Partitioning

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

80 G XP.
Ran Partition Magic. Tried to make my C drive smaller, so that I can add
more drives. "This partition crosses the 1024 cylinder boundary and may
not be bootable." Maybe I should forget about spiltting up the drive
into smaller drives. The idea was for me to use Drive Image to create
and restore drives.

 

[Malke]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Sanford Aranoff wrote:

> 80 G XP.
> Ran Partition Magic. Tried to make my C drive smaller, so that I can
> add more drives. "This partition crosses the 1024 cylinder boundary
> and may not be bootable." Maybe I should forget about spiltting up the
> drive into smaller drives. The idea was for me to use Drive Image to
> create and restore drives.

Don't worry about the error message. It means that if you have older
operating systems, they might have difficulty in booting from the
partitions "further out". XP won't have this problem. Make sure you
have a version of PM that is designed to work with XP and that you have
backed up all your data first. PM is a good program, but as with
anything - stuff can happen.

Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Thanks.

Actually, I wonder if there is any need to partition at all. Things are so
fast that it may be fine to leave everything on a huge C: drive.

Malke wrote:

> Sanford Aranoff wrote:
>
> > 80 G XP.
> > Ran Partition Magic. Tried to make my C drive smaller, so that I can
> > add more drives. "This partition crosses the 1024 cylinder boundary
> > and may not be bootable." Maybe I should forget about spiltting up the
> > drive into smaller drives. The idea was for me to use Drive Image to
> > create and restore drives.
>
> Don't worry about the error message. It means that if you have older
> operating systems, they might have difficulty in booting from the
> partitions "further out". XP won't have this problem. Make sure you
> have a version of PM that is designed to work with XP and that you have
> backed up all your data first. PM is a good program, but as with
> anything - stuff can happen.
>
> Malke
> --
> Elephant Boy Computers
> www.elephantboycomputers.com
> "Don't Panic!"
> MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

 

[Malke]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Sanford Aranoff wrote:

> Thanks.
>
> Actually, I wonder if there is any need to partition at all. Things
> are so fast that it may be fine to leave everything on a huge C:
> drive.
>

>> Sanford Aranoff wrote:
>>
>> > 80 G XP.
>> > Ran Partition Magic. Tried to make my C drive smaller, so that I
>> > can add more drives. "This partition crosses the 1024 cylinder
>> > boundary and may not be bootable." Maybe I should forget about
>> > spiltting up the drive into smaller drives. The idea was for me to

Believe it or not, 80GB is no longer considered "huge"! Of course you
don't have to partition it, but I do think it is a good idea. All my
computers have at least two hard drives or partitions. I like to put
the operating system on one drive (or partition) and then the data on
the second drive (or partition). I usually do what you had planned to;
i.e., install the os and get it updated and just the way I know I'll
always want it and then image it, storing the image on the second
drive/partition. This makes for a fast reinstall of the os if needed.
But it isn't *necessary*. The only necessity is that you backup your
data regularly, and that won't change even with a second partition.

Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Do not partition if you are thinking to improve performance. Another
partition is still on the same spindle and you may only be increasing the
movement of the read'write heads.

Use a second drive, preferably on a second controller.

As for "huge" drives and partitions, I no longer have any drives smaller
than 160GB and most are 400GB. None of them are partitioned. My primary
home machine has about 1.5TB of storage. My point is that if I thought
partitioning into 20 or 30GB partitions was usefull I would long ago have
run clean out of drive letters.


"Sanford Aranoff" <aranoff@analysis-knowledge.com> wrote in message
news:42CFC5AA.F83B32D4@analysis-knowledge.com...
> Thanks.
>
> Actually, I wonder if there is any need to partition at all. Things are so
> fast that it may be fine to leave everything on a huge C: drive.
>
> Malke wrote:
>
>> Sanford Aranoff wrote:
>>
>> > 80 G XP.
>> > Ran Partition Magic. Tried to make my C drive smaller, so that I can
>> > add more drives. "This partition crosses the 1024 cylinder boundary
>> > and may not be bootable." Maybe I should forget about spiltting up the
>> > drive into smaller drives. The idea was for me to use Drive Image to
>> > create and restore drives.
>>
>> Don't worry about the error message. It means that if you have older
>> operating systems, they might have difficulty in booting from the
>> partitions "further out". XP won't have this problem. Make sure you
>> have a version of PM that is designed to work with XP and that you have
>> backed up all your data first. PM is a good program, but as with
>> anything - stuff can happen.
>>
>> Malke
>> --
>> Elephant Boy Computers
>> www.elephantboycomputers.com
>> "Don't Panic!"
>> MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

In news:42CFC5AA.F83B32D4@analysis-knowledge.com,
Sanford Aranoff <aranoff@analysis-knowledge.com> typed:

> Actually, I wonder if there is any need to partition at all.
> Things
> are so fast that it may be fine to leave everything on a huge
> C:
> drive.


There are many reasons why people choose to have multiple
partitions. Some of these reasons are good; others are not so
good.

Having multiple partitions with the thought that doing so
increases performance is one of those "not so good" reasons.
There's no reason to expect better performance with multiple
partitions, and in fact, depending on how those partitions are
used, it may *decrease* performace since it separates things on
the drive, and putting them farther apart increases the time
required for the drive heads to move back and forth between them.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup