Upgrading to XP Pro and reconfiguring current HDs

[akrein62]

I'm finally going to upgrade from 98SE to XP Pro. Having somehow totally messing up my registry makes this decision for me. I currently have 2 hard drives on my system, a 7200RPM 80GB master with OS, programs and data and an older 15GB 5400RPM slave with just data. I'm going to do a clean install, not a simple update and I'm considering reconfiguring my system and using the 15GB drive for the OS and programs and using the 80GB drive for data, including video capture and editing.

Can I partition to 15GB drive into 3 partitions, one for OS, one for programs and maybe a third one for data? For some reason, I have it in my head to isolate the OS, programs and data into separate partitions. If this is doable, what would be a reasonable partition size for XP Pro? Also, is it a good idea to partition the 80GB into 2 partitions? I'm thinking 50GB and 30GB or 2 40GB partitions.

Thanks for any help.

[Capmaster]

I'm finally going to upgrade from 98SE to XP Pro. Having somehow totally messing up my registry makes this decision for me. I currently have 2 hard drives on my system, a 7200RPM 80GB master with OS, programs and data and an older 15GB 5400RPM slave with just data. I'm going to do a clean install, not a simple update and I'm considering reconfiguring my system and using the 15GB drive for the OS and programs and using the 80GB drive for data, including video capture and editing.

Can I partition to 15GB drive into 3 partitions, one for OS, one for programs and maybe a third one for data? For some reason, I have it in my head to isolate the OS, programs and data into separate partitions. If this is doable, what would be a reasonable partition size for XP Pro? Also, is it a good idea to partition the 80GB into 2 partitions? I'm thinking 50GB and 30GB or 2 40GB partitions.

Thanks for any help.

I think I would reverse that and use the faster HD for the OS and programs and use the slower one for data storage. Partitioning is a matter of taste ..there's no "right" way to do it.

[Jayhawk]

The Windows directory alone in a fairly stripped down XP runs about 2g. Add a gig for a swapfile, another for restore points if you want to use that function (I don't), another half for various Program Files, Documents & Settings. With any breathing room at all you're looking at half your 15g for the OS and related files.

Therefore, I agree with Capmaster (I usually do). Go the other way and utilize the faster hard drive. I'd use the 15g for misc. data storage and save up for another 60 or 80. That would be a nice balance.

Personal opinion on partitions. I used to use them extensively and I think it's OK for people with a single large hard drive that have a need to logically seperate stuff. A few years ago I just went with two hard drives on different channels. One for OS and programs, one for data, swapfile, and backup. Life's a lot simpler when you don't have to deal with a half-dozen or so drive letters.

[northcat_8]

I'm going to throw my 2 cents in here...even though I had to borrow them...

I agree. Use the bigger faster drive for the OS and leave the smaller one for data.

I am not a fan of partitioning though. You can see my system specs, I don't partition but that's more of a function for video files than anything else.

On a side note, if and when you get into video, you can convert the FAT32 files system to NTFS just like Microsoft says and not lose any data...believe it or not.....but if I were you, since you are doing a fresh install, I would just go NTFS from the start. With the FAT32 my drives were always fragmented, but with NTFS I haven't defragged my drives in over 2 months of heavy use and they are just now around 2% fragmentation. NTFS made my system more stable also...don't know why...but it did.

[redwudz]

Just my opinion, but partitions are a left over from 'the good old days'. I see litte use for them. Newer HD's and MB's are fast enough that you don't usually need to partition. On XP, NTFS is a must. If you are going from W98, XP is a large improvement. The OS takes care of most of the setup you had to do manually with W98. Yes, it's bloatware, but that's where large drives become useful. 40-80GB is good for a boot disk. I always recommend a second disk for video or whatever.

[indolikaa]

Partitions are only useful for multi-boot configurations, IMHO.

[gmatov]

Partitions may be useful for multi boot, but they are not a requirement.

Win sets up a folder for each OS.

I have 1 160 gig that has a large partition, 137 gig, have 2 120 gig USBs unpartitioned, the rest of the drives ARE partitioned, and that is 7 drives amongst 2 machines.. 1 machine has drive letters to X, the other goes to P.

And defragging, as I have said before is an imaginary aid. Tests show that you gain little to nothing by religiously defragging.

And, while I am at it, granted the mag is near a year old, the Max 160 SATA was a huge disappointment in its write and read speed. Slow SOB, considering the premium charged for this Revolutionary new attachment type.

Ah, well, someone else here said the preachers all buy a pig in a poke, get disappointed, try to get everybody to buy the same. Misery loves conpany.

Cheers,

George

[akrein62]

Thanks guys. Great info.

Andy