Partition??

[cdrfreak2003]

ok im gonna reinstall windows. I was just playing around with it. and it asked me if i wanted to create or delete a partition. so i put create. and it says minimum 8MB and maximum 2408. i dunno if the maximum is correct but it said something like that?
whats the differnce between 8mb and a 2408

[cfitz]

whats the differnce between 8mb and a 2408

2400

Okay, sorry about that.

Are you running XP or 2000? If so, then I would suggest going for the max. On XP and 2000 I personally prefer to make the entire drive one huge partition, formatted as NTFS.

cfitz

[damon]

I was just playing around with it. and it asked me if i wanted to create or delete a partition. so i put create. and it says minimum 8MB and maximum 2408. whats

What windows is this? NT? Maximum size of 2GB told that this partition is FAT16. Try to read some theory about file systems and operating systems and you'll understand... There is a great software for managing partitions - PowerQuest Partiton Magic. This software has very good helps and theory PDFs.

[dimitri]

I think having only 1 partition very unhandy idea.
The very least make a separate partition for Windows (C:\) and the rest for the rest. Don't allow anything else in C:\. This partition needn't be bigger than 2 Gb. This way it's very easy to have an image backup (DriveImage or Ghost) of your Operating System, which you can dump on 1 cd and keep a copy of it on the other partition as well!! Restoring of the OS is then a very easy and fast. You'll never have to reinstall Windows again. I haven't reformat a hdd in 5 years.

I make sure to clean the reg, get rid of rubbish and defrag this partition before i make a fresh backup image.

As I say 2 partitions is the minimum, the rest is a matter of personal preference. I like 5 partitions in a single hdd system: C for OS, D for Progs, E for Downloads and storage F audio/video working space G backups and scratch space for photoshop

[cdrfreak2003]

I am installing Windows XP Pro.
no need ot be sorry cfitz

[hoxlund]

haha, i don't run into this problem in this machine im running three 40GB 7200RPM hard drives, windows has a 40 all to itself, and they all are Fat32, i can't say one thing good about NTFS

[dhc014]

...windows has a 40 all to itself, and they all are Fat32, i can't say one thing good about NTFS

I agree. you can't flash very easily from an NTFS partition

[cfitz]

Here's what Microsoft has to say on choosing between FAT, FAT32 and NTFS:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home ... _FAT32.asp

Some of the advantages of NTFS are essentially unlimited volume and file sizes (formatting of FAT32 volumes is limited to 32 GByte on XP, and file size is limited to 4 GBytes) and the ability to control access to files and folders. Naturally, the applicability of these to each individual's circumstances varies, but at the very least big volume and file sizes become more and more important as people work with digital video.

I really don't see any merit in creating multiple partitions. You can organize, backup, and restore just as well with folders as you can with partitions. In fact, you can do it more easily with folders. They are more flexible and can be renamed, moved and resized with no effort at all. On the other hand, if you choose to make multiple partitions, then you are stuck with what you chose when you first set up the partitions. You'd better have your psychic abilities tuned up when you pick the number and sizes of your partitions.

I realize there are products that can resize partitions in some circumstances, but the last time I tried one it was limited in its flexibility and couldn't resize/add/delete/split/combine partitions arbitrarily. In any case, even if such a product is now available, why bother? You are just paying extra for something you can do with folders for free.

During the bad old days of innefficient large-disc FAT clusters, there was a valid reason for splitting up large drives into multiple partitions. But that motivation has faded into the past.

Perhaps my thinking is colored by my earlier experiences with unix, where there is one root and everything else spreads out in a tree below it. Drives appear as simple directories, and can be mounted in the overall directory tree wherever one pleases. That is a feature I really like, unlike the bastard-child drive letter appendages. I understand their historical origins, but still feel that they should have been dumped long ago.

cfitz

[Tall Texan]

...windows has a 40 all to itself, and they all are Fat32, i can't say one thing good about NTFS

I agree. you can't flash very easily from an NTFS partition

thats why i have a bootable zipdisk for just such a thing. makes it very handy

[cfitz]

thats why i have a bootable zipdisk for just such a thing.

Bootable zip disc indeed! Keep up talk like that and we will have to kick you off of CDRLabs. (Just kidding, of course)

Seriously though, a bootable CD-R should do the trick as well, and not offend our delicate sensibilities. Of course, if you do decide to flash from a bootable CD-R, make sure it is in a drive other than the one you intend to flash. To be safe, the drive you are flashing should not have any media inserted in it.

cfitz

[Tall Texan]

[quote="cfitz Seriously though, a bootable CD-R should do the trick as well, and not offend our delicate sensibilities.
cfitz[/quote]

i of course did not mean to hurt anyones feelings wih this comment. at least iomega makes cd-r drives lol lol what works got in the cd dept is the pocket cd-rw disks from memorex because face it you dont need more then 185 meg to flash something. and it takes a smaller raincoat to keep it in

[dodecahedron]

a question for you partition wizards:

i'm about to reinstall winXP. if i wanted to put it on its own separate partition (just for the OS and drivers, no other program) how large a partition do i need for it?

[hoxlund]

i would say 2GB - 3GB

[Spazmogen]

3GB Minimum. XP is huge! It takes up way too much space.

Personally, I ran Ghost right after I got XP & internet & e-mail & anti-virus working again. It took 2, 700mb cd-r's for the job.

I have 3 HDD's in my system (all FAT32):
40gb ATA100 (C)
20GB ATA66 (D) mostly empty right now.
4.3GB ATA33 (G) My download drive.

I've run Ghost on C on several occasions just to have current back ups.

The most it took was 7, 700mb cd-r's (that's with all apps on it, including MS Office, several games and the System Volume Folder (2.43gb).

Each drive has a System Volume Folder. Is that XP's own back up of each drive? I had Roxio Go Back installed for 2 hours and hated it, are these folders left over from it?

The downside to multiple Partitions is that if the drive itself fails (motor etc) then ALL of the partitions are screwed that are on that drive. You may wish to consider a smaller back up HDD, that you could restore the Ghost image to if the other hdd craps out on you. My G drive always has the most recent Ghost back up on it. Just in case.

This is the most stable OS I've used (even more so than 2KPro on my home machine) and the best set up computer I've ever had.

Knock on wood: it's damn near perfect for me.

[tyronemoss]

I heard WINDOWS LONGHORN will have a new Partition called.... WINFS.. is this true?. What will it be like?

[hoxlund]

well since im running windows xp longhorn beta #3683 now, im running it on Fat32 but i can't remember the options it gave during install, besides i always stick with Fat32 for windows

[jase]

besides i always stick with Fat32 for windows

... which could become a problem if you ever decide to get a DVD burner, as FAT32 has a 2Gb file-size limit. Better NTFS if you can get away with it

[hoxlund]

so let me get this straight, if you running fat32 file system, you can't have a single file bigger than 2GB?

[jase]

correct.

[hoxlund]

let me check this out, cause i swear ive copied dvd's to the one of my three 40GB hard drives before

[hoxlund]

hmm your right, dvd decryptor says, C:, D:, E: doesn't support files over 4GB, not 2GB

should i switch to ntfs? what are the benefits? and drawbacks

[jase]

Yeah there are conflicting views on the limit, but it does exist and it's less than the size of a DVDR. I *think* the 2Gb theory might actually have come from the .AVI limit, which doesn't apply if you're using NTFS for some reason (AVIs were the first files to become big enough to be a problem of course).

With NTFS, you get a robust and stable file system with no limitations for a while yet (file size limit 4TB, I think we're OK for the next 5 years at least on that one!!!), but it's difficult to get access to the drive from a boot disc. Not impossible, but hard. Only NT, 2000 and XP support it as well.

[hoxlund]

since i have three 40GB's, windows sits all by itself on one, can i just format that one to NTFS, and then install xp pro on it again, and then would it see the other Fat32 hard drives?

[jase]

It should do. XP can see NTFS and FAT32 simultaneously, I'm pretty sure of that. TBH you could get away with a 10Gb NTFS partition for the rare occasions when you'll need to use big files if you want to do it that way....

[hoxlund]

nahh it sounds like NTFS is what i should do, and i don't plan on going back to Windows ME ever again