Best partition program

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:53:47 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote:

It's a LOT faster, and if you partition things correctly, backs up only what
you need, and not the peripheral stuff, like video and audio files.

That is, you can just back up the C: partition (user programs, windows, and
data), and not the other partitions reserved for large video and audio
files, for example.

I merely select the appropriate folders to back up.

Why would you not want to back up your audio and video files?
--ron

On 11/26/2009 5:07 AM, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:53:47 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote:

It's a LOT faster, and if you partition things correctly, backs up only what
you need, and not the peripheral stuff, like video and audio files.

That is, you can just back up the C: partition (user programs, windows, and
data), and not the other partitions reserved for large video and audio
files, for example.

I merely select the appropriate folders to back up.

Why would you not want to back up your audio and video files?

How often does the contents of those folders change? It would be
pointless to do a daily backup if the contents only changed once a month...

--

Roy Smith
Windows XP Pro SP3

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 05:29:40 -0600, Roy Smith wrote:

How often does the contents of those folders change? It would be
pointless to do a daily backup if the contents only changed once a month...

Of course. Doesn't your backup system allow for skipping already backed-up and
unchanged files?

The backup programs I've used have a capability for something called
"incremental" or "differential" backups. This allows me to only back up the
files that have changed since the last "complete" backup (or the last
"incremental" backup if using that scheme).

Hence, if the contents of a folder didn't change, it would only be backed up
when I did a complete backup.

I usually schedule a complete backup to be done monthly, and differential
backups daily. If backup space were at a premium, one could do incremental
rather than differential backups.

The programs I've used that have this capability include the backup program
packaged with XP Pro, as well as Acronis.

--ron

well, I would disagree.

many of us who partition our
disks "know" exactly what we
are doing and why.

many of us who use additional
hard drives to store user data
know exactly what we are
doing and why.

if not, then we would have
everything on a single
partition;

which is an inefficient use
of disk space.

but to each their own.


--
db·´¯`·...¸)))º
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:37:49 -0600, Roy Smith
wrote:


Just because I have these files on a separate drive doesn't mean that I
don't back them up either. A hard drive can die at any given moment...


As long as you understand that, I have no problem with you (or anyone
else) keeping your data on a separate partition form Windows.

The point I made earlier in this thread is that the enormous majority
of people who keep their data on a separate partition from Windows do
it without understanding what you do, and do it because they
erroneously think that it protects their data.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:53:21 -0600, "db" wrote:

well, I would disagree.

many of us who partition our
disks "know" exactly what we
are doing and why.

Are you able to share that "knowledge"? So far, all I've read from you is:

the success for not loosing
the personal data is not
having it comingled with
the system files.

there are many benefits
for the above.

But I don't understand why having personal data and system data on the same
partition increases the risk of loss of the personal data (assuming a proper
backup program is instituted).



many of us who use additional
hard drives to store user data
know exactly what we are
doing and why.

My question has not concerned this. I can see logical reasons for using
separate drives.


if not, then we would have
everything on a single
partition;

which is an inefficient use
of disk space.

Inefficient -- how?

--ron

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:53:47 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote:

It's a LOT faster, and if you partition things correctly, backs up only
what
you need, and not the peripheral stuff, like video and audio files.

That is, you can just back up the C: partition (user programs, windows,
and
data), and not the other partitions reserved for large video and audio
files, for example.

I merely select the appropriate folders to back up.

Why would you not want to back up your audio and video files?
--ron

I already have one backup of those, and those don't change all that much.

What IS, however, critically important, is a backup of the system (and also
some personal data on that drive), because of the various software tests I
often try out.

By keeping the large audio and video files in one or two separate (and quite
large) partitions, I drastically cut down on the backup and restore times
AND the required partition space needed for a system image backup. And as I
said, the latter don't change all that much, anyways.

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:00:14 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote:

What IS, however, critically important, is a backup of the system (and also
some personal data on that drive), because of the various software tests I
often try out.

OK. If I were in a situation where I frequently had to restore system images,
in the normal course of my work, I can understand, and agree with your reason
for using partitions as you describe.

I can also understand partitioning when using multiple OS's (multi-booting
setups).

And, of course, in instances where the user is doing developmental work,
especially work that may seriously crash the OS to the point of having to
reformat the drive in order to restore, that partitioning a single drive could
also be a valuable time saver.

And when file systems were more severely limited in size, partitioning could
also play a useful role. (I recall when Apple came out with a 5*MB* hard drive,
and it was great!).

For an "ordinary" user (non-developer type), today, however, it seems to me
that the benefits of partitioning are outweighed by the increased time required
to properly organize and maintain the partitioning scheme. I think I'm best
served by implementing and maintaining a robust backup method.
--ron

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
(SNIP)
I think I'm best served by implementing and maintaining a robust backup
method.
--ron


Ron:
I trust you (and others coming upon this thread) will pardon me for not
including all the previous posts in this thread or at least the pertinent
portions dealing with the pros & cons re multi-partitioning one's HDD.

I believe your final statement in your latest post is (for most PC users)
the most sensible approach one can take re this issue when weighing the pros
& cons of multi-partitioning. Nearly needless to say this subject has been
heatedly debated over the years and probably will continue to do so over the
foreseeable future.

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.

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 (as you have indicated) 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 dysfunctional and unbootable, 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 5
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 it will provide enhanced
performance of the 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 your HDD is the most desirable course of action, then
they should go ahead and partition away. But even if they do - I hope the
user will establish and use on a routine basis a backup system that meets
their particular needs.That, in my opinion, should be their crucial
objective.
Anna

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:35:17 +1100, Terry Heinz
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:23:32 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:08:50 +1100, Terry Heinz
wrote:

I install the operating system on C: but install other non Microsoft
programs on D:. So when I format C: and reinstall the OS, Agent & Opera
etc. settings are still current on D:.

snip

Three points:

1. You say "*when* [emphasis added] I format C: and reinstall the OS,"
but in my view, with a modicum of care, you should *never* have to do
that.

2. Just in case you don't understand it, let me mention that if you
reinstall Windows, you will also have to reinstall almost all your
programs. It's only a rare, usually small, program that will survive a
reinstallation of Windows.

3. If settings for any program are important to you, they should be
backed up to external backup devices, just like any other data that is
important to you.

I seem to reinstall the OS fairly often so perhaps I'm lacking that modicom
of care.


I'm afraid that that's correct. I've *never* needed to reinstall any
version of Windows.


I do backup all the programs I install to D: drive.


An internal D: drive? Backing up to an internal drive is, in my
opinion, far and away the weakest form of backup. Real backup needs to
be done to external media.


I think that's a very poor reason, since relying on partition
separation is very much inferior to doing regular backups of your data
(or the entire drive) on external media. Be aware that you can easily
lose your entire drive, not just the data, to things like drive
crashes, power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, user
errors, and theft of the computer.

Ken, I appreciate being able to read your posts, but would like to ask:
"Where did you install your Agent 6."?

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "where." I installed it here in
my home. On my Windows 7 computer. Over the copy of Agent 5 I had, in
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Agent.

Is one of those answers the one you were looking for?

Yes thanks. Sorry about that it was a bit of a silly question.


OK. You're welcome.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"Anna" wrote in message
...

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
(SNIP)
I think I'm best served by implementing and maintaining a robust backup
method.
--ron


Ron:
I trust you (and others coming upon this thread) will pardon me for not
including all the previous posts in this thread or at least the pertinent
portions dealing with the pros & cons re multi-partitioning one's HDD.

I believe your final statement in your latest post is (for most PC users)
the most sensible approach one can take re this issue when weighing the
pros & cons of multi-partitioning. Nearly needless to say this subject has
been heatedly debated over the years and probably will continue to do so
over the foreseeable future.

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.

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 (as you have indicated) 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 dysfunctional and unbootable,
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 5 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 it will
provide enhanced performance of the 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 your HDD is the most desirable course of action, then
they should go ahead and partition away. But even if they do - I hope the
user will establish and use on a routine basis a backup system that meets
their particular needs.That, in my opinion, should be their crucial
objective.
Anna


Wow, are you related to Paul LOL?
That's a lot of info, and all of it good. I agree that a single partition on
any "modern" (less than 10 years old) is the best way to go. Way back when,
we had smaller HDD's at work since that was all that was available, and
would have multiple partitions on the drives for the mapped network drives.
The first drive would have a smaller system partition, and a larger one for
program installation. I know of more than one time, we started running out
of space on the system drive because of service packs, updates, etc.
Partition Magic (Server Magic?) took care of it (most times), but I don't
know how many times I tried to convince the powers-that-be that separate
single partition drives would be cheaper, easier to handle, and more
reliable in the long run before they finally caved in and let me try it at
my location. After a year of my servers having no problems to their numerous
ones, they thought it was a good idea. And I still feel that way. I haven't
had multiple partitions since late DOS, early Windows days on my home or
work PC's.

Thanks for the information.
SC Tom

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:00:14 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote:

What IS, however, critically important, is a backup of the system (and
also
some personal data on that drive), because of the various software tests
I
often try out.

OK. If I were in a situation where I frequently had to restore system
images,
in the normal course of my work, I can understand, and agree with your
reason for using partitions as you describe.

I can also understand partitioning when using multiple OS's (multi-booting
setups).

And, of course, in instances where the user is doing developmental work,
especially work that may seriously crash the OS to the point of having to
reformat the drive in order to restore, that partitioning a single drive
could
also be a valuable time saver.

And when file systems were more severely limited in size, partitioning
could
also play a useful role. (I recall when Apple came out with a 5*MB* hard
drive, and it was great!).

For an "ordinary" user (non-developer type), today, however, it seems to
me that the benefits of partitioning are outweighed by the increased time
required to properly organize and maintain the partitioning scheme. I
think
I'm best served by implementing and maintaining a robust backup method.
--ron

I'd also agree that doing that, and just using a single partition, works
well in the majority of cases. And that it would probably be best (and
concurrently the simplest), for most people's needs.

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:09:01 -0500, "Anna" wrote:

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 your HDD is the most desirable course of action, then
they should go ahead and partition away. But even if they do - I hope the
user will establish and use on a routine basis a backup system that meets
their particular needs.That, in my opinion, should be their crucial
objective.

Thank you for that nice summary. It seems I am not alone in my thinking on
this matter :-)
--ron

most of us do not use your
particular methodology

there are other methods for
ensuring data is not lost other
than the archaic backup you
are comfortable with.

therefore your assumption
cannot be applied to "everyone".


~ gl.

--
db·´¯`·...¸)))º
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:53:21 -0600, "db" wrote:

well, I would disagree.

many of us who partition our
disks "know" exactly what we
are doing and why.

Are you able to share that "knowledge"? So far, all I've read from you
is:

the success for not loosing
the personal data is not
having it comingled with
the system files.

there are many benefits
for the above.

But I don't understand why having personal data and system data on the
same
partition increases the risk of loss of the personal data (assuming a
proper
backup program is instituted).



many of us who use additional
hard drives to store user data
know exactly what we are
doing and why.

My question has not concerned this. I can see logical reasons for using
separate drives.


if not, then we would have
everything on a single
partition;

which is an inefficient use
of disk space.

Inefficient -- how?

--ron

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:09:32 +1100, Terry Heinz
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:41:30 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:35:17 +1100, Terry Heinz
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:23:32 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:08:50 +1100, Terry Heinz
wrote:

I install the operating system on C: but install other non Microsoft
programs on D:. So when I format C: and reinstall the OS, Agent & Opera
etc. settings are still current on D:.

snip

Three points:

1. You say "*when* [emphasis added] I format C: and reinstall the OS,"
but in my view, with a modicum of care, you should *never* have to do
that.

2. Just in case you don't understand it, let me mention that if you
reinstall Windows, you will also have to reinstall almost all your
programs. It's only a rare, usually small, program that will survive a
reinstallation of Windows.

3. If settings for any program are important to you, they should be
backed up to external backup devices, just like any other data that is
important to you.

I seem to reinstall the OS fairly often so perhaps I'm lacking that modicom
of care.


I'm afraid that that's correct. I've *never* needed to reinstall any
version of Windows.


I do backup all the programs I install to D: drive.


An internal D: drive? Backing up to an internal drive is, in my
opinion, far and away the weakest form of backup. Real backup needs to
be done to external media.

I install to an internal D: drive but backup on external drives.


Sorry for misunderstanding you, but that wasn't clear to me from your
earlier message.

So you are backing up installed programs? Please see the point number
2 I made earlier, quoted above. In general, backing up installed
programs is useless, because you are only backing up parts of
programs. You aren't backing up their many registry entries, nor other
important files they need that are within \Windows.


I'm sorry for my poor English.


Your English is fine. No need to apologize. Is your native language
German (I'm guessing that from your name "Heinz")? Although I studied
German in college (many years ago), your English is much better than
my German ever was.


I install many programs to my internal D:
drive. I also install binaries, mostly Music to E: drive.

But I use two alternative external drives for backups
I use one drive today the second drive tomorrow.


Alternating backup drives is an *excellent* thing to do.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 08:56:07 -0600, "db" wrote:

most of us do not use your
particular methodology

there are other methods for
ensuring data is not lost other
than the archaic backup you
are comfortable with.

therefore your assumption
cannot be applied to "everyone".

I'm not sure what assumption you are writing about; and I know I never claimed
anything I wrote could be applied to "everyone".



So if I understand you correctly, you are writing that one should engage in the
workload of setting up multiple partitions on a single physical hard drive
because *you* claim it is a "good idea"; "more efficient"; "less prone to data
loss"; "done by 'most of us'"; backing up as I do it is "archaic".

And I should accept this information from you because of ... ???

You seem unable to offer any information by which one could judge
scientifically the merit of your statements. And when asked such questions
trying to understand why not partitioning is "inefficient", you respond by
claiming my method of backup is archaic.

It is the nature of the Internet that seemingly authoritative statements, such
as yours, are challenged by those of us looking to advance our knowledge,
rather than adopting practices based on faith alone. I now realize that asking
you to give scientifically verifiable reasons for your recommended practices is
a fruitless endeavor, so I won't pursue this any further. Thanks anyway.
--ron