Best partition program

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:31:49 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
wrote:

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 :-)


You're not alone by any means. I am also in general agreement with
what Anna says. You might like to read this article I wrote not too
long ago: "Understanding Disk Partitioning" at
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326

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

the problem with backups of the system
files that include user files has its
drawbacks.

consider the following.

so you make backups of your single
partition religiously, which a good
computer user would normally do.

however, what if you have contracted
a trojan or other virus and it was also
backed up with your archives.

how do you plan to restore your system
to a functional and virus free state?

the only option in the scenario above
is to format the disk and re install the
o.s. from scratch.

now you have to contend with restoring
your user files.

however, your archives are corrupt
and any copying of the data from
the archives can re infest your system.

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

therefore my suggestion is to look
at this from a logistical stand point
whereas your system files and a.v's
are soldiers and the user files are
like civilians.

the system is always under the threat
of attacks.

sabotaging your o.s. is the desired
outcome of malware "and" they are
sometimes successful.

now consider your user files as
civilians.

you would not want the civilians on
the battlefield.

instead you would want to move
to a safe place, like a non system
partition.

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

of course the above is not fool proof
either but it is better than having a
single partition with all the files on
it.

the likely hood that you will lose
the system partition and everything
on it is "greater" than the likelihood
that a non system partition or
secondary hard drive will fail.
--
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 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

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:50:07 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

You're not alone by any means. I am also in general agreement with
what Anna says. You might like to read this article I wrote not too
long ago: "Understanding Disk Partitioning" at
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326

Interesting article Ken. Thanks for the reference. I enjoyed reading it.

I am one of those who backs up just my data. In your article, you write that
"backup is usually facilitated by having a separate partition with data only".

Most of my data is in the "My Documents" folder (XP-PRO) and that is the data
that could be easily moved to a separate partition. However, there is other
data that needs to be backed up that is located elsewhere, and is not so easily
moved. Some data is even in the "My Programs" folder -- Forte Agent, my
newsreader of choice, keeps its data files and settings together with the
program; lots of difficult to reproduce settings are kept in C:\Documents and
Settings\user_name\Application Data\... or ...\Local Settings\ so there are
always a few sub folders there that need to get backed up; and so forth. MS
Office Accounting keeps its DB in a C:\Program Files\... subfolder.

In the backup programs I use, once I've figured out where the information in
addition to the contents of "My Documents" is located, the program "memorizes"
those settings, which rarely change.

So, at least for me, I don't see a separate data partition as facilitating my
backup.

Thanks again.
--ron

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:03:32 -0600, "db" wrote:

so you make backups of your single
partition religiously, which a good
computer user would normally do.

however, what if you have contracted
a trojan or other virus and it was also
backed up with your archives.

how do you plan to restore your system
to a functional and virus free state?

the only option in the scenario above
is to format the disk and re install the
o.s. from scratch.

now you have to contend with restoring
your user files.

however, your archives are corrupt
and any copying of the data from
the archives can re infest your system.

Interesting arguments. Something I can research.

I have no problem with reformatting the hard drive and reinstalling the OS, if
necessary. That is no more difficult than setting up a brand new computer,
re-installing programs, and transferring my old data. Not to say that is a
task I enjoy, but I've done it often enough that I gave that process as a gift
to my wife when she decides to get a new computer :-)

If I understand what you write correctly, you feel that separate partitions
reduce the chance of having an unrepairable and unrecognizable virus or trojan
mixed in with your data files. Or, possibly, you mean that even if the
trojan/virus is not a part of the *data* files, the fact that it is in an
archive being restored will somehow reactivate it, even if all one is doing is
restoring personal data, and not programs, dll's, etc.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood what you intended.

Off the top of my head, it seems to me that if the virus is infecting a data
file, and that file is being backed up, having it in a separate partition is
not going to reduce that risk.

On the other hand, if somehow the act of extracting a data file from an archive
that happens to have a virus somewhere other than embedded within a data file,
using an OS and programs from a new, clean installation, will trigger that
virus, then having the data in a separate partition might make some sense.

I don't know enough about viruses to understand if that is a real threat or not
(and I've never been infected with a virus or trojan -- although they are
occasionally caught by my anti-virus software), but it gives me an area to
research.
--ron

user data mixed in with
system data cannot be
considered the same

as user data that is not mixed
in with system data,

for the purposes of explaining
the affects of an infection.

--
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 Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:03:32 -0600, "db" wrote:

so you make backups of your single
partition religiously, which a good
computer user would normally do.

however, what if you have contracted
a trojan or other virus and it was also
backed up with your archives.

how do you plan to restore your system
to a functional and virus free state?

the only option in the scenario above
is to format the disk and re install the
o.s. from scratch.

now you have to contend with restoring
your user files.

however, your archives are corrupt
and any copying of the data from
the archives can re infest your system.

Interesting arguments. Something I can research.

I have no problem with reformatting the hard drive and reinstalling the
OS, if
necessary. That is no more difficult than setting up a brand new
computer,
re-installing programs, and transferring my old data. Not to say that is
a
task I enjoy, but I've done it often enough that I gave that process as a
gift
to my wife when she decides to get a new computer :-)

If I understand what you write correctly, you feel that separate
partitions
reduce the chance of having an unrepairable and unrecognizable virus or
trojan
mixed in with your data files. Or, possibly, you mean that even if the
trojan/virus is not a part of the *data* files, the fact that it is in an
archive being restored will somehow reactivate it, even if all one is
doing is
restoring personal data, and not programs, dll's, etc.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood what you intended.

Off the top of my head, it seems to me that if the virus is infecting a
data
file, and that file is being backed up, having it in a separate partition
is
not going to reduce that risk.

On the other hand, if somehow the act of extracting a data file from an
archive
that happens to have a virus somewhere other than embedded within a data
file,
using an OS and programs from a new, clean installation, will trigger that
virus, then having the data in a separate partition might make some sense.

I don't know enough about viruses to understand if that is a real threat
or not
(and I've never been infected with a virus or trojan -- although they are
occasionally caught by my anti-virus software), but it gives me an area to
research.
--ron

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:29:00 -0500, Ron Rosenfeld
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:50:07 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

You're not alone by any means. I am also in general agreement with
what Anna says. You might like to read this article I wrote not too
long ago: "Understanding Disk Partitioning" at
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326

Interesting article Ken. Thanks for the reference. I enjoyed reading it.


You're welcome. Glad you like it.


I am one of those who backs up just my data. In your article, you write that
"backup is usually facilitated by having a separate partition with data only".

Most of my data is in the "My Documents" folder (XP-PRO) and that is the data
that could be easily moved to a separate partition. However, there is other
data that needs to be backed up that is located elsewhere, and is not so easily
moved. Some data is even in the "My Programs" folder -- Forte Agent, my
newsreader of choice, keeps its data files and settings together with the
program; lots of difficult to reproduce settings are kept in C:\Documents and
Settings\user_name\Application Data\... or ...\Local Settings\ so there are
always a few sub folders there that need to get backed up; and so forth. MS
Office Accounting keeps its DB in a C:\Program Files\... subfolder.

In the backup programs I use, once I've figured out where the information in
addition to the contents of "My Documents" is located, the program "memorizes"
those settings, which rarely change.

So, at least for me, I don't see a separate data partition as facilitating my
backup.


That's fine. I didn't mean it's better for everyone who just backs up
data. Another factor is what backup program you use.

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

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:09:36 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:

That's fine. I didn't mean it's better for everyone who just backs up
data. Another factor is what backup program you use.

Thank you, Ken. It seems we are in agreement.
--ron

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:48:16 +1100, Terry Heinz
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:35:00 -0700, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

snip
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

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.
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'll try to explain why it isn't useless for me to have backups of programs
on D: drive.

Installed on D: drive I have Eudora which I use for email, Opera as a web
browser, Agent as my newsreader, Chameleon Clock which connects to Atomic
Clock Servers and makes sure the computer clock shows the correct time,
Chameleon Clock also has a Calendar and displays windows giving me
reminders.

The above programs contain a great deal of configuration, in addition I
have many other smaller programs installed on D: drive.



OK, but if were me, instead of doing what you do, I would back up all
those important configuration files to external media (CD, DVD, thumb
drive, etc.), not to an internal drive.

It may not be useless for you, but it is still dangerous. You can lose
everything in your computer to power glitches, nearby lightning
strikes, virus attacks, theft of the computer, etc.

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