Re: Drive partitions for windows xp installation

[purplehaz03]

>"IMHO, format your hard drive as one NTFS partition and let XP function as
it
> is designed. "

What do you mean? XP is designed to be able to access multiple partitons,
drives, mapped/network drives/partitions. XP itself should be on its own
single partition, but it is designed to work with multiple partitions and
IMHO putting your data files on another partition is the best way cause it
saves lots of time when reformatting and protects that data if the os dies
and you need to format. If the hard drive dies, well then you hope you
backed up the important stuff to another drive or cd-rw's.

"Danny Blue" > wrote in message
...
> IMHO, format your hard drive as one NTFS partition and let XP function as
it
> is designed. The most important consideration for data and application
files
> is to implement a disaster recovery plan. That is to say, how do you
recover
> when your hard drive craps out?
>
> "sqr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > As you are new to XP here is my advice regarding the partitions. Having
> > multiple partitions will protect important files and the like from the
OS.
> > So place XP in the first partition and in the second the data files, but
> > leave the windows pagefile alone and let the OS control it until you
> become
> > more familiar with it.
> >
> > When you have Windows installed and running the way you want create an
> Image
> > file and place it on a CD. Also backup the data files and programs and
> place
> > them on a CD as well. When the computer goes south you can get the
machine
> > up and running much quicker then re-installing.
> >
> > --
> > Sqr
> > Overseer: alt.os.windows-xp
> > --
> >
> > http://sqr.servebeer.com
> > ftp://sqr.myftp.biz
> >
> >
> > "Ryan A, Saravanja" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I'l be installing the windows xp on a clean formatted drive. I read
in
> > > PCWorld that it's beneficial to create separate partitions on your
> drive.
> > >
> > > Partition 1 - Windows XP operating system (so you can reformat if the
OS
> > > gets buggy)
> > > Partition 2 - Other files
> > > Partition 3 - windows swap file (prevents fragmentation of the drive)
> > >
> > > What are your views on the subject and if you agree what size do you
> > > recommend for the OS and swap file parititions?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Ryan
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ryan A. Saravanja
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Ryan A, Saravanja]

"purplehaz03" > wrote in message
...
> On partition 2 he said other files....... not program files. If by other
> files he means data files, music, videos, pictures, spreadsheets, word
docs,
> txt docs, .iso's, personal my documents stuff, etc.... then it is a good
> idea to have two partitons. I agree with the swap file, don't move that.
Two
> partitons will do fine.

I meant the program files. It seems people still se the need to reinstall
WinXP once a year (i thought that was over) so this just seems easier. Will
this setup result in a performance hit or will other more serious problems
result?

And does PCWorld not know what they are talking bout?

>
>
> "john dingley" > wrote in message
> ...
> > First doing what you propose doesn't really work in the way that you
have
> > suggested.
> >
> > If you install your O/S in one partion and programs in another,. And
then
> > you format the O/S partition and reinstall the O/S none of your programs
> > will probably work has the new O/S has no record of their installation.
> >
> <snip>
>
>

[Synapse Syndrome]

Ryan A, Saravanja wrote:
|
| And does PCWorld not know what they are talking bout?


PCW and PC Pro are both fine magazines.

ss.

[Gazwad]

Ryan A, Saravanja asked wistfully...

|| I'l be installing the windows xp on a clean formatted drive. I read
|| in PCWorld that it's beneficial to create separate partitions on
|| your drive.
||
|| Partition 1 - Windows XP operating system (so you can reformat if
|| the OS gets buggy)
|| Partition 2 - Other files
|| Partition 3 - windows swap file (prevents fragmentation of the drive)
||
|| What are your views on the subject and if you agree what size do you
|| recommend for the OS and swap file parititions?
||

There are numerous ways to set a computer up, many people have no idea how
to do things properly and some people have extra expectations or needs from
the way they have theirs configured.

Anyone who suggests you use a single partition on a single disk is
brain-dead and can be ignored. The use of a second HDD in many ways is
preferable to partitioning a single disk but ultimately the best set-up will
include several disks each with several partitions. Each partition tailored
specifically to its contents/use.

For example I use a 10GB HDD which is split into 3 primary/bootable
partitions and only contains my operating systems.

Another disk is partitioned into 4 and is for data, programs which do not
need installation, temporary internet files and images of my OS.

Another disk has a small partition at the beginning of the disk which is
where the pagefile resides (on its own) the rest of the disk is used for
data, images, backups etc. which do not need to be accessed very often.

Your scheme is sound although having the pagefile in its own partition at
the end of a single drive could prove to be more of a performance hit rather
than a benefit. However that wont be an issue because you are going to
install plenty of RAM, right?

At the end of the day there are several things that need to be considered to
quantify how you can best configure your machine. Example uses, equipment
installed, CPU, RAM, PSU, number/type/size of HDD's.

Perhaps some of the considerations have already been made and that was the
reason you were researching this in the first place.

--

Gazwad

Freelance scientist and people tester.
Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
Moderator: alt.warez.uk

http://angry.at/gazwad
http://gazwad.servebeer.com

[Gazwad]

john dingley asked wistfully...

|| The way you probably want to use your system one partition is fine.
|| Splitting it has no benefits whatsoever.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

<aside to Relic: which one of the crossposted groups are all these ****ing
idiots coming from?>

--

Gazwad

Freelance scientist and people tester.
Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
Moderator: alt.warez.uk

http://angry.at/gazwad
http://gazwad.servebeer.com

[Gazwad]

Xref: 127.0.0.1 alt.os.windows-xp:257603 microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics:98691 microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:536416 microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware:119860

relic asked wistfully...

|| As predicted, Gazwad wrote this:
||| john dingley asked wistfully...
|||
||||| The way you probably want to use your system one partition is
||||| fine. Splitting it has no benefits whatsoever.
|||
||| BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
|||
||| <aside to Relic: which one of the crossposted groups are all these
||| ****ing idiots coming from?>
||
|| That's why I encourage disenters to go try them. Too bad
|| 24hoursupport was ommitted.

Omitted or committed?

--

Gazwad

Freelance scientist and people tester.
Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
Moderator: alt.warez.uk

http://angry.at/gazwad
http://gazwad.servebeer.com

[purplehaz03]

IMHO -- putting programs on another partition serves no purpose really
except for organization. If it's programs and not data you want to put on
the second partition, if you ever need to format the xp partition or
re-install xp, the programs on the second partition would need to be
re-installed as well, so I don't see the point of putting programs on
another partition. Data on another partition is smart. If you still want to
put the program on another partition you won't get any performance hit, it's
just not needed. As for PC world, they are a magazine that gives it's
opinions based on the facts and experience they know, just like we all give
our opinions here. You decide which way is best for you depending on your
situation.


"Ryan A, Saravanja" > wrote in message
...
>
> "purplehaz03" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On partition 2 he said other files....... not program files. If by other
> > files he means data files, music, videos, pictures, spreadsheets, word
> docs,
> > txt docs, .iso's, personal my documents stuff, etc.... then it is a good
> > idea to have two partitons. I agree with the swap file, don't move that.
> Two
> > partitons will do fine.

>
> I meant the program files. It seems people still se the need to reinstall
> WinXP once a year (i thought that was over) so this just seems easier.
Will
> this setup result in a performance hit or will other more serious problems
> result?
>
> And does PCWorld not know what they are talking bout?
>

[purplehaz03]

If you have to re-install xp then putting data files on another partition is
very useful. This way you just format and re-install on the one partition,
leaving your data files on the second partition in tact and you don't have
to spend hours transfering the data back. Separating by folders makes you
reload the data after a format, re-install, second partition doesn't.


"john dingley" > wrote in message
...
> The way you probably want to use your system one partition is fine.
> Splitting it has no benefits whatsoever.
>
> You only really need to partition if you are using more than one operting
> system or your disk is so large your bios cannot handle it correctly.
>
> Folders are the way to separate your data etc if you need to.
>
> "Ryan A, Saravanja" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "purplehaz03" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On partition 2 he said other files....... not program files. If by
other
> > > files he means data files, music, videos, pictures, spreadsheets, word
> > docs,
> > > txt docs, .iso's, personal my documents stuff, etc.... then it is a
good
> > > idea to have two partitons. I agree with the swap file, don't move
that.
> > Two
> > > partitons will do fine.
> >
> > I meant the program files. It seems people still se the need to
reinstall
> > WinXP once a year (i thought that was over) so this just seems easier.
> Will
> > this setup result in a performance hit or will other more serious
problems
> > result?
> >
> > And does PCWorld not know what they are talking bout?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > "john dingley" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > First doing what you propose doesn't really work in the way that you
> > have
> > > > suggested.
> > > >
> > > > If you install your O/S in one partion and programs in another,. And
> > then
> > > > you format the O/S partition and reinstall the O/S none of your
> programs
> > > > will probably work has the new O/S has no record of their
> installation.
> > > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Gazwad]

purplehaz03 asked wistfully...

|| IMHO -- putting programs on another partition serves no purpose
|| really

OK, who left the door open?

--

Gazwad

Freelance scientist and people tester.
Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
Moderator: alt.warez.uk

http://angry.at/gazwad
http://gazwad.servebeer.com

[Dan DeStefano]

i guest this thread can go back-and-forth forever, but engaging in battles
of one-upsmanship hardly serves the purpose of these newsgroups, which are
to help, not confuse. using newsgroups as platforms to pontificate one's
"knowledge" and degrade others only serves to confuse the most important
person in the thread: the original poster.

the bottom line about the pagefile in windows xp is that, if the machine is
used as a regular business client or home machine (in other words: not a
high-end workstation), then placing the pagefile on its own partition
probably is not worth it, as you will likely never see a noticable or
appreciable performance boost or hit either way. i have managed to find
conflicting reports on the ms kb - one article stating that even with a
single drive it is good to have a separate partition for the pagefile so
that it does not become fragmented, then another article stating that one
should not place the pagefile on its own partition on a system with a
single, physical hdd - so this would justify the debate at hand.

there are more reasons than not to keep a single pagefile and leave it set
to its default sizes:

1. the fragmentation argument will not provide enough of a performance boost
to be noticable. and, pagefile fragmentation is mitigated by xp's dynamic
file placement, which optimizes the placement of files on the hdd and will
arrange optimized files in contiguous clusters, which defragments it;
benchmark results bare this out.
2. the less partitons, the less complex the installation.
3. though windows should select the pagefile on the non-boot partition,
testing has shown that, rather, xp will use both pagefiles. plus, in order
for xp to be able to create a crash-dump report, there must be a pagefile on
the boot partition.
4. having just the single boot-partition os will free up hdd space.

note: i usually create a separate pagefile partition for windows
installations, mainly for nt and 2k, but, in xp, i normally do not use the
single, default pagefile when using just a single hdd.

if you would like to limit pagefile usage (i recommend against turning
virtual memory off, as this can cause instability in both windows and
applications - some apps need a pagefile), then just limit pagefile usage by
opening the system.ini file in notepad [%systemroot%\system.ini, where
%systemroot% refers to the os files (boot partition), which is usually
c:\windows], and doing the following: place the cursor at the end of the
"[386enh]" heading, hit enter to create another line underneath, then type
"ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1" exactly like it appears (case-sensitive),
without the quotes. this will force windows to prefer physical memory over
virtual memory, just make sure you have at least 256mb of physical memory.

all that being said, it is a great idea to create a separate partition for
your data, then assign a volume label to this partition to be able to easily
identify it (a volume label of "data" should be fine). this will enable you
to format/reinstall the system/boot partition to your heart's content, while
not disturbing your data. this will not be any help if your hdd suffers a
physical failure, but it will enable to you more easily recover from file
system corruptions on the system/boot partition. depending on the amount of
programs you intend to install and the size of your hdd, the system/boot
partition should be approx 7-20gb in size.

i hope this helps you, ryan. please let me know if you need more
clarification or justification for these suggestions.

Dan DeStefano



"Ryan A, Saravanja" > wrote in message
...
> I'l be installing the windows xp on a clean formatted drive. I read in
> PCWorld that it's beneficial to create separate partitions on your drive.
>
> Partition 1 - Windows XP operating system (so you can reformat if the OS
> gets buggy)
> Partition 2 - Other files
> Partition 3 - windows swap file (prevents fragmentation of the drive)
>
> What are your views on the subject and if you agree what size do you
> recommend for the OS and swap file parititions?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ryan
>
> --
> Ryan A. Saravanja
>
>
>

[Berny]

Looks like PCworld is trying to advise people to do what linux users have
always been doing:

In linux you can have the following arrangement for partitions;

/swap (linux equivalent of Pagefile)
/ root (boot, bin, var, etc, tmp, media ....)
/usr Programs and applications.
/home data and personal settings.


The best you can do in M$ environment is to make 2 partitions. One for data,
(i.e. music, pictures, movies, word documents, spreadsheets, etc). The
other partition would be for everything else, (including OS, programs,
pagefile, tmp, etc. ).

Any other configuration would not make sense and would be unnessacary as far
as XP is concerned.

[Mhzjunkie]

Gazwad < Dont Be So FarKing WeeTarDid > spewed out this bit :

> purplehaz03 asked wistfully...
>
>>> IMHO -- putting programs on another partition serves no purpose
>>> really
>
> OK, who left the door open?

He's probably an MVP.

--
Mhzjunkie

Programmer: alt.os.windows-xp
1 PRINT "Windows XP ERROR"
GOTO 1
END

[Gazwad]

Mhzjunkie asked wistfully...

||| OK, who left the door open?
||
|| He's probably an MVP.

My Veiny Penis?


--

Gazwad

Freelance scientist and people tester.
Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
Moderator: alt.warez.uk

http://angry.at/gazwad
http://gazwad.servebeer.com

[Dan DeStefano]

gazwad,

if you consider what you are writing help, then please do not post anymore.
we are all here to help each other and this is made much more pleasant and
easy if someone does not have to be subjected to immature name-calling.

formatting your machine with a single partition is, in fact, not
"brain-dead," it is actually the preferred method in windows xp. this is
true, otherwise ms would not suggest doing just this, as they do in several
kb articles, here is one:
http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/tech/storage/ntfs-preinstall.asp.
plus, the more partitions on your machine, the more you reduce your usable
storage capacity as each partition will need to claim some free space for
management, journaling, etc; and the more partitions, the more overhead you
place on file system management. this is made worse by xp's file placement
optimization, because it will have to worry about optimizing file placement
on several partitions, instead of just one.
additionally, the more partitions you have, the more complex your
installation becomes, especially for the novice user.
finally, the type of organization you claim to need separate partitions for
can be accomplished via the use of folders, with minimal drawbacks.

in conclusion, next time, if you dont have anything nice to say...


Dan DeStefano

"Gazwad" <Dont Be So FarKing WeeTarDid> wrote in message
...
> Ryan A, Saravanja asked wistfully...
>
> || I'l be installing the windows xp on a clean formatted drive. I read
> || in PCWorld that it's beneficial to create separate partitions on
> || your drive.
> ||
> || Partition 1 - Windows XP operating system (so you can reformat if
> || the OS gets buggy)
> || Partition 2 - Other files
> || Partition 3 - windows swap file (prevents fragmentation of the drive)
> ||
> || What are your views on the subject and if you agree what size do you
> || recommend for the OS and swap file parititions?
> ||
>
> There are numerous ways to set a computer up, many people have no idea how
> to do things properly and some people have extra expectations or needs
from
> the way they have theirs configured.
>
> Anyone who suggests you use a single partition on a single disk is
> brain-dead and can be ignored. The use of a second HDD in many ways is
> preferable to partitioning a single disk but ultimately the best set-up
will
> include several disks each with several partitions. Each partition
tailored
> specifically to its contents/use.
>
> For example I use a 10GB HDD which is split into 3 primary/bootable
> partitions and only contains my operating systems.
>
> Another disk is partitioned into 4 and is for data, programs which do not
> need installation, temporary internet files and images of my OS.
>
> Another disk has a small partition at the beginning of the disk which is
> where the pagefile resides (on its own) the rest of the disk is used for
> data, images, backups etc. which do not need to be accessed very often.
>
> Your scheme is sound although having the pagefile in its own partition at
> the end of a single drive could prove to be more of a performance hit
rather
> than a benefit. However that wont be an issue because you are going to
> install plenty of RAM, right?
>
> At the end of the day there are several things that need to be considered
to
> quantify how you can best configure your machine. Example uses, equipment
> installed, CPU, RAM, PSU, number/type/size of HDD's.
>
> Perhaps some of the considerations have already been made and that was the
> reason you were researching this in the first place.
>
> --
>
> Gazwad
>
> Freelance scientist and people tester.
> Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
> Moderator: alt.warez.uk
>
> http://angry.at/gazwad
> http://gazwad.servebeer.com
>
>

[Jim Macklin]

I read the article by MS and they are recommending NTFS...
They do not recommend a combination of or sole use of FAT32

However they do not mention multiple partitions or
segregation of the operating system from data files.

Just as an example I have one hard drive (plan to buy a
second sometime) and it is all NTFS...
C:\ has W XP Pro and some applications
D:\ is a smaller partition and used primarily for the
pagefile. I do have a small pagefile on C:\.
E:\ has My Documents and other data such as Downloads
(folder)
F:\ is used for alternate programs
G:\ will be used for games and trial programs

I have pointed storage files for email to E:\

Works fine, is stable...


"Dan DeStefano" <ddestefanoATwinmarcompaniesDOTcom> wrote in
message ...
| gazwad,
|
| if you consider what you are writing help, then please do
not post anymore.
| we are all here to help each other and this is made much
more pleasant and
| easy if someone does not have to be subjected to immature
name-calling.
|
| formatting your machine with a single partition is, in
fact, not
| "brain-dead," it is actually the preferred method in
windows xp. this is
| true, otherwise ms would not suggest doing just this, as
they do in several
| kb articles, here is one:
|
http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/tech/storage/ntfs-preinstall.asp.
| plus, the more partitions on your machine, the more you
reduce your usable
| storage capacity as each partition will need to claim some
free space for
| management, journaling, etc; and the more partitions, the
more overhead you
| place on file system management. this is made worse by
xp's file placement
| optimization, because it will have to worry about
optimizing file placement
| on several partitions, instead of just one.
| additionally, the more partitions you have, the more
complex your
| installation becomes, especially for the novice user.
| finally, the type of organization you claim to need
separate partitions for
| can be accomplished via the use of folders, with minimal
drawbacks.
|
| in conclusion, next time, if you dont have anything nice
to say...
|
|
| Dan DeStefano
|SNIP

[Gazwad]

Dan DeStefano asked wistfully...

|| gazwad,
||
|| if you consider what you are writing help, then please do not post
|| anymore. we are all here to help each other and this is made much
|| more pleasant and easy if someone does not have to be subjected to
|| immature name-calling.
||
|| formatting your machine with a single partition is, in fact, not
|| "brain-dead," it is actually the preferred method in windows xp.
|| this is true, otherwise ms would not suggest doing just this, as
|| they do in several kb articles, here is one:
|| http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/tech/storage/ntfs-preinstall.asp.
|| plus, the more partitions on your machine, the more you reduce your
|| usable storage capacity as each partition will need to claim some
|| free space for management, journaling, etc; and the more partitions,
|| the more overhead you place on file system management. this is made
|| worse by xp's file placement optimization, because it will have to
|| worry about optimizing file placement on several partitions, instead
|| of just one.
|| additionally, the more partitions you have, the more complex your
|| installation becomes, especially for the novice user.
|| finally, the type of organization you claim to need separate
|| partitions for can be accomplished via the use of folders, with
|| minimal drawbacks.
||
|| in conclusion, next time, if you dont have anything nice to say...
||

Piffle, brain-dead by your own admission you are also a top-posting waste of
skin and air.

I suggest you pull your head out of your M$ arse and look at how things are
done in the real world.

--

Gazwad

Freelance scientist and people tester.
Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
Moderator: alt.warez.uk

http://angry.at/gazwad
http://gazwad.servebeer.com

[purplehaz03]

What are you talking about. What purpose does installing apps (programs) on
another partition serve? Like I said, data files on another partition is
good, but why would you install programs on another partition?


"Gazwad" <Dont Be So FarKing WeeTarDid> wrote in message
...
> purplehaz03 asked wistfully...
>
> || IMHO -- putting programs on another partition serves no purpose
> || really
>
> OK, who left the door open?
>
> --
>
> Gazwad
>
> Freelance scientist and people tester.
> Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
> Moderator: alt.warez.uk
>
> http://angry.at/gazwad
> http://gazwad.servebeer.com
>
>

[purplehaz03]

Wrong...........


"Mhzjunkie" > wrote in message
...
>
> He's probably an MVP.
>
> --
> Mhzjunkie
>
> Programmer: alt.os.windows-xp
> 1 PRINT "Windows XP ERROR"
> GOTO 1
> END
>
>

[Gazwad]

purplehaz03 asked wistfully...

|| What are you talking about. What purpose does installing apps
|| (programs) on another partition serve? Like I said, data files on
|| another partition is good, but why would you install programs on
|| another partition?

Why not?

--

Gazwad

Freelance scientist and people tester.
Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
Moderator: alt.warez.uk

http://angry.at/gazwad
http://gazwad.servebeer.com

[Jim Macklin]

It keeps space open on C:\ and doesn't harm operation in any
way. Defrag requires a certain available space on the drive
to work. Many programs don't need to be tied closely to the
OS to run, many programs such as games, typing tutors, tax
programs will run just fine if installed on another
partition or physical drive. They will have entries in the
registry on C:\ but that doesn't take much space.

Keeping all data on a partition by itself makes it more
secure and also allows rapid and easy back-up to CD.


"purplehaz03" > wrote in message
...
| What are you talking about. What purpose does installing
apps (programs) on
| another partition serve? Like I said, data files on
another partition is
| good, but why would you install programs on another
partition?
|
|
| "Gazwad" <Dont Be So FarKing WeeTarDid> wrote in message
| ...
| > purplehaz03 asked wistfully...
| >
| > || IMHO -- putting programs on another partition serves
no purpose
| > || really
| >
| > OK, who left the door open?
| >
| > --
| >
| > Gazwad
| >
| > Freelance scientist and people tester.
| > Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
| > Moderator: alt.warez.uk
| >
| > http://angry.at/gazwad
| > http://gazwad.servebeer.com
| >
| >
|
|

[Mhzjunkie]

Gazwad < Dont Be So FarKing WeeTarDid > spewed out this bit :

> Mhzjunkie asked wistfully...
>
>>>> OK, who left the door open?
>>>
>>> He's probably an MVP.
>
> My Veiny Penis?

Errr, yes !

--
Mhzjunkie

Programmer: alt.os.windows-xp
1 PRINT "Windows XP ERROR"
GOTO 1
END

[relic]

(Top posting fixed)

As predicted, purplehaz03 wrote this:
> "Gazwad" <Dont Be So FarKing WeeTarDid> wrote in message
> ...
>> purplehaz03 asked wistfully...
>>
>>>> IMHO -- putting programs on another partition serves no purpose
>>>> really
>>
>> OK, who left the door open?
>>

> What are you talking about. What purpose does installing apps
> (programs) on another partition serve? Like I said, data files on
> another partition is good, but why would you install programs on
> another partition?
>

Ahem... not all programs require being 'installed' after the OS is
installed/reinstalled; they work all by themselves. I'd put them on another
drive/partiton too.

--
- relic -
Resident Psychic: alt.os.windows-xp
"The French.... They're there when they need you."

[Mhzjunkie]

purplehaz03 < > spewed out this bit :

> Wrong...........

Sorry about that, honest mistake. You sure act like one, with all your
techno know how and so on.


--
Mhzjunkie

Programmer: alt.os.windows-xp
1 PRINT "Windows XP ERROR"
GOTO 1
END

[purplehaz03]

That's what I said(if you read the whole thread). Organization would be a
reason, but other than that there is no other real technical reason. I also
said data on a second partition is good.


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> It keeps space open on C:\ and doesn't harm operation in any
> way. Defrag requires a certain available space on the drive
> to work. Many programs don't need to be tied closely to the
> OS to run, many programs such as games, typing tutors, tax
> programs will run just fine if installed on another
> partition or physical drive. They will have entries in the
> registry on C:\ but that doesn't take much space.
>
> Keeping all data on a partition by itself makes it more
> secure and also allows rapid and easy back-up to CD.
>
>
> "purplehaz03" > wrote in message
> ...
> | What are you talking about. What purpose does installing
> apps (programs) on
> | another partition serve? Like I said, data files on
> another partition is
> | good, but why would you install programs on another
> partition?
> |
> |
> | "Gazwad" <Dont Be So FarKing WeeTarDid> wrote in message
> | ...
> | > purplehaz03 asked wistfully...
> | >
> | > || IMHO -- putting programs on another partition serves
> no purpose
> | > || really
> | >
> | > OK, who left the door open?
> | >
> | > --
> | >
> | > Gazwad
> | >
> | > Freelance scientist and people tester.
> | > Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
> | > Moderator: alt.warez.uk
> | >
> | > http://angry.at/gazwad
> | > http://gazwad.servebeer.com
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>

[purplehaz03]

"relic" > wrote in message
...
> (Top posting fixed)
>
> As predicted, purplehaz03 wrote this:
> > "Gazwad" <Dont Be So FarKing WeeTarDid> wrote in message
> > ...
> >> purplehaz03 asked wistfully...
> >>
> >>>> IMHO -- putting programs on another partition serves no purpose
> >>>> really
> >>
> >> OK, who left the door open?
> >>
>
> > What are you talking about. What purpose does installing apps
> > (programs) on another partition serve? Like I said, data files on
> > another partition is good, but why would you install programs on
> > another partition?
> >
>
> Ahem... not all programs require being 'installed' after the OS is
> installed/reinstalled; they work all by themselves. I'd put them on
another
> drive/partiton too.
>

For the 1% of the programs that are not tied to the registry or drop a file
in system32 folder, having them on another partition is smart. For the 99%
that are tied to the registry and/or system32 folder, there is no technical
reason to do it. To do it would only be for personal preference, not to
really make the system run better or for any other system benefit.

[purplehaz03]

"Gazwad" <Dont Be So FarKing WeeTarDid> wrote in message
...
> purplehaz03 asked wistfully...
>
> || What are you talking about. What purpose does installing apps
> || (programs) on another partition serve? Like I said, data files on
> || another partition is good, but why would you install programs on
> || another partition?
>
> Why not?
>

You could do it for personal preferences, like I've already stated, but what
technical reason or system enhancment would you get from having apps on
another partition? None, infact you may take a hit if the program uses the
temp folder or files in system32 folder on the c drive. You could do it if
you want, but why would you? My point to the op was it's not needed, but
could be done if you want.

[Gazwad]

purplehaz03 asked wistfully...

|| "Gazwad" <Dont Be So FarKing WeeTarDid> wrote in message
|| ...
||| purplehaz03 asked wistfully...
|||
||||| What are you talking about. What purpose does installing apps
||||| (programs) on another partition serve? Like I said, data files on
||||| another partition is good, but why would you install programs on
||||| another partition?
|||
||| Why not?
|||
||
|| You could do it for personal preferences, like I've already stated,
|| but what technical reason or system enhancment would you get from
|| having apps on another partition? None, infact you may take a hit if
|| the program uses the temp folder or files in system32 folder on the
|| c drive. You could do it if you want, but why would you? My point to
|| the op was it's not needed, but could be done if you want.

As those who know have already stated, it depends entirely on the individual
circumstances _and_ the specific app.

For example I use a number of applications which are not installed but are
merely run from wherever one sees fit to place the program and associated
files.
I also use a number of applications which insist on having a large amount of
data installed into the same directory as the app.

Some people who are sufficiently brain-dead to keep everything on a single
partition cannot benefit from having either of these anywhere but on their
single partition.

I on the other hand use Ghost for recovery/experimentation, with this in
mind it makes a lot of sense to keep these programs installed anywhere but
the same partition as the OS.

--

Gazwad

Freelance scientist and people tester.
Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
Moderator: alt.warez.uk

http://angry.at/gazwad
http://gazwad.servebeer.com

[purplehaz03]

"purplehaz03" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gazwad" <Dont Be So FarKing WeeTarDid> wrote in message
> ...
> > purplehaz03 asked wistfully...
> >
> > || What are you talking about. What purpose does installing apps
> > || (programs) on another partition serve? Like I said, data files on
> > || another partition is good, but why would you install programs on
> > || another partition?
> >
> > Why not?
> >
>
> You could do it for personal preferences, like I've already stated, but
what
> technical reason or system enhancment would you get from having apps on
> another partition? None, infact you may take a hit if the program uses the
> temp folder or files in system32 folder on the c drive. You could do it if
> you want, but why would you? My point to the op was it's not needed, but
> could be done if you want.
>
>

Wait, I might have thought of a reason to have apps on another partition. If
you exported and saved the registry to cd, then formatted c drive leaving
apps on d drive alone, install xp on c, then bring the old registry back the
apps might work as normal. I never tried it though so who knows.

[Nicholas]

"When performing a clean install, Microsoft recommends that NTFS be=20
used and that the system be installed in a single partition on each =
disk.=20
Under Windows XP, big partitions are better managed than in previous=20
versions of Windows. Forcing installed software into several =
partitions=20
on the disk necessitates longer seeks when running the system and =
software."

Ref: http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/platform/performance/benchmark.asp=20

I have installed Windows XP in several configuations. In every case =
where
Windows XP and all programs are installed on one (1) partition, the =
overall
system performance is quicker. Windows XP is a dynamic O/S, unlike =
previous
versions of Windows. It continually makes dynamic adjustments to =
enhance
performance if a single partition is used.

--=20
Nicholas

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----------------

"purplehaz03" > wrote in message: =20
...

|=20
| For the 1% of the programs that are not tied to the registry or drop a =
file
| in system32 folder, having them on another partition is smart. For the =
99%
| that are tied to the registry and/or system32 folder, there is no =
technical
| reason to do it. To do it would only be for personal preference, not =
to
| really make the system run better or for any other system benefit.

[Ed C]

I don't know where some of you people get your info. Partitioning your HDD
is a personal thing. It is not something you have to do or something you
shouldn't do. and there is NO best way, and MS DOES NOT SAY that XP works
best with only 1 partition. I have not done a clean install on a HDD that
wasn't already partitioned so I don't know if you have the option to make
more than 1 partition in the XP installation process. I partition my HDD's,
OS and some utilities on the first partition of the first HDD, programs and
data on the second partition of the 1st HDD, downloaded stuff and files of
any sort that I want to keep, Video, sound drivers, utilities that might
have to reinstalled at a later date and programs that I copy from CD's and
install from the HDD, so I don't have to keep swapping disk in and out of
the CD-Rom and other things like old Emails and such. the first partition of
the second HDD is for my swap/page file, I keep a small pagefile on the C
drive also and then the rest of the second HDD is 1 partition for whatever.
As I said up top ther is not 1 best way. What right for me might not be
right for some one else.


--


Ed C
NRA


"Berny" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
>
> Looks like PCworld is trying to advise people to do what linux users have
> always been doing:
>
> In linux you can have the following arrangement for partitions;
>
> /swap (linux equivalent of Pagefile)
> / root (boot, bin, var, etc, tmp, media ....)
> /usr Programs and applications.
> /home data and personal settings.
>
>
> The best you can do in M$ environment is to make 2 partitions. One for
data,
> (i.e. music, pictures, movies, word documents, spreadsheets, etc). The
> other partition would be for everything else, (including OS, programs,
> pagefile, tmp, etc. ).
>
> Any other configuration would not make sense and would be unnessacary as
far
> as XP is concerned.
>
>

[David A Gourlay]

One point - I have a second partition for my documents, and because other
users use my computer, marked the my documents folder as private.

After re-installing, I set up an identical user name, but I couldn't access
my documents. Luckily I had backed them up on CD, without the security
settings, and so I got them back that way, but it gave me a scare. If I
hadn't backed them up, I might not have been able to access them, as the
user that owned them did, in XP's view, no longer exist.


"sqr" > wrote in message
...
> As you are new to XP here is my advice regarding the partitions. Having
> multiple partitions will protect important files and the like from the OS.
> So place XP in the first partition and in the second the data files, but
> leave the windows pagefile alone and let the OS control it until you
become
> more familiar with it.
>
> When you have Windows installed and running the way you want create an
Image
> file and place it on a CD. Also backup the data files and programs and
place
> them on a CD as well. When the computer goes south you can get the machine
> up and running much quicker then re-installing.
>
> --
> Sqr
> Overseer: alt.os.windows-xp
> --
>
> http://sqr.servebeer.com
> ftp://sqr.myftp.biz
>
>
> "Ryan A, Saravanja" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'l be installing the windows xp on a clean formatted drive. I read in
> > PCWorld that it's beneficial to create separate partitions on your
drive.
> >
> > Partition 1 - Windows XP operating system (so you can reformat if the OS
> > gets buggy)
> > Partition 2 - Other files
> > Partition 3 - windows swap file (prevents fragmentation of the drive)
> >
> > What are your views on the subject and if you agree what size do you
> > recommend for the OS and swap file parititions?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > --
> > Ryan A. Saravanja
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[purplehaz03]

"Gazwad" <Dont Be So FarKing WeeTarDid> wrote in message
...
> purplehaz03 asked wistfully...
>
> || "Gazwad" <Dont Be So FarKing WeeTarDid> wrote in message
> || ...
> ||| purplehaz03 asked wistfully...
> |||
> ||||| What are you talking about. What purpose does installing apps
> ||||| (programs) on another partition serve? Like I said, data files on
> ||||| another partition is good, but why would you install programs on
> ||||| another partition?
> |||
> ||| Why not?
> |||
> ||
> || You could do it for personal preferences, like I've already stated,
> || but what technical reason or system enhancment would you get from
> || having apps on another partition? None, infact you may take a hit if
> || the program uses the temp folder or files in system32 folder on the
> || c drive. You could do it if you want, but why would you? My point to
> || the op was it's not needed, but could be done if you want.
>
> As those who know have already stated, it depends entirely on the
individual
> circumstances _and_ the specific app.
>
> For example I use a number of applications which are not installed but are
> merely run from wherever one sees fit to place the program and associated
> files.
> I also use a number of applications which insist on having a large amount
of
> data installed into the same directory as the app.
>
> Some people who are sufficiently brain-dead to keep everything on a single
> partition cannot benefit from having either of these anywhere but on their
> single partition.
>
> I on the other hand use Ghost for recovery/experimentation, with this in
> mind it makes a lot of sense to keep these programs installed anywhere but
> the same partition as the OS.
>

Ok, good point with ghost, but for programs that don't install, I'd just run
those off the "data" drive. We both agree two or more partitions is good, I
have three myself. We just differ on the installed programs location, but
the ghost point is a good one.

[purplehaz03]

That was my point. I meant/said that installing programs on another partiton
was not needed. There is a reason to keep them on one partition though, so
thanks for posting the info.


"Nicholas" > wrote in message
...
"When performing a clean install, Microsoft recommends that NTFS be
used and that the system be installed in a single partition on each disk.
Under Windows XP, big partitions are better managed than in previous
versions of Windows. Forcing installed software into several partitions
on the disk necessitates longer seeks when running the system and
software."

Ref: http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/platform/performance/benchmark.asp

I have installed Windows XP in several configuations. In every case where
Windows XP and all programs are installed on one (1) partition, the overall
system performance is quicker. Windows XP is a dynamic O/S, unlike previous
versions of Windows. It continually makes dynamic adjustments to enhance
performance if a single partition is used.

--
Nicholas

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------

"purplehaz03" > wrote in message:
...

|
| For the 1% of the programs that are not tied to the registry or drop a
file
| in system32 folder, having them on another partition is smart. For the 99%
| that are tied to the registry and/or system32 folder, there is no
technical
| reason to do it. To do it would only be for personal preference, not to
| really make the system run better or for any other system benefit.

[purplehaz03]

To take ownership of a file or folder

Open Windows Explorer, and then locate the file or folder you want to take
ownership of.

Right-click the file or folder, click Properties, and then click the
Security tab.

Click Advanced, and then click the Owner tab.

In the Change owner to box, click the new owner.

(Optional) To change the owner of all subcontainers and objects within the
tree, select the Replace owner on subcontainers and objects check box.



Notes:

To open Windows Explorer, click Start, point to All Programs, point to
Accessories, and then click Windows Explorer.

If you are not joined to a domain and want to view the Security tab, see To
display the Security tab.

You can transfer ownership in two ways:

The current owner can grant the Take ownership permission to others,
allowing those users to take ownership at any time.

An administrator can take ownership of any file on the computer. However,
the administrator cannot transfer ownership to others. This restriction
keeps the administrator accountable.

In Windows XP Professional, the Everyone group no longer includes the
Anonymous Logon group.





"David A Gourlay" > wrote in message
...
> One point - I have a second partition for my documents, and because other
> users use my computer, marked the my documents folder as private.
>
> After re-installing, I set up an identical user name, but I couldn't
access
> my documents. Luckily I had backed them up on CD, without the security
> settings, and so I got them back that way, but it gave me a scare. If I
> hadn't backed them up, I might not have been able to access them, as the
> user that owned them did, in XP's view, no longer exist.
>
>
> "sqr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > As you are new to XP here is my advice regarding the partitions. Having
> > multiple partitions will protect important files and the like from the O
S.
> > So place XP in the first partition and in the second the data files, but
> > leave the windows pagefile alone and let the OS control it until you
> become
> > more familiar with it.
> >
> > When you have Windows installed and running the way you want create an
> Image
> > file and place it on a CD. Also backup the data files and programs and
> place
> > them on a CD as well. When the computer goes south you can get the
machine
> > up and running much quicker then re-installing.
> >
> > --
> > Sqr
> > Overseer: alt.os.windows-xp
> > --
> >
> > http://sqr.servebeer.com
> > ftp://sqr.myftp.biz
> >
> >
> > "Ryan A, Saravanja" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I'l be installing the windows xp on a clean formatted drive. I read
in
> > > PCWorld that it's beneficial to create separate partitions on your
> drive.
> > >
> > > Partition 1 - Windows XP operating system (so you can reformat if the
OS
> > > gets buggy)
> > > Partition 2 - Other files
> > > Partition 3 - windows swap file (prevents fragmentation of the drive)
> > >
> > > What are your views on the subject and if you agree what size do you
> > > recommend for the OS and swap file parititions?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Ryan
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ryan A. Saravanja
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Fredzo]

Goog God almighty, lets beat this one and each other for all their worth.
1. Fragmentation will happen with any DOS Windows OS reguardless.
2. Partition 1 "C" no more than 8 gigs, more than 8 gigs and the clusters
start to grow above 4 Kbs.use this for the OS
3. Partition2 "D" Max 8 gigs as above, use for office apps.
4. Partition"E" MP3's etc music, video etc.
5. Partition "F" Graphics Image edition stuff
6. Partition "G" Gamer here is where the games go.

And so on, I dedicate specific partitions to specific jobs and that way I
keep things tidy. It works for me and later if you get tight somewhere
Partition Magic 7 or better can enlarge or shrink partitions in a
non-destructive manner.

Last, you can creats a seperate smaller partition for the swap file. Usually
make it twice the size of your system RAM. If you want to do this make it
the "D" partition though and than after you load the OS go into control
panel and than system, click virtual memory and check the button that allows
you to specify your own settings and tell it to use your "D" partition or
what ever one you intend to use for the swap file.
Hang in there.

[sqr]

This is a security feature built into XP to keep other people from simply
re-installing XP and or removing the hard drive and placing it into another
machine to steal the info.

Go here....
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q308421#2

--
Sqr
Overseer: alt.os.windows-xp
--

http://sqr.servebeer.com
ftp://sqr.myftp.biz


"David A Gourlay" > wrote in message
...
> One point - I have a second partition for my documents, and because other
> users use my computer, marked the my documents folder as private.
>
> After re-installing, I set up an identical user name, but I couldn't
access
> my documents. Luckily I had backed them up on CD, without the security
> settings, and so I got them back that way, but it gave me a scare. If I
> hadn't backed them up, I might not have been able to access them, as the
> user that owned them did, in XP's view, no longer exist.
>
>
> "sqr" > wrote in message
> ...
> > As you are new to XP here is my advice regarding the partitions. Having
> > multiple partitions will protect important files and the like from the
OS.
> > So place XP in the first partition and in the second the data files, but
> > leave the windows pagefile alone and let the OS control it until you
> become
> > more familiar with it.
> >
> > When you have Windows installed and running the way you want create an
> Image
> > file and place it on a CD. Also backup the data files and programs and
> place
> > them on a CD as well. When the computer goes south you can get the
machine
> > up and running much quicker then re-installing.
> >
> > --
> > Sqr
> > Overseer: alt.os.windows-xp
> > --
> >
> > http://sqr.servebeer.com
> > ftp://sqr.myftp.biz
> >
> >
> > "Ryan A, Saravanja" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I'l be installing the windows xp on a clean formatted drive. I read
in
> > > PCWorld that it's beneficial to create separate partitions on your
> drive.
> > >
> > > Partition 1 - Windows XP operating system (so you can reformat if the
OS
> > > gets buggy)
> > > Partition 2 - Other files
> > > Partition 3 - windows swap file (prevents fragmentation of the drive)
> > >
> > > What are your views on the subject and if you agree what size do you
> > > recommend for the OS and swap file parititions?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Ryan
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ryan A. Saravanja
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[sqr]

> have managed to find conflicting reports on the ms kb

BWAHAHAHA again

here's another question: what would happen if you get rid of the pagefile?

--
Sqr
Overseer: alt.os.windows-xp
--

http://sqr.servebeer.com
ftp://sqr.myftp.biz


"Dan DeStefano" <ddestefanoATwinmarcompaniesDOTcom> wrote in message
...
> i guest this thread can go back-and-forth forever, but engaging in battles
> of one-upsmanship hardly serves the purpose of these newsgroups, which are
> to help, not confuse. using newsgroups as platforms to pontificate one's
> "knowledge" and degrade others only serves to confuse the most important
> person in the thread: the original poster.
>
> the bottom line about the pagefile in windows xp is that, if the machine
is
> used as a regular business client or home machine (in other words: not a
> high-end workstation), then placing the pagefile on its own partition
> probably is not worth it, as you will likely never see a noticable or
> appreciable performance boost or hit either way. i have managed to find
> conflicting reports on the ms kb - one article stating that even with a
> single drive it is good to have a separate partition for the pagefile so
> that it does not become fragmented, then another article stating that one
> should not place the pagefile on its own partition on a system with a
> single, physical hdd - so this would justify the debate at hand.
>
> there are more reasons than not to keep a single pagefile and leave it set
> to its default sizes:
>
> 1. the fragmentation argument will not provide enough of a performance
boost
> to be noticable. and, pagefile fragmentation is mitigated by xp's dynamic
> file placement, which optimizes the placement of files on the hdd and will
> arrange optimized files in contiguous clusters, which defragments it;
> benchmark results bare this out.
> 2. the less partitons, the less complex the installation.
> 3. though windows should select the pagefile on the non-boot partition,
> testing has shown that, rather, xp will use both pagefiles. plus, in order
> for xp to be able to create a crash-dump report, there must be a pagefile
on
> the boot partition.
> 4. having just the single boot-partition os will free up hdd space.
>
> note: i usually create a separate pagefile partition for windows
> installations, mainly for nt and 2k, but, in xp, i normally do not use the
> single, default pagefile when using just a single hdd.
>
> if you would like to limit pagefile usage (i recommend against turning
> virtual memory off, as this can cause instability in both windows and
> applications - some apps need a pagefile), then just limit pagefile usage
by
> opening the system.ini file in notepad [%systemroot%\system.ini, where
> %systemroot% refers to the os files (boot partition), which is usually
> c:\windows], and doing the following: place the cursor at the end of the
> "[386enh]" heading, hit enter to create another line underneath, then type
> "ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1" exactly like it appears (case-sensitive),
> without the quotes. this will force windows to prefer physical memory over
> virtual memory, just make sure you have at least 256mb of physical memory.
>
> all that being said, it is a great idea to create a separate partition for
> your data, then assign a volume label to this partition to be able to
easily
> identify it (a volume label of "data" should be fine). this will enable
you
> to format/reinstall the system/boot partition to your heart's content,
while
> not disturbing your data. this will not be any help if your hdd suffers a
> physical failure, but it will enable to you more easily recover from file
> system corruptions on the system/boot partition. depending on the amount
of
> programs you intend to install and the size of your hdd, the system/boot
> partition should be approx 7-20gb in size.
>
> i hope this helps you, ryan. please let me know if you need more
> clarification or justification for these suggestions.
>
> Dan DeStefano
>
>
>
> "Ryan A, Saravanja" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'l be installing the windows xp on a clean formatted drive. I read in
> > PCWorld that it's beneficial to create separate partitions on your
drive.
> >
> > Partition 1 - Windows XP operating system (so you can reformat if the OS
> > gets buggy)
> > Partition 2 - Other files
> > Partition 3 - windows swap file (prevents fragmentation of the drive)
> >
> > What are your views on the subject and if you agree what size do you
> > recommend for the OS and swap file parititions?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > --
> > Ryan A. Saravanja
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[sqr]

>Partition Magic 7

Jesus Christ all Mighty now I have heard of everything......

who uses this piece of beer coaster code anyways in XP?

--
Sqr
Overseer: alt.os.windows-xp
--

http://sqr.servebeer.com
ftp://sqr.myftp.biz


"Fredzo" > wrote in message
news:vjKma.457238$L1.131643@sccrnsc02...
> Goog God almighty, lets beat this one and each other for all their worth.
> 1. Fragmentation will happen with any DOS Windows OS reguardless.
> 2. Partition 1 "C" no more than 8 gigs, more than 8 gigs and the clusters
> start to grow above 4 Kbs.use this for the OS
> 3. Partition2 "D" Max 8 gigs as above, use for office apps.
> 4. Partition"E" MP3's etc music, video etc.
> 5. Partition "F" Graphics Image edition stuff
> 6. Partition "G" Gamer here is where the games go.
>
> And so on, I dedicate specific partitions to specific jobs and that way I
> keep things tidy. It works for me and later if you get tight somewhere
> Partition Magic 7 or better can enlarge or shrink partitions in a
> non-destructive manner.
>
> Last, you can creats a seperate smaller partition for the swap file.
Usually
> make it twice the size of your system RAM. If you want to do this make it
> the "D" partition though and than after you load the OS go into control
> panel and than system, click virtual memory and check the button that
allows
> you to specify your own settings and tell it to use your "D" partition or
> what ever one you intend to use for the swap file.
> Hang in there.
>
>

[Jim Macklin]

some programs won't run, some will crash when the computer
runs out of RAM.


"sqr" > wrote in message
...
| > have managed to find conflicting reports on the ms kb
|
| BWAHAHAHA again
|
| here's another question: what would happen if you get rid
of the pagefile?
|
| --
| Sqr
| Overseer: alt.os.windows-xp
| --
|
| http://sqr.servebeer.com
| ftp://sqr.myftp.biz
|
|
| "Dan DeStefano" <ddestefanoATwinmarcompaniesDOTcom> wrote
in message
| ...
| > i guest this thread can go back-and-forth forever, but
engaging in battles
| > of one-upsmanship hardly serves the purpose of these
newsgroups, which are
| > to help, not confuse. using newsgroups as platforms to
pontificate one's
| > "knowledge" and degrade others only serves to confuse
the most important
| > person in the thread: the original poster.
| >
| > the bottom line about the pagefile in windows xp is
that, if the machine
| is
| > used as a regular business client or home machine (in
other words: not a
| > high-end workstation), then placing the pagefile on its
own partition
| > probably is not worth it, as you will likely never see a
noticable or
| > appreciable performance boost or hit either way. i have
managed to find
| > conflicting reports on the ms kb - one article stating
that even with a
| > single drive it is good to have a separate partition for
the pagefile so
| > that it does not become fragmented, then another article
stating that one
| > should not place the pagefile on its own partition on a
system with a
| > single, physical hdd - so this would justify the debate
at hand.
| >
| > there are more reasons than not to keep a single
pagefile and leave it set
| > to its default sizes:
| >
| > 1. the fragmentation argument will not provide enough of
a performance
| boost
| > to be noticable. and, pagefile fragmentation is
mitigated by xp's dynamic
| > file placement, which optimizes the placement of files
on the hdd and will
| > arrange optimized files in contiguous clusters, which
defragments it;
| > benchmark results bare this out.
| > 2. the less partitons, the less complex the
installation.
| > 3. though windows should select the pagefile on the
non-boot partition,
| > testing has shown that, rather, xp will use both
pagefiles. plus, in order
| > for xp to be able to create a crash-dump report, there
must be a pagefile
| on
| > the boot partition.
| > 4. having just the single boot-partition os will free up
hdd space.
| >
| > note: i usually create a separate pagefile partition for
windows
| > installations, mainly for nt and 2k, but, in xp, i
normally do not use the
| > single, default pagefile when using just a single hdd.
| >
| > if you would like to limit pagefile usage (i recommend
against turning
| > virtual memory off, as this can cause instability in
both windows and
| > applications - some apps need a pagefile), then just
limit pagefile usage
| by
| > opening the system.ini file in notepad
[%systemroot%\system.ini, where
| > %systemroot% refers to the os files (boot partition),
which is usually
| > c:\windows], and doing the following: place the cursor
at the end of the
| > "[386enh]" heading, hit enter to create another line
underneath, then type
| > "ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1" exactly like it appears
(case-sensitive),
| > without the quotes. this will force windows to prefer
physical memory over
| > virtual memory, just make sure you have at least 256mb
of physical memory.
| >
| > all that being said, it is a great idea to create a
separate partition for
| > your data, then assign a volume label to this partition
to be able to
| easily
| > identify it (a volume label of "data" should be fine).
this will enable
| you
| > to format/reinstall the system/boot partition to your
heart's content,
| while
| > not disturbing your data. this will not be any help if
your hdd suffers a
| > physical failure, but it will enable to you more easily
recover from file
| > system corruptions on the system/boot partition.
depending on the amount
| of
| > programs you intend to install and the size of your hdd,
the system/boot
| > partition should be approx 7-20gb in size.
| >
| > i hope this helps you, ryan. please let me know if you
need more
| > clarification or justification for these suggestions.
| >
| > Dan DeStefano
| >
| >
| >
| > "Ryan A, Saravanja" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > > I'l be installing the windows xp on a clean formatted
drive. I read in
| > > PCWorld that it's beneficial to create separate
partitions on your
| drive.
| > >
| > > Partition 1 - Windows XP operating system (so you can
reformat if the OS
| > > gets buggy)
| > > Partition 2 - Other files
| > > Partition 3 - windows swap file (prevents
fragmentation of the drive)
| > >
| > > What are your views on the subject and if you agree
what size do you
| > > recommend for the OS and swap file parititions?
| > >
| > > Thanks
| > >
| > > Ryan
| > >
| > > --
| > > Ryan A. Saravanja
| > >
| > >
| > >
| >
| >
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

PM 8 works better with XP


"sqr" > wrote in message
...
|
| >Partition Magic 7
|
| Jesus Christ all Mighty now I have heard of
everything......
|
| who uses this piece of beer coaster code anyways in XP?
|
| --
| Sqr
| Overseer: alt.os.windows-xp
| --
|
| http://sqr.servebeer.com
| ftp://sqr.myftp.biz
|
|
| "Fredzo" > wrote in message
| news:vjKma.457238$L1.131643@sccrnsc02...
| > Goog God almighty, lets beat this one and each other for
all their worth.
| > 1. Fragmentation will happen with any DOS Windows OS
reguardless.
| > 2. Partition 1 "C" no more than 8 gigs, more than 8 gigs
and the clusters
| > start to grow above 4 Kbs.use this for the OS
| > 3. Partition2 "D" Max 8 gigs as above, use for office
apps.
| > 4. Partition"E" MP3's etc music, video etc.
| > 5. Partition "F" Graphics Image edition stuff
| > 6. Partition "G" Gamer here is where the games go.
| >
| > And so on, I dedicate specific partitions to specific
jobs and that way I
| > keep things tidy. It works for me and later if you get
tight somewhere
| > Partition Magic 7 or better can enlarge or shrink
partitions in a
| > non-destructive manner.
| >
| > Last, you can creats a seperate smaller partition for
the swap file.
| Usually
| > make it twice the size of your system RAM. If you want
to do this make it
| > the "D" partition though and than after you load the OS
go into control
| > panel and than system, click virtual memory and check
the button that
| allows
| > you to specify your own settings and tell it to use your
"D" partition or
| > what ever one you intend to use for the swap file.
| > Hang in there.
| >
| >
|
|

[Gazwad]

purplehaz03 asked wistfully...

|| Wait, I might have thought of a reason to have apps on another
|| partition. If you exported and saved the registry to cd, then
|| formatted c drive leaving apps on d drive alone, install xp on c,
|| then bring the old registry back the apps might work as normal. I
|| never tried it though so who knows.

That of course assumes you are able to track down all the reg entries for
whichever program. The only programs I install to a different partition are
those I share between two different OS's or those which carry a large amount
of data which cannot be placed elsewhere. The reason for the latter example
is solely to reduce the size of a ghost image taken of the OS.

--

Gazwad

Freelance scientist and people tester.
Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
Moderator: alt.warez.uk

http://angry.at/gazwad
http://gazwad.servebeer.com

[purplehaz03]

"Gazwad" <Dont Be So FarKing WeeTarDid> wrote in message
...
> purplehaz03 asked wistfully...
>
> || Wait, I might have thought of a reason to have apps on another
> || partition. If you exported and saved the registry to cd, then
> || formatted c drive leaving apps on d drive alone, install xp on c,
> || then bring the old registry back the apps might work as normal. I
> || never tried it though so who knows.
>
> That of course assumes you are able to track down all the reg entries for
> whichever program. The only programs I install to a different partition
are
> those I share between two different OS's or those which carry a large
amount
> of data which cannot be placed elsewhere. The reason for the latter
example
> is solely to reduce the size of a ghost image taken of the OS.
>

That makes sense.

[jaster]

Why not use folders ? Less overhead, less work.

"Fredzo" > wrote in message
news:vjKma.457238$L1.131643@sccrnsc02...
> Goog God almighty, lets beat this one and each other for all their worth.
> 1. Fragmentation will happen with any DOS Windows OS reguardless.
> 2. Partition 1 "C" no more than 8 gigs, more than 8 gigs and the clusters
> start to grow above 4 Kbs.use this for the OS
> 3. Partition2 "D" Max 8 gigs as above, use for office apps.
> 4. Partition"E" MP3's etc music, video etc.
> 5. Partition "F" Graphics Image edition stuff
> 6. Partition "G" Gamer here is where the games go.
>
> And so on, I dedicate specific partitions to specific jobs and that way I
> keep things tidy. It works for me and later if you get tight somewhere
> Partition Magic 7 or better can enlarge or shrink partitions in a
> non-destructive manner.
>
> Last, you can creats a seperate smaller partition for the swap file.
Usually
> make it twice the size of your system RAM. If you want to do this make it
> the "D" partition though and than after you load the OS go into control
> panel and than system, click virtual memory and check the button that
allows
> you to specify your own settings and tell it to use your "D" partition or
> what ever one you intend to use for the swap file.
> Hang in there.
>
>

[Dan DeStefano]

again, if you cannot be polite, please do not post. especially if you are
posting theorys not supported by any empirical data or benchmarks. could you
provide a link or links to reputable sources that support your contention?
do you have any benchmarks conducted in your "real world" that support your
methods? i doubt it on both fronts.
if you really do not know why you do something or cannot prove why it is
better, then please do not sit on the ng postulating your unproven
"theorys" - or, at least, state them as that: theorys and opinions, not
fact. the reason people usually resort to childish name-calling is when they
either are unsure of themselves or are wrong but are too proud to admit it;
which applies to you?

do you purchase a new file cabinet for each document you want to store?
do you purchase a new bookshelf for each book you own?
do you purchase a new car for every destination to which you want to travel?

remember, this is a windows xp ng, not a w95 osr1 ng.

dont get me wrong, i am perfectly willing to accept your method of hard disk
partitioning just as long as you can prove that it is better. however,
absent of that, you just sound like a nauseating know-it-all who is just
pontificating beliefs and gets extremely defensive when his fragile ego is
challenged.

in a place where people are trying to help one another, there is no room for
the likes of you. so, again, unless you can prove your way is better, please
stop posting.

Dan DeStefano


"Gazwad" <Dont Be So FarKing WeeTarDid> wrote in message
...
> Dan DeStefano asked wistfully...
>
> || gazwad,
> ||
> || if you consider what you are writing help, then please do not post
> || anymore. we are all here to help each other and this is made much
> || more pleasant and easy if someone does not have to be subjected to
> || immature name-calling.
> ||
> || formatting your machine with a single partition is, in fact, not
> || "brain-dead," it is actually the preferred method in windows xp.
> || this is true, otherwise ms would not suggest doing just this, as
> || they do in several kb articles, here is one:
> || http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/tech/storage/ntfs-preinstall.asp.
> || plus, the more partitions on your machine, the more you reduce your
> || usable storage capacity as each partition will need to claim some
> || free space for management, journaling, etc; and the more partitions,
> || the more overhead you place on file system management. this is made
> || worse by xp's file placement optimization, because it will have to
> || worry about optimizing file placement on several partitions, instead
> || of just one.
> || additionally, the more partitions you have, the more complex your
> || installation becomes, especially for the novice user.
> || finally, the type of organization you claim to need separate
> || partitions for can be accomplished via the use of folders, with
> || minimal drawbacks.
> ||
> || in conclusion, next time, if you dont have anything nice to say...
> ||
>
> Piffle, brain-dead by your own admission you are also a top-posting waste
of
> skin and air.
>
> I suggest you pull your head out of your M$ arse and look at how things
are
> done in the real world.
>
> --
>
> Gazwad
>
> Freelance scientist and people tester.
> Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
> Moderator: alt.warez.uk
>
> http://angry.at/gazwad
> http://gazwad.servebeer.com
>
>

[[email protected]]

I run Win XP Pro

I have three partitions on my 40 gig drive

On one partition I have the OS and swap file and all
the apps.

On another partition I have all my data.... MP3 files,
pictures, etc.

And lastly on the third partition I have copies of the
install disk for all my software.... i.e MS Office,
Acrobat, etc.

What this allows me to do is to format the C partition
"clean".... and then to quickly re-install all my apps
from that one partition rather than have to drag out
all my CDs.

What's everyone think of this strategy?

[[email protected]]

>PM 8 works better with XP


How so?

[Ed C]

>
> do you purchase a new file cabinet for each document you want to store?

No but you purchase a filing cabinet with more than 1 drawer/partition.

> do you purchase a new bookshelf for each book you own?

No but you purchase a new bookshelf with more than 1 shelf/partition

> do you purchase a new car for every destination to which you want to
travel?

This makes no sense.



--
Ed Chatlos

[Gazwad]

Dan DeStefano asked wistfully...

|| again, if you cannot be polite, please do not post. especially if
|| you are posting theorys not supported by any empirical data or
|| benchmarks.

I am being polite.

|| could you provide a link or links to reputable sources
|| that support your contention?

I am afraid I do not have the time to do any research to provide proof that
you are brain-dead. However you have already admitted to the fact so it
seems further proof is not required.

|| do you have any benchmarks conducted
|| in your "real world" that support your methods?

Whatever are you droning on about now?

|| if you really do not know why you do something or cannot prove why
|| it is better, then please do not sit on the ng postulating your
|| unproven "theorys"

What theory? Please point out where anyone mentioned any theory about
anything.

|| - or, at least, state them as that: theorys and
|| opinions, not fact.

Again it isn't a theory that you are brain-dead, it is irrevocable fact.

|| the reason people usually resort to childish
|| name-calling is when they either are unsure of themselves or are
|| wrong but are too proud to admit it; which applies to you?

Neither, I always speak as I find if someone is a brain-dead ****wit then I
say so.

||
|| do you purchase a new file cabinet for each document you want to
|| store?
|| do you purchase a new bookshelf for each book you own?
|| do you purchase a new car for every destination to which you want to
|| travel?
||

You appear to have problems dealing with reality, maybe you should get
someone to pinch you.

|| remember, this is a windows xp ng, not a w95 osr1 ng.
||

Which is a windows xp newsgroup? You seem to believe that you are only
posting into one group. Please quantify which group you belong to so the OP
can get a gauge of how reliable your drivel is.


|| dont get me wrong, i am perfectly willing to accept your method of
|| hard disk partitioning just as long as you can prove that it is
|| better.

What proof do you need?

|| however, absent of that,

Please try to keep one subject per thread, you seem to be flitting from a
discussion about properly partitioning a hard drive and one about your empty
mind.

|| you just sound like a nauseating
|| know-it-all who is just pontificating beliefs and gets extremely
|| defensive when his fragile ego is challenged.
||

I can sound like many things, I do as I please but lets get back to the
discussion in hand and please do not try to change the subject again. The
subject is your being a brain-dead ****wit.

|| in a place where people are trying to help one another, there is no
|| room for the likes of you.

As far as I can see there are two posters who have actually posted anything
of benefit to the OP. One is SQR and your are not the other.

|| so, again, unless you can prove your way
|| is better, please stop posting.
||

I post when there is a need to, with "advise" from people like you it seems
the need will continue.

--

Gazwad

Freelance scientist and people tester.
Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
Moderator: alt.warez.uk

http://angry.at/gazwad
http://gazwad.servebeer.com

[Gazwad]

Unknown asked wistfully...

|| Very well said.

You hear Usenet posts do you?

--

Gazwad

Freelance scientist and people tester.
Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
Moderator: alt.warez.uk

http://angry.at/gazwad
http://gazwad.servebeer.com

[Dan DeStefano]

ed,

i do not know who you are, but, unless you are the same person as gazwad,
please stay out of it, as i was not talking to you.

so, now we are going to start nit-picking analogies? analagies are not
perfect comparisons, that is why they are analagies, ok. what's next? do we
start critiquing each other's grammar and spelling?

when will this nonsense end?

well, for me, it ends right now - i am done with this thread and we are all
wasting time that can be spent productively by helping others.

Dan DeStefano


"Ed C" <edchat-at-bellsouth-dot-net> wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > do you purchase a new file cabinet for each document you want to store?
>
> No but you purchase a filing cabinet with more than 1 drawer/partition.
>
> > do you purchase a new bookshelf for each book you own?
>
> No but you purchase a new bookshelf with more than 1 shelf/partition
>
> > do you purchase a new car for every destination to which you want to
> travel?
>
> This makes no sense.
>
>
>
> --
> Ed Chatlos
>
>
>

[Gazwad]

Dan DeStefano asked wistfully...

|| ed,
||
|| i do not know who you are, but, unless you are the same person as
|| gazwad, please stay out of it, as i was not talking to you.
||
|| so, now we are going to start nit-picking analogies? analagies are
|| not perfect comparisons, that is why they are analagies, ok. what's
|| next? do we start critiquing each other's grammar and spelling?
||

Seems your massive ego just couldn't take someone else pointing out that
you're ****ed in the head, eh?

|| when will this nonsense end?

When you admit that in the real world things are done properly, despite what
M$ or other companies that may have to provide support might tell people,
after all they intend to make their lives easy not the end user.

||
|| well, for me, it ends right now - i am done with this thread and we
|| are all wasting time that can be spent productively by helping
|| others.
||

Don't let the door slam you in the arse on the way out.

--

Gazwad

Freelance scientist and people tester.
Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
Moderator: alt.warez.uk

http://angry.at/gazwad
http://gazwad.servebeer.com

[Unknown]

Very well said.
"Dan DeStefano" <ddestefanoATwinmarcompaniesDOTcom> wrote in message
...
> again, if you cannot be polite, please do not post. especially if you are
> posting theorys not supported by any empirical data or benchmarks. could
you
> provide a link or links to reputable sources that support your contention?
> do you have any benchmarks conducted in your "real world" that support
your
> methods? i doubt it on both fronts.
> if you really do not know why you do something or cannot prove why it is
> better, then please do not sit on the ng postulating your unproven
> "theorys" - or, at least, state them as that: theorys and opinions, not
> fact. the reason people usually resort to childish name-calling is when
they
> either are unsure of themselves or are wrong but are too proud to admit
it;
> which applies to you?
>
> do you purchase a new file cabinet for each document you want to store?
> do you purchase a new bookshelf for each book you own?
> do you purchase a new car for every destination to which you want to
travel?
>
> remember, this is a windows xp ng, not a w95 osr1 ng.
>
> dont get me wrong, i am perfectly willing to accept your method of hard
disk
> partitioning just as long as you can prove that it is better. however,
> absent of that, you just sound like a nauseating know-it-all who is just
> pontificating beliefs and gets extremely defensive when his fragile ego is
> challenged.
>
> in a place where people are trying to help one another, there is no room
for
> the likes of you. so, again, unless you can prove your way is better,
please
> stop posting.
>
> Dan DeStefano
>
>
> "Gazwad" <Dont Be So FarKing WeeTarDid> wrote in message
> ...
> > Dan DeStefano asked wistfully...
> >
> > || gazwad,
> > ||
> > || if you consider what you are writing help, then please do not post
> > || anymore. we are all here to help each other and this is made much
> > || more pleasant and easy if someone does not have to be subjected to
> > || immature name-calling.
> > ||
> > || formatting your machine with a single partition is, in fact, not
> > || "brain-dead," it is actually the preferred method in windows xp.
> > || this is true, otherwise ms would not suggest doing just this, as
> > || they do in several kb articles, here is one:
> > || http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/tech/storage/ntfs-preinstall.asp.
> > || plus, the more partitions on your machine, the more you reduce your
> > || usable storage capacity as each partition will need to claim some
> > || free space for management, journaling, etc; and the more partitions,
> > || the more overhead you place on file system management. this is made
> > || worse by xp's file placement optimization, because it will have to
> > || worry about optimizing file placement on several partitions, instead
> > || of just one.
> > || additionally, the more partitions you have, the more complex your
> > || installation becomes, especially for the novice user.
> > || finally, the type of organization you claim to need separate
> > || partitions for can be accomplished via the use of folders, with
> > || minimal drawbacks.
> > ||
> > || in conclusion, next time, if you dont have anything nice to say...
> > ||
> >
> > Piffle, brain-dead by your own admission you are also a top-posting
waste
> of
> > skin and air.
> >
> > I suggest you pull your head out of your M$ arse and look at how things
> are
> > done in the real world.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Gazwad
> >
> > Freelance scientist and people tester.
> > Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
> > Moderator: alt.warez.uk
> >
> > http://angry.at/gazwad
> > http://gazwad.servebeer.com
> >
> >
>
>

[Unknown]

Of course: I have my volume turned up.
"Gazwad" <Dont Be So FarKing WeeTarDid> wrote in message
...
> Unknown asked wistfully...
>
> || Very well said.
>
> You hear Usenet posts do you?
>
> --
>
> Gazwad
>
> Freelance scientist and people tester.
> Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
> Moderator: alt.warez.uk
>
> http://angry.at/gazwad
> http://gazwad.servebeer.com
>
>

[werner stern]

I have found that in terms of organization with the size of drives available
today, it makes sense to have several partitions set up as logical drives. I
have 1 partition with the o/s on it and the programs that won't work unless
they are on the system drive. I set up a second drive as a "copy" drive
exactly the same as my system drive before I upgraded to Windows XP. That
way the programs on my program drives (I have two set up for that), will be
able to draw on the system/system32 dll files when I try to run them. I have
data drives and program copy directories on separate logical drives.

That way I have easy control of what is on my hard drives. I have 2 HDD's.
One is 40gig and one is 120gig.

I do a lot of program evaluation and beta testing so I need to keep it
pretty orderly as I'm constantly crashing the programs.

I'm only giving my setup as an example on what can be done not what should
be done. I have friends who only go onto the net and they never download
programs or music or pictures and they are very comfortable with a single
drive.

They never backup their data and have no idea on how slow the machine gets
without defragging or cleaning out their temp files or internet temp files.

They are happy just to be chugging along and every once in a while they ask
me to check out their machine. I don't try to explain but just do it for
them. As I said they are happy and so am I.

--
Regards,

Werner

Remove nospam from email address

"purplehaz03" > wrote in message
...
> IMHO -- putting programs on another partition serves no purpose really
> except for organization. If it's programs and not data you want to put on
> the second partition, if you ever need to format the xp partition or
> re-install xp, the programs on the second partition would need to be
> re-installed as well, so I don't see the point of putting programs on
> another partition. Data on another partition is smart. If you still want
to
> put the program on another partition you won't get any performance hit,
it's
> just not needed. As for PC world, they are a magazine that gives it's
> opinions based on the facts and experience they know, just like we all
give
> our opinions here. You decide which way is best for you depending on your
> situation.
>
>
> "Ryan A, Saravanja" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "purplehaz03" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On partition 2 he said other files....... not program files. If by
other
> > > files he means data files, music, videos, pictures, spreadsheets, word
> > docs,
> > > txt docs, .iso's, personal my documents stuff, etc.... then it is a
good
> > > idea to have two partitons. I agree with the swap file, don't move
that.
> > Two
> > > partitons will do fine.
>
> >
> > I meant the program files. It seems people still se the need to
reinstall
> > WinXP once a year (i thought that was over) so this just seems easier.
> Will
> > this setup result in a performance hit or will other more serious
problems
> > result?
> >
> > And does PCWorld not know what they are talking bout?
> >
>
>

[werner stern]

I do it to manage clusters. Makes loading and saving easier.

--
Regards,

Werner

Remove nospam from email address

"purplehaz03" > wrote in message
...
> What are you talking about. What purpose does installing apps (programs)
on
> another partition serve? Like I said, data files on another partition is
> good, but why would you install programs on another partition?
>
>
> "Gazwad" <Dont Be So FarKing WeeTarDid> wrote in message
> ...
> > purplehaz03 asked wistfully...
> >
> > || IMHO -- putting programs on another partition serves no purpose
> > || really
> >
> > OK, who left the door open?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Gazwad
> >
> > Freelance scientist and people tester.
> > Guardian: alt.os.windows-xp
> > Moderator: alt.warez.uk
> >
> > http://angry.at/gazwad
> > http://gazwad.servebeer.com
> >
> >
>
>

[Peter Hutchison]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:42:24 -0700, "Brian" >
wrote:

>Currently I have a Korean Windows XP Professional in my pc. Since some
>applications look ugly under my non-english XP, I'd like to change it to
>English Version of Windows XP. Because I understand Korean xp is not
>qualified for upgrade to english xp, I am going to upgrade from my old
>English version of Windows 98 SE.
>
>As far as I know, during the installation of XP, upgrade versionof XP seeks
>qualified products to proceed installation. To do this, do I have to delete
>all korean version of windows xp, such as windows directory? I am just
>wondering if english windows xp upgrade terminates installation procedure
>once it finds korean version of windows xp since it is not qualified or if
>it still prompts message like "Insert qualified product cd" so that I can
>insert my windows 98 se for validation.
>
>What I want to do is English Windows XP upgrade installation from Windows 98
>SE without repartitioning or formating and keep current file system. So, if
>english xp upgrade cd finds korean xp professional during installation and
>terminates installation, I think I have to delete some files or folders of
>windows xp to make english windows xp unable to detect my korean windows xp
>professional. In this case, what folder or file should I delete?

Deleting the C:\Windows folder should be fine (assuming Windows will
let you delete it...)

Peter Hutchison
Windows FAQ
http://www.pcguru.plus.com/