was good enough when XP came out, why is 20GB enough today?Who needs more than 20GB for the OS?
Explain the scenario. I have laid out how the restore would work above, and it doesn't include saving the apps because of DLLs, and registry settings, not to mention add-on programs that hook into other programs specifically 3rd party IE apps like adobe, *toolbars, flash, etc.They are overlooking the fact that D: is highly advantageous in the case of an OS restore, and a multitude of other operational issues.
rcolbert said:I don't advocate an OS only C: for recovery purposes. That's not likely to ever work....
...I'll stick with:
C: 20GB - OS
D: 40GB - Program Files
E: 80GB - Data Files
Can't go wrong with that.
rcolbert said:C: = OS Only = Good idea
For the specific question that started the thread:
C: 20GB OS
D: 40GB Program Files
E: 80GB Data Files
is an excellent choice.
djnes said:I would make one and only one primary partition on each drive.
djnes said:You didn't give any real evidence either as far as why your solution is better than anyone else's, but why break your tradition now?
djnes said:It's pure and simple common sense, to leave certain things default, as in the, the way they were meant to be. You can repost and argue until your blue in the face, but quite simply there's no reason for NOT leaving them where they are.
djnes said:As Phoenix86 said, why over-partition when it's not needed? If something isn't necessary, and offers zero benefits, why do it?
djnes said:There are many poorly written software apps that don't function correctly when moved out of the default locations. That's why it's called a "default location".
djnes said:Pure and simple logic says, if there's no good reason to move the apps, why bother? You have done nothing to prove against convention. I don't have to give you any proof, because I'm on the side of convention. C:\Program Files is where they're intended to go, and there's no reason to do anything otherwise. Facts are facts.
It seems like you have a serious issue going on with your computer if you've had to restore your system volume that often. You make some very good points, but I wanted to clarify something. I have the ability to restore my entire system volume (OS and apps) in a matter of minutes as well, using Ghost. As Phoenix86 mentioned, when your using a restore image, it doesn't really make much of a diference in terms of size and speed if your including your apps. However, because I install my apps and games to my system volume, if I ever need to do a restore, those come along, meaning I don't have to waste time re-installing anything. It's one Ghost image, and my system is restored, because I follow the good, accepted practice of installing my apps in C:\Program Files. Restoration couldn't be any easier. Also, I have system restore disabled because it is a space hog and serves no real purpose at all besides giving certain viruses a place to hide and re-infect your system.pbj75 said:I have restored my Windows partition about 6 times over the past 6 months, and I have not had to reinstall any applications. My total restore time has been ~ 10 minutes per restore. Tell me how that is not worth it?
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...rcolbert said:Good questions, by the way...
First how do you get around not having to install apps when the OS crashes?
That all depends on the recovery method. In the case of a restore of a backup of the OS partition, the application information stored in the registry comes back when you restore the system state and all the OS files. The program files themselves on D: are simply pointed to. This assumes a system restore process that's valid.
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.rcolbert said:How can you ensure a clean system with leaving 1/2 of the system files (apps) on the PC?
Typically, program files and OS files don't have much bearing on one another. Internet Explorer and the like are notable exceptions. The situations that warrant a clean OS reinstall usually don't have much overlap with application files. If it's just a non-invasive application, then usually the problem goes away with an uninstall of the app, deletion of its files and registry keys and so forth. In other words, OS problems and application problems are often different animals. I don't advocate the wipe the OS method for both types of problems, only for the OS related.
Again, I see your line of thinking, in a business environment. At home, 30min. vs. 3 hours it's moot.rcolbert said:You can Ghost and recover C: alone more quickly. True, but irrelevant on two different levels. First, if your OS hoses, you *still* have to reinstall the apps...
Not true. See answer to the first question. Very relevant because the logistics of backing up a small set of data is different than a larger set of data. You may have plenty of space to store a 10GB backup, but insufficient space for a 40GB backup. You also may be willing to run backups for 1/2 and hour, but unwilling to run them for three hours. It all depends.
rcolbert said:If 5GB was good enough when XP came out, why is 20GB enough today?
20GB is an arbitrary number that allows sufficient room for service packs and uninstall files, as well as providing headroom for the filesystem since we all agree that as filesystems approach their capacity limit their performance and stability decreases. Much of this number is relative to the availability of low-cost, high capacity storage now versus a few years ago.
Meh, I think this is probably splitting hairs as the cause of the failures would come in to play...rcolbert said:Multiple partitions=increased chance of losing partitions due to patition specific data corruption
I disagree with that. The events that cause this corruption are specific in nature. It's not valid to say that your odds double that you'll encounter partition corruption because you have twice as many partitions. Physical attributes of the system come into play, as do software issues. I will say that the liklihood of a partition event causing irrepairable damage to your system partition are much lower when you only have OS files on the system partition due to the reduced amount of change on that partition, and the better management of free space and fragmented files implicit in that arrangement.
Yep, you're assuming there is a backup in place prior to the issue, which I have pretty much never seen on these board.rcolbert said:Overall the only real differences we have are a misunderstanding about my position on recovery technique and which side of things we bet on when we predict what might go wrong.
Well normally puberty takes care of stuff like this...Phoenix86 said:
Really? Djnes does it.Phoenix86 said:Yep, you're assuming there is a backup in place prior to the issue, which I have pretty much never seen on these board.
You're right I do...but sadly, I'm probably in the minority on this one. I use Ghost Corporate to send an image of my machine to my server at home once a week....usually on the weekends. Ghost has proved to be an invaluable tool at work, so I trust it completely for home use as well. I've never actually had to restore an image (other than to test it out), but I can rest easily knowing I have the image if needed.O[H]-Zone said:Well normally puberty takes care of stuff like this...
Really? Djnes does it.
O[H]-Zone said:Well normally puberty takes care of stuff like this...