Disk Partitioning

[Guest]

I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???)
of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well
structured and organized logically.
So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple
partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities,
etc.
I've been told that this "slows" the machine down -- but I don't do
anything (except 1 or 2 CPU-intensive math things I've programmed)
where the slow-down , if it exists, is noticeable.
So, my question --- what's the downside of doing the same thing
on a new Win 7 64 bit computer?

 

[Bob I]

I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???)
of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well
structured and organized logically.
So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple
partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities,
etc.
I've been told that this "slows" the machine down -- but I don't do
anything (except 1 or 2 CPU-intensive math things I've programmed)
where the slow-down , if it exists, is noticeable.
So, my question --- what's the downside of doing the same thing
on a new Win 7 64 bit computer?

Primarily a waste of time and effort. Makes successful restoration from
backups less likely. All the registry and user info for the
installations remains on the C: drive anyway.

 

[Ed Cryer]

Primarily a waste of time and effort. Makes successful restoration from
backups less likely. All the registry and user info for the
installations remains on the C: drive anyway.

Yes. I do the sort of thing that the OP's doing by use of folders in C:
or Username, My Documents.
That's a nice compromise between organisational tidiness and good HD
management.

Ed

 

[Ken Blake]

I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???)
of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well
structured and organized logically.

Yes, separating different kinds of files on partitions is an
organizational technique, but so is separating different kinds of
files into folders. The difference is that partitions are static and
fixed in size, while folders are dynamic, changing size automatically
as necessary to meet your changing needs. That generally makes folders
a much better way to organize, in my view.

So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple
partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities,
etc.

In my opinion, that's *way* overpartitioned.

I've been told that this "slows" the machine down -- but I don't do
anything (except 1 or 2 CPU-intensive math things I've programmed)
where the slow-down , if it exists, is noticeable.

With modern computers, the slowdown is very slight if it exists at
all.

So, my question --- what's the downside of doing the same thing
on a new Win 7 64 bit computer?

You might want to read this article I've written:
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326

 

[Guest]

Yes, separating different kinds of files on partitions is an
organizational technique, but so is separating different kinds of
files into folders. The difference is that partitions are static and
fixed in size, while folders are dynamic, changing size automatically
as necessary to meet your changing needs. That generally makes folders
a much better way to organize, in my view.




In my opinion, that's *way* overpartitioned.

Please don't misinterpret here, I don't mean
to be argumentative at all, but if one is partitioning
what becomes "too much" ??

 

[David Simpson]

I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???)
of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things
well structured and organized logically.
So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple
partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities,
etc.
I've been told that this "slows" the machine down -- but I don't do
anything (except 1 or 2 CPU-intensive math things I've programmed)
where the slow-down , if it exists, is noticeable.
So, my question --- what's the downside of doing the same thing
on a new Win 7 64 bit computer?

I ALWAYS partition, but not the way you do. The most I do is as
follows:

System
Games (IF a BIG gamer, otherwise on the system disk)
Data

With a modern DESKTOP, you shouldn't even do that, just get 2 drives, an
SSD (128G+, maybe a 64GB, if you are careful) for the "System" and a
rotating HD (or more as needed) for your data. (Mine currently has 1
SSD and 3 HDs.)

With a LAPTOP, I'd get a bigger SSD (or 2 if the laptop can handle it),
but I'd still make 2 partitions.

The reason I will never split the program files up, is because of the
tight program/registy link, you need (unless you truly know what you are
doing) a single recovery step. System disk need special backup
programs.

Data (music/video/docs/spreadsheets/etc.) on the other had, expecialy
with Windows 7's "library system", can be anywhere on the system. You
don't need these files when restoring, and can be backed up with a
simple file copy. Heck, even if you "loose" your system, this data can
be added back into a new system, again, even with a simple file backup.
To orginize your data, just make directories. I have directories 10 or
so deep in some places. (Note, there are issues with Windows explorer
when the total path length get over about 240 charators, but most newer
file managers can handle any length NTFS can)

An example of why I do this:
My system disk's backup is about 22GB.
My "data" size is around 4TB.

I can back both up, easy. The "data" files are all incremental
backups(only changed files) and the full "system" backup only takes
about 15 minutes. Even if I only stored my music on my system, the
"system" backup would increase to about 75GB and take 3 times as long!



--
_______________________________________________
/ David Simpson \
| (e-mail address removed) |
| http://www.nyx.net/~dsimpson |
|We got to go to the crappy town where I'm a hero.|
\_______________________________________________/

 

[choro]

Please don't misinterpret here, I don't mean
to be argumentative at all, but if one is partitioning
what becomes "too much" ??

Nice sensible advice. Thx!

Everybody should tick to go to your article and read it carefully.
Personally I put backups on a 2nd internal HD. But just to be on the
safe side I also copy them to an external HD. With HDs so cheap these
days, I see no reason to try and economize on HDs.

+1 fully earned.

 

[choro]

Nice sensible advice. Thx!

Everybody should tick to go to your article and read it carefully.
Personally I put backups on a 2nd internal HD. But just to be on the
safe side I also copy them to an external HD. With HDs so cheap these
days, I see no reason to try and economize on HDs.

+1 fully earned.

And incidentally, in preference to W7's Xcopy I always XXcopy my
data/user files to an external HD. That way they are immediately
accessible. I have the necessary XXcopy commands ready on a Word
document with its own shortcut on the desktop. Nice and neat!

The only files XXcopy cannot deal with (at least the freebie version) is
filenames with more than 256 characters including the path. And that is
no problem for me.

 

[Ken Blake]

Nice sensible advice. Thx!

Everybody should tick to go to your article and read it carefully.
Personally I put backups on a 2nd internal HD. But just to be on the
safe side I also copy them to an external HD. With HDs so cheap these
days, I see no reason to try and economize on HDs.

+1 fully earned.

Thanks for the kind words.

 

[Jabberwocky]

And incidentally, in preference to W7's Xcopy I always XXcopy my
data/user files to an external HD. That way they are immediately
accessible. I have the necessary XXcopy commands ready on a Word
document with its own shortcut on the desktop. Nice and neat!

The only files XXcopy cannot deal with (at least the freebie version) is
filenames with more than 256 characters including the path. And that is
no problem for me.

Can I suggest that you have a look at Microsoft's SyncToy 2.1?

 

[philo]

Please don't misinterpret here, I don't mean
to be argumentative at all, but if one is partitioning
what becomes "too much" ??

Suppose you have a 1TB drive with just a single partition.

You can make as many folders as you wish and put as much datum in them
as you like...until the entire drive fills up. There is nothing you need
think about in advance.


Suppose you made ten different partitions for various data and one
filled up. Now what would you do?


There is just plain no need to divide up your drive into a lot of
partitions.



That said: How you set your machine up is totally up to you.

 

[Juan Wei]

(e-mail address removed) has written on 9/15/2013 12:17 PM:

I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???)
of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well
structured and organized logically.
So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple
partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities,
etc.

Why not just use a directory structure? What do you gain by all those
partitions?

 

[Paladin]

(e-mail address removed) has written on 9/15/2013 12:17 PM:

Why not just use a directory structure? What do you gain by all those
partitions?

Alphabet soup.
Some people get off on a P:/ drive.

 

[s|b]

Why not just use a directory structure? What do you gain by all those
partitions?

A headache.

 

[John]

Thanks for the kind words.

I agree with Clorox. That is a very well written article that treats
a very difficult subject gently. Excellent job, Mr. Blake.
Though I must admit that on my own personal PC's I have usually had a
partition for tools and programs and other running things (games and
things) and one for "data", pictures, records, music and general
stuff. And I rarely install programs into "Program Files" or "Program
Files(x86)" if the installer allows me to relocate them. I put them
into a folder for tools, each in their own sub-folders. Games, I treat
as programs but I store them in their very own games folder.
I'm not trying to be overly secure or to make backups easier, I just
like to be able to find things. I'm quite willing to take the hit on
performance that my filing system generates, if any, because modern
machines are *incredibly* efficient. Even really bizarre
organisational schemes with multiple partitions and trees worth of
sub-folders probably won't slow a good PC down noticeably.
J.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Can I suggest that you have a look at Microsoft's SyncToy 2.1?

Can I suggest that choro look at AllWay Sync instead? It has a free
version and it is updated from time to time.

It also handles daylight time and timezone problems properly.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I'm, by some quirk (anal retentive, obsessive compulsive, other ???)
of my mentality, an organizational freak. I, by nature, want things well
structured and organized logically.
So, in XP-Pro I have the hard drive partitioned into multiple
partitions _- Office Apps, Internet Apps, Accessories, Utilities,
etc.
I've been told that this "slows" the machine down -- but I don't do
anything (except 1 or 2 CPU-intensive math things I've programmed)
where the slow-down , if it exists, is noticeable.
So, my question --- what's the downside of doing the same thing
on a new Win 7 64 bit computer?

There's another problem not yet mentioned about excessive partitioning.

Windows can only have 26 named partitions, since it uses single letters
to name them - and A:, B:, and C: are pre-assigned[1].

If you never plug in a memory stick or a flash card, or (heavens
forfend!) a backup drive, that might not matter to you.

I agree with all of the caveats expressed in this thread.

[1] A: and B: can be preempted, but that is not a great idea, since they
have a standard meaning. C: can vary too, but there must be a boot
drive, of course.

 

[Bob I]

Alphabet soup.
Some people get off on a P:/ drive.

You can "name" any folder as a drive letter. Simply r-click it, select
Properties, Sharing, Share, Select Everyone from the pull down and set
R/W. Then in the Tools menu in Windows Explorer, select "Map network
drive" to give the letter of choice to the shared folder.

 

[Paladin]

You can "name" any folder as a drive letter. Simply r-click it, select
Properties, Sharing, Share, Select Everyone from the pull down and set
R/W. Then in the Tools menu in Windows Explorer, select "Map network
drive" to give the letter of choice to the shared folder.

You can name your foot a hand.
It serves no real purpose.
Just use folders.

Or, create partitions, if it helps you sleep at night.

 

[Steve Hayes]

Primarily a waste of time and effort. Makes successful restoration from
backups less likely. All the registry and user info for the
installations remains on the C: drive anyway.

I generally agree but sometimes partitioning makes sense.

Back in 1999 I bought a new computer and the biggest hard disk available was 8
Gig.

When bigger drives became available I got a 40 Gig one, and partioned it into
D, E, F, and G drives -- back then it was Fat 32, and making it all one
partition would have wasted a bit of space because it would have required a
bigger cluster size. My plan was to use D to back up C, E for programs, F for
games (I didn't want the kids installing them in my working disk space) and G
for data.

I installed programs on E because there wasn't enough space on C.

And I've carried the same configuration over ever since, because I don't like
reinstalling programs -- much too time-consuming.

When I bought a new computer, I bought it without an OS. I just backed up each
partition on Acronis, and restored it on the new computer's 500 Gig drives.
Everything worked.