The REAL Vista Space Requirement

M

Mo_BurLy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 16, 2003
Messages
202
I know that MS claims that Vista absolutely requires 15 GB in order to install, but read that it only takes up about 6. I'm buying a new hard drive soon and will partition with Vista in mind. However, I would rather not make a 15 gig windows partition if I don't need to ( to maximize space usage of a 74 gig raptor). I'm giving Ubuntu a 20-30 ext3, and I want a lot for my games and apps in ntfs. I have a storage drive for files. Can I get away with a 8-10 gig partition for home premium?
 
wish i could help but i've yet to try vista... also, you'd probably get better response posting this in the os forums.
 
Shoot, I thought I was in the OS forum. Must have forgot I hit a thread link or something. I'd welcome a mod to move this.
 
Until a mod moves this i'll throw in my two cents.

I'd be hesitant to limit the size of the OS partition to as small as you can get it. It'll probably grow in size as updates are applied in such. I'm guessing you're going to install your programs in a separate partition? There's really no performance benefit to doing so, and the registry entries are still going to go to the OS partition, again increasing the space taken up. If it were me, i'd keep the Ubuntu partition the same size you stated earlier, and make the rest of the space be your Windows/App partition. If you've got the money for it, i'd spring for the 150GB Raptor, but that costs money. :p
 
I've got a fresh install of Vista and with the a pagefile it is just over 8gb in size. If you gave it a nice round 10gb you should be OK. I gave it a 100gb partition though.
 
Good rule of thumb is to make the pagefile 1.5x your RAM. So 1GB = 1536MB. Least thats what I do. Make sure you set it as min and max.
 
mark, the more ram you have over 1gb, the less pagefile you need.

1gb of ram = 1024mb page file, imo.

2gb of ram = 256mb page

4+gb of ram, 128-256, depending on rather or not you use old-school programs that REQUIRE a page file, otherwise turn it off.
 
omega-x said:
mark, the more ram you have over 1gb, the less pagefile you need.

1gb of ram = 1024mb page file, imo.

2gb of ram = 256mb page

4+gb of ram, 128-256, depending on rather or not you use old-school programs that REQUIRE a page file, otherwise turn it off.
Click to expand...

this is kinda true but I wouldn't drop it all the way down to 256mb. but thats just me. i like to have a decent size file "just in case". i haven't filled my 160gb hd yet so its not a big deal.
 
Not sure if VMware compresses virtual disks at all, but my virtual install of vista is just under 5.5GB.
 
1) The 1.5 x memory rule went out the window a long long time ago. I have 2 GB of memory, and there's no way possible I would need a 3 GB page file. I set mine to a static 1 GB on any system from 512 MB of memory to 2 GB.

2) To the OP: Why would you over-partition you're drive? There's no reaosn to separate apps from the OS drive, so don't do it. This will also eliminate your question here. Make one 50 GB partition for Vista, and the rest for Ubuntu. having a separate partition for user created data is nice, but there's no reason, nor does it make sense, to create a small partition for the OS.
 
djnes said:
.............but there's no reason, nor does it make sense, to create a small partition for the OS.
Click to expand...
Documents and Settings is the main reason not to. You can change the User data folder pointer to another location, but the overall User are remains on the OS partition and grows over time with program configuration data etc etc.
 
10GB of space for an 8GB install is a waste of time, you're killing it.

NTFS, like most modern computer filesystems, can't stand it when the space it has to play with becomes limited. Almost any filesystem in use today will exhibit major performance problems if the partition reaches into the 80-90% full range. When you get to the ~15% free space left range, you'll start having big time slowdowns, and even worse: possible data corruption and loss.

ext2/3 and even Reiser filesystems under Linux will exhibit the same behavior, as will HFS+ on OSX. Here's a quote from MicroMat, the makers of all the diagnostic software that even Apple itself uses to care for it's own hardware:

"MicroMat strongly recommends that you always leave at least 15% of any HFS+ volume as free space. If an HFS+ volume is more than 85% full and is heavily fragmented, any further data added to the volume can result in irreparable damage to the disk directory."

Also, considering that the MFT consumes roughly 12% of the space on an NTFS formatted drive by default (it's not actively consumed, just reserved but even so), the 15GB "requirement" is still just not enough.

So, the reason Microsoft has that 15GB "requirement" is that even Ultimate with a full install (which it does by default) will take up roughly 10-12GB of the drive once the installation is complete and you can boot clean to the Desktop after the installation. That leaves roughly 25-30% "free" space left on the drive to work with immediately after the installation.

That requirement was created as the absolute low end for machines where people just want to install Vista (Ultimate being the biggest version) and have a chance to see it in operation; I seriously doubt anyone installing Vista Ultimate on a 15GB partition will be happy with the day to day performance of it due to the lack of it having room to play around, so to speak.

Install one single typical application like Office and you just chunked up another big hit on the free space, not to mention the MFT will expand to accomodate the additional files and the need for their metadata storage.

20GB would be the bare minimum I'd suggest; it's slightly larger and gives you at least some room to play and install a few applications, even big suites like Office or Photoshop, etc.

I use 35GB for my Ultimate partition. I have 13 programs installed, some data stored, and I just installed it 2 days ago. Right now it's sitting at 12.2GB because I disabled System Restore to remove all the restore points and then restarted it - that flushed out 1.7GB of space. Then I disabled Hibernation to give me back another 1GB since I have 1GB of RAM and the machine is on a UPS and rarely if ever gets turned off.

There are all sorts of things you can do to minimize the space requirements of Vista on a hard drive, and if you're seriously concerned about the space needed, just go get vLite and learn how to use it. By stripping out unneeded and unwanted components in Vista's installer files, you can save a lot of space after the installation because you completely removed particular items from the install in the first place.

I've successfully made an "Ultimate Light" installer DVD that has all the stuff I actually want and nothing I don't need - the installation media ISO is ~978MB - big difference from the 2.4GB the original Vista ISO - and when it's done installing I still have all the stuff that Ultimate provides that I want to use and the installation itself is about 4.3GB on the hard drive.

If you really get extreme with vLite, you can fit Vista Ultimate on a single CD - seriously.

Quite a drop from the 12GB you'll typically encounter with Vista Ultimate on a regular everyday install, ain't it? :)

Hope this helps...
 
The only reason I would create a separate windows partition would for data security. I've done it since win 98 so that if I have to reinstall I don't lose anything. You may be surprised at how many apps don't need the registry, and keeping games separate means I can restore the settings and save updates in the install folder. Perhaps I'll rethink my size requirements, like cutting Ubuntu and Games down to 20 each or something. But I'll do as you guys say and not limit the vista partition.
 
The main reason most people even think about the amount of drive space required is that they're not throwing enough storage capacity into their systems, IMO.

Drives are relatively inexpensive. There's usually no real need to be cramped. When I put my current system together I made sure I grabbed a motherboard which provided plenty of SATA connectors, 160Gb SATA2 was the sweet spot for purchase, and I bunged 4 of them in. Gives me plenty of room to run several OS's and also handle all my data storage needs.


I quickly settled in to considering 20Gb a sensible minimum for an XP install, even where data and programs are kept on other partitions. With Vista I'll be 'upping' that to about 40Gb.

Allow that much, rather than bitching about storage space used, and you need only do a cleanup up the accumulated debris/update uninstall detritus/whatever once every so often. And the Windows install gets plenty of elbow room to flex in.
 
Also, vista will not let you install on a partition that is too small. I think 10gb is the smallest it can be, but I might be wrong. I remember I tried to install on my old laptop harddrive that is tiny and it ended up being to small (it was like just under 10 or 12gb).
 
I knew I wanted a Raptor for my next build, like you, but I decided 74GB was not enough.

The 150 is killer sweet
 
Grentz said:
Also, vista will not let you install on a partition that is too small. I think 10gb is the smallest it can be, but I might be wrong. I remember I tried to install on my old laptop harddrive that is tiny and it ended up being to small (it was like just under 10 or 12gb).
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I wanted to know. Seems I have to change my plans.

I want this drive for 2-3 years and I don't want to partition it more than once, so maybe I will get a bigger drive. $220 for a 150 raptor is a bit much though, maybe I could do with a cheaper drive like a 320 Caviar SE16 or something. But that kind of negates the purpose of my present storage drive. Shit, who am I kidding? I'll probably end up with the 150 raptor. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top