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 | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???)
of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well structured and organized logically. So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities, etc. I've been told that this "slows" the machine down -- but I don't do anything (except 1 or 2 CPU-intensive math things I've programmed) where the slow-down , if it exists, is noticeable. So, my question --- what's the downside of doing the same thing on a new Win 7 64 bit computer? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:17:38 -0500, wrote:
I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???) of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well structured and organized logically. Yes, separating different kinds of files on partitions is an organizational technique, but so is separating different kinds of files into folders. The difference is that partitions are static and fixed in size, while folders are dynamic, changing size automatically as necessary to meet your changing needs. That generally makes folders a much better way to organize, in my view. So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities, etc. In my opinion, that's *way* overpartitioned. I've been told that this "slows" the machine down -- but I don't do anything (except 1 or 2 CPU-intensive math things I've programmed) where the slow-down , if it exists, is noticeable. With modern computers, the slowdown is very slight if it exists at all. So, my question --- what's the downside of doing the same thing on a new Win 7 64 bit computer? You might want to read this article I've written: http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
"Ken Blake" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:17:38 -0500, wrote: I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???) of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well structured and organized logically. Yes, separating different kinds of files on partitions is an organizational technique, but so is separating different kinds of files into folders. The difference is that partitions are static and fixed in size, while folders are dynamic, changing size automatically as necessary to meet your changing needs. That generally makes folders a much better way to organize, in my view. So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities, etc. In my opinion, that's *way* overpartitioned. Please don't misinterpret here, I don't mean to be argumentative at all, but if one is partitioning what becomes "too much" ?? I've been told that this "slows" the machine down -- but I don't do anything (except 1 or 2 CPU-intensive math things I've programmed) where the slow-down , if it exists, is noticeable. With modern computers, the slowdown is very slight if it exists at all. You might want to read this article I've written: http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
wrote in :
I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???) of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well structured and organized logically. So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities, etc. I've been told that this "slows" the machine down -- but I don't do anything (except 1 or 2 CPU-intensive math things I've programmed) where the slow-down , if it exists, is noticeable. So, my question --- what's the downside of doing the same thing on a new Win 7 64 bit computer? I ALWAYS partition, but not the way you do. The most I do is as follows: System Games (IF a BIG gamer, otherwise on the system disk) Data With a modern DESKTOP, you shouldn't even do that, just get 2 drives, an SSD (128G+, maybe a 64GB, if you are careful) for the "System" and a rotating HD (or more as needed) for your data. (Mine currently has 1 SSD and 3 HDs.) With a LAPTOP, I'd get a bigger SSD (or 2 if the laptop can handle it), but I'd still make 2 partitions. The reason I will never split the program files up, is because of the tight program/registy link, you need (unless you truly know what you are doing) a single recovery step. System disk need special backup programs. Data (music/video/docs/spreadsheets/etc.) on the other had, expecialy with Windows 7's "library system", can be anywhere on the system. You don't need these files when restoring, and can be backed up with a simple file copy. Heck, even if you "loose" your system, this data can be added back into a new system, again, even with a simple file backup. To orginize your data, just make directories. I have directories 10 or so deep in some places. (Note, there are issues with Windows explorer when the total path length get over about 240 charators, but most newer file managers can handle any length NTFS can) An example of why I do this: My system disk's backup is about 22GB. My "data" size is around 4TB. I can back both up, easy. The "data" files are all incremental backups(only changed files) and the full "system" backup only takes about 15 minutes. Even if I only stored my music on my system, the "system" backup would increase to about 75GB and take 3 times as long! -- _______________________________________________ / David Simpson \ | | | http://www.nyx.net/~dsimpson | |We got to go to the crappy town where I'm a hero.| \_______________________________________________/ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On 15/09/2013 19:28, wrote:
"Ken Blake" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:17:38 -0500, wrote: I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???) of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well structured and organized logically. Yes, separating different kinds of files on partitions is an organizational technique, but so is separating different kinds of files into folders. The difference is that partitions are static and fixed in size, while folders are dynamic, changing size automatically as necessary to meet your changing needs. That generally makes folders a much better way to organize, in my view. So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities, etc. In my opinion, that's *way* overpartitioned. Please don't misinterpret here, I don't mean to be argumentative at all, but if one is partitioning what becomes "too much" ?? I've been told that this "slows" the machine down -- but I don't do anything (except 1 or 2 CPU-intensive math things I've programmed) where the slow-down , if it exists, is noticeable. With modern computers, the slowdown is very slight if it exists at all. You might want to read this article I've written: http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326 Nice sensible advice. Thx! Everybody should tick to go to your article and read it carefully. Personally I put backups on a 2nd internal HD. But just to be on the safe side I also copy them to an external HD. With HDs so cheap these days, I see no reason to try and economize on HDs. +1 fully earned. -- choro ***** |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On 15/09/2013 20:34, choro wrote:
On 15/09/2013 19:28, wrote: "Ken Blake" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:17:38 -0500, wrote: I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???) of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well structured and organized logically. Yes, separating different kinds of files on partitions is an organizational technique, but so is separating different kinds of files into folders. The difference is that partitions are static and fixed in size, while folders are dynamic, changing size automatically as necessary to meet your changing needs. That generally makes folders a much better way to organize, in my view. So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities, etc. In my opinion, that's *way* overpartitioned. Please don't misinterpret here, I don't mean to be argumentative at all, but if one is partitioning what becomes "too much" ?? I've been told that this "slows" the machine down -- but I don't do anything (except 1 or 2 CPU-intensive math things I've programmed) where the slow-down , if it exists, is noticeable. With modern computers, the slowdown is very slight if it exists at all. You might want to read this article I've written: http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326 Nice sensible advice. Thx! Everybody should tick to go to your article and read it carefully. Personally I put backups on a 2nd internal HD. But just to be on the safe side I also copy them to an external HD. With HDs so cheap these days, I see no reason to try and economize on HDs. +1 fully earned. And incidentally, in preference to W7's Xcopy I always XXcopy my data/user files to an external HD. That way they are immediately accessible. I have the necessary XXcopy commands ready on a Word document with its own shortcut on the desktop. Nice and neat! The only files XXcopy cannot deal with (at least the freebie version) is filenames with more than 256 characters including the path. And that is no problem for me. -- choro ***** |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:34:39 +0100, choro wrote:
"Ken Blake" wrote in message You might want to read this article I've written: http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326 Nice sensible advice. Thx! Everybody should tick to go to your article and read it carefully. Personally I put backups on a 2nd internal HD. But just to be on the safe side I also copy them to an external HD. With HDs so cheap these days, I see no reason to try and economize on HDs. +1 fully earned. Thanks for the kind words. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:43:18 +0100, choro wrote:
On 15/09/2013 20:34, choro wrote: On 15/09/2013 19:28, wrote: "Ken Blake" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:17:38 -0500, wrote: I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???) of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well structured and organized logically. Yes, separating different kinds of files on partitions is an organizational technique, but so is separating different kinds of files into folders. The difference is that partitions are static and fixed in size, while folders are dynamic, changing size automatically as necessary to meet your changing needs. That generally makes folders a much better way to organize, in my view. So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities, etc. In my opinion, that's *way* overpartitioned. Please don't misinterpret here, I don't mean to be argumentative at all, but if one is partitioning what becomes "too much" ?? I've been told that this "slows" the machine down -- but I don't do anything (except 1 or 2 CPU-intensive math things I've programmed) where the slow-down , if it exists, is noticeable. With modern computers, the slowdown is very slight if it exists at all. You might want to read this article I've written: http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326 Nice sensible advice. Thx! Everybody should tick to go to your article and read it carefully. Personally I put backups on a 2nd internal HD. But just to be on the safe side I also copy them to an external HD. With HDs so cheap these days, I see no reason to try and economize on HDs. +1 fully earned. And incidentally, in preference to W7's Xcopy I always XXcopy my data/user files to an external HD. That way they are immediately accessible. I have the necessary XXcopy commands ready on a Word document with its own shortcut on the desktop. Nice and neat! The only files XXcopy cannot deal with (at least the freebie version) is filenames with more than 256 characters including the path. And that is no problem for me. Can I suggest that you have a look at Microsoft's SyncToy 2.1? |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On 2013-09-15, Juan Wei wrote:
has written on 9/15/2013 12:17 PM: I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???) of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well structured and organized logically. So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities, etc. Why not just use a directory structure? What do you gain by all those partitions? Alphabet soup. Some people get off on a P:/ drive. -- IBM Pollyanna Principle: Machines should work. People should think. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 16:40:55 -0400, Juan Wei wrote:
Why not just use a directory structure? What do you gain by all those partitions? A headache. -- s|b |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Disk Partitioning
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 22:08:42 +0200, Jabberwocky wrote:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:43:18 +0100, choro wrote: On 15/09/2013 20:34, choro wrote: On 15/09/2013 19:28, wrote: "Ken Blake" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:17:38 -0500, wrote: I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???) of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well structured and organized logically. Yes, separating different kinds of files on partitions is an organizational technique, but so is separating different kinds of files into folders. The difference is that partitions are static and fixed in size, while folders are dynamic, changing size automatically as necessary to meet your changing needs. That generally makes folders a much better way to organize, in my view. So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities, etc. In my opinion, that's *way* overpartitioned. Please don't misinterpret here, I don't mean to be argumentative at all, but if one is partitioning what becomes "too much" ?? I've been told that this "slows" the machine down -- but I don't do anything (except 1 or 2 CPU-intensive math things I've programmed) where the slow-down , if it exists, is noticeable. With modern computers, the slowdown is very slight if it exists at all. You might want to read this article I've written: http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326 Nice sensible advice. Thx! Everybody should tick to go to your article and read it carefully. Personally I put backups on a 2nd internal HD. But just to be on the safe side I also copy them to an external HD. With HDs so cheap these days, I see no reason to try and economize on HDs. +1 fully earned. And incidentally, in preference to W7's Xcopy I always XXcopy my data/user files to an external HD. That way they are immediately accessible. I have the necessary XXcopy commands ready on a Word document with its own shortcut on the desktop. Nice and neat! The only files XXcopy cannot deal with (at least the freebie version) is filenames with more than 256 characters including the path. And that is no problem for me. Can I suggest that you have a look at Microsoft's SyncToy 2.1? Can I suggest that choro look at AllWay Sync instead? It has a free version and it is updated from time to time. It also handles daylight time and timezone problems properly. -- Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|