Nospam said:
As the original poster can I add a few things.
No way.
Firstly, the back up I was 'suggesting' on the hard drive is just in
case I screw up a file while editing or accidentally delete a file.
It doesnt make a lot of sense to have those backups on that
hard drive if you have them on another hard drive as well.
You shouldnt be editing or accidentally deleting a file often enough
that the extra speed with the backups on the same system is relevant.
I synchronise my data onto two other PCs automatically everyday over
my home network and also backup any changed files to DVD every week.
A disc crash would not loose me much data.
I wanted to partition the drive more for convenience that anything else.
It normally produces less convenience with the backups. Its generally
better to minimise the number of partitions on the drive which has the
backups on it, because that way the free space doesnt get scattered
across the partitions, so you can keep more backups easily. That
means that if you dont notice that you have buggered up a file until
well after you molested it, you should have more generations to get
the unmolested file out of when you realise what you have done.
In the past I have had the OS screw up, without damaging the data.
Sure, you can certainly make a case for a separate OS and
programs partition, but its not a particularly good one if you have
full backups of everything as you appear to be saying you do.
The only time a separate OS and programs partition has any real
advantage is if you frequently do have the OS screw up and a
repair install doesnt fix that, and that shouldnt be happening with XP.
The other arguable advantage is if you choose to do a full image
of the OS and programs partition before changing anything at all,
in case the system restore and repair install cant fix the problem.
A separate OS and programs partitions will be faster to image
and that may well see you make the image more often than if
you have to image the entire physical drive.
BUT it actually makes a lot more sense to do incremental
images now with a decent modern imager and get an even
faster safety image again.
If you do incremental safety images, the only time its still worth
having a separate OS and programs partitions is if the system
has a very high level of data file activity, like with a PVR where
the incremental image will be very large due to the very high
turnover of data files.
So if the data is on another partition then all I have to do is
restore the OS and any programs. If the data gets damaged all I have to do is copy it from one of
the other systems or the DVDs.
In conclusion it's all about making things easier for me, day-to-day.
Its still hard to justify your multiple partitions approach.
BTW
Don't some of you guys have sufficient command of the English language
that you can make you point without having to resort to profanity and insults?
That has always been an utterly mindless line. Some of us dont give a
flying red **** about what fools like you dont like to see language wise.
