Welcome to Vista Banter. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to ask questions and reply to others posts, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support. |
|
General Vista Help and Support The general Windows Vista discussion forum, for topics not covered elsewhere. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.general) |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
Creating personal data/special folders
On Sat, 23 May 2015 22:54:57 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote: Yea, I do a clean install, each and every time. Sometimes I don't even know who owned it previously. What I don't do is look around on the think like pjp does. I could care less what's on there. I'd take you all to Vegas and bet that 99& of the new owners wouldn't have a clue how to reinstall the OS You had me at "I'd take you all to Vegas...". When is this, again? I need to clear my schedule. |
|
|||
Creating personal data/special folders
On Sun, 24 May 2015 14:42:07 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote: On Sat, 23 May 2015 08:58:29 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: I set up basic accounts because of the malware issues these days, but a tutorial of why it's done and how to properly use them is supplied with the computer. The most radical thing I do is partition the hard drive, and move the data storage to the new partition. Relocating those personal data files LOL And the new owners get instructions on never putting files on C:\. LOL While I see your reasons for doing that, it's non-standard and is probably going to confuse a few folks. Personally, I've always just advised people with whom I come into contact to make backups on a regular basis. With a good backup strategy, it doesn't matter as much where things are stored. I agree completely. |
|
|||
Creating personal data/special folders
On 5/24/15 1:43 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2015 22:54:57 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: Yea, I do a clean install, each and every time. Sometimes I don't even know who owned it previously. What I don't do is look around on the think like pjp does. I could care less what's on there. I'd take you all to Vegas and bet that 99& of the new owners wouldn't have a clue how to reinstall the OS You had me at "I'd take you all to Vegas...". When is this, again? I need to clear my schedule. LOL! About the time I win the lottery. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 36.0.4 Thunderbird 31.5 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
|
|||
Creating personal data/special folders
On 5/24/15 12:47 PM, Paul wrote:
Slimer wrote: On 2015-05-24 11:33 AM, Ken Springer wrote: On 5/24/15 7:56 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote: On Sat, 23 May 2015 22:54:57 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: On 5/23/15 11:10 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote: On Sat, 23 May 2015 08:58:29 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: Remember the days of Win 95 and 98, when a computer came with some basic software installed? Such as MS Works, Media Center, etc.? As most of these folks can't afford a computer, it's fairly logical they can't afford commercial software. So I install free stuff, like WPS Office (formerly Kingsoft), VideoLAN, free AV usually Avira, etc. Since I'm supplying the monitor, I change the resolution for the best display the monitor can provide. Adjust icon spacing, etc. as needed, different wallpaper (just for the fun of it, and it helps me remember which account I'm in. LOL) Enable Clear Type. I've not looked, but I suspect the settings of new computers are pretty much what I end up having when done. I mean, would you really want a computer with 800 X 600 screen resolution. :-) Not to accuse you of anything, but here's my standard message about used computers: If I acquired a used computer, no matter who previously owned it, the first thing I would do with it would be to reinstall the operating system cleanly. You have no idea how the computer has been maintained, what has been installed incorrectly, what is missing, what viruses and spyware there may be, etc. I wouldn't want to live with somebody else's mistakes and problems, possibility of kiddy p0rn, etc., and I wouldn't recommend that anyone else do so either. Yea, I do a clean install, each and every time. In that case, I misunderstood you. Sorry. No apology necessary, Ken. Sometimes I don't even know who owned it previously. I'd take you all to Vegas and bet that 99& of the new owners wouldn't have a clue how to reinstall the OS I won't bet with you. The number might be a little less than 99%, but I agree that it's very high. But as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter; you should do it with a used computer whether you know how or not: learn how or get a friend to help you. I agree totally. I've reinstalled my OS often over the years, starting with my Atari ST1040 computer. But it's so darned hard to get people to learn anything about the OS and how to even use it, much less reinstall it. An example is a good friend of mine. She's constantly complaining how slow her computer is. She's spent hours looking for fixes on the web. But will she take the time to reinstall and start from scratch? Nope. Will she let me do it? Nope. I just let her complaining go in one ear and out the other, these days. I had no idea that it was even possible to re-install an Atari 1040ST's operating system. As far as I knew, the operating system was in ROM and therefore couldn't be affected by viruses. An upgrade would also require a user to replace the chip on the motherboard, no? This is back when ROMs were expensive, but disk drives were more expensive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_TOS The ROMs in that case, would be considered "wastefully large" when compared to what was used on other computers. Probably so, but just try to install a virus in the OS. G -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 36.0.4 Thunderbird 31.5 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
|
|||
Creating personal data/special folders
On 5/24/15 1:42 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 23 May 2015 08:58:29 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: I set up basic accounts because of the malware issues these days, but a tutorial of why it's done and how to properly use them is supplied with the computer. The most radical thing I do is partition the hard drive, and move the data storage to the new partition. Relocating those personal data files LOL And the new owners get instructions on never putting files on C:\. LOL While I see your reasons for doing that, it's non-standard and is probably going to confuse a few folks. Personally, I've always just advised people with whom I come into contact to make backups on a regular basis. With a good backup strategy, it doesn't matter as much where things are stored. Guess that's a situation of how you define non-standard. G To me, formatting/partitioning another Windows partition is not non-standard. It's not the default, but not non-standard. Non-standard would be creating Mac or Linux partitions on the drive. I have to work with the assumption the new owners will not have the resources to purchase an external drive for backups. Well, I don't *have* to, but I do. And many times, the hard drive is too small to have the images on the internal drive. In the case of the Vista machine I'm working with now, the optical drive will only burn CD's. I also work with the assumption they have no clue what a backup is. After weighing in all the factors, this leaves me with the choice of partitions, or asking them to do something they possibly can't afford to do, even if they have the knowledge. I think partitioning and moving their docs is the safest approach under these conditions. I do explain what I've done, and why, in the documentation, and I encourage them to do backups, *if* they can afford it. It's always possible someone may give them an external drive, but I don't know that. Case in point, one lady *asked me* to create a second partition and a folder structure in it, then move her personal documents there. I got a frantic call about week later advising me that all of her precious documents were gone. Turns out, she had simply forgotten that she'd asked me to move them. The part I felt bad about was when she told me she had been searching for at least five days and had finally called me because she thought that I had accidentally deleted them. As long as you're in the "fix it" business of some kind, you'll always have the customer who forgot they asked for something to be done, or forgot to ask for something to be done. I would have felt bad too, and likely would have tried to steer the conversation to make her feel better, such as "Yea, I've forgotten these things too that I've done for myself", so she knows she's not the only one to do it. But the bottom line is, you did what she asked. You are not responsible for her memory. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 36.0.4 Thunderbird 31.5 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
|
|||
Creating personal data/special folders
On Mon, 25 May 2015 10:12:36 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote: On 5/24/15 1:42 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Sat, 23 May 2015 08:58:29 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: I set up basic accounts because of the malware issues these days, but a tutorial of why it's done and how to properly use them is supplied with the computer. The most radical thing I do is partition the hard drive, and move the data storage to the new partition. Relocating those personal data files LOL And the new owners get instructions on never putting files on C:\. LOL While I see your reasons for doing that, it's non-standard and is probably going to confuse a few folks. Personally, I've always just advised people with whom I come into contact to make backups on a regular basis. With a good backup strategy, it doesn't matter as much where things are stored. Guess that's a situation of how you define non-standard. G To me, formatting/partitioning another Windows partition is not non-standard. It's not the default, but not non-standard. Non-standard would be creating Mac or Linux partitions on the drive. OK, let's call it non-default, if you like that term better than non-standard. It doesn't change anything. Bless you for doing the task that you do, but IMHO I don't think 'partitioning and relocating folders' is a good idea. Personally, I don't even relocate system folders on my own systems, so I would not consider doing it to someone else's system. I don't actively use those folders, preferring to use my own hierarchy, but I leave them right where Windows puts them. That's standard/default Windows behavior. I have to work with the assumption the new owners will not have the resources to purchase an external drive for backups. Well, I don't *have* to, but I do. And many times, the hard drive is too small to have the images on the internal drive. In the case of the Vista machine I'm working with now, the optical drive will only burn CD's. I also work with the assumption they have no clue what a backup is. After weighing in all the factors, this leaves me with the choice of partitions, or asking them to do something they possibly can't afford to do, even if they have the knowledge. I think partitioning and moving their docs is the safest approach under these conditions. I do explain what I've done, and why, in the documentation, and I encourage them to do backups, *if* they can afford it. It's always possible someone may give them an external drive, but I don't know that. I didn't fully understand all of that. Saving backup images on another partition on the same drive is rarely a good idea, (drive lost means all partitions lost), so if the premise starts with "drive too small" then I don't see what's being gained by partitioning and relocating those folders in another partition on the same drive. It's up to you, though. Do what you feel is best. It doesn't have to make sense to me. :-) |
|
|||
Creating personal data/special folders
On 5/25/15 11:33 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2015 10:12:36 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: On 5/24/15 1:42 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Sat, 23 May 2015 08:58:29 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: I set up basic accounts because of the malware issues these days, but a tutorial of why it's done and how to properly use them is supplied with the computer. The most radical thing I do is partition the hard drive, and move the data storage to the new partition. Relocating those personal data files LOL And the new owners get instructions on never putting files on C:\. LOL While I see your reasons for doing that, it's non-standard and is probably going to confuse a few folks. Personally, I've always just advised people with whom I come into contact to make backups on a regular basis. With a good backup strategy, it doesn't matter as much where things are stored. Guess that's a situation of how you define non-standard. G To me, formatting/partitioning another Windows partition is not non-standard. It's not the default, but not non-standard. Non-standard would be creating Mac or Linux partitions on the drive. OK, let's call it non-default, if you like that term better than non-standard. It doesn't change anything. Bless you for doing the task that you do, but IMHO I don't think 'partitioning and relocating folders' is a good idea. Personally, I don't even relocate system folders on my own systems, so I would not consider doing it to someone else's system. I don't actively use those folders, preferring to use my own hierarchy, but I leave them right where Windows puts them. That's standard/default Windows behavior. I've never used the folders either, but while working on the Vista machine, it occurred to me I might save myself some steps in accessing a particular folder if I can bend the OS to my will. LOL Much like I have with the Libraries. FWIW, MS has acknowledged partitioning and relocating the folders can be a good thing. I have to work with the assumption the new owners will not have the resources to purchase an external drive for backups. Well, I don't *have* to, but I do. And many times, the hard drive is too small to have the images on the internal drive. In the case of the Vista machine I'm working with now, the optical drive will only burn CD's. I also work with the assumption they have no clue what a backup is. After weighing in all the factors, this leaves me with the choice of partitions, or asking them to do something they possibly can't afford to do, even if they have the knowledge. I think partitioning and moving their docs is the safest approach under these conditions. I do explain what I've done, and why, in the documentation, and I encourage them to do backups, *if* they can afford it. It's always possible someone may give them an external drive, but I don't know that. I didn't fully understand all of that. Saving backup images on another partition on the same drive is rarely a good idea, (drive lost means all partitions lost), so if the premise starts with "drive too small" then I don't see what's being gained by partitioning and relocating those folders in another partition on the same drive. Sorry for the misdirection on the backup images. I never put them on the same physical hard drive, nor do I recommend it. It's up to you, though. Do what you feel is best. It doesn't have to make sense to me. :-) -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 36.0.4 Thunderbird 31.5 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
|
|||
Creating personal data/special folders
On Tue, 26 May 2015 00:26:27 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote: FWIW, MS has acknowledged partitioning and relocating the folders can be a good thing. I'm not Microsoft, but here's my view on having multiple partitions (this is a article I wrote several years ago, that was on a web-zine that not longer exists): Planning Your Partitions *The Question* How many partitions should I have on my hard drive, what should I use each one for, and how big should each of them be? It’s a common question, but unfortunately one that doesn’t have a single simple answer, right for everyone. Many people will answer with the way they do it, but their answer isn’t necessarily best for the person asking (in many cases it isn’t even right for the person responding). *The Terminology* First, let’s get the terminology right. Some people ask “should I partition my drive?” That’s the wrong question, because the terminology is a little strange. Some people think that the verb “partition” means to divide the drive into two or more partitions. That’s not correct: to partition a drive is to create one or more partitions on it. You have to have at least one partition on it to use it. Those people who think they have an unpartitioned drive actually have a drive with only a single partition on it, and it’s normally called C:. The choice you have is whether to have more than one partition, not whether to partition at all. *Some History* Back before Windows 95 OEM Service Release 2 (also known as Windows 95B) was released in 1996, all MS-DOS and Windows hard drives were set up using the FAT16 file system (except for very tiny ones using FAT12). Because only 16 bits were used for addressing, FAT16 has a maximum partition size of 2Gb. Hard drives larger than 2GB were rare in those days, but if you had one, you had to have multiple partitions to use all the available space. But even if your drive was no bigger than 2GB, FAT16 created another severe problem for many people–the size of the cluster was bigger if you had a bigger partition. Cluster sizes went from 512 bytes for a partition no bigger than32Mb all the way up to 32Kb for a partition of 1Gb or greater. The larger the cluster size, the more space is wasted on a hard drive. That’s because space for all files is allocated in whole clusters only. If you have 32Kb clusters, a 1-byte files takes 32Kb, a file one byte larger than 32Kb takes 64Kb, and so on. On the average, each file wastes about half of its last cluster. So large partitions create a lot of waste (called “slack”). With a 2GB FAT16 drive in a single cluster, if you have 10,000 files, each wasting half of a 32Kb cluster, you waste about 160Mb to slack. That’s a substantial portion of a drive that probably cost over $400 back in 1996–around $32 worth. So what did people do? They partitioned their 2GB drive into two, three, or more logical drives. Each of those logical drives was smaller than the real physical drive, had smaller clusters, and therefore less waste. If, for example, they could keep all partitions under 512Mb, cluster size was only 8Kb, and the waste was reduced to a quarter of what it would otherwise be. People partitioned for other reasons too, but back in the days of FAT16, this was the main reason for doing so. *The Present* Three things have changed dramatically since 1996: 1. The FAT32 and NTFS file systems have come along, permitting larger partitions with smaller clusters, and therefore much less waste. In fact, with NTFS, cluster sizes are 4K, regardless of partition size. 2. Hard drives have become much bigger, often over 1Tb (1000Gb) in size. 3. Hard drives have become much cheaper. For example, a 500Gb drive can be bought today for around $50. That’s 250 times the size of that typical 2Gb 1996 drive, at about an eighth of the price. What those things mean together is that the old rationale of having multiple partitions to avoid substantial waste of disk space is gone. The amount of waste is much less than it used to be and the cost of that waste is much less. For all practical purposes, almost nobody should be concerned about slack anymore, and it should no longer be considered when planning your partition structure. *What Partitions are Used for Today* There is a wide variety of different ways people set up multiple partitions these days. Some of these uses are reasonable, some are questionable, some are outright bad. I’ll discuss a number of common partition types in what follows: 1. A partition for just Windows Most people who create such a partition do so because they believe that if they ever have to reinstall Windows cleanly, at least they won’t lose their data and won’t have to reinstall their applications, because both are safe on other partitions. In fact the first of those thoughts is a false comfort, and the second is downright wrong. See the discussion of partition types 2 and 4 below to find out why. Also note that as time passes, many people find that their Windows partition that started out to be the right size turns out to be too small. For example, if you have such a Windows partition, and later upgrade to a newer version of Windows, you may find that your Windows partition is too small. 2. A partition for installed programs This normally goes hand-in-hand with partition type 1, a partition for just Windows. The thought that if you reinstall Windows, your installed application programs are safe if they are in a separate partitions is simply wrong. That’s because all installed programs (except for an occasional trivial one) have pointers to them within Windows, in the registry and elsewhere, as well as associated files buried within the Windows folder. So if Windows goes, the pointers and files go with it. Since programs have to be reinstalled if Windows does, this rationale for a separate partition for programs doesn't work. In fact, there is hardly ever a good reason for separating Windows from application software in separate partitions. 3. A partition for the swap file. Some people erroneously think that having the page file on a separate partition will improve performance. That is also false; it doesn’t help, and often hurts, performance, because it increases head movement to get back and forth from the page file to the other frequently-used data on the drive. For best performance, the page file should normally be on the most-used partition of the least-used physical drive. For almost everyone with a single physical drive, that’s the same drive Windows is on, C:. 4. A partition for backup of other partitions. Some people make a separate partition to store backups of their other partition(s). People who rely on such a "backup" are just kidding themselves. It's only very slightly better than no backup at all, because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and backup to many of the most common dangers: head crashes and other kinds of drive failure, severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer. In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept in the computer. 5. A partition for data files Above, when I discussed separating Windows on a partition of its own, I pointed out that separating data from Windows is a false comfort if it’s done with the thought that the data will be safe if Windows ever has to be reinstalled. The reason I call it a false comfort is because I fear that many people will rely on that separation, think that their data is safe there, and therefore do not take appropriate steps to back it up. In truth the data is not safe there. Having to reinstall Windows is only one of the dangers to someone’s hard drive, and not even the most likely one. This kind of “safeguard” falls into the same category as a partition for backup of other partitions; it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and backup to many of the most common dangers that affect the entire physical drive, not just the particular partition. Safety comes from a strong backup regimen, not from how you partition. However for some people it can be a good idea to separate Windows and programs on the one hand from data on the other, putting each of the two types into separate partitions. I think that most people’s partitioning scheme should be based on their backup scheme, and backup schemes generally fall into two types: imaging the entire hard drive or backup of data only. If you backup data only, that backup is usually facilitated by having a separate partition with data only; that permits backing up just that partition easily, without having to collect bits and pieces from here and there. On the other hand, for those who backup by creating an image of the entire drive, there is usually little, if any, benefit to separating data in a partition of its own. By the way, in all fairness, I should point out that there are many well-respected people who recommend a separate partition for Windows, regardless of your backup scheme. Their arguments haven’t convinced me, but there are clearly two different views here. 6. A partition for picture files Some people like to treat pictures and videos as something separate from other data files, and create a separate partition for them. To my mind, a picture is simply another kind of data, and there is no advantage in doing this. 7. A partition for music files. The comments above pertaining to picture files apply equally to music files. They are just another kind of data and should be treated the same way as other data. 8. A partition for a second operating system to dual-boot to. For those who run multiple operating systems (Windows Vista, Windows XP, Windows 98, Linux, etc.), a separate partition for each operating system is essential. The issues here are beyond the scope of this article, but it’s sufficient to note that I have no objection at all to such partitions *Performance* Some people have multiple partitions because they believe that it somehow improves performance. That’s not correct. The effect is probably small on modern computers with modern hard drives, but if anything, the opposite is true: more partitions mean poorer performance. That’s because normally no partition is full and there are therefore gaps between them. It takes time for the drive’s read/write heads to traverse those gaps. The closer together files are, the faster access to them will be. *Organization* I think many people overpartition because they use partitions as an organizational structure. They have a strong sense of order and want to separate apples from oranges on their drives. Yes, separating different kinds of files on partitions is an organizational technique, but so is separating different kinds of files in folders. The difference is that partitions are static and fixed in size, while folders are dynamic, changing size automatically as necessary to meet your changing needs. That generally makes folders a much better way to organize, in my view. True, partitions can be resized when necessary, but except with recent versions of Windows, doing so requires third-party software (and the ability to do it in Windows is primitive, compared to the third-party solutions). Such third-party software normally costs money, and, no matter how good and how stable it is, affects the entire drive, entailing a risk of losing everything. Plan your partitions well in the first place, and no repartitioning should be necessary. The need to repartition usually comes about as a result of overpartitioning in the first place. What frequently happens when people organize with partitions instead of folders is that they miscalculate how much room they need on each such partition, and then when they run out of room on the partition where a file logically belongs, while still having lots of space left on the other, they simply store the file in the "wrong" partition. Paradoxically, therefore, that kind of partition structure results in less organization rather than more. *So How Should I Partition My Drive* If you've read what came before, my conclusions won't come as a surprise: 1. if your backup scheme is to image the entire drive, have just a single partition (usually C; 2. if you just backup data, have two partitions–one for Windows and installed application programs (usually C, the other for data (usually D. Except for those running multiple operating systems, there is seldom any benefit to having more than two partitions. |
|
|||
Creating personal data/special folders
On 5/26/15 8:42 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 00:26:27 -0600, Ken Springer wrote: FWIW, MS has acknowledged partitioning and relocating the folders can be a good thing. snip We agree on everything I just snipped. I want to shorten this reply, as I agree with your perspective 99+% of the time. G 1. A partition for just Windows Most people who create such a partition do so because they believe that if they ever have to reinstall Windows cleanly, at least they won’t lose their data and won’t have to reinstall their applications, because both are safe on other partitions. In fact the first of those thoughts is a false comfort, and the second is downright wrong. See the discussion of partition types 2 and 4 below to find out why. Also note that as time passes, many people find that their Windows partition that started out to be the right size turns out to be too small. For example, if you have such a Windows partition, and later upgrade to a newer version of Windows, you may find that your Windows partition is too small. Windows was the 3rd OS I was exposed to, and I discovered this too as I learned how Windows worked. But not so much from updating to a newer version of Windows, but because of the existing installation kept getting larger from MS updates, and program installation. On these old systems I fix up now and again, I try to leave 25% free space after everything is installed, including all updates and the supplied software. The impediment for the 25% is usually the small hard drive. snip Agreed on the snipped text. 4. A partition for backup of other partitions. Some people make a separate partition to store backups of their other partition(s). People who rely on such a "backup" are just kidding themselves. It's only very slightly better than no backup at all, because it leaves you susceptible to simultaneous loss of the original and backup to many of the most common dangers: head crashes and other kinds of drive failure, severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks, even theft of the computer. In my view, secure backup needs to be on removable media, and not kept in the computer. This I've never done. Always on a separate physical drive. The minor difference is, on my Win7/8 machine, I only have one separate drive for the backups, but it has 2 partitions, one for the Win 7 install, one for the Win 8 install. It's turning into a special use machine, so there will not be a lot of data on it. 5. A partition for data files snip Agreed on snipped text. However for some people it can be a good idea to separate Windows and programs on the one hand from data on the other, putting each of the two types into separate partitions. I think that most people’s partitioning scheme should be based on their backup scheme, and backup schemes generally fall into two types: imaging the entire hard drive or backup of data only. If you backup data only, that backup is usually facilitated by having a separate partition with data only; that permits backing up just that partition easily, without having to collect bits and pieces from here and there. On the other hand, for those who backup by creating an image of the entire drive, there is usually little, if any, benefit to separating data in a partition of its own. What about user ignorance? G More on this later. By the way, in all fairness, I should point out that there are many well-respected people who recommend a separate partition for Windows, regardless of your backup scheme. Their arguments haven’t convinced me, but there are clearly two different views here. Ignorance can come into play here also. 6. A partition for picture files Some people like to treat pictures and videos as something separate from other data files, and create a separate partition for them. To my mind, a picture is simply another kind of data, and there is no advantage in doing this. 7. A partition for music files. The comments above pertaining to picture files apply equally to music files. They are just another kind of data and should be treated the same way as other data. With all the audio and video files you can acquire these days, the quantity can come into play for some users. More of an organizational thing, I think, that thinking the data files are somehow different. I have a brother-in-law who has separate drives for video and audio files. He's go so many external drives for his data that he really needs an NAS, but so far no luck in getting him to buy one. snip *Performance* Some people have multiple partitions because they believe that it somehow improves performance. That’s not correct. The effect is probably small on modern computers with modern hard drives, but if anything, the opposite is true: more partitions mean poorer performance. That’s because normally no partition is full and there are therefore gaps between them. It takes time for the drive’s read/write heads to traverse those gaps. The closer together files are, the faster access to them will be. This is where I have some disagreement. :-) For the systems belonging to my friends that I reinstalled the OS and such on, with one partition for OS and programs, and one for data, they all said the computer ran faster than when it was new. Being cynical by nature, I thought they were nuts. But recently I read a post somewhere about "short stroking" your hard drive. This is one article you can find on the web: http://www.pcworld.com/article/25522...o rmance.html If this article and others are correct, then I think I accidentally accomplished this on those systems. I also think this would be more noticeable to the human brain on older and slower equipment. Thoughts? *Organization* I think many people overpartition because they use partitions as an organizational structure. They have a strong sense of order and want to separate apples from oranges on their drives. Yes, separating different kinds of files on partitions is an organizational technique, but so is separating different kinds of files in folders. The difference is that partitions are static and fixed in size, while folders are dynamic, changing size automatically as necessary to meet your changing needs. That generally makes folders a much better way to organize, in my view. True, partitions can be resized when necessary, but except with recent versions of Windows, doing so requires third-party software (and the ability to do it in Windows is primitive, compared to the third-party solutions). Such third-party software normally costs money, and, no matter how good and how stable it is, affects the entire drive, entailing a risk of losing everything. Plan your partitions well in the first place, and no repartitioning should be necessary. The need to repartition usually comes about as a result of overpartitioning in the first place. What frequently happens when people organize with partitions instead of folders is that they miscalculate how much room they need on each such partition, and then when they run out of room on the partition where a file logically belongs, while still having lots of space left on the other, they simply store the file in the "wrong" partition. Paradoxically, therefore, that kind of partition structure results in less organization rather than more. Other than the rare exception, I use folders. The exceptions would be files so rarely accessed I simply want them somewhere that I'm not accessing on any kind of regular basis. An analogy would be a mechanic who has a group of specialized tools he may have to read the instructions for each time he uses one. So he puts those tools in a different drawer in the tool box so he doesn't have dig through them each time he looks for a tool. So I would put those files on a different partition that is rarely accessed, and the computer doesn't have to "dig through" that part of the hard drive to find the more often used data. Again, more likely noticeable by the brain on slower equipment. *So How Should I Partition My Drive* If you've read what came before, my conclusions won't come as a surprise: 1. if your backup scheme is to image the entire drive, have just a single partition (usually C; 2. if you just backup data, have two partitions–one for Windows and installed application programs (usually C, the other for data (usually D. Except for those running multiple operating systems, there is seldom any benefit to having more than two partitions. One aspect we haven't discussed is the user. Basically, there's two types, one who wants to know how the computer works even if just the very basics, and the one that doesn't. Your article would more likely be read and taken to heart by the first type. The ones I bump into are generally the 2nd type, notably two of my sisters. LOL With the systems I donate, I assume the new owner is of the 2nd type. Based on my experiences with those uses, I think partitioning and then relocating the personal folders may offer some protection for those users against their own ignorance. I've a friend that actually wrote data to the restore partition and the Windows Program Files folder. This was challenge to find and separate/recover/copy all his data before reinstalling the OS. Maybe this works for those new owners, maybe not. But, at least I can say I tried. LOL -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 36.0.4 Thunderbird 31.5 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
|
|||
Creating personal data/special folders
On Tue, 26 May 2015 11:00:14 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote: On 5/26/15 8:42 AM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote: Some people have multiple partitions because they believe that it somehow improves performance. That’s not correct. The effect is probably small on modern computers with modern hard drives, but if anything, the opposite is true: more partitions mean poorer performance. That’s because normally no partition is full and there are therefore gaps between them. It takes time for the drive’s read/write heads to traverse those gaps. The closer together files are, the faster access to them will be. This is where I have some disagreement. :-) For the systems belonging to my friends that I reinstalled the OS and such on, with one partition for OS and programs, and one for data, they all said the computer ran faster than when it was new. If the system ran faster after a new Windows installation, there are many possible reasons why. Whether you are right or I am, do not assume that the reason why is the partitioning scheme. |