Prev: cidaemon.exe - indexing for over 2 weeks - pls help
Next: User ID has disappeared
From: Anna on 30 Mar 2010 10:26

"Daniel Prince" <neutrino1(a)ca.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7t42r5ljdv6n9af9c47m10hhs8jm7gsjia(a)4ax.com...
>I bought a new two-terabyte hard drive. I want to use it as a data
> drive for now. In a few weeks, I intend to upgrade to a new
> motherboard with a triple core CPU. At that time, I want to do a
> clean install of XP on the new drive.
>
> How should I partition my new drive so that I can put XP on it and
> boot from it later? Thank you in advance for all replies.
> --
> Whenever I hear or think of the song "Great green gobs of greasy
> grimey gopher guts" I imagine my cat saying; "That sounds REALLY,
> REALLY good. I'll have some of that!"


Daniel...
Loathe as I am to involve myself in one of these "how do I partition my hard
drive" commentaries (since all things considered it's more often than not a
sterile exercise), I feel a bit adventuresome today so here goes...

In my opinion, for the overwhelming number of PC users, there's really
nothing wrong or particularly limiting with living with a single-partitioned
HDD. One can effectively organize his/her HDD by using folders to segregate
this or that major program or division of work. One need not multi-partition
one's HDD unless the user has some very special need for doing so such as
installing two operating systems on one physical HDD (although let me be
quick to add that except where there is no other recourse left open to the
user, i.e., he or she is unable or unwilling to use separate hard drives,
I'm not particularly enthusiastic about installing multiple operating
systems on a single HDD.)

The great advantage of having a single partition per physical HDD is its
simplicity. You never encounter the situation where the free space is in the
"wrong" partition nor is there ever a need to adjust partition size because
one's later need for more (or less) disk space has changed.

Many advocates of multi-partitioning schemes invoke the presumed advantage
of separating the operating system from one's programs/data in that by doing
so a significant level of security is thereby introduced so that should the
operating system become corrupted and is thus dysfunctional, only the OS
will need be (re)installed and all of one's programs & data will be salvaged
and brought back to life. It's an illusion. In "real-life" it never seems to
work out that way (especially in an XP OS environment). And time & time
again we run into that common situation where the user finds this or that
"partition" needs to be expanded, or shrunk, or merged, but there's no way
to accomplish this without third-party disk partitioning tools and the
inherent danger of data corruption/loss that can occur through the
partition-manipulation process. Additionally, it's a virtual "given" that in
day-to-day operations the user will invariably find it more awkward &
time-consuming to access/manipulate data & programs on a multi-partitioned
drive as compared with a single-partitioned HDD.

Another presumed advantage of multi-partitioning one's day-to-day working
HDD (again, in terms of separating the OS from programs & data) is that
thereby performance is enhanced. The usual "evidence" offered by proponents
of that view is that consequently "the (hard drive) heads don't need to move
as much to seek data" (or some such physical "advantage" involving the hard
drive's performance) and that saves time in reducing the system's need to
access data/programs. While there may have been a shred of truth to that
view many, many years ago during the early stages of hard drive development,
it hasn't been true for modern hard drives for at least a dozen years or so.
Simply stated, multi-partitioning will not result in any meaningful
performance enhancement of a PC.

By & large, the *real* answer to securing one's system is creating &
maintaining a comprehensive backup system that the user employs on a routine
& systematic basis. So that when one's day-to-day HDD fails or the system
becomes unbootable and/or dysfunctional, one can effectively recover from
that disaster with a minimum of time & effort. My own preference is to use a
disk-cloning program such as the Casper 6 program, but there are other
disk-cloning & disk-imaging programs such as Acronis True Image or
Symantec's Norton Ghost program (as well as others) that will also do the
job. And, of course, there are other backup strategies one can employ based
on the user's needs. But establishing & maintaining a backup system is the
*crucial* point for security - not multi-partitioning one's HDD either for
security or thinking such will provide enhanced performance of one's system.

You can, of course, organize your HDD any way you want, but you could just
as easily have a single place called a "folder" as have a single place
called a "partition" in which to store or segregate your programs & data.
When all is said & done these multi-partitioning schemes have as their basic
objective a kind of assumed safety net. For the most part there's the notion
that separating the OS from programs & applications as well as user-created
data affords a significantly greater degree of security in the event of some
catastrophic event affecting the PC. In most cases it's a false sense of
security.

Anyway, one should think hard & long before multi-partitioning their HDD.
And should one conclude that in their particular circumstances
multi-partitioning their HDD is the most desirable course of action in their
particular circumstances, then they should go ahead and partition away. But
even if *you* do - I trust you will establish and use on a routine basis a
backup system that meets your particular needs.That, in my opinion, should
be *your* crucial objective.

Just one final note...
Should you finally decide to multi-partition your new HDD, take Daave's
advice re installing your programs/applications in the boot/system partition
(presumably the partition that will bear the C: drive letter assignment). Do
not create a separate partition solely to house your programs/applications.
Anna


From: Ken Blake, MVP on 31 Mar 2010 12:02
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:26:58 -0400, "Anna" <myname(a)myisp.net> wrote:

>
> "Daniel Prince" <neutrino1(a)ca.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:7t42r5ljdv6n9af9c47m10hhs8jm7gsjia(a)4ax.com...
> >I bought a new two-terabyte hard drive. I want to use it as a data
> > drive for now. In a few weeks, I intend to upgrade to a new
> > motherboard with a triple core CPU. At that time, I want to do a
> > clean install of XP on the new drive.
> >
> > How should I partition my new drive so that I can put XP on it and
> > boot from it later? Thank you in advance for all replies.
> > --
> > Whenever I hear or think of the song "Great green gobs of greasy
> > grimey gopher guts" I imagine my cat saying; "That sounds REALLY,
> > REALLY good. I'll have some of that!"
>
>
> Daniel...
> Loathe as I am to involve myself in one of these "how do I partition my hard
> drive" commentaries (since all things considered it's more often than not a
> sterile exercise), I feel a bit adventuresome today so here goes...


Anna, you are much more wordy than I am, but I agree almost completely
with what you say below. Thank you for taking away the need for me
reply and say much the same thing.

I'll just add one thing. For anyone who wants to read it, here's an
article I wrote on the subject of partitioning (saying many of the
same things): "Understanding Disk Partitioning" at
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326



> In my opinion, for the overwhelming number of PC users, there's really
> nothing wrong or particularly limiting with living with a single-partitioned
> HDD. One can effectively organize his/her HDD by using folders to segregate
> this or that major program or division of work. One need not multi-partition
> one's HDD unless the user has some very special need for doing so such as
> installing two operating systems on one physical HDD (although let me be
> quick to add that except where there is no other recourse left open to the
> user, i.e., he or she is unable or unwilling to use separate hard drives,
> I'm not particularly enthusiastic about installing multiple operating
> systems on a single HDD.)
>
> The great advantage of having a single partition per physical HDD is its
> simplicity. You never encounter the situation where the free space is in the
> "wrong" partition nor is there ever a need to adjust partition size because
> one's later need for more (or less) disk space has changed.
>
> Many advocates of multi-partitioning schemes invoke the presumed advantage
> of separating the operating system from one's programs/data in that by doing
> so a significant level of security is thereby introduced so that should the
> operating system become corrupted and is thus dysfunctional, only the OS
> will need be (re)installed and all of one's programs & data will be salvaged
> and brought back to life. It's an illusion. In "real-life" it never seems to
> work out that way (especially in an XP OS environment). And time & time
> again we run into that common situation where the user finds this or that
> "partition" needs to be expanded, or shrunk, or merged, but there's no way
> to accomplish this without third-party disk partitioning tools and the
> inherent danger of data corruption/loss that can occur through the
> partition-manipulation process. Additionally, it's a virtual "given" that in
> day-to-day operations the user will invariably find it more awkward &
> time-consuming to access/manipulate data & programs on a multi-partitioned
> drive as compared with a single-partitioned HDD.
>
> Another presumed advantage of multi-partitioning one's day-to-day working
> HDD (again, in terms of separating the OS from programs & data) is that
> thereby performance is enhanced. The usual "evidence" offered by proponents
> of that view is that consequently "the (hard drive) heads don't need to move
> as much to seek data" (or some such physical "advantage" involving the hard
> drive's performance) and that saves time in reducing the system's need to
> access data/programs. While there may have been a shred of truth to that
> view many, many years ago during the early stages of hard drive development,
> it hasn't been true for modern hard drives for at least a dozen years or so.
> Simply stated, multi-partitioning will not result in any meaningful
> performance enhancement of a PC.
>
> By & large, the *real* answer to securing one's system is creating &
> maintaining a comprehensive backup system that the user employs on a routine
> & systematic basis. So that when one's day-to-day HDD fails or the system
> becomes unbootable and/or dysfunctional, one can effectively recover from
> that disaster with a minimum of time & effort. My own preference is to use a
> disk-cloning program such as the Casper 6 program, but there are other
> disk-cloning & disk-imaging programs such as Acronis True Image or
> Symantec's Norton Ghost program (as well as others) that will also do the
> job. And, of course, there are other backup strategies one can employ based
> on the user's needs. But establishing & maintaining a backup system is the
> *crucial* point for security - not multi-partitioning one's HDD either for
> security or thinking such will provide enhanced performance of one's system.
>
> You can, of course, organize your HDD any way you want, but you could just
> as easily have a single place called a "folder" as have a single place
> called a "partition" in which to store or segregate your programs & data.
> When all is said & done these multi-partitioning schemes have as their basic
> objective a kind of assumed safety net. For the most part there's the notion
> that separating the OS from programs & applications as well as user-created
> data affords a significantly greater degree of security in the event of some
> catastrophic event affecting the PC. In most cases it's a false sense of
> security.
>
> Anyway, one should think hard & long before multi-partitioning their HDD.
> And should one conclude that in their particular circumstances
> multi-partitioning their HDD is the most desirable course of action in their
> particular circumstances, then they should go ahead and partition away. But
> even if *you* do - I trust you will establish and use on a routine basis a
> backup system that meets your particular needs.That, in my opinion, should
> be *your* crucial objective.
>
> Just one final note...
> Should you finally decide to multi-partition your new HDD, take Daave's
> advice re installing your programs/applications in the boot/system partition
> (presumably the partition that will bear the C: drive letter assignment). Do
> not create a separate partition solely to house your programs/applications.
> Anna
>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: cidaemon.exe - indexing for over 2 weeks - pls help
Next: User ID has disappeared