Is partitioning worth it?

[Dputiger]

This article author is an idiot, in my opinion. A real idiot.

It's not because all of his points are wrong--his technical points are pretty much spot-on. It's because of the drastic assumptions he makes about why multiple partitions are a waste of time.

I multiple partition my drive--I use one for keeping crucial backup information--so lets take a look at what's on that disk.

I have:

1) All my system drivers.
2) Quite a few backed-up saved game files, and downloaded maps and mods for various games, none of which are all that small.
3) The latest BIOS for my motherboard.
4) AOL Instant Messenger Install files.
5) DirectX 8.
6) All my backed up documents.
7) The backed up websites that I've written.
8) Quicktime
9) Sandra2001 te
10) 3DMark2001
11) 3DMark2000
12) Quake 3 Demo Install files
13) My telnet software for reaching my school's system.
14) Some various other freeware programs.

Now....Its certainly MUCH easier for me to keep all of this data here, on the D:\, then it is to put it on CD. It won't all fit on ONE or even two CD's--which I then have to keep track of.

I also don't have the money for a CD-burner. This idiot assumes anyone does--well I don't.

Furthermore, anyone who knows anything knows that copying data off a 7200 RPM HDD is significantly faster than copying it off a 40X CD-ROM. I'd rather be backing up through my HDD thank you very much.

Even MORE importantly, doing an install of Windows overtop an install of Windows doesn't always fix the problems a person can encounter. I've seen situations which could only be fixed by full installs.

It took me a whopping five minutes to configure my drive partition system. I can reformat my hard drive and have my entire system fully functional again inside of an hour.

So who's wasting time here?

[caddmannq]

Hmmm...If you check this guy's office, you'll probably find one file cabinet labeled "a~z." Not my idea of organization at all.

On my (main) home PC, I have 8 drives & 15 drive letter asignments, (not counting Linux-only partitions) and while that might be over-kill, I can always find stuff, and risk losing very little of it in one shot.

For those with a simple system, A:, C: & D: may be enough, but you're putting all your eggs in one basket.

[Dove19983]

I also think that that guy is really dumb. I had one 13GIG drive for about 4 months and after having reinstall the first thing I did was make a backup drive. I now have 4, 2 physical drives. Best thing I ever did.

[oldhermit]

I think he spends too much time reading the help files, usually the responsibility of a secretary with nothing better to do...

I partition in order to cut down on the time and effort necessary for disk management.

[the corrupted]

I built a system myself in january. This system, actually. And the first thing I did was format the new 20GB drive. After about 3 formats I decided to multi partition the drive for ease of use. I too use the second partition for backup data, and also for anything I want to download. I have a burner, but it's useless for such large amounts of data. the primary partition is only about 5GB, which is more than I need for what the system is used. I have over 9GB free on the second partition. Again, the burner is useless with the gigs of data on a system nowdays.

Even being limited to ata66, the drive is fast and reliable. It does an install from itself of windows in about 15 minutes, including restarts. This is no real rocket ship, but doing it from CD used to take me the better part of a day. How can anyone possibly say that all people only need single partitions? what about the people with 45GB+ drives? How long does it take to format those suckers? At least with multiple partitions these people can reduce the time of formatting in the long run by having multiple drives, and make some more use of the space they have. I know I'd like a drive or 2 that large. it would solve all my problems with having CDs for games and so forth. Problems such as CD drives not working properly. Something alot of people find with single partitions, but have no way of even trying to fix. Now, can this writer please remove the item from his brain and use that end of his body for natural processes instead of thought.

[paragod4716]

well...I must say that I by no means no everything there is to know...but I do know that if I have crucial backup information I most certainly DO NOT put it on the same hard drive as the original...and yes my hard drive is partitioned.

[falcompsx]

partitioning is not my method of choice, i much prefer two hard drives. so if my main one goes down physically, i have a good back up. partitions are only good for reformats.

[struggles]

I think a drive partitioned into two or three logical drives makes perfect sense. So long as you have a legitimate reason to do so. I think the point this guy is trying to make refers to people going partition nuts. i.e.

On my (main) home PC, I have 8 drives & 15 drive letter asignments,

I think the author makes some pretty good points, and some questionable. I can pretty much guarantee he's no idiot.

[EastSt]

I think he is putting us on...

Just wrote this article to upset people
and see how much of a response he could get.

Just don't let him near my hard drive..

[Dputiger]

Partitions are only good for reformats, true--not against hard drive failure--but I haven't had a drive fail on me yet. A full-size additional HDD is out of my price range for the same reason a burner is--hence the extra partitions.

[elroy]

This guy definitely has an opinion on the subject. BUT I'll still use multiple partitions. He acts like setting up 2 or 3 partitions is a tedious task? Gee it never takes me more then a couple minutes. I use 3 partitions, 1-O/S, 2-storage, 3-burn cd's from. His point about seperate partitions for the swap file is correct but people use their computers for many different tasks, reasons, levels of importance etc. He would have been better off writing an article about the reasons to partition, good points vs. bad points, etc. His blanket approach to the subject is wrong.

[maface]

I have various O/S's and I keep each one on a separate partition. I also have a FAT partition for dual booting and a FAT32 for data I've also had NTFS in the mix. If you want to take true advantage of different O/S's (Dual booting, compression etc)I feel you need to Partition.

[caddmannq]

If you want to take true advantage of different O/S's (Dual booting, compression etc)I feel you need to Partition

Absolutely. And that's a good part of the reason I have those 8 drives & 15+ drive assignments: I run 4 different OS's on the same PC.

Why? Because I can! What true PC geek needs any other reason?

As for the common man, most of the engineers here have MS's & PHD's and are highly respected, but couldn't format E:\ with both hands & a flashlight. Don't even think about HDC3 !

[Thanatos2069]

As a computer store owner, a microsoft oem system builder and a user of hard drives since the 5MB days I feel i'm pretty qualified to discuss partitions.
Anyone who is running multi/os should already be aware of the virtues of multiple partitions. Anyone who is running a single os should be made aware of the following:
PC's store precisely 3 types of information.
1. System=OS/Drivers... Etc..
2. Application=Anything that creates or modifies work
3. Data=the stuff you create/obtain/modify on your System using your Applications.
This should be self-evident. Hence, three partitions is a good place to start from.
Use two partitions if you applications are small in size and number, or if your data is small in size and number. Use more than three partitions if you have hefty software or huge numbers of files. If you have the need to burn cd's or the need for some sizeable temporary storage Use 4 partitions. This isn't rocket science folks. Partitions are your friend. The real downside of partitions is that the crappy compilers/developers arent clean and professional in how they treat the user. Every application should be able to install and uninstall itself with no impact to your system. No %system%, no **** H_Key blah blah, no shared dll's no NOTHING. A proper program lives in its own Folder just like in the oldschool DOS days and a proper application has an easy to find variable for where it stores its data. C:\windows\options\cabs is just about one of MS's dumbest ideas ever with the possible exception of Dos4.01,MS-BOB, or ripping off stac-electronics useless compression for the Dos6.0 version of doublespace. If you own a Dell, Gateway, HP, Compaq, IBM, crapbox with this setup on a single partition you're in signifigant peril. One lost allocation unit in the right part of the FAT table and whoops! The cabs SHOULD be on the hard drive, but on a separate parition than where windows is installed. Windows Should NEVER be installed over itself unless you know exactly what the prep work required entails.
It blows my mind that ANYONE is still trying to make an argument for single partitions. WTF, wake up buddy. The coffee is nice and hot. Maybe you should go down to the local flea-market and get yourself an IBM-5150 with a ST225 21.2MB hard drive and DOS 3.30. Then at least maybe your argument might be worth reading. fool.

[Thanatos2069]

As a computer store owner, a microsoft oem system builder and a user of hard drives since the 5MB days I feel i'm pretty qualified to discuss partitions.
Anyone who is running multi/os should already be aware of the virtues of multiple partitions. Anyone who is running a single os should be made aware of the following:
PC's store precisely 3 types of information.
1. System=OS/Drivers... Etc..
2. Application=Anything that creates or modifies work
3. Data=the stuff you create/obtain/modify on your System using your Applications.
This should be self-evident. Hence, three partitions is a good place to start from.
Use two partitions if you applications are small in size and number, or if your data is small in size and number. Use more than three partitions if you have hefty software or huge numbers of files. If you have the need to burn cd's or the need for some sizeable temporary storage Use 4 partitions. This isn't rocket science folks. Partitions are your friend. The real downside of partitions is that the crappy compilers/developers arent clean and professional in how they treat the user. Every application should be able to install and uninstall itself with no impact to your system. No %system%, no **** H_Key blah blah, no shared dll's no NOTHING. A proper program lives in its own Folder just like in the oldschool DOS days and a proper application has an easy to find variable for where it stores its data. C:\windows\options\cabs is just about one of MS's dumbest ideas ever with the possible exception of Dos4.01,MS-BOB, or ripping off stac-electronics useless compression for the Dos6.0 version of doublespace. If you own a Dell, Gateway, HP, Compaq, IBM, crapbox with this setup on a single partition you're in signifigant peril. One lost allocation unit in the right part of the FAT table and whoops! The cabs SHOULD be on the hard drive, but on a separate parition than where windows is installed. Windows Should NEVER be installed over itself unless you know exactly what the prep work required entails.
It blows my mind that ANYONE is still trying to make an argument for single partitions. WTF, wake up buddy. The coffee is nice and hot. Maybe you should go down to the local flea-market and get yourself an IBM-5150 with a ST225 21.2MB hard drive and DOS 3.30. Then at least maybe your argument might be worth reading. fool.