XP partitioning

  DazM 06:21 29 Oct 07
Locked

Amongst other things im mulling over is a reformat of my hard drive.
The hard drive is 120gb.
Should i partition or not? and if so,how much space and how many partitions?.
Early thoughts are
C:windows 10gb
D:Programs 5gb
E:data/music and so on..55gb
50 gb free space to install linux on.

PS.Ive asked on another thread about acronis and dual boot,depending on the feedback i may pop another hard drive in and keep the two o/s seperate.Therefore adding 55gb back into the equation.
.

  Batch 09:24 29 Oct 07

Whether to partition or not can provoke string feelings.

I do partition. But see no point in making OS and programs separate as (under Windows) the programs are tightly integrated via the registry and Windows folders.

See these threads as well:

click here

click here

  DazM 18:07 29 Oct 07

Thanks Batch for the links and advice,

  David4637 17:36 30 Oct 07

DONT AGREE about NOT partitioning. I partitioned the c: drive with XP OS (< 5GB, one DVD), data on the d: drive. With Acronis I can restore a failed OS IN LESS THAN 10 MINUTES - BEAT THAT? David

  Batch 09:47 31 Oct 07

Err - I haven't argued against partitioning, quite the opposite in fact if you read the threads.

My system partition image (XP Home) is about 2GB and restores in about 3 minutes (on a 6.5 year old Athlon 1100). So I have beaten that!

  Technotiger 09:58 31 Oct 07

Hi, I have not read Batch's links (sorry Batch), but I would just like to add my personal opinion, for what it may or may not be worth.

I don't see any need or reason for having several partitions on one drive. I have three hard drives, 80Gb/160Gb/320Gb with only the one main partition on each. Nothing on any of them slows me down, or causes me any other problems at all - which might not be the case if I had split them up into numerous partitions. In any case, if a drive goes into free-fall and becomes unusable, no amount of partitioning is going to prevent/cure that surely.

Not trying to make an argument out of it, just stating my own opinion. Cheers!

  Batch 10:42 31 Oct 07

If you have multiple disks you may well obviate a need (desire?) for separate partitions on a single disk, depending upon how the partitions are utilised.

But for a single HDD install multiple partitions have distinct advantages (IMHO):

Having a separate OS+Pgms partition means that a system image (as in TI) can be restored relatively rapidly (i.e. in minutes) if something goes amiss with Windows etc. (just look at the number of threads in this forum where problems have arisen and System Restore fails to work etc.)

Having a system image that I can restore in minutes enables one to take a more confident approach to trying things out - if it screws one can be back in business in a v. short time.

Most peoples' data far exceeds the OS+Pgms in terms of size and leads to very long restore times.

I create a complete system image (no incrementals)about once a month, whereas I back up my volatile data daily (or even more often).

BTW, I don't see any disadvantages in using partitions.

Cheers,
Batch

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild review: Five hours with Zelda on the Nintendo Switch

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

How the painting-like animated sequences in A Monster Calls were created by Glassworks Barcelona

The 22 best Safari extensions | Best Safari plugins: Improve Apple's Safari web browser with these…