Partition or not ot partition?

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by picker, Mar 6, 2004.

  1. picker

    picker Guest

    Hi, what benefits would one gain by partitioning?

    Thanks.
    picker, Mar 6, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. picker

    colin Guest

    picker <> wrote in message
    news:c2cdvv$hog$...
    > Hi, what benefits would one gain by partitioning?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    >



    If it`s the only harddrive that you`ve got in your system; you could save
    yourself a lot of time by having more than one partition:-

    ie: if your os crashes, and you`ve previously installed, and directed data
    files (email, downloads,system drive backup) to another partition.

    multibooting....:)
    colin, Mar 6, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. picker

    picker Guest

    Thanks Tim,


    "picker" <> wrote in message
    news:c2cdvv$hog$...
    > Hi, what benefits would one gain by partitioning?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    >
    picker, Mar 6, 2004
    #3
  4. picker

    picker Guest

    OOPS "Colin" :0)



    "picker" <> wrote in message
    news:c2cdvv$hog$...
    > Hi, what benefits would one gain by partitioning?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    >
    picker, Mar 6, 2004
    #4
  5. picker

    colin Guest

    That`s ok, patsy:)

    picker <> wrote in message
    news:c2coel$opg$...
    > OOPS "Colin" :0)
    >
    >
    >
    > "picker" <> wrote in message
    > news:c2cdvv$hog$...
    > > Hi, what benefits would one gain by partitioning?
    > >
    > > Thanks.
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    colin, Mar 6, 2004
    #5
  6. picker

    TV Slug Guest

    picker wrote:
    > Hi, what benefits would one gain by partitioning?
    >
    > Thanks.


    I'll try to give you all sides of the argument. If you have Win98 or
    earlier, just ignore everything below.

    Right Hand: Stay with one partition. It's faster and you will always have
    all the space you need available, instead of having two pieces of the space
    you need. (Up to the size of the HD, of course.)

    Other Hand: Split into two two partitions, one for your OS only, one for
    your programs and data. It will allow you to easily reinstall OS when
    necessary.

    Third Hand: One partition for OS, one partition for programs, one partition
    for data. Somewhat self-explanatory, but reasoning is that OS can be
    handled as in second case, programs can stay pretty much static, and data,
    which changes all the time, can be managed better and faster for ScanDisk
    and Defragging.

    Fourth Hand: One partition for OS, one for each program, one for each
    program's data, and one extra partition "just in case". I don't recommend
    this, because I don't know anyone with four hands. ;)


    Having said all that, my PERSONAL preference is to just run with two
    physical hard drives and avoid partitioning altogether. OS, TEMP files and
    junk like that on first drive. Everything else on second.

    If you MUST run one drive, then it comes down to what your needs are. If
    your preference is raw speed, stick with one partition. Going beyond the
    primary partition always has a slight cost to it. If this is not *that*
    important to you, then adding another partition or two eases manageability.
    TV Slug, Mar 6, 2004
    #6
  7. picker

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    "colin" <> wrote in
    news:c2ci1e$1rm4bh$-berlin.de:

    > ie: if your os crashes, and you`ve previously installed, and directed
    > data files (email, downloads,system drive backup) to another
    > partition.
    >


    I fail to see how this aids in getting data back any easier, quite frankly

    --
    website: http://www.demonlag.com
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    DeMoN LaG, Mar 6, 2004
    #7
  8. picker

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    "TV Slug" <> wrote in news:FNo2c.19611
    $:

    > Going beyond the
    > primary partition always has a slight cost to it.


    Explain to me how there is a longer seek time for a hard drive when it's
    accessing a partition other than the primary one on the disk please. Also,
    explain what happens if there is no primary partition, just an extended
    partition with logical drives. Do you have any idea what you are talking
    about?

    --
    website: http://www.demonlag.com
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    DeMoN LaG, Mar 6, 2004
    #8
  9. picker

    picker Guest

    So if i had an extra h/d (it would have to be usb) could i run my (music
    applications) from one, and leave the rest - o/s etc, on the other and yet
    access both simultaneously?

    Regards.
    "picker" <> wrote in message
    news:c2cdvv$hog$...
    > Hi, what benefits would one gain by partitioning?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    >
    picker, Mar 6, 2004
    #9
  10. picker

    derek / nul Guest

    All drives are partitioned, I think you mean "are there benefits in multiple
    partitions"

    Derek

    On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 11:54:15 -0000, "picker"
    <> wrote:

    >Hi, what benefits would one gain by partitioning?
    >
    >Thanks.
    >
    derek / nul, Mar 6, 2004
    #10
  11. picker

    TV Slug Guest

    DeMoN LaG wrote:
    > "TV Slug" <> wrote in
    > news:FNo2c.19611 $:
    >
    >> Going beyond the
    >> primary partition always has a slight cost to it.

    >
    > Explain to me how there is a longer seek time for a hard drive when
    > it's accessing a partition other than the primary one on the disk
    > please. Also, explain what happens if there is no primary partition,
    > just an extended partition with logical drives. Do you have any idea
    > what you are talking about?


    "Logical" partitions add lookup overhead. Run some timings and discover it.

    And just WHAT is your problem anyhow? You just like to cut single lines
    from other people's posts just to start a dispute? How about MAKING a
    suggestion of your own after taking your MAOI.
    TV Slug, Mar 7, 2004
    #11
  12. picker

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    "TV Slug" <> wrote in
    news:pGu2c.50561$:

    > "Logical" partitions add lookup overhead. Run some timings and
    > discover it.
    >


    "lookup overhead"? Where are you finding this from? There is no such
    thing. Why cut single lines? Because it wastes resources quoting an
    entire article to respond to one statement inside of it.

    --
    website: http://www.demonlag.com
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    DeMoN LaG, Mar 7, 2004
    #12
  13. picker

    Trent© Guest

    On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 01:12:53 GMT, "TV Slug"
    <> wrote:

    >DeMoN LaG wrote:
    >> "TV Slug" <> wrote in
    >> news:FNo2c.19611 $:
    >>
    >>> Going beyond the
    >>> primary partition always has a slight cost to it.

    >>
    >> Explain to me how there is a longer seek time for a hard drive when
    >> it's accessing a partition other than the primary one on the disk
    >> please. Also, explain what happens if there is no primary partition,
    >> just an extended partition with logical drives. Do you have any idea
    >> what you are talking about?

    >
    >"Logical" partitions add lookup overhead. Run some timings and discover it.
    >
    >And just WHAT is your problem anyhow? You just like to cut single lines
    >from other people's posts just to start a dispute? How about MAKING a
    >suggestion of your own after taking your MAOI.
    >


    He's got a bug up his ass tonight. Happens to him occasionally. lol


    Have a nice week...

    Trent

    Follow Joan Rivers' example --- get pre-embalmed!
    Trent©, Mar 7, 2004
    #13
  14. picker

    TV Slug Guest

    Trent© wrote:
    > On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 01:12:53 GMT, "TV Slug"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> DeMoN LaG wrote:
    >>> "TV Slug" <> wrote in
    >>> news:FNo2c.19611 $:
    >>>
    >>>> Going beyond the
    >>>> primary partition always has a slight cost to it.
    >>>
    >>> Explain to me how there is a longer seek time for a hard drive when
    >>> it's accessing a partition other than the primary one on the disk
    >>> please. Also, explain what happens if there is no primary
    >>> partition, just an extended partition with logical drives. Do you
    >>> have any idea what you are talking about?

    >>
    >> "Logical" partitions add lookup overhead. Run some timings and
    >> discover it.
    >>
    >> And just WHAT is your problem anyhow? You just like to cut single
    >> lines from other people's posts just to start a dispute? How about
    >> MAKING a suggestion of your own after taking your MAOI.
    >>

    >
    > He's got a bug up his ass tonight. Happens to him occasionally. lol
    >
    >
    > Have a nice week...
    >


    Thanks for the warning. Sounds like work/girlfriend problems.
    TV Slug, Mar 7, 2004
    #14
  15. picker

    Michael-NC Guest

    "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
    news:Xns94A48A01B1627Wobbly@208.42.66.156...
    > "colin" <> wrote in
    > news:c2ci1e$1rm4bh$-berlin.de:
    >
    > > ie: if your os crashes, and you`ve previously installed, and directed
    > > data files (email, downloads,system drive backup) to another
    > > partition.
    > >

    >
    > I fail to see how this aids in getting data back any easier, quite frankly


    With XP it's probably preferable to have another partition on a system with
    only one hard drive. When XP breaks, oftentimes the only solution is to
    reinstall and if you have the OS on a separate partition, it is easier to
    just format that partition, reinstall and then bring back over data from the
    second partition. In most cases, that's certainly faster that having to deal
    with your backup media. AT least you don't have to start rotating out CD's.
    The more data you have on your partition, the more sense it makes. This does
    not preclude one from making backups though!
    Michael-NC, Mar 7, 2004
    #15
  16. picker

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    "Michael-NC" <> wrote in
    news:pBF2c.80348$:

    > With XP it's probably preferable to have another partition on a system
    > with only one hard drive. When XP breaks, oftentimes the only solution
    > is to reinstall and if you have the OS on a separate partition, it is
    > easier to just format that partition, reinstall and then bring back
    > over data from the second partition. In most cases, that's certainly
    > faster that having to deal
    >


    Why is reformatting a requirement of reinstalling Windows XP? When I end
    up with a corrupt copy of XP on a machine, I boot to a recovery console,
    rename c:\windows to c:\windows.bak, reboot back off the CD again and
    install like normal. What advantage do you have with reformatting? Also,
    how do you decide how large to make your partitions? What happens if you
    give too much space for data and run out of room for programs?

    --
    website: http://www.demonlag.com
    AIM: FrznFoodClerk
    DeMoN LaG, Mar 7, 2004
    #16
  17. picker

    Michael-NC Guest

    "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
    news:Xns94A57FE7B7504Wobbly@208.42.66.156...
    > "Michael-NC" <> wrote in
    > news:pBF2c.80348$:
    >
    > > With XP it's probably preferable to have another partition on a system
    > > with only one hard drive. When XP breaks, oftentimes the only solution
    > > is to reinstall and if you have the OS on a separate partition, it is
    > > easier to just format that partition, reinstall and then bring back
    > > over data from the second partition. In most cases, that's certainly
    > > faster that having to deal
    > >

    >
    > Why is reformatting a requirement of reinstalling Windows XP?


    Corrupted partition table, master file or virus attack. If you do run your
    OS on one partition, it's just easier to delete the partition and start
    anew, rather than rename windows, then delete the folder after the new
    install. Your strategy is not appropriate for a system with a separate OS
    partition, it's just another way of doing things.

    >When I end
    > up with a corrupt copy of XP on a machine, I boot to a recovery console,
    > rename c:\windows to c:\windows.bak, reboot back off the CD again and
    > install like normal. What advantage do you have with reformatting? Also,
    > how do you decide how large to make your partitions? What happens if you
    > give too much space for data and run out of room for programs?


    A- Get a bigger hard drive.
    B- Get it right the first time.
    C- If you play with partitions, get partition magic or learn how to use the
    free version out there.


    More than just one to do things.
    Michael-NC, Mar 7, 2004
    #17
  18. picker

    Thor Guest

    "Michael-NC" <> wrote in message
    news:UNK2c.82937$...
    >
    > "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
    > news:Xns94A57FE7B7504Wobbly@208.42.66.156...
    > > "Michael-NC" <> wrote in
    > > news:pBF2c.80348$:
    > >
    > > > With XP it's probably preferable to have another partition on a system
    > > > with only one hard drive. When XP breaks, oftentimes the only solution
    > > > is to reinstall and if you have the OS on a separate partition, it is
    > > > easier to just format that partition, reinstall and then bring back
    > > > over data from the second partition. In most cases, that's certainly
    > > > faster that having to deal
    > > >

    > >
    > > Why is reformatting a requirement of reinstalling Windows XP?

    >
    > Corrupted partition table, master file or virus attack. If you do run your
    > OS on one partition, it's just easier to delete the partition and start
    > anew, rather than rename windows, then delete the folder after the new
    > install. Your strategy is not appropriate for a system with a separate OS
    > partition, it's just another way of doing things.


    Corruption to the partition is pretty much the exception not the rule when
    it comes to the likelihood of what problems someone will encounter which
    necessitate a reinstall of the OS. Most often, windows itself is simply
    hosed, there is no file system or partition corruption, and no reason
    whatsoever to wipe the entire drive clean. Backing up data is always a must,
    but the advantage in not wiping the entire drive, but rather just renaming
    the old screwed up windows folder, is that you don't have to restore your
    data back to the drive afterward. At most you just need to reinstall the
    host applications that use it (which you would need to do anyway). Saves
    quite a bit of time. I nearly always do it that way.
    Thor, Mar 7, 2004
    #18
  19. picker

    Michael-NC Guest

    "Thor" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Michael-NC" <> wrote in message
    > news:UNK2c.82937$...
    > >
    > > "DeMoN LaG" <n@a> wrote in message
    > > news:Xns94A57FE7B7504Wobbly@208.42.66.156...
    > > > "Michael-NC" <> wrote in
    > > > news:pBF2c.80348$:
    > > >
    > > > > With XP it's probably preferable to have another partition on a

    system
    > > > > with only one hard drive. When XP breaks, oftentimes the only

    solution
    > > > > is to reinstall and if you have the OS on a separate partition, it

    is
    > > > > easier to just format that partition, reinstall and then bring back
    > > > > over data from the second partition. In most cases, that's certainly
    > > > > faster that having to deal
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > Why is reformatting a requirement of reinstalling Windows XP?

    > >
    > > Corrupted partition table, master file or virus attack. If you do run

    your
    > > OS on one partition, it's just easier to delete the partition and start
    > > anew, rather than rename windows, then delete the folder after the new
    > > install. Your strategy is not appropriate for a system with a separate

    OS
    > > partition, it's just another way of doing things.

    >
    > Corruption to the partition is pretty much the exception not the rule when
    > it comes to the likelihood of what problems someone will encounter which
    > necessitate a reinstall of the OS. Most often, windows itself is simply
    > hosed, there is no file system or partition corruption, and no reason
    > whatsoever to wipe the entire drive clean. Backing up data is always a

    must,
    > but the advantage in not wiping the entire drive, but rather just renaming
    > the old screwed up windows folder, is that you don't have to restore your
    > data back to the drive afterward. At most you just need to reinstall the
    > host applications that use it (which you would need to do anyway). Saves
    > quite a bit of time. I nearly always do it that way.


    The thread is discussing the different options in systems that have a
    separate partition for the OS VS those that do not. In a case where the OS
    is on a partition holding data that you'd like to hold on to, of course
    formatting is not an option.
    Michael-NC, Mar 7, 2004
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Pierre Jarry
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,368
    Pierre Jarry
    Jul 14, 2003
  2. Mike
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    11,875
    °Mike°
    Jan 29, 2004
  3. Dutch Treat
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    820
    Dutch Treat
    Dec 6, 2004
  4. SirReal

    to partition or not to partition

    SirReal, Jun 29, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    805
    Toolman Tim
    Jul 4, 2005
  5. Mike
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    392
    Paul Knudsen
    Nov 30, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page