![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
What size for an XP Home Partition
- Thread starter wake6830
- Start date
I typically don't go over 50 GB for my system partition. I've always seen Microsoft warn against going over 60 to 70 GB, but I'm not sure if that holds true for XP.
Personally, I do it because I don't need anything over 50 GB for my OS, games, and apps. I wouldn't dream of storing my files and data on the same partition as my OS anyway. I always keep them separate.
Personally, I do it because I don't need anything over 50 GB for my OS, games, and apps. I wouldn't dream of storing my files and data on the same partition as my OS anyway. I always keep them separate.
wake6830 said:
Well I have an entire HD that just has the OS installed on it. All programs and files I store on my other. The only thing this accomplishes is that 1) if the OS Fails, my info isnt lost and 2) The OS HD wont fragment nearly as quickly as it would had everything been installed on 1 drive.
The OS Parition/HD will become fragmented no matter what. Files MUST be installed into the Windows Directory anyways. Files such as game .dlls and such. There is no way to stop fragmentation.
Sidequestion: Why do OS's like Apple and especially LINUX "not" need DeFrag progs? They must fragment like all drives, info is going everywhere...so why don't they come with one?
Incorrect, this is why I asked in the first place. People have misconceptions about partitioning, this is one.wake6830 said:
Anytime you write data to a drive you have a chance of writing a fragmented file (not enough contigous free space). When you patch your OS, for example, you are writting files to that partition, and could create fragmentation. The smaller the partition, the less contigous free space, the MORE of a change for fragementation.
Next is the size you set... 50GB works for djnes, but how much is wasted? Go short and you'll REALLY feel the pain.
"640k should be enough for anybody.''
djnes, why do you partition? Wouldn't a regulara defragment schedule be better? What do you store on other partitions the OS isn't on? If it's programs, why seperate them?
I could see storing less used data, like maybe movies on the other partition, but if the data is called on frequently it's not helping the OS by being virtualy seperate.
After all a partition isn't THAT different from a folder from a storage perspective.
wake6830 said:
It's a little confusing that you list two hard drives but are talking about partitioning for your OS that will need only one drive. Are you asking which drive you should put it on? Or are you (as assumed) going to partition one of them? I'm with Phoenix, I don't see partitioning as good for anyting except a personally preferred method of organization. Seperating data onto different drives doesnt protect your data anymore. Whichever drive you put your data on still has the same chances of failing as before. If you have two drives, then why not. But I wouldn't divide a drive anymore.
Phoenix86 said:Ahh, the OP is talking a different scenario... He *is* talking 1 drive 2 partitions.
I still partition even if I use a single drive....unless it's a small drive. My test machine has a single Raptor in it, so that's one whole partition. However, in machines with larger drives, I usually cut them up in 2 partitions. That way, if something catastrophic happens software wise, I can rebuild without losing data. I make 2 separate primary partitions. The risk to me is the same whether it's a single drive cut in 2 or two physical drives....as HDDs can die at any time. There's no performance loss on a drive between one single partition and two separate partitions, so why not?
When talking about not losing data by partitioning your OS drive, we are not referring to hard drive failure. We are talking about corrupted OS or just re-installing the OS for the hell of it.
Creating an OS partition will allow you to format that partition and re-install the OS without having to move or lose the data on the other partition. I do this with my OS drive. Currently I have it set to 10 gig for the Windows XP partition, another 5 gig for a Linux partition when I get time to mess with it and another 100 gig for storage. This is on a 120 gig WD drive. It is one of three hard drives in my system. Since it's faster than the two 40 gig 2 meg cache drives by a good margin, I want my OS and programs on it. I keep the swap file on a seperate physical hard drive for a bit better performance also.
This way, I have room to store my movies, mp3s and other space consuming files on the 120 gig without having to recopy them from CD every time I want or need to reinstall the OS.
As for the original question, I do not suggest using anything smaller than 10 gig for the OS partition. The next time I change things around or get a different drive for the OS, I'll probably use a 15-20 gig partition. I currently have about 4 gig of free space on my OS partition. Although I have the majority of my usual programs installed I prefer to have more space to grow. I do not have any truly large games installed either.
Creating an OS partition will allow you to format that partition and re-install the OS without having to move or lose the data on the other partition. I do this with my OS drive. Currently I have it set to 10 gig for the Windows XP partition, another 5 gig for a Linux partition when I get time to mess with it and another 100 gig for storage. This is on a 120 gig WD drive. It is one of three hard drives in my system. Since it's faster than the two 40 gig 2 meg cache drives by a good margin, I want my OS and programs on it. I keep the swap file on a seperate physical hard drive for a bit better performance also.
This way, I have room to store my movies, mp3s and other space consuming files on the 120 gig without having to recopy them from CD every time I want or need to reinstall the OS.
As for the original question, I do not suggest using anything smaller than 10 gig for the OS partition. The next time I change things around or get a different drive for the OS, I'll probably use a 15-20 gig partition. I currently have about 4 gig of free space on my OS partition. Although I have the majority of my usual programs installed I prefer to have more space to grow. I do not have any truly large games installed either.
I have an 10GB partition for my XP Pro. I then have another partition that I install all programs to, about 25GB. The last partition is for all my data. I actually go through and move my Documents and Settings folder to default to that drive. It takes several registry edits to do so but can be easily accomplished. This works as kind of an automatic backup as long as you use the My Documents folder. As was stated earlier this gives you the option to reinstall your OS without losing data (based on a software failure only). It is nice to format, reinstall, change the folder settings and have your desktop,icons, and data return to the way they were!
I have the procedure to move this folder documented if anyone is interested.
I have the procedure to move this folder documented if anyone is interested.
20 works fine for me, i have all sorts of apps installed that need to be reinstalled when reinstalling windows becuase of the registry. That meansa that everytime i format i have all of it gone, and dont need to search through all of my partitions.. i find that makes sense..
ComputerBox34
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2003
- Messages
- 13,779
If you just want the os on there and nothing else, 10 GB
If you want OS and some small programs: 20-25 GB
That's how I've always done it. WinXP itself is 1.2 GB or something. You also have to put other things into consideration in order to let the system breathe.
If you want OS and some small programs: 20-25 GB
That's how I've always done it. WinXP itself is 1.2 GB or something. You also have to put other things into consideration in order to let the system breathe.
I can see keeping the OS+programs seperate from user data (documents, music, movies, pr0n). However if you seperate programs from the OS, and the OS crashes you still have to reinstall the programs, so what's the point?
If you do seperate data from OS+progs how much space do you assign for the OS+progs.? When you combine these two your size requirements are completely unknown based on not only what your installing today, but future apps which can vary a LOT.
So even that has problems.
For those of you partitioning how do you seperate your data?
Partitioning just waste space (ex. "room to breath") for the drive the OS is on.
If you do seperate data from OS+progs how much space do you assign for the OS+progs.? When you combine these two your size requirements are completely unknown based on not only what your installing today, but future apps which can vary a LOT.
So even that has problems.
For those of you partitioning how do you seperate your data?
Partitioning just waste space (ex. "room to breath") for the drive the OS is on.
FWIW, my setup.
Windows partition = 7GB (C
Windows swap file partition for 1 GB RAM = 4GB (D
Applications partition = 50 GB (E
Data to be backed up partition (patches, downloads, work, etc.) = 20 GB (F
My approach is to regularly image the C drive to a separate hard drive, backup the Data drive (F to DVD and don't worry about the Apps or swap disk.
This approach is focused more on Windows getting dorked than a hard drive crash. A hard drive crash is going to force a complete reinstall. All the critical data is backed up, but all the Apps and the OS will be toast. I have only had 4 drives fail in 15+ years, and only 1 was the system drive. Now, I cannot even count the number of times I have reinstalled Windows.
By separating the Windows partition, the image restore process is much, much easier, because I am only restoring the Windows OS. The Applications and such can remain as is. I install all baseline software (e.g. Word, Excel, utilities, VisualStudio, etc) to the E: drive. After any install, I image the C: drive using Ghost. This keeps the C: drive image to a very manageable size, ~2GB. A full restore of the C: drive takes about 4 minutes.
Games, ripped MP3's, video clips and and other crap are all on separate drives. Unfortunately, that 200GB of stuff doesn't get backed up. Thinking about it, I really ought to go get an external 250GB drive and back all that up.
Windows partition = 7GB (C
Windows swap file partition for 1 GB RAM = 4GB (D
Applications partition = 50 GB (E
Data to be backed up partition (patches, downloads, work, etc.) = 20 GB (F
My approach is to regularly image the C drive to a separate hard drive, backup the Data drive (F
to DVD and don't worry about the Apps or swap disk.This approach is focused more on Windows getting dorked than a hard drive crash. A hard drive crash is going to force a complete reinstall. All the critical data is backed up, but all the Apps and the OS will be toast. I have only had 4 drives fail in 15+ years, and only 1 was the system drive. Now, I cannot even count the number of times I have reinstalled Windows.
By separating the Windows partition, the image restore process is much, much easier, because I am only restoring the Windows OS. The Applications and such can remain as is. I install all baseline software (e.g. Word, Excel, utilities, VisualStudio, etc) to the E: drive. After any install, I image the C: drive using Ghost. This keeps the C: drive image to a very manageable size, ~2GB. A full restore of the C: drive takes about 4 minutes.
Games, ripped MP3's, video clips and and other crap are all on separate drives. Unfortunately, that 200GB of stuff doesn't get backed up. Thinking about it, I really ought to go get an external 250GB drive and back all that up.
Phoenix86 said:
There's no loss of space when partitioning, unless it's a negligible amount. I don't need 100 GB for an OS drive, and neither does anyone I can think of for that matter. I know games can take up a few GB, but most people aren't going to have more than a few installed at any given time. So, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I don't see the need for super large OS/App drives.
My work test machine has a 120 GB WD drive in it (single drive). I have it configured with a 40 GB primary partition, and the leftover space becomes my D drive as another primary partition. This way, in my mucking around and testing, if I ruin the install, my D drive is left untouched. I can pull down a Ghost image, or install a fresh copy of an OS, and my D drive stays untouched and unharmed.
Sure, if my HDD dies, I lose my data. But if I had it stored on a second HDD, and that HDD dies, I'm still sans data. *On a side note, this is why I back the data up to a fileserver with a RAID5 array*.
In the end, it does come down to preference, as there's no real right way or wrong way. I do it this way because I feel it works best for me. And, as I mentioned above, if I have a small drive, like a 36 GB Raptor, I don't make multiple partitions. Just one single primary that's 100% of the drive's space.
TwiztedFait
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2004
- Messages
- 532
I actually just bought a 40GB drive just for my OS. They are not to expensive now days and the little that it did cost was well worth it. Like others have said if you OS takes a dump you have all your apps/music/movies/data on a drive that you will not have to reformat when you reinstall(or if you have disk imaging software you can just ghost your drive back to life)
Since you have a 80Gb and a 250Gb you could make 2 partitions on the 80Gb of the same size. Make one your primary boot partition and make the other the ghost image of it?? That way your whole 250Gb drive can be apps/music/movies etc. Just a idea for you
It saves you a big headache IMHO
my 2c on it
Since you have a 80Gb and a 250Gb you could make 2 partitions on the 80Gb of the same size. Make one your primary boot partition and make the other the ghost image of it?? That way your whole 250Gb drive can be apps/music/movies etc. Just a idea for you
It saves you a big headache IMHO
my 2c on it
How about this?
80gb drive partitioned with 20 for the OS, 30 for apps and 30 for music, movies, pics.
250gb drive partitioned with whatever's necessary to make a backup image of the 80gb drive(s) and leave the rest for my pvr recordings (hopefully at least 200gb).
80gb drive partitioned with 20 for the OS, 30 for apps and 30 for music, movies, pics.
250gb drive partitioned with whatever's necessary to make a backup image of the 80gb drive(s) and leave the rest for my pvr recordings (hopefully at least 200gb).
Phoenix86 said:
well, as i said before, i have a 20 gig partition for all prgrams that need to be reinstalled when windows is reinstalled. That way,yes i will have to reinstall them, but i wont have to go through my other partions tryign to find all of them. makes sense?
TwiztedFait
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2004
- Messages
- 532
djnes said:
*shrug*
you would get better performance if they were installed on a different drive.
But to each his own
ComputerBox34
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2003
- Messages
- 13,779
Phoenix86 said:
Have a 120 GB HD.
2 partitions
Partition #1: WINXP - 25 GB - OS and programs
Partition #2: DATA - 90 GB - Games (since they're big and get bigger as I play online) music, work data, pictures I create, etc
djnes said:
Do you realize you sound like a complete ass? Same thing on your earlier post.
djnes said:
While there are certainly many valid reasons to install apps in "Program Files", there are many equally valid reasons not to. Your statement is NOT correct.
BTW, you spelled "if" incorrectly in your first post.
No, it doesn't make sense to me. OS+app requirements vary a LOT from machine to machine, *and* over time. If you guess wrong (small), you can face reformatting the drive anyways. If you guess large, your not allowing the space to be used as effeciently as possible. A single partition solution will only run out of drive space when the drive is full, a partition will run out of space when the partition is full, but there is more space on the drive.Mauli said:
The only advantage between having a partition for user data (no programs) is during a reinstall. I would have to copy my data to another drive or CDs, where you could leave the partition in tact, and format the non-data partitions. To me, that doesn't outweigh the benefits of never having to worry about drive space AND having a less fragmented drive (more contigous free space available).
My work machine has 20GB of data between OS and programs. That's with 0 games. My desktop has ~30-40GB off the top of my head, and I have been running that OS install for about 3 years now. 3 years ago I would have made the OS+apps partition smaller. I also wouldn't have seen benefits from partitioning since I haven't reinstalled in 3 years.
In the end, this is very much a preference...
You know you can ask for a refund.pbj75 said:
Cute, and your calling him an ass? Pot, meet kettle.BTW, you spelled "if" incorrectly in your first post.
He said "should" not "have to" and "I have always felt" not "you should never do." Since he's giving his *opinion* he is absolutely correct. You cannot have an incorrect opinion, only an incorrect fact. Please if you want to contribute, do so. If not STFU and quit trolling.
pbj75 said:Do you realize you sound like a complete ass? Same thing on your earlier post.
While there are certainly many valid reasons to install apps in "Program Files", there are many equally valid reasons not to. Your statement is NOT correct.
BTW, you spelled "if" incorrectly in your first post.
Do you realize sarcasm is too advanced for you? I think Phoenix86's comments shut you down well enough that I don't need to add anything. Oh, except this. There aren't any valid reasons to NOT install apps in Program Files. There's no reason to put them anywhere else. Common sense, logic, and good computing habits say that's where they should go.
If I may.
Can we please stop the bickering? I am not trying to be an ass. But the dude just wanted to know how people size their partitons. There is no need to start a battle about who is right and who is wrong, or whose way is better.
Chill out
I can say, that the way you are all going youd be appalled and shocked to here that I don't even partition my drives..well after the first 1! 2 HD's 1 partiton on each. To each his own. Boiled down Partitioning a drive, like you ALL KNOW, is a way to organize ones-self. And you can't fault or find fault in someone elses thinking and organization just because its doesn't match up with yours.
And one thing to note, Phoenix86, I just read back your post about having too small a Partition or too big of one. Windows does have that tool that allows you to resize the partitons After install. So really, how you size it doesn't matter Much, as they can always be resized.
My two cents. Now stop the arguing
Can we please stop the bickering? I am not trying to be an ass. But the dude just wanted to know how people size their partitons. There is no need to start a battle about who is right and who is wrong, or whose way is better.
Chill out
I can say, that the way you are all going youd be appalled and shocked to here that I don't even partition my drives..well after the first 1! 2 HD's 1 partiton on each. To each his own. Boiled down Partitioning a drive, like you ALL KNOW, is a way to organize ones-self. And you can't fault or find fault in someone elses thinking and organization just because its doesn't match up with yours.
And one thing to note, Phoenix86, I just read back your post about having too small a Partition or too big of one. Windows does have that tool that allows you to resize the partitons After install. So really, how you size it doesn't matter Much, as they can always be resized.
My two cents. Now stop the arguing
abudhu said:
Interesting....then how are you able to write data to them???
The point you missed above earlier is some people can't take sarcasm or comments directed at them. Quite a few people on here are wound so tight and are so full of themselves they can't possible allow anyone to have a differing opinion or to be corrected, when they are wrong. Such is life I guess, but those people are the ones who get fired from job after job. They need to just lighten up.
djnes said:Interesting....then how are you able to write data to them???
The point you missed above earlier is some people can't take sarcasm or comments directed at them. Quite a few people on here are wound so tight and are so full of themselves they can't possible allow anyone to have a differing opinion or to be corrected, when they are wrong. Such is life I guess, but those people are the ones who get fired from job after job. They need to just lighten up.
I hear that.
Live life to the fullest and open your minds!
r00k
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 2,696
My setup consists of 3 drives right now, but i would to have a single drive i would only change things slightly. BTW all drives are WD SE.
For my primary drive, i have an 80 gig with 10 gig set aside for windows xp, and pretty much any core / useful programs that i would want on any mirror disc (nero, drivers, officexp, all anitivirus / antispyware, partition magic... you get the idea). My motherboard has a feature which will scan the used sectors in a boot partition, and make a perfect mirror backup of all that data, and place that image in a fully restorable hidden partition on the drive. so for my "perfect installation" it made a 5 gig hidden image. I partitioned the rest of the drive off and called that 'Games'. This 60 gig or so has 2 folders: Games, and Apps. For obvious reasons..
As a matter of personal preference, I absolutely hate installing anything to the "Program Files" directory on C:\ . That directory to me is like a septic tank of files where windows just flushes everything into. It gets bigger and bigger, and using default installation directory names, this fast becomes a nightmare of programs hiding behind company names and publisher names (particularly demos and crap software you end up uninstalling anyway). For quick references its great to have everything organized right near the top level of the D:\ drive.
The 120 is my music drive, and it also contains disc images (so i don't need to lug a ton of cd's to my lan parties). The 250 has now resorted itself to being my overflow drive which i'm starting to use now that my 120 is filled, and now that i've consolidated my old 20 and 30.
Now one further reason I have found for installing the OS to a relatively small partition, aside from the ones others have already said, is that the OS boot time stays down to a minimum. Whether you believe me or not is up to you, but I notice the difference as more and more stuff gets put on the other partitions, versus getting more and more stuff on the OS partition.
For my primary drive, i have an 80 gig with 10 gig set aside for windows xp, and pretty much any core / useful programs that i would want on any mirror disc (nero, drivers, officexp, all anitivirus / antispyware, partition magic... you get the idea). My motherboard has a feature which will scan the used sectors in a boot partition, and make a perfect mirror backup of all that data, and place that image in a fully restorable hidden partition on the drive. so for my "perfect installation" it made a 5 gig hidden image. I partitioned the rest of the drive off and called that 'Games'. This 60 gig or so has 2 folders: Games, and Apps. For obvious reasons..
As a matter of personal preference, I absolutely hate installing anything to the "Program Files" directory on C:\ . That directory to me is like a septic tank of files where windows just flushes everything into. It gets bigger and bigger, and using default installation directory names, this fast becomes a nightmare of programs hiding behind company names and publisher names (particularly demos and crap software you end up uninstalling anyway). For quick references its great to have everything organized right near the top level of the D:\ drive.
The 120 is my music drive, and it also contains disc images (so i don't need to lug a ton of cd's to my lan parties). The 250 has now resorted itself to being my overflow drive which i'm starting to use now that my 120 is filled, and now that i've consolidated my old 20 and 30.
Now one further reason I have found for installing the OS to a relatively small partition, aside from the ones others have already said, is that the OS boot time stays down to a minimum. Whether you believe me or not is up to you, but I notice the difference as more and more stuff gets put on the other partitions, versus getting more and more stuff on the OS partition.
djnes
Your comment "If you have nothing correct to contribute, please don't" to Twisted was rude, and even more importantly, was wrong. There ARE performance reasons to segregate the OS from Apps, and TwiztedFait merely stated that fact and left it with a shrug. Very cool. You, on the other hand, seem to feel the need to pontificate from the Internet soapbox.
It is not a black and white design decision. Segregating different types of data based on access patterns has been around for years. Windows XP itself automatically moves frequently used files on the hard disk to minimize access time. If you are using an application that generates large temp files (e.g. Premiere, MathCad), you don't want those big files to be mixed around with your OS. It causes unnecessary work for Windows since it is constantly cleaning crap up.
Disregarding the start of your quote, there are many valid reasons to not install apps in Program Files. How about two quick examples.
There are numerous legacy custom apps that run fine under XP, but can't handle having a space in their path name, e.g. "c:\Program Files\legacy.exe". For those apps, they cannot be under Program Files.
By keeping the Applications in a separate partition, you can minimize the size of your Windows partition, enabling a full OS backup to fit on one DVD and making an OS backup/restore less painful. If you are someone who is constantly tweaking Windows, that can make life much easier.
Of course, there are some Apps that insist on being in the Program Files directory or they don't work. Gotta love standards.
Phoenix86, did you not notice the wink at the end? "Pot calling the kettle black"? Well, hell yeah, that was the point!!
Your comment "If you have nothing correct to contribute, please don't" to Twisted was rude, and even more importantly, was wrong. There ARE performance reasons to segregate the OS from Apps, and TwiztedFait merely stated that fact and left it with a shrug. Very cool. You, on the other hand, seem to feel the need to pontificate from the Internet soapbox.
It is not a black and white design decision. Segregating different types of data based on access patterns has been around for years. Windows XP itself automatically moves frequently used files on the hard disk to minimize access time. If you are using an application that generates large temp files (e.g. Premiere, MathCad), you don't want those big files to be mixed around with your OS. It causes unnecessary work for Windows since it is constantly cleaning crap up.
djnes said:
Disregarding the start of your quote, there are many valid reasons to not install apps in Program Files. How about two quick examples.
There are numerous legacy custom apps that run fine under XP, but can't handle having a space in their path name, e.g. "c:\Program Files\legacy.exe". For those apps, they cannot be under Program Files.
By keeping the Applications in a separate partition, you can minimize the size of your Windows partition, enabling a full OS backup to fit on one DVD and making an OS backup/restore less painful. If you are someone who is constantly tweaking Windows, that can make life much easier.
Of course, there are some Apps that insist on being in the Program Files directory or they don't work. Gotta love standards.
Phoenix86, did you not notice the wink at the end? "Pot calling the kettle black"? Well, hell yeah, that was the point!!
pbj75 said:
First, XP does move data around to optimize the drive, but that's the physical location on the disk....not where it's being pointed to in the drive table of contents if you will. Not trying to start a flame war here, but your showing the more you post, the less you understand the concept.
You arguement about legacy apps is valid to some extent, as many old DOS apps still struggle with path names with spaces. XP does help to remedy this problem at times...but some apps need a straight path, like C:\app1\bin etc. However, these apps are so small in overall size, your not hurting anything at all or using much space to leave them on the OS drive.
Thirdly, your point about backing up isn't really valid anyway, because any program that will backup the system to a DVD will gladly and easily span discs if needed. Thos of us who use Ghost Server to back up could care less about the size of our OS drives, especially when we are talking about a few MBs here and there.
Finally, Microsoft themselves always always always recommends putting your apps in the Program Files directory. There's no real reason or advantage to move them elsewhere, unless your doing it to be different, and pretend to be a power user, as I've seen quite a few people do. Then when an app isn't actin correctly, or an update patch can't find the original app, I can point and laugh for hours.
pbj75 said:
Now this can open yet another can of worms...or several.
Most people will tell you if your going to use a page file, it is best to create a static file of static size, and have it moved physically to the outer edge of the drives platter. Diskeeper and many other defrag apps will do this. Me personally, I don't run a page file at all. Your computer usage and installed memory may be different, so my preference may not work for you.