I am going to be installing a new mobo/cpu/ram/video card and will be formatting my drive and wanted to know if splitting my drive into two partitions and then installing WindowsXP on one and all my programs on the other would give me any increase in performance or should I install windows on a completely seperate drive, or will it really make any difference at all how I install. Thanks!
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Improving system performance...
- Thread starter nsyrax
- Start date
not realy but it will let you manage your system better
i recomand a 20GB to 40GB partion for the OS
install all your aps and make any setting changes you need to windows then image your OS drive
thay way if some thing happens you can just restore the image instead of formating
i recomand a 20GB to 40GB partion for the OS
install all your aps and make any setting changes you need to windows then image your OS drive
thay way if some thing happens you can just restore the image instead of formating
Chernobyl1
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,674
As a matter of principle I have a 15GB partition for Windows. and use the rest for whatever.
Initially there is just about no performance difference from performing the basic partitioning but later on you are likely to get less reduction in performance by having the Windows in a separate partition.
Windows does a great job of fragmenting its own drive. So does downloading torrents, installing, deleting and generally working with a drive too.
If you mix Windows in the same partition you will get worse fragmentation that affects everything you do.
Fragmentation will occur faster too.
Its easier to backup a 15GB partition with your crucial data than a much larger partition.
You also can have the second partition to copy anything off that you dont want to backup.
If the Windows partition gets corrupted or vice versa, you dont lose everything when using 2 partitions.
Defragging and scandisk the Windows partition will take much less time too
Initially there is just about no performance difference from performing the basic partitioning but later on you are likely to get less reduction in performance by having the Windows in a separate partition.
Windows does a great job of fragmenting its own drive. So does downloading torrents, installing, deleting and generally working with a drive too.
If you mix Windows in the same partition you will get worse fragmentation that affects everything you do.
Fragmentation will occur faster too.
Its easier to backup a 15GB partition with your crucial data than a much larger partition.
You also can have the second partition to copy anything off that you dont want to backup.
If the Windows partition gets corrupted or vice versa, you dont lose everything when using 2 partitions.
Defragging and scandisk the Windows partition will take much less time too
Not too familiar with XP and/or NTFS, are you? Fragmentation isn't nearly as big oa problem now as it was in the past. Furthermore, this doesn't occur simply by having your apps and OS on the same partition. You want to have two separate partitions...one for the OS, apps, games, etc, and a second one for data storage. This second partition or preferably drive, is where you store your documents, music, etc. I back up my important files from my C drive, like bookmarks, e-mail, etc to my D drive, and then I have my entire D drive backed up to an external. Chernobyl's comments are only correct in a system that has one single drive with one single partition. 15 GB is way to small for a system volume unless it's a server that might have one application installed. You could fill 15 GB quickly with a few apps and a game or two.Chernobyl1 said:
djnes said:
thats why you have OTHER partions for games aps and other data
im setup witha 20GB for OS and 100GB for aps then i have another 120 partion for data
and yes NTFS sucks it still get fragmented to hell and back i just did a fresh install of XP and i ran perfict disk last night and c: was fragmented badly after just a week
what i did was install all my aps and games got windows to how i like it THEN i imaged my OS drive so if ever need a new install i just restore the windows image
Chernobyl1
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,674
djnes said:
Please re-read what I said, you have assumed a lot.
The answer was tailored to the question asked, for the person asking the question.
If you think I'm taking a dig at you, please note that this thread isnt about you!
I didnt pick up on any points you said and tell you they are wrong so I dont deserve that attitude from you. Please dont make things personal
I dont need to read up on using XP as I am more than aware of its capabilities and shortfalls.
I install all apps to my windows partition and all games to another partition. 15GB is easily enough and has been for the last 4 years I've used this method.
Fragmentation still occurs and increases with the more programs writing and deleting to/from a partition so shouldnt be ignored when discussing performance.
Regarding this comment
"Furthermore, this doesn't occur simply by having your apps and OS on the same partition."
I refer you to my statement
"Windows does a great job of fragmenting its own drive. So does downloading torrents, installing, deleting and generally working with a drive too.
If you mix Windows in the same partition you will get worse fragmentation that affects everything you do.
Fragmentation will occur faster too."
There's no positve reason for doing this, and it only clouds backup schemes. Just because something can be done, and makes you feel all "l33t and fuzzy" inside, doesn't mean it should be done. The OP asked if there is any performance to be gained, and that answer is simply no.Elios said:
Oh, I forgot the rules here. Since you typed it, it must be correct. Applications that are loaded and then closed don't cause fragmentation. It's the same files, in the same locations, so nothing is changed. Spreading misinformation isn't going to help the OP, now is it? Cleaning out your internet cache and defragging every so often is a good thing...but moving your apps to another partition isn't going to suddenly make your system volume squeeky clean and organized. It doesn't work that way.Chernobyl said:
Chernobyl1
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,674
djnes said:
This isnt any performance to be gained initially but it can help you prevent losing performance later.
Chernobyl1
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,674
djnes said:
I didnt mention loading and closing applications, dont add things to your argument.
I havent said anything that can misinform, I've done rather the reverse and made it very clear what I mean.
Please re-read my first post to understand how more than one partition can help.
That simply isn't true. Cleaning out your internet cache and running a defrag will aid in maintaining overall performance. Having your apps stored on another partition has no bearing on performance now or anytime in the future. Just think about it...it's common sense. No one is arguing the benefit of defragging, but where you're apps are installed has no bearing on this whatsoever.Chernobyl1 said:
Chernobyl1
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,674
djnes said:
I'll let nsyrax be the judge of what information he wants to take
That's perfectly fine, it's his/her computer. That doesn't make your information correct however. Take a minute and do a search on this topic. There have been quite a few threads recently asking this same question, and the answers given in those threads will show you how to correctly partition your drive and what benefits, if any, are to be realized in what circumstances. I'd suggest reading those threads before arguing and giving false information to someone asking for help.Chernobyl1 said:I'll let nsyrax be the judge of what information he wants to take
here are three to get you started. Be sure to read GreNME's post on the third page of the last link:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1089066&highlight=partition
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1086509&highlight=partition
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1081417&highlight=partition
Chernobyl1
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,674
djnes said:
lol, you dont give up.
I dont need help from you and didnt ask for any.
As for my giving false information?, please read what I have said again as nothing I have said is false and can give a decent indication of how performance can degrade if using Windows on the same partition as your general workspace.
I certainly dont need you telling me what to do and I will pass on any useful tips regardless of whether you like them or not.
How closed-minded of you. It's not about me liking them or not. It's about being correct or not, and you're lack of desire to do any reading on the subject. As the line goes, if ignorance is bliss, I bet you're smilin' right now. And by ignorance, I mean the fact that you drone on and on without taking the time to read any factual information. Closing your mind to learning something, etc. Read through those links...not for me...but for you.Chernobyl1 said:
Chernobyl1
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,674
djnes said:
good grief
I have a vast amount of experience and I read a hell of a lot.
My points are perfectly correct and valid.
Just because they differ from what you think is fine but you wont let it rest.
You insulted me twice now, I strongly suggest you cease.
I have nothing more to say. I linked you some good reads, and you ignored them. Frankly I could care less what you do or believe for your own computer, it's just giving people bad advice is when the problems start.
That being said, you don't work for me, so I don't really care. If you choose to stay in the dark, that affects only you. The fact is, no performance is to be gained by moving your apps, and you haven't given any links to back it up your stance. You made a second, more incorrect claim tat performance benefits are only seen later, and yet still no links or proof. Do whatever you want for your own computer, but please don't give bad advice to people asking for help.
To the OP, if you want some good answers to your question, please read the links I gave. GreNME's explanation is very good, and if you have any further questions about it, PM him. If you want any more explanations of what I meant by the backup scenarios, let me know. I apologize that your thread got derailed, but you came here asking for help, and you should be able to expect a correct answer in return. I'm not asking you to choose sides between two people bickering, so that's why I gave those links.
That being said, you don't work for me, so I don't really care. If you choose to stay in the dark, that affects only you. The fact is, no performance is to be gained by moving your apps, and you haven't given any links to back it up your stance. You made a second, more incorrect claim tat performance benefits are only seen later, and yet still no links or proof. Do whatever you want for your own computer, but please don't give bad advice to people asking for help.
To the OP, if you want some good answers to your question, please read the links I gave. GreNME's explanation is very good, and if you have any further questions about it, PM him. If you want any more explanations of what I meant by the backup scenarios, let me know. I apologize that your thread got derailed, but you came here asking for help, and you should be able to expect a correct answer in return. I'm not asking you to choose sides between two people bickering, so that's why I gave those links.
Chernobyl1
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,674
Dude, you need to get off your high horse around here. There are a lot of IT professionals who post here who have as much or far more experience and knowledge of systems as you. Snidely disregarding anything anyone else says because you do not wish to give your own assessment any further scrutiny is a failing on your part, not anyone else's.Chernobyl1 said:
Since you are so steadfast in ignoring the request to read further, let me sum it up for you:
- No matter how many partitions you use to segregate your OS from programs, you are always going to need to access the OS partition to run the programs anyway. Placing programs on a separate partition adds more complexity to the equation and requires more read-writes over more partitions to run apps. Since, logically, increasing performance means minimizing overhead and creating the simplest path between two points, creating more complexity is actually the opposite of improving performance.
- Many programs require the use of environment variables and hard-coded registry entries to be able to run. While this may not be the case with a few games, everything from office productivity suites to your PDF reading program require the ability of your operating system to have previous knowlege of where the programs have been installed. This means that once an operating system has been reinstalled, you will need to also reinstall the aformentioned programs in order for them to work (properly). Otherwise, you have saved little more than the files that existed in the program's home folder (that will not work until installed anyway).
- Creating more partitions on a single hard drive actually taxes the hard drive in ways that will lessen the life span of the hardware and create more work for the software before program launch. Having heads move constantly back and forth on the drive does not decrease performance, it unnecessarily increases hardware overhead during operation. If you would like an illustration of what I mean then those can be provided (and have already been provided in the links given previously).
- The idea of separating programs from the OS partition originates not from a desire to increase performance, but to allow for a multi-user networked environment make available system resources (programs) to users who are not logged directly (physically) on to a machine. With the programs located off the main system partition, a server is more safely able to assign permissions to networked users to allow for access to the programs and program files without requiring a user to be logged on. There are also security concerns that are mostly left over from 9x/NT4 days, but the fact remains that if users are not touching the system partition over the network then the surface area open to attack is (theoretically) lessened. None of this has any bearing over a single-user installation coniguration, because a single-user installation configuration is rarely used as a method to share applications over a network of many users.
All of those things have far more detail involved with them than I'd rather go into, because I am growing tired of threads asking this same thing popping up once a week. This discussion has been debated over and over for months, in numerous threads, and is getting old. If you want to do something to your computer, go right ahead-- it's your computer. However, if you want to know why and how things work the way they do, then feel free to openly examine the considerations and offer your own conclusions.
Chernobyl1
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,674
I made a very simple point that does have a positive effect.
I'm not on a high horse, djnes first comment to me was:
"Not too familiar with XP and/or NTFS, are you?"
I have remained civil throughout but he has been discourteous and argumentative.
Your points about partitioning are valid, mine are not in conflict.
I have stated a very simple point which is the more programs read/write to a partition the quicker it fragments. You can help prevent this by putting torrents, general workspace etc on a different partition.
I'm not on a high horse, djnes first comment to me was:
"Not too familiar with XP and/or NTFS, are you?"
I have remained civil throughout but he has been discourteous and argumentative.
Your points about partitioning are valid, mine are not in conflict.
I have stated a very simple point which is the more programs read/write to a partition the quicker it fragments. You can help prevent this by putting torrents, general workspace etc on a different partition.
Thats what I did.GreNME said:
Which is correct because you are talking about data, and user created/downloaded files. That is what I said above about keeping the C drive for the OS and apps, and a D drive for data. No one was disagreeing with that, and had you actually heeded my suggestions and read those links, you'd see my comments stating the same thing. The part I took issue with was the actual installed programs. Those do not create fragmentation, once they are installed. For example, Microsoft Word will not cause my drive to fragment or lose performance down the road, simply by running it every day. When it's run, it pulls in the same files each time. If I were to create tons of word documents, and store them randomly on my C drive, then it would....but again, that's why I suggested user created data to be stored on D. Better for the health of the drive, and easier for the user to include in a restore scheme. I think you are confusing the actual installed applications with software apps that are installed. here's an example of what I mean:Chernobyl1 said:
If I use EAC to create a ton of mp3 files...but I store them on my second partition/drive, my C drive isn't becoming more fragmented, and I'm not losing any performance. I am adding large amounts of data to my D drive, so it would be wise for me to keep that defragmented as well. The fact that I installed EAC on my C drive, and that I use it often, has absolutely no effect on the level of fragmentation and performance of my C partition.
Chernobyl1
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,674
djnes said:
I dont know where you read that, It wasnt what I said.
Yes, because disregarding and rolling eyes is entirely civil. Stop trying to play the victim.Chernobyl1 said:
I would love to know how you describe "general workspace" in your posts. Are you really saying that users should set their profiles (Docs and Settings) to a separate partition than the system partition? Can you describe, in detail and with technical description, what sort of benefit this has for a single-user OS environment?Chernobyl1 said:
Perhaps you were unaware or are using different definitions, but a user's workspace resides in their user profile, which is resident on the sytem OS partition. Anything a user does goes through that profile. Any kernel-level calls to hardware or software goes through the system partition.
You are describing read-writes as if spreading them over multiple partition helps things, but you are missing one major factor: if the partitions are on the same physical hard drive, you are causing the heads to move back and forth constantly, causing even more delay than if everything was simply on the same partition. Even if on a separate physical disk, the programs are only going to load as fast as the system partition accesses the proper components to load the program into memory. No matter which way you slice it, what you are trying to suggest creates a situation where more read-writes are required before a program is loaded, and more strain is placed on the mechanical parts of the hardware. No matter how you try to explain the benefits, you are over-complicating the situation for no testable and verifiable benefits.
I want you to explain, using your vast experience with hardware and operating system processes, how what you are suggesting lowers overall overhead and creates improved performance, fail-over, or both. I want you to provide detailed technical explanations in your answer, instead of "do this because it makes things better," which is all you have done to date. Give some actual technical details to explain why you believe what you do, using your own words and with your own assessment as to why it is so. Once you do that, we can actually have some real discourse and not just you going "nuh-uh!" to anything someone says contrary to your claims.
No, you stated your opinion and subsequently disregarded all considerations put forth that were contrary to your predetermined conclusion. You might believe you followed simple scientific method here, but you worked from the conclusion backward, and are continuing to do so. You have not and cannot refute a single thing I have said.Chernobyl1 said:
Chernobyl1
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,674
I made a simple point for the OPs attention which is a valid point.
I was set up on by djnes because he assumed I said something that I didnt.
I am subject to his abuse and am not allowed to get pissed off with it?
I didnt disregard any information because what he was trying to say was based on a wrong assumption.
The links he sent are a good read and have great points but they are not in conflict with what I was saying.
I was set up on by djnes because he assumed I said something that I didnt.
I am subject to his abuse and am not allowed to get pissed off with it?
I didnt disregard any information because what he was trying to say was based on a wrong assumption.
The links he sent are a good read and have great points but they are not in conflict with what I was saying.
Chernobyl1
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,674
djnes said:
Theres no mention of installed apps causing an issue anywhere in my post.
You have already agreed that more read/writes to a partition will fragment it more, my comment
"This isnt any performance to be gained initially but it can help you prevent losing performance later."
can be explained thus:
When you have put the OS and regularly changing Data on different partitions, over time they will fragment less than if Both the OS and the regularly changing data are on the same partition.
That is a false statement if you have regularly scheduled defrag jobs set (which can be done with the Windows degragger). Additionally, since everyone here has already stated that storing data (i.e.: My Documents) on a separate hard drive is a good idea, you are essentially arguing against an argument that no one has made (this is called Straw Man).Chernobyl1 said:
You have yet to offer your synopsis and subsequent technical supporting data for what you initially claimed. When you can finally provide such, I will bother commenting again. Until such time, you are either backpedaling or being unnecessarily evasive. If you want discourse, then let's discourse. If you want to make unsubstantiated claims and then act like a victim when people point out the unsubstantiated nature of the claims, then pretty soon no one is going to want to talk with you.
Chernobyl1
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,674
My statement was very simple and was that the less data read/written to a partition, the less fragmented it will get.
Yes you can schedule regular defragments but it still doesnt change the point I made which is - the less reads and writes to a partition are made, the less fragmentation occurs.
Thats it, I really cant understand why you take such big issue with it.
I'm not arguing, I'm defending my original point which has been misunderstood.
The point I made is really very simple and has already been agreed upon by djnes in this post
Originally Posted by Chernobyl1
You can help prevent this by putting torrents, general workspace etc on a different partition.
Originally Posted by djnes
Which is correct because you are talking about data, and user created/downloaded files.
It certainly doesnt require a Synopsis
I came here to help the OP with his question and have done so.
Yes you can schedule regular defragments but it still doesnt change the point I made which is - the less reads and writes to a partition are made, the less fragmentation occurs.
Thats it, I really cant understand why you take such big issue with it.
I'm not arguing, I'm defending my original point which has been misunderstood.
The point I made is really very simple and has already been agreed upon by djnes in this post
Originally Posted by Chernobyl1
You can help prevent this by putting torrents, general workspace etc on a different partition.
Originally Posted by djnes
Which is correct because you are talking about data, and user created/downloaded files.
It certainly doesnt require a Synopsis
I came here to help the OP with his question and have done so.
You are still not getting it. You are intentionally obfuscating your responses.
Before we go any further, answer the following questions:
Answer each one, parsed separately in order to maintain clarity. If you want discourse, then let's discourse. Otherwise you are intentionally trolling and will be reported.
Before we go any further, answer the following questions:
- Did you say that the operating system and programs should be installed on separate partitions?
- If yes to #1, why do you believe this is the case?
- Exactly what files and directories are you referencing when you use terms like "general workspace" in your posts?
- Explain, in detail, the partitioning scheme you would suggest a fresh install have with regard to the OS, the installed programs (meaning the "Program Files" directory), and the user documents folder (called "My Documents" or "%user%'s Documents").
Answer each one, parsed separately in order to maintain clarity. If you want discourse, then let's discourse. Otherwise you are intentionally trolling and will be reported.
I think you misunderstood what I said. I wasn't necessarily agreeing with you. I was saying your comments would be correct if the debate was about user-created data. It was not, as the debate started on installing applications on the primary partition or separating them. I made several references and examples about installing apps elsewhere, such as my Microsoft Word example, and the EAC example. If we had been discussing the placement of user-created data, there would be no debate, as we would be in agreement. That being said, I stand by my original statements. There's no reason to separate your apps from the system volume, and there's certainly no performance to be gained...now or down the road. The links I gave were discussions on this point. At times I've felt you've gone back and forth about the topic of your comments, so maybe that's the cause of the debate, I don't know. My comments and responses have always been about the placement of installed applications.Chernobyl1 said:
Chernobyl1
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,674
1) No, I said this
"Windows does a great job of fragmenting its own drive. So does downloading torrents, installing, deleting and generally working with a drive too.
If you mix Windows in the same partition you will get worse fragmentation that affects everything you do.
Fragmentation will occur faster too."
and on request added this info 3 posts later
"I install all apps to my windows partition and all games to another partition."
2) not required as answer to 1) is No.
3) I class workspace as an area which has regularly changing contents
ie for
torrents
space to install programs to try them and later delete
downloading
scratch space
4) I make a 15GB partition for Windows and Apps and use the rest for whatever else I want to do. I didnt state that 15GB should be used but thats what I use and with good reason, it works well.
The size of the windows partition is down to user preference.
Theres no need to consider moving or changing My Documents, the user profile or Program Files.
"Windows does a great job of fragmenting its own drive. So does downloading torrents, installing, deleting and generally working with a drive too.
If you mix Windows in the same partition you will get worse fragmentation that affects everything you do.
Fragmentation will occur faster too."
and on request added this info 3 posts later
"I install all apps to my windows partition and all games to another partition."
2) not required as answer to 1) is No.
3) I class workspace as an area which has regularly changing contents
ie for
torrents
space to install programs to try them and later delete
downloading
scratch space
4) I make a 15GB partition for Windows and Apps and use the rest for whatever else I want to do. I didnt state that 15GB should be used but thats what I use and with good reason, it works well.
The size of the windows partition is down to user preference.
Theres no need to consider moving or changing My Documents, the user profile or Program Files.
Chernobyl1
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,674
djnes said:
You were having a different debate to me.
I didnt mention installing apps somewhere else I still dont know where you got that from.
I said in post #7
"I install all apps to my windows partition and all games to another partition."
You did, but I'm surprised it took this long before you stopped me...all my comments were regarding apps. Perhaps we both were getting caught up in the shooting, and not accurately reading what the other was posting. That still leaves the matter of the performance declining overtime, which I disagree with....but I think all valid points have been stated, and the links I gave go farther into detail than most people need.
It comes down to this simple formula, if you're so inclined:
If you choose to keep one big partition for everything, then nothing anyone says will matter - just do it.
If, however, you choose to partition your drive(s) into smaller chunks, do this: partition it off with something relatively small for the system partition and the applications on that partition to keep them fast and near the start of the drive. Since applications that you use do tend to be used often over and over, they'll benefit from defragging that takes Prefetch into consideration for the layout of the files, but those files should not be fragmenting as djnes already said. They might be used a lot, but typically they rarely if ever change - but that's for the application software itself.
The data files those applications create do tend to change, and frequently so perhaps using a secondary partition - meaning not the system/apps partition - might be a good idea in the long run. This way you'd always know you can have a highly optimized and efficient system partition with files that rarely if ever change, and then you have a seperate partition with data files on it that are subject to constant and frequent change by necessity.
Also, considering that a lot of people doing torrents could benefit by telling their torrent software to pre-allocate space for the stuff you're downloading you might see a small benefit there. If you don't pre-allocate the space, each of the tiny little parts that make up torrent transferred files gets fragmented all over the place wherever the OS can find to stash them during the download. There is some truth to what I just said; no need for this to turn into another thread from hell.
To put it bluntly: Keep one big partition, or split it. If you choose to split it, it doesn't hurt to seperate data from system/apps. In fact, any data that is typically fragmented or changed on a frequent basis (Internet downloads, Internet cache files - you can move the cache directories to locations other than defaults, yanno - and other files you tend to keep someplace but only temporarily till you organize it or back it up someplace like CD/DVD/external storage) might best be handled on a seperate partition designed just for that type of usage.
I think the 3 sides of this argument so far in this thread all are saying the same things, but because they're all involved in the thread, they're losing the objectivity to see what the others are saying.
God forbid the reactions I've seen in people that have single 500GB drives with one system partition and one thing goes wrong and they lose 500GB of data because it's on drive C: - and I've seen it roughly 150x so far, it's nasty).
My system partition never goes over 15GB for any reason; I've got all the software I use on it and it's barely cracking 5GB total size, which fits very nicely onto a DVD+RW once I hit it with True Image and crunch it down to 2-2.5GB or so and that's done daily - takes 6 minutes or so and it's as safe as I can possibly keep my machine.
If you choose to keep one big partition for everything, then nothing anyone says will matter - just do it.
If, however, you choose to partition your drive(s) into smaller chunks, do this: partition it off with something relatively small for the system partition and the applications on that partition to keep them fast and near the start of the drive. Since applications that you use do tend to be used often over and over, they'll benefit from defragging that takes Prefetch into consideration for the layout of the files, but those files should not be fragmenting as djnes already said. They might be used a lot, but typically they rarely if ever change - but that's for the application software itself.
The data files those applications create do tend to change, and frequently so perhaps using a secondary partition - meaning not the system/apps partition - might be a good idea in the long run. This way you'd always know you can have a highly optimized and efficient system partition with files that rarely if ever change, and then you have a seperate partition with data files on it that are subject to constant and frequent change by necessity.
Also, considering that a lot of people doing torrents could benefit by telling their torrent software to pre-allocate space for the stuff you're downloading you might see a small benefit there. If you don't pre-allocate the space, each of the tiny little parts that make up torrent transferred files gets fragmented all over the place wherever the OS can find to stash them during the download. There is some truth to what I just said; no need for this to turn into another thread from hell.
To put it bluntly: Keep one big partition, or split it. If you choose to split it, it doesn't hurt to seperate data from system/apps. In fact, any data that is typically fragmented or changed on a frequent basis (Internet downloads, Internet cache files - you can move the cache directories to locations other than defaults, yanno - and other files you tend to keep someplace but only temporarily till you organize it or back it up someplace like CD/DVD/external storage) might best be handled on a seperate partition designed just for that type of usage.
I think the 3 sides of this argument so far in this thread all are saying the same things, but because they're all involved in the thread, they're losing the objectivity to see what the others are saying.
God forbid the reactions I've seen in people that have single 500GB drives with one system partition and one thing goes wrong and they lose 500GB of data because it's on drive C: - and I've seen it roughly 150x so far, it's nasty).
My system partition never goes over 15GB for any reason; I've got all the software I use on it and it's barely cracking 5GB total size, which fits very nicely onto a DVD+RW once I hit it with True Image and crunch it down to 2-2.5GB or so and that's done daily - takes 6 minutes or so and it's as safe as I can possibly keep my machine.
Actually I was talking about most anything, but specifically virus activity that does tend to affect items on the C: partition since it's the most commonly used drive letter for the system partitions on Windows-based PCs.
Of course if the drive is totally pooched then not much of anything will help recover the data, especially in the event of a total physical drive meltdown, but that's about as rare as... oh wait, as rare as a hard drive going bad.
Funny how that works, ain't it?
Of course if the drive is totally pooched then not much of anything will help recover the data, especially in the event of a total physical drive meltdown, but that's about as rare as... oh wait, as rare as a hard drive going bad.
Funny how that works, ain't it?
"You have nothing to gain by splitting the OS and your apps. "
Not true. The image you want to restore is really your OS and installed programs. Backing your MP3's, videos and picture up to an image file is just a waste of time. Having a partition just for the OS and apps means that you can back up an image file onto an external drive and then quickly restore the image. Restoring 30Gb of this stuff vs 400Gb of the OS, apps and all data is a big difference in time.
Also, if you want your system sped up, be sure to turn off all of the crappy new GUI in XP. It only slows you down.
Not true. The image you want to restore is really your OS and installed programs. Backing your MP3's, videos and picture up to an image file is just a waste of time. Having a partition just for the OS and apps means that you can back up an image file onto an external drive and then quickly restore the image. Restoring 30Gb of this stuff vs 400Gb of the OS, apps and all data is a big difference in time.
Also, if you want your system sped up, be sure to turn off all of the crappy new GUI in XP. It only slows you down.
Not to beat a dead horse here, but you're missing the point. My quote above (the top line of your post) is concerning apps and the OS...NOT user-created data. No one in this thread at all was arguing the point that it's best to move your data out of the system volume. By leaving the system volume as the OS and installed apps, it does streamline the imaging and restore process.general said:
Maybe it just needs to be summed up this way, for all those like general who confused them:
OS & apps go in one place, aka C:\
MP3s, movies, pictures, homework, presentations, etc go in a separate place, aka D:\.