Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

I am replacing my 40gig hard drive with a new 100gig in my laptop.
My previous drive was partitioned in half. I have heard that partitions
have little if no performance benefit on today's hard drives. Is this
true?

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

techman41973@yahoo.com wrote:
: I am replacing my 40gig hard drive with a new 100gig in my laptop.
: My previous drive was partitioned in half. I have heard that partitions
: have little if no performance benefit on today's hard drives. Is this
: true?

There was a little thread about that here last week, though not under
the title of partitioning. I'm against partitioning myself in Windows
- I prefer having everything on C: because I've done it both ways
before and find partitioning more trouble than it's worth. Never
heard there was ever a speed improvement using partitions. Why would
there be?

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

On 27 Jun 2005 06:53:59 GMT, usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew)
wrote:

>techman41973@yahoo.com wrote:
>: I am replacing my 40gig hard drive with a new 100gig in my laptop.
>: My previous drive was partitioned in half. I have heard that partitions
>: have little if no performance benefit on today's hard drives. Is this
>: true?

>There was a little thread about that here last week, though not under
>the title of partitioning. I'm against partitioning myself in Windows
>- I prefer having everything on C: because I've done it both ways
>before and find partitioning more trouble than it's worth. Never
>heard there was ever a speed improvement using partitions. Why would
>there be?


I have a media server and partion its HD, so a partition dedicated to
video media (huge files) are formatted with 64K cluster. Default
windows clusters are much smaller. Better performance that way no
doubt.

I also have an OS+Application on c: only. This is, well, an old trick
for those of us who uses a util like Ghost. This way, we can "image"
a relatively smaller c: for disaster recovery, or simply when we want
a "time snapshot" such as right after a clean install and all everyday
apps is been installed and run perfectly. At some later time, because
of virus, because of junks we download (yeah, we never do that right),
we wish to "go back" to a clean "checkpoint", but don't have to start
from scratch. This, u can say, is time-saving performance.

Having said that, some dude here partioning his HD to 26 drives is a
little nutty.

Your usage and mileage will vary.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

"bobb" <None@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
news:3uavb1hhf0kca4ng422sakn75if0alr4pk@4ax.com...
| On 27 Jun 2005 06:53:59 GMT, usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew)
| wrote:
|
| >techman41973@yahoo.com wrote:
| >: I am replacing my 40gig hard drive with a new 100gig in my laptop.
| >: My previous drive was partitioned in half. I have heard that
partitions
| >: have little if no performance benefit on today's hard drives. Is
this
| >: true?
|
| >There was a little thread about that here last week, though not under
| >the title of partitioning. I'm against partitioning myself in
Windows
| >- I prefer having everything on C: because I've done it both ways
| >before and find partitioning more trouble than it's worth. Never
| >heard there was ever a speed improvement using partitions. Why would
| >there be?
|
|
| I have a media server and partion its HD, so a partition dedicated to
| video media (huge files) are formatted with 64K cluster. Default
| windows clusters are much smaller. Better performance that way no
| doubt.
|
| I also have an OS+Application on c: only. This is, well, an old trick
| for those of us who uses a util like Ghost. This way, we can "image"
| a relatively smaller c: for disaster recovery, or simply when we want
| a "time snapshot" such as right after a clean install and all everyday
| apps is been installed and run perfectly. At some later time, because
| of virus, because of junks we download (yeah, we never do that right),
| we wish to "go back" to a clean "checkpoint", but don't have to start
| from scratch. This, u can say, is time-saving performance.

I agree about having the OS & Apps in a smaller partition, I do regular
Ghost backup to an external SCSI DAT tape drive and keep my data
synchronized across 2-3 PCs.

There was a time when large drives took forever to de-frag and that was
another reason for smaller partitions.

Chas.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

I'll just add my vote for having a C partition for OS and applications
only for backup reasons. My C partition, compressed by Ghost, fits on
one DVD. I use a set of RW DVDs which I rotate, and if something screws
up my system I simply restore - less than 15 minutes total and I've got
my system exactly where I want it.

Other than that, it is sometimes helpful to split the drive simply for
organizational purposes. Can't comment on performance benefits.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

bxf wrote:
> I'll just add my vote for having a C partition for OS and applications
> only for backup reasons. My C partition, compressed by Ghost, fits on
> one DVD. I use a set of RW DVDs which I rotate, and if something screws
> up my system I simply restore - less than 15 minutes total and I've got
> my system exactly where I want it.
>
> Other than that, it is sometimes helpful to split the drive simply for
> organizational purposes. Can't comment on performance benefits.
>
I believe the performance issue is probably non-existent. The problem is
deciding on a organization strategy. To me, it makes sense to keep c:
for the sole OS, d: for programs and e: for data (just an example). Of
course this is just my thinking but putting everything on the same
partition is a recipe for disaster the day, for some reason, it might
become inaccessible or corrupt. This is why I think MS idea of putting
all documents in My documents (to name only this example) is beyond
childish in its concept, but extremely dangerous. Like putting every
fragile stuff in the same drawer of a cupboard.

The right decision here must take into account the realities of
computing, hardware and software failures, not just the idea that if you
stuff everything in the same place, you will know where your stuff is!

But it takes all sorts to make a world.

--
John Doue

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

bobb <None@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>I also have an OS+Application on c: only. This is, well, an old trick
>for those of us who uses a util like Ghost. This way, we can "image"
>a relatively smaller c: for disaster recovery

I'm with Bobb (and Chas), though I use a moderate-sized C: (system)
drive, a 4G dedicated swapfile partition, and use whatever's left over
for a Data drive.

It's personal preference, though, my wife has One Giant C: Drive on
her machines, and while it takes longer to Ghost (and uses up far more
room on my backup volume set), she never has to worry about where to
put files or needing 10G of free space when she has 8G on c: and 8G on
e:, for instance.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

<William P. N. Smith> wrote in message
news:llnvb196561a76372ui9jtpntdk70a7m67@4ax.com...
> bobb <None@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>I also have an OS+Application on c: only. This is, well, an old trick
>>for those of us who uses a util like Ghost. This way, we can "image"
>>a relatively smaller c: for disaster recovery
>
> I'm with Bobb (and Chas), though I use a moderate-sized C: (system)
> drive, a 4G dedicated swapfile partition, and use whatever's left over
> for a Data drive.
>
> It's personal preference, though, my wife has One Giant C: Drive on
> her machines, and while it takes longer to Ghost (and uses up far more
> room on my backup volume set), she never has to worry about where to
> put files or needing 10G of free space when she has 8G on c: and 8G on
> e:, for instance.
>

I agree with the split for backup purposes. The other reason I do it is for
security. Ideally, I use a C: for OS & apps, D: for my private stuff and E:
for public stuff. Then I set C & D to not to share and share E. I spend a
lot of time on other people's networks, and this makes my stuff a little
less accessible to the world.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

John Doue wrote:
> To me, it makes sense to keep c:
> for the sole OS, d: for programs and e: for data (just an example).

In fact, I used to do as you say. But then I started to use Ghost and I
realized that this way I must Ghost 2 partitions, not one. Also, having
the OS and programs on the same partition makes it impossible for the
files to be out of sync with the registry. And lastly, I've encountered
too many programs that don't give you the options of where they are to
be installed, so they end up in C:\PROGRAM FILES anyway.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

bxf wrote:

>
> John Doue wrote:
>
>>To me, it makes sense to keep c:
>>for the sole OS, d: for programs and e: for data (just an example).
>
>
> In fact, I used to do as you say. But then I started to use Ghost and I
> realized that this way I must Ghost 2 partitions, not one. Also, having
> the OS and programs on the same partition makes it impossible for the
> files to be out of sync with the registry. And lastly, I've encountered
> too many programs that don't give you the options of where they are to
> be installed, so they end up in C:\PROGRAM FILES anyway.
>
You do have a valid point about registry and programs possibly getting
out of sync. Personally, I do not see this as a problem since I tend to
make backups of my partitions (and not images, since I like the ability
to access individual files at will) at the same time. Still, for some
users, you have a point.

With regards to "too many programs that don't give you the options of
where they are to be installed", I am very surprised. Personally, I have
only one and believe me, I have LOTS of programs. Are you referring to
games? In that case, I cannot argue, I very seldom use my PCs for
gaming. Of course, it is always possible to assign a different directory
for programs other than C:\Program Files (using a utility as X-Setup)
but I would not advocate that, too many install routines do not consider
that possibility.

--
John Doue

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

John Doue wrote:
> bxf wrote:
>
> >
> > John Doue wrote:
> >
> >>To me, it makes sense to keep c:
> >>for the sole OS, d: for programs and e: for data (just an example).
> >
> >
> > In fact, I used to do as you say. But then I started to use Ghost and I
> > realized that this way I must Ghost 2 partitions, not one. Also, having
> > the OS and programs on the same partition makes it impossible for the
> > files to be out of sync with the registry. And lastly, I've encountered
> > too many programs that don't give you the options of where they are to
> > be installed, so they end up in C:\PROGRAM FILES anyway.
> >
> You do have a valid point about registry and programs possibly getting
> out of sync. Personally, I do not see this as a problem since I tend to
> make backups of my partitions (and not images, since I like the ability
> to access individual files at will) at the same time.

I don't understand what you mean. I make backups of my PARTITION, thus
creating a Ghost IMAGE. I am able to view and access the contents of
the image using Ghost Explorer. Do you mean to say you make a backup of
the entire DISK?

> With regards to "too many programs that don't give you the options of
> where they are to be installed", I am very surprised. Personally, I have
> only one and believe me, I have LOTS of programs. Are you referring to
> games?

Nope, no games. Well, maybe ALSO a game or two. Some components of
Roxio Media Creator are one example. Sorry, I'm not at my computer at
the moment and I recall others off hand.

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

bobb <None@nowhere.com> wrote:
: On 27 Jun 2005 06:53:59 GMT, usenetMYSHOES@bizaveMYSHOES.com (Andrew)
: wrote:
: >There was a little thread about that here last week, though not under
: >the title of partitioning. I'm against partitioning myself in Windows
: >- I prefer having everything on C: because I've done it both ways
: >before and find partitioning more trouble than it's worth. Never
: >heard there was ever a speed improvement using partitions. Why would
: >there be?

: I have a media server and partion its HD, so a partition dedicated to
: video media (huge files) are formatted with 64K cluster. Default
: windows clusters are much smaller. Better performance that way no
: doubt.

: I also have an OS+Application on c: only. This is, well, an old trick
: for those of us who uses a util like Ghost. This way, we can "image"
: a relatively smaller c: for disaster recovery, or simply when we want
: a "time snapshot" such as right after a clean install and all everyday
: apps is been installed and run perfectly. At some later time, because
: of virus, because of junks we download (yeah, we never do that right),
: we wish to "go back" to a clean "checkpoint", but don't have to start
: from scratch. This, u can say, is time-saving performance.

Well, I don't have the Ghost problem, because I use external hard
drives for backups, and I can fit multiple images of my entire laptop
hard drive on one backup hard drive (I use Acronis True Image, not
Ghost). And True Image (probably like Ghost) can save only the
changes to my drive each time I backup. As I've said before, I used
to do partitions in Windows but have long since given up fighting
Windows in this regard. It is much easier simply to backup a single
c: drive. You never have to worry where stuff is - it's all on c:.

In an OS like Linux, you can actually control where stuff is
installed, so partitions make more sense, in fact are encouraged for
performace reasons.

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com <---- Photo Albums and Portland Info
----> To Email me remove "MYSHOES" from email address
*******************************************************************

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

bxf wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
> I don't understand what you mean. I make backups of my PARTITION, thus
> creating a Ghost IMAGE. I am able to view and access the contents of
> the image using Ghost Explorer. Do you mean to say you make a backup of
> the entire DISK?

My mistake. Not being familiar with Ghost, I did not know you could
access individual files belonging to an image. No, of course not, I
backup my PartitionS, sorry I dropped the "s" which raised your doubts
about my .. sanity!


>>With regards to "too many programs that don't give you the options of
>>where they are to be installed", I am very surprised. Personally, I have
>>only one and believe me, I have LOTS of programs. Are you referring to
>>games?
>
>
> Nope, no games. Well, maybe ALSO a game or two. Some components of
> Roxio Media Creator are one example. Sorry, I'm not at my computer at
> the moment and I recall others off hand.
>
My version of Roxio installed its components where I told it to. Which
exe file are you exactly referring to? Just curious.

Regards

--
John Doue

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

John Doue wrote:

> bxf wrote:
>
>>
>> snip
>>
>>> Nope, no games. Well, maybe ALSO a game or two. Some components of
>> Roxio Media Creator are one example. Sorry, I'm not at my computer at
>> the moment and I recall others off hand.
>>
> My version of Roxio installed its components where I told it to. Which
> exe file are you exactly referring to? Just curious.
>
> Regards
>
Disregard. Got carried away, I was referring to Nero and not Roxio.
Sorry for the confusion.

--
John Doue

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

John Doue wrote:

> bxf wrote:
>> I'll just add my vote for having a C partition for OS and applications
>> only for backup reasons. My C partition, compressed by Ghost, fits on
>> one DVD. I use a set of RW DVDs which I rotate, and if something screws
>> up my system I simply restore - less than 15 minutes total and I've got
>> my system exactly where I want it.
>>
>> Other than that, it is sometimes helpful to split the drive simply for
>> organizational purposes. Can't comment on performance benefits.
>>
> I believe the performance issue is probably non-existent. The problem is
> deciding on a organization strategy. To me, it makes sense to keep c:
> for the sole OS, d: for programs and e: for data (just an example).

Doesn't gain you anything with any OS that puts some application files or
portions thereof in the system areas.

> Of
> course this is just my thinking but putting everything on the same
> partition is a recipe for disaster the day, for some reason, it might
> become inaccessible or corrupt. This is why I think MS idea of putting
> all documents in My documents (to name only this example) is beyond
> childish in its concept, but extremely dangerous. Like putting every
> fragile stuff in the same drawer of a cupboard.

This is not a "Microsoft concept". This is just the "home directory"
concept that was firmly entrenched when I had my first encounter with a
mainframe in 1972. The only thing "new" about it is calling it "My
Documents" instead of "home". The IBM System 3x0 interactive operating
systems do it that way, VMS does it that way, Unix does it that way, every
major multiuser OS of which I am aware does it that way. There's nothing
new about it and it has a 40+ year track record, so your opinion that it is
"childish and extremely dangerous" flies in the face of decades of
real-world experience.

Further, the use of the home directory does not restrict you to storing
files in a single location--any folder on your machine can be linked to a
subfolder of your home directory--Windows 2K and later support both hard
and symbolic links on NTFS, however this is not something that Microsoft
exposes in the user interface or makes widely known--there is a very nice
GPL tool called "NTFS Link" available from <http://www.elsdoerfer.info/>
which adds this support in a convenient and transparent way, including
fixing a problem with Windows Explorer's handling of such links--if it
doesn't seem to install for you check the forums.

> The right decision here must take into account the realities of
> computing, hardware and software failures, not just the idea that if you
> stuff everything in the same place, you will know where your stuff is!

It also must take into consideration the realities of security and storage
management.

> But it takes all sorts to make a world.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

John Doue wrote:

> bxf wrote:
>
>>
>> John Doue wrote:
>>
>>>To me, it makes sense to keep c:
>>>for the sole OS, d: for programs and e: for data (just an example).
>>
>>
>> In fact, I used to do as you say. But then I started to use Ghost and I
>> realized that this way I must Ghost 2 partitions, not one. Also, having
>> the OS and programs on the same partition makes it impossible for the
>> files to be out of sync with the registry. And lastly, I've encountered
>> too many programs that don't give you the options of where they are to
>> be installed, so they end up in C:\PROGRAM FILES anyway.
>>
> You do have a valid point about registry and programs possibly getting
> out of sync. Personally, I do not see this as a problem since I tend to
> make backups of my partitions (and not images, since I like the ability
> to access individual files at will) at the same time. Still, for some
> users, you have a point.

The latest imagers allow the image to be mounted as a read-only filesystem,
so you can access individual files at will.

> With regards to "too many programs that don't give you the options of
> where they are to be installed", I am very surprised. Personally, I have
> only one and believe me, I have LOTS of programs. Are you referring to
> games? In that case, I cannot argue, I very seldom use my PCs for
> gaming. Of course, it is always possible to assign a different directory
> for programs other than C:\Program Files (using a utility as X-Setup)
> but I would not advocate that, too many install routines do not consider
> that possibility.
>

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Archived from groups: comp.sys.laptops (More info?)

J. Clarke wrote:
> John Doue wrote:
>
> This is not a "Microsoft concept". This is just the "home directory"
> concept that was firmly entrenched when I had my first encounter with a
> mainframe in 1972. The only thing "new" about it is calling it "My
> Documents" instead of "home". The IBM System 3x0 interactive operating
> systems do it that way...

Hmmmm. After working on IBM mainframes for over 35 years, at about 15
sites in about 10 cities on 5 continents, I know I haven't encountered
everything, but I can't begin to imagine which mainframe "interactive
operating system" you are referring to in the baove context.