If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Drive partitions for windows xp installation
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Drive partitions for windows xp installation
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Drive partitions for windows xp installation
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? |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Drive partitions for windows xp installation
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? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Drive partitions for windows xp installation
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Drive partitions for windows xp installation
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Drive partitions for windows xp installation
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Drive partitions for windows xp installation
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Drive partitions for windows xp installation
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Drive partitions for windows xp installation
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Drive partitions for windows xp installation
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Drive partitions for windows xp installation
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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Drive partitions for windows xp installation
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|