Partitioning a HDD in Windows 7

I recently bought a new Hitachi hard drive and I am wondering "how do you partition a secondary hard drive in Windows 7?" I want to partition it into two.

 

go to disk management, pick the drive, select new partition.

by default it will want to do all the space but you can edit that. for example, if it wants to use all 300,000 megabytes (300gb), you can edit that number to whatever you want, for example, 150,000 megabytes (150gb).

for more info, go here -- http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Create-and-format-a-hard-disk-partition

and click on "to create and format a partition"

 

Wow.... that was super fast- thanks!
lol- I gave you rep already- now it won't let me

 

it won't let you gimme reps?! those bas+ardz!!!!!!!!!!

thanks anyway though. i hope my info helped. it's very straight forward.

i've done this twice now - when i was running two 320gb drives and then about a month ago when i installed two 500gb drives.

ps - i tried repping you and it said i couldnt either because i already did before.... what a bunch of slu+s!

 

Why do you want to partition an external drive in the first place?

Also, is it internal or external? External - via USB - 100% pointless.

Internal - maybe some sense if you want the fastest part of the drive for temp files - but overall, partitioning only makes sense on a HDD that also contains the OS - have a slight barrier between OS and data so that in a worst case you can replace the OS and keep data.

 

Its an internal HDD, my dv8 has two hard drive bays =D

 

OK, so why do you want to partition it?

If you want to use the fastest part of the HDD for temp files there can be use for a smallish partition - but not a large one - else I recommend you just have the whole drive as "one unit".

 

Okay then, I just wanted to separate the hard drive into two parts- one for storage (documents, videos, and music) and the other for running applications(games).
Do you think I should leave it as a whole then?

 

I suggest you install games on the same drive as the OS - you can't move them to another OS install anyway.

Then you have a complete drive for storage which makes more sense.

 

^ cosign. my current setup is the same way

drive 1 - 500gb western digital - one huge partition = operating system, all apps, games, utilities

drive 2 - 500gb western digital - one huge partition = music files, movies, my pictures, wallpaper collection, software install files (in case media goes corrupt), etc.

 

Caution! A lot of work ahead (but I think worth it),
but you may want to try this:

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=442289


Specifically, see post #11 in that thread.

 

The question is, what is the gain? - 1 partition on HDD2 in the "quick part" for a temp file may be useful, else there isn't really any gain I can see.

You only make life difficult by having plenty of drives... also, moving stuff between partitions isn't too quick...

Why do you think SSD users stopped using partitions?

 

i was going to ask this in the SSD thread, but just wondering why is it not a good idea to create a 2nd partition on a SSD? On all my system (regular hard drive) before I always split my main drive into 2 partition one for OS and one 2nd for my software, and docs (data) the reason why I always create a 2nd partition is because if I have to restore my OS then I could keep my data on the 2nd partition. Is there a performance different between having just one partition compare to two on a ssd? thanks

 

lol...

SSD users stopped using partitions because the SSD's are too small to partition effectively. Also, there is no performance hit by not partitioning, but they are foregoing other benefits by not doing so...


If I have to explain it (again) to you... Oh well:

What you're gaining is:

Quote:
"What this thread will concentrate on is my partitioning strategy to keep the performance of my notebook at peak performance as long (and as easily) as possible."

Quote:
" Some say that a clean install is a waste of time.

I say a clean install is an opportunity to really evaluate how efficiently the computer will be used and gives us a chance to apply it fully."

Quote:
" How effective is this strategy in actually giving performance as promised?

Well, lets just say that on the SSD thread, PS CS4 was mentioned that it takes 7 to 9 seconds for it to load - on a variety of 'high end' SSD's, including the venerable Intel G2 SSD. Scratching my head, I go off to check my notes... Yep, my Hitachi loads PS CS4 in 8 to 11 seconds, but also with 3 suites of plugins installed. Even my now 'old' Scorpio Blue loaded PS in comparable times to the stated times the SSD's take.

So, yes, I'm not only confident this is a real performance oriented partitioning strategy, I've also had independent 'confirmation' of it's strengths too. Importantly, this 'confirmation' is not from its peers, its actually from the next generation of storage tech, hmmmm.... "


Like anything else in life, we get out what we put into it.

I want maximum, sustained performance until I get new H/W. You want a simple strategy that involves minimal fuss.

No right, no wrong - just the results achieved, equal the effort expended.

 

Well, part of the reason you partition a HDD is to have the OS on the fast part and to isolate data.

With the HDD the speed angle is gone.

The other thing is, SSDs last the longest if every "cell" is written too about the same amount of time and their performance is dependant on their empty space - according to spec sheets you can fill an Intel SSD up by 80% before you see a performance decrease.

If you partition a SSD you'll start to stress some parts more than others.

Else... well, they are too small really to do that...

But the key thing is, you have no gain.

And the data - get an external SSD/HDD and back it up that gains you more - also, I have had a C drive recovery that wiped out my D drive... how and why I have no idea - so external backup is always better

 

The time I used to do clean installs on my old laptop under XP my laptop was always slower than a laptop that had the same XP install for years and had it battered with installs and unistalls of software.
Yes, you are reading this correctly, the clean install was slower.

And your performance angle - that may apply to a HDD where you have an OS partition, but its no longer valid on SSDs.

 

My primary drive is quite small (only 320GB). I am going to install all apps and programs on my primary, but will put all files and games on my secondary, since games are soo damn big and my secondary is 7200rpm, which should be quick enough. Both of my drives are 7200rpm so there should not be a performance drop.

 

We are not talking about an SSD here.

Your clean install was not very good then, was it?

 

The clean install was on a laptop - and its not about "not being very good" its about them being pointless.
Generally just tidying up will work much better and cause less trouble.

Oh, and I was using the same drivers as a recovery on that laptop too.

On my SSD I just used the recovery discs and got rid of the junk - problem solved
Oh, and speaking about speed - the above (clean install was my old laptop) - on my Vaio Vista from the Recovery disc was as fast as Windows7 installed "cleanly" - I got rid of Win7 though... too much hassle with the Fn keys.

I'm saying clean installs are overrated.

 

Why do you want to put games on a secondary drive?

And 320GB is by no means small?

What do you have on the primary drive if you cannot fit the OS and your software and your games on that?

Especially if your data is on the second drive - this is something I can't understand.

 

But that is my point; you shouldn't say clean installs are overrated - the way you do them are.

 

"the way you do them" ???

A clean install means installing the OS from scratch, and no manufacturer bloat that you tidy up.
That's the only definition of a clean install.

Using recovery discs and then cleaning up isn't a clean install but can give better performance - and generally does it seems too
But that's not clean installing.

So what exactly are you saying?

 

To me, a clean install does the following:

Installs the version of Windows I want to use.

Installs the latest drivers specific for my H/W and O/S.

Installs the drivers and software in the optimal order.

Does not install anything else period.

The reason you're seeing a 'recovery' install perform better than a 'clean' install, is because you haven't figured out the proper drivers and the install order yet, nor does it seem, are you willing to.

So, it may be our definitions of a clean install do not agree. But, more importantly, when I do a clean install the benefits are obvious and significant and in no way a waste of time or a 'hassle' to figure out, vs. the benefits offered.

 

I was using the same drivers as the recovery did on that old laptop - they were supplied with the laptop.

 

Was this a recovery cd 'Hit start to install your drivers' type of install, or did you install them manually? Same O/S or new/different O/S?

 

The recovery on the old laptop was either:
Do a recovery including drivers and the couple of "add ons"

or:

Install OS (just OS) - drivers where available on a second DVD supplied with the laptop.

Full recovery was more efficient and faster than clean install and supplied drivers.

 

I have yet to see that in any of the systems I've done my 'clean' installs on.

The identical Sony VAIO I had a chance to use/compare for my Hitachi 7K500 upgrade provided the proof that once again a clean install is so far superior to the bloat that OEM's supply, that it effectively makes the computer useless 'as is' (at least to me and to the person who owned this specific unit).

This very point is why I was able to get the 2nd VAIO to be able to do my comparisons to. The owner couldn't believe that the same notebook could perform so differently - simply because of the 'right setup' as I explained to him.

My post #23 in this thread summarizes what is a clean install for me.

Your post indicates the same thinking of how this identical VAIO was set up originally (his son, or nephew did it...). That 'setup' lasted for him less than 6 months before he thought he needed a new computer - instead, the setup I provided him has him saying that the computer should be 'good enough' for the next four or five years.

An additional point to keep in mind: this second VAIO was not used for anything close to the level of my (identical) machine; basically, it was an internet and music player - and it still did not perform to a 'beginner's level' of expectations.

Also, no BIOS updates, no driver updates, no software updates seemed to have ever been performed on it before I touched it.

I have no doubt that 'full recovery was faster and more efficient', but I also have no doubt that your install is far from optimal too.

 

Strange indeed...