«

I have been looking at a Sony Vaio laptop computer, but I see that the 60
gig drive has been partitioned into 20 gig for C Drive and 40 gig for D
drive. Even with the 80 gig model, C Drive is still limited to 20 gig. With
Windows taking more than 2 gig, I wondered whether you consider that a
maximum of 20 gig for C Drive is enough for Windows, and lots of future
programs? Is there any benefit in partitioning a laptop hard drive like
this? Thanks for your thoughts on this.

In article <>, says...
> I have been looking at a Sony Vaio laptop computer, but I see that the 60
> gig drive has been partitioned into 20 gig for C Drive and 40 gig for D
> drive. Even with the 80 gig model, C Drive is still limited to 20 gig. With
> Windows taking more than 2 gig, I wondered whether you consider that a
> maximum of 20 gig for C Drive is enough for Windows, and lots of future
> programs? Is there any benefit in partitioning a laptop hard drive like
> this? Thanks for your thoughts on this.

Well I'd like someone to correct me if I'm wrong - but I fail to see the
point in partitioning a drive for 'speed'. ie as is so often typically
seen, a small partition is created for the swap file (short of it being
on *another* (physical) hard disk drive, I just don't see the point).

So I think that, at the end of the day, extra partitions just waste
space (albeit not much).

re setup per OP - I don't see the point in that either. It just limits
you to be forced (eventually anyway) to change the default install
location for s/w from c:\<pf>\<vendor> - to d:...

Given the 80Gb drive - if it were me, I'd use one partition only.

--
Duncan

JB wrote:
> I have been looking at a Sony Vaio laptop computer, but I see that
> the 60 gig drive has been partitioned into 20 gig for C Drive and 40
> gig for D drive. Even with the 80 gig model, C Drive is still limited
> to 20 gig. With Windows taking more than 2 gig, I wondered whether
> you consider that a maximum of 20 gig for C Drive is enough for
> Windows, and lots of future programs? Is there any benefit in
> partitioning a laptop hard drive like this? Thanks for your thoughts
> on this.

There is nothing stopping you installing future programs to D:. I have a
200GB HDD and I have 10GB for Windows and "core" apps, 15GB for programs and
the rest for data.

10GB is plenty for Windows (With fixed swapfile of whatever size you want to
make it, mine's 1.5GB) and core apps and, for me, 15BG is plenty for
programs. Mostly games.

I look at it this way, I can always take an image of C: drive periodically
and put it on E: so I can restore from it with a bootable CD (Norton Ghost)
and 15GB is fine for programs. (They can always be re-sized with
Partitionmagic anyway).

All my XviDs, pics and data files go on E:. There are several reasons for
this set up. The main one is C: is at the front of the drive and is
therefore the fastest part of the drive meaning Windows loads faster.
Keeping it small also means I can back it up easilly in case of something
going wrong. Programs next in the next-fastest part of the drive. Finally
all my data files on E:. This way, derfagging the two "active" partitions
doesn't take long at all and the system remains responsive. (Before I
started this practice I had to re-install regularly as the OS got spread all
over the HDD causing a lot of HDD trashing and slowing down). So, defragging
C: and D: is quick and easy, no big XviD files and the like to have to be
moved around. E: doesn't need defagging often at all as it's not constantly
being written to and speed isn't so important here anyway.

I'd much rather go with the two partition system you have, than a single big
partition. It's not long before systems on one big partition get sluggish.
You don't want all your data files getting mixed in with the OS files and
taking up the faster parts of the drive. Two is nearly as good as three, the
main reason I went for three is C: is smaller, therefore easier to back up
(Programs can be reinstalled and "personalised" easier than the OS can). If
20GB *does* become too small then you can always re-size it if the rest of
the drive isn't full. I think 20GB would be fine, if I didn't have some
games that require 3GB each I wouldn't have made my programs partition so
big.

Cheers,
--
~Shaun~

"JB" <> wrote in news::

> Thanks for your thoughts on this.

Sony have a restore routine that blows away C: but leaves D: if you want.
That is why it is split for you.

Resize it if you want, but this is a good thing.
If you RTFM, you will find that there are recommendations about this and
suggestions on where to place your data.

--
Ciao, Dave

"~misfit~" <> wrote in message
news:...
> JB wrote:
>> I have been looking at a Sony Vaio laptop computer, but I see that
>> the 60 gig drive has been partitioned into 20 gig for C Drive and 40
>> gig for D drive. Even with the 80 gig model, C Drive is still limited
>> to 20 gig. With Windows taking more than 2 gig, I wondered whether
>> you consider that a maximum of 20 gig for C Drive is enough for
>> Windows, and lots of future programs? Is there any benefit in
>> partitioning a laptop hard drive like this? Thanks for your thoughts
>> on this.
>
> There is nothing stopping you installing future programs to D:. I have a
> 200GB HDD and I have 10GB for Windows and "core" apps, 15GB for programs
> and the rest for data.
>
> 10GB is plenty for Windows (With fixed swapfile of whatever size you want
> to make it, mine's 1.5GB) and core apps and, for me, 15BG is plenty for
> programs. Mostly games.
>
> I look at it this way, I can always take an image of C: drive periodically
> and put it on E: so I can restore from it with a bootable CD (Norton
> Ghost) and 15GB is fine for programs. (They can always be re-sized with
> Partitionmagic anyway).
>
> All my XviDs, pics and data files go on E:. There are several reasons for
> this set up. The main one is C: is at the front of the drive and is
> therefore the fastest part of the drive meaning Windows loads faster.
> Keeping it small also means I can back it up easilly in case of something
> going wrong. Programs next in the next-fastest part of the drive. Finally
> all my data files on E:. This way, derfagging the two "active" partitions
> doesn't take long at all and the system remains responsive. (Before I
> started this practice I had to re-install regularly as the OS got spread
> all over the HDD causing a lot of HDD trashing and slowing down). So,
> defragging C: and D: is quick and easy, no big XviD files and the like to
> have to be moved around. E: doesn't need defagging often at all as it's
> not constantly being written to and speed isn't so important here anyway.
>
> I'd much rather go with the two partition system you have, than a single
> big partition. It's not long before systems on one big partition get
> sluggish. You don't want all your data files getting mixed in with the OS
> files and taking up the faster parts of the drive. Two is nearly as good
> as three, the main reason I went for three is C: is smaller, therefore
> easier to back up (Programs can be reinstalled and "personalised" easier
> than the OS can). If 20GB *does* become too small then you can always
> re-size it if the rest of the drive isn't full. I think 20GB would be
> fine, if I didn't have some games that require 3GB each I wouldn't have
> made my programs partition so big.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> ~Shaun~
Thanks very much Shaun for your reply, most interesting. After talking with
one or two people, I gained the impression that it was quite difficult to
increase the size of C Drive at a later date (given that there is plenty of
space left on the rest of the drive). Is there a program that could do this
without upsetting any of the programs or data already on the disk?

Regards, JB

20 gig is a lot for the C: drive if you keep ALL of your data on D:

My desktop has 79 MAJOR applications installed (office and lots of
multimedia including multiple video editing programs), and the C: drive
is only 18 gigabytes and it's only 2/3 full (on a 320 gigabyte hard
drive). [All programs are installed on C But I moved "My Documents"
to D:, and I keep ALL of my data, including E-Mail and my browser files,
on drives other than C: (I have drives up to H. So it's not a problem
***IF*** you only keep programs on C:.

However, in any case, you can always use Partition Magic to resize
partitions or shift space between C: and D: (without having to move or
reinstall anything).



JB wrote:
> I have been looking at a Sony Vaio laptop computer, but I see that the 60
> gig drive has been partitioned into 20 gig for C Drive and 40 gig for D
> drive. Even with the 80 gig model, C Drive is still limited to 20 gig. With
> Windows taking more than 2 gig, I wondered whether you consider that a
> maximum of 20 gig for C Drive is enough for Windows, and lots of future
> programs? Is there any benefit in partitioning a laptop hard drive like
> this? Thanks for your thoughts on this.
>
>

JB wrote:
> "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>
>>JB wrote:
>>
>>>I have been looking at a Sony Vaio laptop computer, but I see that
>>>the 60 gig drive has been partitioned into 20 gig for C Drive and 40
>>>gig for D drive. Even with the 80 gig model, C Drive is still limited
>>>to 20 gig. With Windows taking more than 2 gig, I wondered whether
>>>you consider that a maximum of 20 gig for C Drive is enough for
>>>Windows, and lots of future programs? Is there any benefit in
>>>partitioning a laptop hard drive like this? Thanks for your thoughts
>>>on this.
>>
>>There is nothing stopping you installing future programs to D:. I have a
>>200GB HDD and I have 10GB for Windows and "core" apps, 15GB for programs
>>and the rest for data.
>>
>>10GB is plenty for Windows (With fixed swapfile of whatever size you want
>>to make it, mine's 1.5GB) and core apps and, for me, 15BG is plenty for
>>programs. Mostly games.
>>
>>I look at it this way, I can always take an image of C: drive periodically
>>and put it on E: so I can restore from it with a bootable CD (Norton
>>Ghost) and 15GB is fine for programs. (They can always be re-sized with
>>Partitionmagic anyway).
>>
>>All my XviDs, pics and data files go on E:. There are several reasons for
>>this set up. The main one is C: is at the front of the drive and is
>>therefore the fastest part of the drive meaning Windows loads faster.
>>Keeping it small also means I can back it up easilly in case of something
>>going wrong. Programs next in the next-fastest part of the drive. Finally
>>all my data files on E:. This way, derfagging the two "active" partitions
>>doesn't take long at all and the system remains responsive. (Before I
>>started this practice I had to re-install regularly as the OS got spread
>>all over the HDD causing a lot of HDD trashing and slowing down). So,
>>defragging C: and D: is quick and easy, no big XviD files and the like to
>>have to be moved around. E: doesn't need defagging often at all as it's
>>not constantly being written to and speed isn't so important here anyway.
>>
>>I'd much rather go with the two partition system you have, than a single
>>big partition. It's not long before systems on one big partition get
>>sluggish. You don't want all your data files getting mixed in with the OS
>>files and taking up the faster parts of the drive. Two is nearly as good
>>as three, the main reason I went for three is C: is smaller, therefore
>>easier to back up (Programs can be reinstalled and "personalised" easier
>>than the OS can). If 20GB *does* become too small then you can always
>>re-size it if the rest of the drive isn't full. I think 20GB would be
>>fine, if I didn't have some games that require 3GB each I wouldn't have
>>made my programs partition so big.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>--
>>~Shaun~
>
> Thanks very much Shaun for your reply, most interesting. After talking with
> one or two people, I gained the impression that it was quite difficult to
> increase the size of C Drive at a later date (given that there is plenty of
> space left on the rest of the drive). Is there a program that could do this
> without upsetting any of the programs or data already on the disk?

Partition magic will do it just fine. I wouldn't be without it.

JB wrote:
> "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> JB wrote:
>>> I have been looking at a Sony Vaio laptop computer, but I see that
>>> the 60 gig drive has been partitioned into 20 gig for C Drive and 40
>>> gig for D drive. Even with the 80 gig model, C Drive is still
>>> limited to 20 gig. With Windows taking more than 2 gig, I wondered
>>> whether you consider that a maximum of 20 gig for C Drive is enough
>>> for Windows, and lots of future programs? Is there any benefit in
>>> partitioning a laptop hard drive like this? Thanks for your thoughts
>>> on this.
>>
>> There is nothing stopping you installing future programs to D:. I
>> have a 200GB HDD and I have 10GB for Windows and "core" apps, 15GB
>> for programs and the rest for data.
>>
>> 10GB is plenty for Windows (With fixed swapfile of whatever size you
>> want to make it, mine's 1.5GB) and core apps and, for me, 15BG is
>> plenty for programs. Mostly games.
>>
>> I look at it this way, I can always take an image of C: drive
>> periodically and put it on E: so I can restore from it with a
>> bootable CD (Norton Ghost) and 15GB is fine for programs. (They can
>> always be re-sized with Partitionmagic anyway).
>>
>> All my XviDs, pics and data files go on E:. There are several
>> reasons for this set up. The main one is C: is at the front of the
>> drive and is therefore the fastest part of the drive meaning Windows
>> loads faster. Keeping it small also means I can back it up easilly
>> in case of something going wrong. Programs next in the next-fastest
>> part of the drive. Finally all my data files on E:. This way,
>> derfagging the two "active" partitions doesn't take long at all and
>> the system remains responsive. (Before I started this practice I had
>> to re-install regularly as the OS got spread all over the HDD
>> causing a lot of HDD trashing and slowing down). So, defragging C:
>> and D: is quick and easy, no big XviD files and the like to have to
>> be moved around. E: doesn't need defagging often at all as it's not
>> constantly being written to and speed isn't so important here
>> anyway. I'd much rather go with the two partition system you have, than
>> a
>> single big partition. It's not long before systems on one big
>> partition get sluggish. You don't want all your data files getting
>> mixed in with the OS files and taking up the faster parts of the
>> drive. Two is nearly as good as three, the main reason I went for
>> three is C: is smaller, therefore easier to back up (Programs can be
>> reinstalled and "personalised" easier than the OS can). If 20GB
>> *does* become too small then you can always re-size it if the rest
>> of the drive isn't full. I think 20GB would be fine, if I didn't
>> have some games that require 3GB each I wouldn't have made my
>> programs partition so big. Cheers,
>> --
>> ~Shaun~
> Thanks very much Shaun for your reply, most interesting. After
> talking with one or two people, I gained the impression that it was
> quite difficult to increase the size of C Drive at a later date
> (given that there is plenty of space left on the rest of the drive).
> Is there a program that could do this without upsetting any of the
> programs or data already on the disk?

Yes, I use PowerQuest PartionMagic Pro 7.0. I got it off a magazine cover as
it's quite an old version but I used it just the other day on my 200GB WD
HDD and it's fine. I've used it heaps of times, XP Pro, NTFS partitions,
with not one problem. (It pops up a warning about having current back-ups
but, as I said, I've never had it fail).

As it came with a magazine I guess it would be OK to give you a copy,
However, it's 22MB, emailing could be a problem unless you have a service
that allows you to accept emails that big. The other option is a CD-R.

Cheers,
--
~Shaun~

"JB" <> wrote:
>I have been looking at a Sony Vaio laptop computer, but I see that the 60
>gig drive has been partitioned into 20 gig for C Drive and 40 gig for D

There are two schools of thought on partitioning. I like having a
small-ish system partition, as I can do backups more easily, and can
restore the system without changing my user data, which lives on a
second, larger, partition. [I also like having a dedicated swapfile
partition, but that's a rathole.]

My wife prefers the "one giant partition" scheme, where everything
lives on the one true drive. While it takes longer and uses more
backup space, she never has to worry about what's where, nor will she
run out of space on the system drive while the data drive still has
plenty of room.

It's really personal preference, but you should stick with one
scheme...

I use Ghost backups and restores to resize my partitions, but that's
because I use it for backups. I've heard good things about Partition
Magic, but never used it.

It's really a good idea, when dealing with a large hard drive (over 40
to 60 gigs) to partition the drive into at least 2 partitions, one
containing the OS and programs and the 2nd containing data.

Reasons:

1. It makes backup of the data only easier. Just backup the data
partition.

2. There are failure modes that will destroy the entire contents of a
partition but not the other partitions, and when these occur, it's most
likely to occur on the OS partition. So you get a slightly greater
degree of safety / reliability for your data by keeping it in a separate
partition.

There's a 3rd reason for very large hard drives, but it doesn't apply to
laptops:

3. Very large partitions will slow down the system performance. Drives
and their associated data structures have to be searched to find files,
folders, etc., and as the drive grows, so do the sizes of these data
structures and the time required to search them. Not really much of an
issue for drives under 100 gigabytes, but you probably don't want a
single unpartitioned 200+ gigabyte drive (exception: If it's used only
for storage of very, very large files such as video files).

Also, one other comment, if you have any FAT32 partitions, FAT32 starts
to really break down once the partition size goes beyond even 16
gigabytes, and as a rule I won't create FAT32 partitions larger than 32
gigabytes (Microsoft products won't create such a partition at all, but
they can be created with 3rd party partitioning and formatting products,
and if you do create them, Windows will use them, but it doesn't work well).


William P.N. Smith wrote:

> "JB" <> wrote:
>
>>I have been looking at a Sony Vaio laptop computer, but I see that the 60
>>gig drive has been partitioned into 20 gig for C Drive and 40 gig for D
>
>
> There are two schools of thought on partitioning. I like having a
> small-ish system partition, as I can do backups more easily, and can
> restore the system without changing my user data, which lives on a
> second, larger, partition. [I also like having a dedicated swapfile
> partition, but that's a rathole.]
>
> My wife prefers the "one giant partition" scheme, where everything
> lives on the one true drive. While it takes longer and uses more
> backup space, she never has to worry about what's where, nor will she
> run out of space on the system drive while the data drive still has
> plenty of room.
>
> It's really personal preference, but you should stick with one
> scheme...
>
> I use Ghost backups and restores to resize my partitions, but that's
> because I use it for backups. I've heard good things about Partition
> Magic, but never used it.