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. Advertisements

  2. picker

    colin Guest


    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. Advertisements

  3. picker

    picker Guest

    Thanks Tim,
     
    picker, Mar 6, 2004
    #3
  4. picker

    picker Guest

    OOPS "Colin" :0)
     
    picker, Mar 6, 2004
    #4
  5. picker

    colin Guest

    That`s ok, patsy:)

     
    colin, Mar 6, 2004
    #5
  6. picker

    TV Slug Guest

    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

    I fail to see how this aids in getting data back any easier, quite frankly
     
    DeMoN LaG, Mar 6, 2004
    #7
  8. picker

    DeMoN LaG Guest

    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?
     
    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, Mar 6, 2004
    #9
  10. picker

    derek / nul Guest

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

    Derek
     
    derek / nul, Mar 6, 2004
    #10
  11. picker

    TV Slug Guest

    "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

    "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.
     
    DeMoN LaG, Mar 7, 2004
    #12
  13. picker

    Trent© Guest

    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

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

    Michael-NC Guest

    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

    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?
     
    DeMoN LaG, Mar 7, 2004
    #16
  17. picker

    Michael-NC Guest

    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.
    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

    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

    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. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.