Drive partitions for windows xp installation

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

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

Xref: 127.0.0.1 alt.os.windows-xp:257603 microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics:98691 microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:536416 microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardwa119860

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

Xref: 127.0.0.1 alt.os.windows-xp:257603 microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics:98691 microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:536416 microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardwa119860

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

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?

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?

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

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

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 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

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

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

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.

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.

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