Desperate! What's the best way to partition 160GB hard disk

[coolsti]

By those who install it.



It is with some apps anyway.

There are definitely good and bad programmed applications out there. So it
may be the case indeed that someone programmed an uninstall to somehow
expect everything is installed on the C: drive. Worst case, some
programmer hard-coded their idea of a file location instead of using the
user-designated location, so that some files do not get removed correctly.
But this is just bad programming.

I make a compromise myself. I put Windows on the C: partition. Then I
install all applications also there, which I feel 1) are more or less
permanent applications that I would not ever think of removing and 2) are
small enough that they would not overly bloat the C: partition. I put all
other applications on another partition. I put things like games always on
a separate partition, because games take a lot of space, and are not
permanent.

I think actually that every design more or less works, its just a matter
of personal taste. For me, I want the freedom to be able to repartition
everything on my hardisk without needing to re-install my OS, and this
means a relatively small C: partition (like, 20GB out of 80 to 250 total)
and then the rest either as one chunk or several.

 

[Ben Dover]

There are definitely good and bad programmed applications out there.
So it may be the case indeed that someone programmed an uninstall to
somehow expect everything is installed on the C: drive. Worst case,
some programmer hard-coded their idea of a file location instead of
using the user-designated location, so that some files do not get
removed correctly. But this is just bad programming.

I make a compromise myself. I put Windows on the C: partition. Then I
install all applications also there, which I feel 1) are more or less
permanent applications that I would not ever think of removing and 2)
are small enough that they would not overly bloat the C: partition. I
put all other applications on another partition. I put things like
games always on a separate partition, because games take a lot of
space, and are not permanent.

I think actually that every design more or less works, its just a
matter of personal taste. For me, I want the freedom to be able to
repartition everything on my hardisk without needing to re-install my
OS, and this means a relatively small C: partition (like, 20GB out of
80 to 250 total) and then the rest either as one chunk or several.

Total agreement - I do it the same way. Never had a problem with software
installed on a sep partition.

 

[Tim]

10G is enough for XP alone, but not for XP plus apps.

Backup and restore times are becoming more and more of
an issue with these huge drives. A disk to disk copy of a
160GB drive might take three hours or even longer. That's
why I usually recommend large drives be partitioned into a
small system/boot partition (10GB is fine), a separate
application partition of 20-40GB, with the rest of the drive
further partitioned as needed. This way you can image
critical partitions separately and quickly, and also recover
quickly if the drive ever fails or if you need to restore.

 

[Rod Speed]

Rod Speed wrote

There are definitely good and bad programmed applications out there.

Yep, some wont even handle specifying where to install it properly.

So it may be the case indeed that someone programmed an uninstall
to somehow expect everything is installed on the C: drive. Worst case,
some programmer hard-coded their idea of a file location instead of
using the user-designated location, so that some files do not get
removed correctly. But this is just bad programming.

Irrelevant to whether its safer to install it in the default install location.

I make a compromise myself. I put Windows on the C: partition.
Then I install all applications also there, which I feel 1) are more
or less permanent applications that I would not ever think of
removing and 2) are small enough that they would not overly bloat
the C: partition. I put all other applications on another partition.

Cant see the point in that approach myself.

I put things like games always on a separate partition,
because games take a lot of space, and are not permanent.

Games tend to be the most poorly programmed at that level.

I think actually that every design more or less
works, its just a matter of personal taste.

Nope, its clearly safer to use the default install location.

For me, I want the freedom to be able to repartition everything
on my hardisk without needing to re-install my OS,

You cant even do that with XP.

and this means a relatively small C: partition (like, 20GB out of
80 to 250 total) and then the rest either as one chunk or several.

Makes more sense to have a bigger OS and apps partition
and let everything install where it wants to install.

 

[Rod Speed]

Backup and restore times are becoming more and more
of an issue with these huge drives. A disk to disk copy
of a 160GB drive might take three hours or even longer.

Yes, but we do also have at least one decent incremental imager too.

That's why I usually recommend large drives be partitioned
into a small system/boot partition (10GB is fine), a separate
application partition of 20-40GB,

Cant see that separating them achieves anything.

Makes more sense to incrementally image the OS and apps
partition before installing/updating or reconfiguring so you can
step back gracefully if the system restore doesnt do the job.

with the rest of the drive further partitioned as needed.

No point in more than one partition for the data.

This way you can image critical partitions separately and quickly,
and also recover quickly if the drive ever fails or if you need to restore.

You still need to image the data partition so the main advantage
with a separate OS/apps partition is that you can do a quicker
image of that before installing/updating or reconfiguring for safety
so you are more likely to do that than if it takes 3 hours.

 

[Spajky]

Backup and restore times are becoming more and more of
an issue with these huge drives. A disk to disk copy of a
160GB drive might take three hours or even longer. That's
why I usually recommend large drives be partitioned into a
small system/boot partition (10GB is fine), a separate
application partition of 20-40GB, with the rest of the drive
further partitioned as needed. This way you can image
critical partitions separately and quickly, and also recover
quickly if the drive ever fails or if you need to restore.

very wise indeed ! I have also similar ideas but using w98seLite
instead & I advise min. 3 partitions (max.5 of them) : system
(+progs), data , trash one & I have than also archive partition & last
setup one (copy of setups for win & progs etc.) [3 x 2GB + 8GB + 4GB]
on 20GB drive.

My experience:

Recently my HD started to develop some bad sectors on 1st & 3rd
partition few times (I also have another HD out of the box to back up
entire drive) & crashed the system, so had to implement & use
Spinrite (or HDregenerator) to fix the stuff ...

after formatting those two problematic partitions, Spinrite took
almost 2 hours to fix (remaping) bad sectors for only 2GB of space.
You can imagine how much it would take for few tenth GB partitions or
drive! Someone would need also an Ups to be sure not to interrupt
Spinrite running if some short power outage occurs! (& be w/o PC few
days too)

It happened 2 times already on both only those partitions in last
months; if happens more, I will just hide those partitions &
repartition the 4th one & repace system & data from back up ...
.... till I get cheaply some 40GB HD not runnning hot & silent one to
replace it & copy previous one to it ...

I wonder why people do not make more often back Ups on CDR or DVD-R or
onto external HD (not connected all the time for security reasons).
.... & than panic in case of data loss & system crash or hardware
failure (quite often), especially if having NTFS formated HD ...

.... I use this mine system (at the end of page) if stuff crashes:
http://users.volja.net/image/Files/ResQsys.htm for data retrival &
restore ...

 

[Rod Speed]

very wise indeed !

We'll see...

I have also similar ideas but using w98seLite instead

Wota dinosaur.

& I advise min. 3 partitions (max.5 of them) :
Mad.

system (+progs), data , trash one & I have than also archive
partition & last setup one (copy of setups for win & progs etc.)
[3 x 2GB + 8GB + 4GB] on 20GB drive.
Mad.

My experience:

Recently my HD started to develop some bad sectors on 1st & 3rd
partition few times (I also have another HD out of the box to back up
entire drive) & crashed the system, so had to implement & use
Spinrite (or HDregenerator) to fix the stuff ...

Stupid approach. The drive should have been properly
backed up and binned when it developed bad sectors.

after formatting those two problematic partitions, Spinrite took
almost 2 hours to fix (remaping) bad sectors for only 2GB of space.
You can imagine how much it would take for few tenth GB partitions or drive!

See above.

Someone would need also an Ups to be sure not to interrupt Spinrite
running if some short power outage occurs! (& be w/o PC few days too)

See above.

It happened 2 times already on both only those partitions in last months;

See above.

if happens more, I will just hide those partitions & repartition
the 4th one & repace system & data from back up ...

See above.

... till I get cheaply some 40GB HD not runnning hot &
silent one to replace it & copy previous one to it ...

See above.

I wonder why people do not make more often back Ups on CDR or DVD-R
or onto external HD (not connected all the time for security reasons).

They're stupid.

... & than panic in case of data loss & system crash or hardware
failure (quite often), especially if having NTFS formated HD ...

... I use this mine system (at the end of page) if stuff crashes:
http://users.volja.net/image/Files/ResQsys.htm for data retrival & restore ...

See above.

 

[Sjouke Burry]

My c disk is 80GB, 2 years old, 120+ applications,
used 8.5 GB.
Oh yes, XP pro SP2.

 

[EDM]

My c disk is 80GB, 2 years old, 120+ applications,
used 8.5 GB.
Oh yes, XP pro SP2.

I've had the same Win2K installation on a 2GB FAT16
partition since Dec. 1999. 680MB remaining. Had to
disable SFC (which I didn't mind at all, it's nothing but
a pain in the ass) and I keep my pagefile on a separate
drive.

 

[Spajky]

Wota dinosaur.

It does everything I need & see no point of changing that; it is lean
& fast (with 100 of progs mostly small not memory hogging ones) & all
system takes less than 1GB ... no need to throw money away for
hardware & software uppgrade

I am keepping it clean & I did not reinstall it for 5 years ...
in case of emergency, 15min takes to restore it like nothing happened
.... (needed few times in those years, since I test shareware quite a
lot...)

& I advise min. 3 partitions (max.5 of them) :
system (+progs), data , trash one & I have than also archive
partition & last setup one (copy of setups for win & progs etc.)
[3 x 2GB + 8GB + 4GB] on 20GB drive.

Mad.

IMHO better organisation of files & other stuff

The drive should have been properly
backed up and binned when it developed bad sectors.

yes, I am searching for one platter 40GB model now, will replace it
when will have a will to opena again my desktop case for a year
cleaning of dust or next hardware change ...
....
short term approach for maybe few months if necessary ...

I have winXP installed on another HD for testing & learning purposes
for helping others resolving their wXP problems; but I almost never
use it for myself .... If I would need OS uppgrade in the future IMHO
will go toward Win2K ...

 

[Rod Speed]

It does everything I need & see no point of changing that;

Wota dinosaur.

it is lean

Who cares ?

& fast (with 100 of progs mostly small not memory hogging ones)

Who cares ?

& all system takes less than 1GB ...

Who cares ?

no need to throw money away for hardware & software uppgrade

Sure, if you are happy to cripple along...

I am keepping it clean & I did not reinstall it for 5 years ...

in case of emergency, 15min takes to restore it like nothing happened
... (needed few times in those years, since I test shareware quite a lot...)

Pretty pointless 'testing' it on such a dinosaur.

& I advise min. 3 partitions (max.5 of them) :
system (+progs), data , trash one & I have than also archive
partition & last setup one (copy of setups for win & progs etc.)
[3 x 2GB + 8GB + 4GB] on 20GB drive.

Mad.

IMHO better organisation of files & other stuff

You're wrong. Folder trees make a hell of
a lot more sense than separate partitions do.

yes, I am searching for one platter 40GB model now,

The world's moved on.

will place it when will have a will to opena again my desktop
case for a year cleaning of dust or next hardware change ...

Stupid approach. The drive should have been properly
backed up and binned when it developed bad sectors.

short term approach for maybe few months if necessary ...

Stupid approach. The drive should have been properly
backed up and binned when it developed bad sectors.

I have winXP installed on another HD for testing & learning
purposes for helping others resolving their wXP problems;
but I almost never use it for myself ....

Wota dinosaur.

If I would need OS uppgrade in the future IMHO will go toward Win2K ...

Wota dinosaur.