Is there an advantage installing Vista Ultimate on 1000GB HD ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jdr
  • Start date Start date
J

Jdr

I want to add 1TB Samsung to my PC running at the moment Vista Ult.
since it had been released. At the moment I have 250GB HD as a C:\.
I'm reluctant to have too large volume HD as a C:\ because it take
much, much longer to for AV to check and to speedup HD.

My question is :
Is there an advantage installing Vista Ultimate on 1000GB HD.
a part from having a large volume at disposal?
Wouldn't it be better to have 2x500GB ?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Regards -
J D Ross
 
Jdr said:
I want to add 1TB Samsung to my PC running at the moment Vista Ult.
since it had been released. At the moment I have 250GB HD as a C:\. I'm
reluctant to have too large volume HD as a C:\ because it take
much, much longer to for AV to check and to speedup HD.
My question is :
Is there an advantage installing Vista Ultimate on 1000GB HD.
a part from having a large volume at disposal?
Wouldn't it be better to have 2x500GB ?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...


Larger drives are generally faster. You can always partition the drive
(which is what you really should do anyway, to separate the OS and programs
from your files).

ss.
 
Synapse Syndrome said:
Larger drives are generally faster. You can always partition the drive
(which is what you really should do anyway, to separate the OS and
programs from your files).

ss.
Click to expand...


Thanks, for your advice. I would have another 3 HDs on my PC.
My idea was to have one large volume of (say) D: or E:
and keep drive C: fairly small. At the moment is 250GB only.

My problem would be to re-group my files from present
smallish D:\ to a new one larger without much hassle.
So, if I'd use a new 1000GB as C: I'd partition it
for 2x500GB. But if I use entire 1000GB as D: then
I think it would be quite practical to keep it in one volume.
Does it sound reasonable?

Jdr
 
scrooge said:
you can skrink the c drive so that the c drive is 60gb and the d drive
is 872gb.
i got the western digital 1TB with 32mg cache and thats what i did .
scrooge


--
scrooge

ASUS P5K-E/WIFI-AP P35 ATX Intel
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 / 3.00 GHz processor
SAPPHIRE 100225L Radeon HD 3870 512MB
G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB)
Crucial Ballistix 2GB (2 x 1GB)
Thermaltake Toughpower 600W Power Supply
Click to expand...


Thanks for your advice. Of course I made mistake
in typing . It is 1TB not TG ... sorry for that.

BTW... you have quite nice specification there
to play with...-;)

I have Asus5B Deluxe, which was at the time
probably the best choice for Vista. Which is fine but
a bit slowish...
 
Jdr said:
I want to add 1TB Samsung to my PC running at the moment Vista Ult.
since it had been released. At the moment I have 250GB HD as a C:\. I'm
reluctant to have too large volume HD as a C:\ because it take
much, much longer to for AV to check and to speedup HD.
My question is :
Is there an advantage installing Vista Ultimate on 1000GB HD.
a part from having a large volume at disposal?
Wouldn't it be better to have 2x500GB ?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Regards -
J D Ross
Click to expand...

Well, there are a couple of practical things I would mention.

I have systems with removable SATA drives in open skeleton trays (IOW
you simply slide a bare drive in and they are not enclosed in an kind of
case) so it's much like permanent mounting inside a case. HEAT becomes a
problem as capacity grows and 500+ drives don't like sitting next to
each other. For this reason I use one big drive for Media Center rather
than two drives - probably should swap the drive slides to leave a blank
space between them.

Else I'd ask why not just add the 1TB as an extra.

Things like AV scan will only add to the heat problem unless you
consider mounting location. AV however only checks files, not unused
space, so if you simply clone the drive the AV should take no longer
until you add more stuff. If you plan on recording media or something
then yes, putting it on a separate drive that you will not need to scan
will work.

Copying from drive to drive is faster than copying from folder to folder
on the same drive or partition to partition on the same drive usually,
at lease it works that way for me, but there's not much apart from that
I can think of.

What might be good about two drives is that with something like Acronis
you can easily make regular images of you operating system drive to the
other one so if a drive ever fails you can at least stay up and running
with minimal effort and loss.

Sure people will say OS on small drive, Data on big drive, but Vista
like all Windows likes you to stick with the "Folders" MS decided you
need and moving stuff can be problematic. Therefore I consider "Data" to
be things like Videos, MP3s and stuff not like "My Documents" which I
reckon is best left where MS put them.

So 2 * 500 probably has advantages, but will probably use more power
than a single and bring cooling and maybe power supply problems if you
are not careful. If you really want the extra TB I think I'd say keep
the 250, install the 1 TB as one drive well spaced in the case and make
a backup of your OS to it right away using something like Acronis...

And 100 people will give you 100 different opinions :)
 
Jdr said:
I want to add 1TB Samsung to my PC running at the moment Vista Ult.
since it had been released. At the moment I have 250GB HD as a C:\. I'm
reluctant to have too large volume HD as a C:\ because it take
much, much longer to for AV to check and to speedup HD.
My question is :
Is there an advantage installing Vista Ultimate on 1000GB HD.
a part from having a large volume at disposal?
Wouldn't it be better to have 2x500GB ?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Regards -
J D Ross
Click to expand...


I would have thought that it is better to confine the OS to something like a
250gb drive, use another 250gb as a slave, and a 500gb external for
backups..

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
 
I want to add 1TB Samsung to my PC running at the moment Vista Ult.
since it had been released. At the moment I have 250GB HD as a C:\.
I'm reluctant to have too large volume HD as a C:\ because it take
much, much longer to for AV to check and to speedup HD.

My question is :
Is there an advantage installing Vista Ultimate on 1000GB HD.
a part from having a large volume at disposal?
Wouldn't it be better to have 2x500GB ?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

Absolutely don't. Having a big drive is fine. Buy it, but use it as a
drive for your data, NOT the operating system. The more you isolate
your "stuff" from the partition the OS resides on the better for a
whole host of reasons. Since you already have a 250 GB for C that's
way more than Windows will ever need or use. If however you have tons
of documents, program files, etc. and you store them on C (you
shouldn't be really) that's another story. Limiting the question to
does Windows need or benefit from a huge drive? No, no way.
 
Jdr said:
Thanks, for your advice. I would have another 3 HDs on my PC.
My idea was to have one large volume of (say) D: or E:
and keep drive C: fairly small. At the moment is 250GB only.

My problem would be to re-group my files from present
smallish D:\ to a new one larger without much hassle.
So, if I'd use a new 1000GB as C: I'd partition it
for 2x500GB. But if I use entire 1000GB as D: then
I think it would be quite practical to keep it in one volume.
Does it sound reasonable?
Click to expand...

Yes, but a 1TB drive is likely to be substantially faster than a 250GB
drive, with its higher density with perpendicular recording and larger
cache, and it would make sense to put your OS on the fastest drive
available, as it is the bottleneck in almost all systems.

ss.
 
Charlie Tame said:
Well, there are a couple of practical things I would mention.

I have systems with removable SATA drives in open skeleton trays (IOW you
simply slide a bare drive in and they are not enclosed in an kind of case)
so it's much like permanent mounting inside a case. HEAT becomes a problem
as capacity grows and 500+ drives don't like sitting next to each other.
For this reason I use one big drive for Media Center rather than two
drives
Click to expand...

Good point here - Thanks!
- probably should swap the drive slides to leave a blank space between
them.
Click to expand...

There's no problem here - I hace Antec 180 case and HDDs
cooling is excellent.
Else I'd ask why not just add the 1TB as an extra.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, this is what I wanted to do in first place, but too much
hassle with mowing files from existing two smaller HDDs to the larger one.
But it'll have to be done .
Things like AV scan will only add to the heat problem unless you consider
mounting location. AV however only checks files, not unused space, so if
you simply clone the drive the AV should take no longer until you add more
stuff. If you plan on recording media or something then yes, putting it on
a separate drive that you will not need to scan will work.
Click to expand...

I have a large volume of files and this is part of my problem. Therefore
having 1000GB as one volume drive would be reasonable solution
for me.
Copying from drive to drive is faster than copying from folder to folder
on the same drive or partition to partition on the same drive usually, at
lease it works that way for me, but there's not much apart from that I can
think of.
Click to expand...

I use Norton 360 which is quite handy in some cases and have Acronics
also.
Souldn't be any problem here.
What might be good about two drives is that with something like Acronis
you can easily make regular images of you operating system drive to the
other one so if a drive ever fails you can at least stay up and running
with minimal effort and loss.

Sure people will say OS on small drive, Data on big drive, but Vista like
all Windows likes you to stick with the "Folders" MS decided you need and
moving stuff can be problematic. Therefore I consider "Data" to be things
like Videos, MP3s and stuff not like "My Documents" which I reckon is best
left where MS put them.

So 2 * 500 probably has advantages, but will probably use more power than
a single and bring cooling and maybe power supply problems if you are not
careful. If you really want the extra TB I think I'd say keep the 250,
install the 1 TB as one drive well spaced in the case and make a backup of
your OS to it right away using something like Acronis...
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable to me. So, I'll have to make free for OS Vista Ult.
a 500GB and the new 1TB will be for keeping data.
And 100 people will give you 100 different opinions :)
Click to expand...

True. But the above sound OK to me. Thanks.

Jdr
 
Mike Hall - MVP said:
I would have thought that it is better to confine the OS to something like
a 250gb drive, use another 250gb as a slave, and a 500gb external for
backups..
Click to expand...

Yes , it would be. In my case, at the moment I have already 250GB HDD
with only a small free space left. So I'll go for 500GB C: drive this
time.

Thank you for sharing your views with me -

Jdr
 
Ringmaster said:
Absolutely don't. Having a big drive is fine. Buy it, but use it as a
drive for your data, NOT the operating system. The more you isolate
your "stuff" from the partition the OS resides on the better for a
whole host of reasons. Since you already have a 250 GB for C that's
way more than Windows will ever need or use. If however you have tons
of documents, program files, etc. and you store them on C (you
shouldn't be really) that's another story. Limiting the question to
does Windows need or benefit from a huge drive? No, no way.
Click to expand...


Thanks, this is what I was wondering about, and will
have C: of 500GB for OS and the large 1TB for data files.

On my C: I have only applications, programs and some
files when working on them. I always keep my data -
as a principle, on other than C: drives.

Thanks -

Jdr
 
Synapse Syndrome said:
Yes, but a 1TB drive is likely to be substantially faster than a 250GB
drive, with its higher density with perpendicular recording and larger
cache, and it would make sense to put your OS on the fastest drive
available, as it is the bottleneck in almost all systems.

ss.
Click to expand...

I didn't take the "bottle neck" aspect into consideration.
I may try first and see how it works and star it again...-;)
I'll see how it goes.
 
Thank you to all who tried to help.
Finally I went for 500GB as C: and 1TB as D:
This is what I wanted.
Thanks to all again.

Jdr
 
JDR said:
Thank you to all who tried to help. Finally I went for 500GB as C: and 1TB
as D:
This is what I wanted.
Thanks to all again.
Click to expand...


You'd have to partition that 500GB anyway, as it is far far too large for
C:, once the user shall folders have been moved.

ss.
 
Synapse Syndrome said:
You'd have to partition that 500GB anyway, as it is far far too large for
C:, once the user shall folders have been moved.

ss.
Click to expand...

Good point, thanks. I'll see how it goes.
At the moment I'm working only with C: HDD.
Tomorrow I'll continue... I need some rest now.

Thank you once again to you ALL.

Regards -
JDR
 
Back
Top