Any advice how should I partition my new 500G?

[cyberarmy]

I want to know what's the best way to partition my new 500gb (465gb actual), eg: 50/100/200/15/100

I would like to install Xp/Vista dual system in future (still running my XP with old 160gb at the moment), a partition for programs, one for games and rest for download/music/movies/series. And I will move the data I have on the 160gb over and also use this old PATA to store something (maybe external?).

Any advice on how will best suite my needs?

Saw someone suggested if 465gb actual and 2 platters 4 sides then should keep to 2 partitions on one side for 'maximum' performance, eg C\40,D\78,E\118,F\118,G\70,H\41. Any thoughts?

I allocated 34gb to one partition already, but can always resize.......

 

[xrapidx]

I don't know you can partition partitions to differnt platters.

 

[cyberarmy]

I don't know you can partition partitions to differnt platters.

Can't you? I know lots of people having only one partion for one hard drive.

 

[xrapidx]

Dunno...curious now... I have a 500GB hdd too

 

[kronoSX]

use partition magic

 

[.Froot.]

1) 6 partitions? I'm assuming you're going to make logical and partitions then. Which in that case isn't gonna help your case an all, because all logical partitions on an extended partition would simply make up one primary partition then.
2) You want to have XP, Vista, Programs, Data, and all your illegal stuff (assuming so since no one is going to rip all their movies onto their hdd, honestly) on one 500GB drive? The average Joe would have need at least 1TB for movies, series, games and music.

Any hdd has a limit to the speed it can attain (access, write, sustained, etc). We all know that. But the sum of all concurrent speeds attained at any given time on each of the partitions will always be the same, or less than the maximum performance of the drive. In other words, "arranging partitions" does not alter drive performance.

 

[cyberarmy]

1) 6 partitions? I'm assuming you're going to make logical and partitions then. Which in that case isn't gonna help your case an all, because all logical partitions on an extended partition would simply make up one primary partition then.
2) You want to have XP, Vista, Programs, Data, and all your illegal stuff (assuming so since no one is going to rip all their movies onto their hdd, honestly) on one 500GB drive? The average Joe would have need at least 1TB for movies, series, games and music.

Any hdd has a limit to the speed it can attain (access, write, sustained, etc). We all know that. But the sum of all concurrent speeds attained at any given time on each of the partitions will always be the same, or less than the maximum performance of the drive. In other words, "arranging partitions" does not alter drive performance.

Maybe I will do 4 primary, two for systems, and then do exteded on one of the primary.

 

[hj2k_x]

Maybe I will do 4 primary, two for systems, and then do exteded on one of the primary.

Why do you want so many partitions?

Why not one 50GB partition for the OS and one 440GB for the rest?

 

[HavocXphere]

A separate partition for each OS. Small....25gb.

Rest for data. Install the big programs to the data partition.

If there is any chance that you are going to using HDD image software then you *don't* want the programs installed on the OS partition. If not then make the OS partition bigger and don't bother with installing the progs on that data partition.

 

[hyperian]

Ive only ever bothered partitioning to seperate my OS from other files. So ill have 2 partitions for linux and windows, and the rest will be one partition for my other crap. I do this because i find that when the drive gets filled up i end up with like 3 gigs free on each partition and I struggle to find place to store big files (dvd rips etc). Is it safer to store data across multiple paritions incase the partition goes to hell?

 

[cyberarmy]

Thanks for the valid points, maybe I will do 2 system and one big for everything else. I only install programs like antivirus, office to system and everything else to my data/program partition, a lot of the programs runs fine even after re-image of system partition. Thanks guys!

 

[hj2k_x]

Thanks for the valid points, maybe I will do 2 system and one big for everything else. I only install programs like antivirus, office to system and everything else to my data/program partition, a lot of the programs runs fine even after re-image of system partition. Thanks guys!

Good plan.

 

[Stoner]

I assume this is the only HD in your PC?

If so the best will be just two partitions. One for your OS and the other for data storage. Remember that the performance of a HD suffers a lot when your partition it. You will clearly notice it when you copy something and try and open something else. The poor heads in the HD are going crazy all over the place.

The ideal would be to install two HD's that are not partitioned if you can. Again one will be for the OS and the other for data. You will get the best bang for buck this way.

Good luck!

 

[.Froot.]

A separate partition for each OS. Small....25gb.

Rest for data. Install the big programs to the data partition.

If there is any chance that you are going to using HDD image software then you *don't* want the programs installed on the OS partition. If not then make the OS partition bigger and don't bother with installing the progs on that data partition.

I've learnt that when dual booting between Vista and XP,otherM$, it is better to install the programs in the OS-partition. For one reason only, however- ease of using. If you want to install Office to your data partition, what then? OfficeVista and OfficeXP? There will be such types of clashes. Or better yet, only use XP. Vista is unfortunately a lot less than it was intended.

 

[hj2k_x]

I've learnt that when dual booting between Vista and XP,otherM$, it is better to install the programs in the OS-partition. For one reason only, however- ease of using. If you want to install Office to your data partition, what then? OfficeVista and OfficeXP? There will be such types of clashes. Or better yet, only use XP. Vista is unfortunately a lot less than it was intended.

I was also wondering why the need for such a dual-boot? Playing games on XP and then doing everything else on Vista? Why not just do everything well on XP?

 

[.Froot.]

I was also wondering why the need for such a dual-boot? Playing games on XP and then doing everything else on Vista? Why not just do everything well on XP?

Well said...

 

[cyberarmy]

I got two drives now, the current Western Digital 160G PATA and the newly bought Seagate 500G SATA2.

So you guys do not recommend XP/VISTA dual system because Vista is not that good? I will still have 2 partitions for OS, maybe I will try out Ubuntu in the future

 

[hj2k_x]

I got two drives now, the current Western Digital 160G PATA and the newly bought Seagate 500G SATA2.

So you guys do not recommend XP/VISTA dual system because Vista is not that good? I will still have 2 partitions for OS, maybe I will try out Ubuntu in the future

Sweet, Throw XP on the 160GB one and use the entire 500GB one for games/apps/data...

 

[.Froot.]

Sweet, Throw XP on the 160GB one and use the entire 500GB one for games/apps/data...

This is by far the best suggestion.

If you are considering installing Ubuntu, create a 30GB partition at the start of the 500GB drive and leave it be (installing Linux will format the partition to whatever you choose (ext3, reiser, etc). Then just change the boot order if you want to use Ubuntu. Otherwise if you are not going to remove Ubuntu, partition your 160 to 115Windows/30Ubuntu (+-15 goes to filesystem) and take it from there. Just install Windows first.

 

[kronoSX]

Why do you want so many partitions?

Why not one 50GB partition for the OS and one 440GB for the rest?

you thinking in the box
he wants it out the box