Can someone explain to me about partitions?

I'm looking to get an MSI computer soon and one of the complaints that people have, though they say it's not a major one, is that the HDD arrives partitioned. They say the default drive, C, is only around 20 gigs and the OS is installed on that. What I want to know is: why is it a problem that the OS is installed on the default partition? Why is it a bad thing that all other programs must be installed on the larger partition?

I've had people answer me before but it didn't really clear up the confusion. None of the information I got explains to me why so many people complain about this partitioning. I honestly know nothing about partitions so I can't see the problem. If anyone can lay it out for me, I'd appreciate it.

I don't want to get the computer and leave it partitioned the way it is if that's going to cause a headache down the road. Likewise, I don't want to delete the larger partition and just have the C drive if there's no harm in keeping it the way it is.

 

if you don't have enough space to install all apps at their default place, c:\program files, you have to manually specify where to install each time.

and in the end, partitions are mostly useless. but this will end in a holy war i guess.

if there's nothing on the second partition when you get it, you may delete it and resize the other one to full size. maybe?

 

Thanks for the answer, but I'm still a little unclear on the problem. Is that such a hassle to specify where to install each time? How different is it from every other installation that asks where to install the program?

And if I get the upgrade to Windows 7, since I'm buying the laptop in the upgrade window, wouldn't it erase everything I have on it if I keep it all on one partition?

 

Partitions are useful for avoiding having to back up stuff before you format, or incase of your OS gets jacked up..

 

Partitioning a HDD is basically splitting the HDD into different sections. Like cutting a Pie in half or in four sections for ex. One section would be drive C: the other would be drive D: and so on. (You can always change the lettering scheme if you please)

Like my Asus Netbook came with (2) two partitions, drive C: and D:

Some ppl like there HDDs configured this way for various reasons...from a form of fault tolerance; such as corrupt installation on your primary drive C: (you might still be able to rescue data on the other partition), to just a personal preference. Might make things easier for some in an organizational sense. I personally don't have a need for it and don't like it. So I just merge both partitions together into one big partition; being drive C:

Hope I at least kinda helped sort out the confusion.

Edit: And I think the best way for you to get a good idea as to what it's like is to actually try it out and get first hand experience as to what ppl are complaining about. I honestly don't see what real issues could arise. Once you know where you put your data and install certain programs I think you shoudl be fine. But again I think you should give it a try yourself and see.

 

well, i personally use all 4 physical partitions (you can only have 4 primary partitions, but unlimited logical partitions through extended partitions... all the logical partitions would be inside ONE primary partition, but the OS will 'see' the logical partitions separately inside the one primary partition)

1) Windows 7 ~ 50GB ~ NTFS
2) Ubuntu ~ 40GB ~ EXT4
3) Swap space ~ 6GB ~ FAT32
4) Personal Files ~ 130GB (rest of the 250GB HDD) ~ NTFS

this way, each OS has it's own space for programs while my documents sit in the 4th partition and can be accessible by everyone (well, technically there's an EXT4 driver for windows, but it's buggy)

and i clone my windows & ubuntu partition onto my external HDD so that i just have to reapply the clone whever my windows partition gets slow/crappy... and all/most of my programs/drivers are there.... and my personal files/other OS doesn't get touched when i reapply my clone to a specific partition

 

This really ONLY applies to data. I am a big proponent of having two partitions, one for OS and programs and one for data, to allow for different backup/restore strategies for data versus OS & applications. (More specifically, image level backups for the OS & applications where the likelihood of needing specific files is low. And file level backups for data where access to specific file backups is typically what is needed. Dave and I butt heads on this regularly, he has a one size fits all opinion that no one would ever need two partitions. We obviously disagree.)

I do NOT think it is a good idea to put programs anywhere except in the same partition as the OS. This is because the registry must be on that partition and the programs are heavily dependent on the registry. If you were to have the OS on one and the programs on another it would be very easy to get those two "out of sync" rendering some of the applications unusable.

 

i share the same theory....

that's why get an OS/Programs only partition, clone them so that next time, reinstallation is just reapplying the clone....all your programs will still be there...

it's <$100 to get an external HDD... if you use Acronis true image, i think you can even burn the clone onto DVD

an OS/programs shouldn't take more than 100GB...

 

If you upgrade, it doesn't kill anything of your system, but replaces vista with win7. All Programs, Settings, Partitions etc stay as far as possible.

Well, I don't want the hazzle of specifying where my apps are every time. I just click next. All default, least hassle, most supported configuration.

And the myth about killing your os irreparable without killing your other partition or your hdd, well, it's a myth mostly. At least for people who know how to handle their system (vista disk can recover boot-related errors of your installation without a wimper, anything bigger just affects your data anyways).

 

I use to be a big fan of partitions myself, having 2 as Gary mentioned above, since Vista I did away with it all, partitioning only when I dual or triple boot and shared data (recovery partition left alone naturellement).

Too much hassle for me to play around with how much should I decide for OS and data. Just use a folder for my personal stuff, synchronizing it with an external.

cheers ...

 

My take on this is that, first of all, yes, everybody should at least have a separate partition for their data. This makes it easy to restore the system (from a backup, ideally, or using a reinstall, if you have to) in case of any kind of failure. Personally, I go further by creating additional partitions for a number of reasons (good reasons, I might add) that I will not go into here.

However, a pertinent point worth emphasizing here is that, in Vista, you really should consider installing your programs in (subfolders of) C:\Program Files. If you install programs in different locations, some of Vista's security features will not be applied to grograms in those other locations, and file system virtualization (if you happen to care for that) only works for programs in C:\Program Files.

 

If I want to run different operating system on my computer, be it being osx, linux or diferent version of Windows, I always use vmware workstation. My desktop computer is fast enough to handle all of them at once so why not take advantage of this and run them simulaneously and use whatever I want without restarting the computer.

Instead of 2 partitions, I have 2 physical hdds in my desktop computer. 1 hdd mainly stores the OS and programs. The other stores my data. Both stores page file. Incase one drive is loaded, windows will access page file on the other drive that's idle.

 

for that, one should have an EXTERNAL backup. as no partition will be there if the hdd died. which is more common than a non-reparable vista-problem that only affects c:. much more common.
as i said, to each it's own, it's mostly about holding up myths that people like.

yes, fully agreed. default place = place to be.

 

One size does not fit all. Your way, which works for you, doesn't mean it is the way ALL others with as much or more experience than you should necessarily use. I will say no more on this subject.

Gary

 

still waiting for a proof that it's not a myth, though..

everyone needs external backup. not everyone needs partitions. no default user needs them. so does no real supporter.

main issue user have: failing disks. for this, you need backup. for anything else, the restore cd from vista helps. for everything further, data is available or not, independent on partition layout. if you mess up your masterboot record, chances are very big, your D: isn't there as well anymore f.e.. and then a simple fixmbr brings back everything. and if not, there is still no D:

i understand there is the possibility that c: fails irreparable, and d: is untouched. all i state is, this possibility is so really really tiny in vista / win7 by today, the moment when that happens, a repairinstallation or restorefrombackup will work just as well.

i know you don't believe that, but maybe the OP will. most people who grew with windows from the dos days still believe in partitions to be a useful tool for general usage home pcs. no one ever rethought that over the years. if you would, you would believe me, finally.



edit: btw, my solution works for everyone, except for multiboot environments. it may not be the best way according to your believes, but it would WORK. 0 partitions, that wouldn't, 1 partition for everything, that would. no technical reason is there that it wouldn't work it may not be that comfortable for you, but it would logically work. that statement is just so wrong.
as i said, it's a fully personal choice. everything works. what i state is, 1 partition is the most simple, and thus the best, for the os, for the user, for the supporter. there, you disagree. and there, i say, because of a myth from the past.

 

Oh yes, that goes without saying, or at least it should Thanks for pointing that out. Backing up your vital data on the same hardware as the data itself is a recipe for disaster. Hard drives do die sometimes...

 

I've had to resque enough data on dying harddrives from some arbitary c:/d:/more config that it should go without saying, but doesn't

edit: and i even heard the "but the data is on d: so it's save, not?" statements to get a shudder everytime i only hear about "dunno, but my pc acts very wierd since some days, can you look at it?".

i think, maybe, the partition love comes from the high end systems which always had more than one disk, and there c: and d: on different disks resulted in more savety for the data (not really, but as the data-disk gets accessed less, failure chance is still reduces) and higher performance. but on a notebook forum, the >1 disk configurations are quite rare, and the ones who do have more than one know how to use them.

 

Exactly which part of "one size does not fit all" do you not understand? I never said your way is wrong, only that it is not the only way. And just because your way works doesn't mean it is the quickest or most convenient way for some of us.

Stop dredging up this crap that we folks who have been around since before DOS haven't bothered to revisit the notion of partitions. I am the CTO for a company, trust me I have rethought their use and it, FOR ME, is the quickest easiest way I can insure my system is functional should any sort of anamoly occur.

And whether you think so or not it CAN be a quick and easy way for others as well. I could care less if you think so or not. We are done, I am tired of your constant badgering on this subject with your attitude that only YOU know the true way. Get over yourself bud, you have a lot to learn. There are lots of ways, to accomplish an end, some work well for some folks, others work well for other folks. As I keep saying to you "one size does NOT fit all".

Gary

 

Well, for an example, I had a problem with our home machine twice this year already (hardware issue, and I'll leave it at that; it's fixed now), where the system had to be "rebooted" via the power button. On reboot and diskcheck, the system decided that it needed to fix some broken security descriptors, with the result that all permissions on the affected files were replaced with default permissions for access by administrator only. So, none of the standard users could log in anymore, since their user registry heaps were not accessible. For all practical intents and purposes, the system was destroyed: It's really not possible to re-create the intricate permissions structures without compromising the security of the system or investing an inordinate amount of time in this (and I know how to use icacl and friends...).

Since I had data and system partitions separate, all I needed to do was restore the system backup. If I had had the data mixed in there as well, I would have lost at least some data (of course, I do daily data backups, too, but everything new after the backup would have been gone).

 

You are beating your head against a brick wall. It doesn't matter how much logic or examples you provide dave. He is god's gift to IT and knows how all of us should configure our machines. Just ask him. His is the ONLY way. Forget about time and ease of restoration. Those are unimportant to Dave.

Gary

 

*sigh* This is why I hesitated to post in this thread in the first instance. I knew something like this would happen. It's like walking on thin ice when it comes to this subject.

Thinking about it though, these guys might have a point Dave. As much as I hate to say it. Ah mean, rarely I think someone would have an issue like what Pirx mentioned in his post #19; but I think if my HDD fails (Depending on what type of failure it is. If it's OS related) If I go to reinstall the OS i'm sure 9 times /10 I would at least see the Data partition there untouced.

But honestly I haven't had the personal experience with this so I wouldn't know for sure.

 

I had hdds died on my computer. So now i'm just like "screw partitions", it's either remote backup or having 2 hdds in 1 computer. It's safer and better that way. Don't have to deal with loss of performance like partitioning the hdd, and don't have to suffer "reduced" reliability. Redundancy and speed is the key.

 

The greatest benefit to partitions is reducing the size of a disk image. I can totally understand why that is relevant.

I have my data backed up on an external NAS and external hard drive. I then have my disk image backed up on an external hard drive.

If it is an OS problem, having a separate OS partition can be helpful. If there is a hardware (or partition table) problem, multiple partitions will not help.

 

I appologize for driving this further of course, but it seems that everytime this subject comes up dave feels the need to tell us all how wrong we are for daring to show other ways and reasons to think about this issue. It doesn't seem to matter how thought out or rational the reasons might be, occording to dave only one way is right, his.

Gary

 

The "best" approach (keeping in mind Gary's caveats ) is probably a belt-and-suspenders approach that combines the jackluo923-external-backup approach with the separate-OS-and-data-partitions approach. I've had problems that each solution is intended to address - I've had a partition get borked up, requiring that it be reformatted, but with no problems on the other partitions, and I've had a disc physically die, which affected all of the partitions (more or less, from an external drive, the Data partition was still useable, but the OS/Programs partition was corrupted by a lot of bad sectors).

In other words, it seems to me that the safest, with a moderate degree of redundancy that isn't utterly time-consuming to maintain, is to have a separate partition for the OS/Programs and another for Data (at least), and then have a cloned image of the OS/Program partition (that's updated every so often) and a regularly scheduled backup of the Data partition to an external backup drive.

That way, if it's just an issue of the file system in one partition getting borked up, then that partition can be reconstructed from either the cloned image or the data backup, without also having to go in and reconstruct the other, perfectly sound, partition.

On the other hand, if the drive is physically dying, then you've got everything to hand to clone the OS/Program partition onto the new drive and then reconstruct your data files on the Data partition.

 

As most people told ya , its better to have enough space to install your programs at the same place as your operating system , cause if something happened like a virus or registery files problem , you will just format the C: drive and your data ( music, games , files ) will be left un harmed on the other partition ,i suggest using around 40Gb to 50GB for vista and around 20 - 25 gb if you will be using xp , good luck

 

LOL... depending on what the person is using the computer for, 40-50gb for vista and 20-25gb for xp might not be enough. Personally, I have like more than 100GB+ of programs and games installed on my computer excluding the OS file.

 

Precisely my information management strategy. I have one additional step in that my data partition is also synced to my desktop.

Gary

 

Wow.. syncing partitions. Isn't it a bit waste of space? Shouldn't it be easier if you sync just the files?

 

Sorry, yes that is what is done. I use SureSync to sync the laptop and desktop data partitions (but it is done on a file by file basis). I realize the way I worded that did sound a bit, shall we say, strange! It actually does a three way sync with my laptop, desktop and external drive.

Gary

 

No, sir, i listen. all you made wrong is saying my way doesn't work. and that, sir, is wrong.

 

Nice, an example of when it would have helped to have more than one partition. What ScuderiaConchiglia doesn't want to see is, it could have been done without partitions, as well.

But in this case, it would have been more work. At least, if the backup wouldn't be actual enough to to not just restore (and maybe with a boot disk copy out 1 or 2 files that are important and has to be the actual version).


So in this case I would have had more work. That's interestingly the first example where no partition would make it a bit worse that encountered my life so far.

and nice that you got it fixed, btw. not just "restore and forget" how some friends got the habbit with their funky 2001 ghost image

 

The reason I do this is this:
I want to give another view on the topic than all "tons of partitions FTW".
I want to give light on the fact that HDDs die all the time, and then even your fancy partition setup won't help at all.
I want to give light on the fact that, with a good backup solution, the chances that partitions help are so small, that they're not worth the hazzle.

of all of these points, the first is okay, and the second is very important. the third one is an opinion, and yours is different. all i can say from my experience is, if you know how to handle your system, the need to restore a partition to get it working is very very very low.

I have now seen an example where the maybe only way to get access to the data would have been with a repair installation (maybe not). in all examples i encountered so far in my life, and i've seen tons, they where in the end two things:
HDDs that died and the data had to be resqued from the failing disk (and i hate those cases)
systems that where easily repairable without any data loss in minutes, maybe sometimes in hours.


so my main argument still stands, i think partitions are not worth the hazzle, the gain is too low. how often to do you need to restore your partition, really, scuderia? because if it's more often than once every 2 years, then you're doin it wrong? that's about the amount of times i have to get my system working again (at least in the xp days, with vista, i never had that problem at all yet *happy*).

 

same here. laptop, desktop, homeserver are all synced up. currently still alwaysync but i hope to switch one day to some more modern synctool. but i hate how they're getting all cloudy.

 

Wow. I didn't expect the question to bring out such responses. Who would have thought that hard drive partitioning is a topic as volatile as religion and politics.

I think I have a better idea now of what's going on. Now I just have to think about how I'll handle it on the next computer I buy. Thanks for all the helpful answers.

 

Glad it helped, glad it gave some ideas. If you have some time to waste, you can try around with different partition configs, and get to love/hate some solutions.

but as we stated before, you do have external backup, don't you? if not, spend the free time on getting that to work instead of messing with partitions and such

 

The other question of course is, what do you mean by "hassle"? Once you have your partitions set up, they're no hassle at all, as far as I can see. Unless I need them, I never really notice they're there. That is particularly true if you know how to use your filesystem, to create reparse points and/or symbolic links. This way, to all intents and purposes, and as far as the OS is concerned, my system looks exactly like a single-partition system, even though physically it isn't. What's not to like?

 

Excellent advice! First things first...

 

and those are exactly hazzles. i used once an xp machine with 3 partitions for about two years. after 1.5 years for the first time one of the partition (c: obviously) went too small. at first, i started fixing it by making some hard links to e: and putting some not-really used stuff over there.. but c: grew.. so i had to resize the partiton which can take hours if the partitions are all quite full.

first you have to set them up.
then you have to live with those boundaries.
then you start breaking the boundaries.

in the end, that's all more work. none of this really needed. now i have just one partition, a great backup solution thanks to windows home server, and all the extra work of the past made *buff* and went away.

and if my system on the go doesn't boot anymore for what ever reason, i have a nice vista-boot-stick to get into console, repair my mbr, or even repair-install as needed. not that i need that normally at all, but i could. or just drive home and restore the backup.

btw, no real data will ever be lost on my local disks, as all important states of my work get synched to the server. only temp data will get lost. maybe annoying, but if important, i could still save it manually (boot from stick, copy it to stick with the command line, and then restore.. not that much work if really needed.. and then restore from home server).

 

[Shrug] As has been said before, YMMV. The way my machines are set up, I do the setup once, and that's it. Different people use different solutions.

You mean junctions, I assume. Hardlinks are constructs that are filesystem-internal, and thus cannot transcend partition boundaries.

Here's one last, somewhat nontrivial example: On my M6400, I have two hard drives in a matrix-RAID configuration, with part of the drives configured in RAID-0 for speed, and part configured as RAID-1 for data protection against hardware failure. The RAID-0 part holds the system and program files for performance reasons, while the user data are on the mirrored partitions. Now all I really need is an image of the system partition in case something goes wrong. Of course, I'll still make external backups of the user data (stuff could still happen; I might delete data by mistake, or the laptop gets stolen, etc.), but at least I don't really have to fear drive failure as a source of problems.

 

yup, junctions, then. i always mess those up. i had a tool installed which could create hard links, junctions, etc. automatically depending on source and target type and location.

my hazzles turned up 1.5 years AFTER set up, as stated. the moment suddenly the boundaries defined years ago didn't fit the actual use case anymore. c: was too small, e: as well. and then, one has to start with resizing (which takes very long) or junctioning around.

all of this IS hazzle compared to never do any of those things ever at all. install everything at default location, let user data be at it's default location, let the os be at it's default location. that way is 0 hazzle ever. so anything else is more hazzle.

jup, was interested in matrix raid long ago, but as i mostly have sub-notebooks nowadays, and non-intel mainboards in pc's, matrix raid is no real, nor a general option. and i base my default statement on the typical environment: one disk in the system.

with matrix raid, setting up two different partitions can make sense. as it does for multiple bootable os installations.

but what i stated is, for the default user, a default system, it is not really worth the extra-work. for a single-disk system, just use the default way the os wants to install, and do all the extra work to set up a trustable reliable backup solution (a.k.a. just connect it to the home server, done )

 

That reminds me: I really should look into these Windows Home Server solutions. I just saw an Acer Aspire system at Aamazon for a little over 300 bucks, with 1TB storage, and three additional storage bays. That might be the way to go...

 

Oh yes it is. for home systems with >1 computer/laptop, or small businesses like clubs/bars/lancenters, it definitely is way to go. rather cheap, great all in one solution. it has some quirks, but what doesn't? but it works. even with a failing hdd, which we had recently at the club. one tb died, nothing got lost.

it really deserves much more publicity, both from microsoft and vendors. my ikea server was really cheap to assemble, the biggest cost was the passive psu (but that gets replaced by a smaller one now as it produces much too much heat). best solution: try it out on some old system that is standing around, download the demo and set it up. if you have questions, just ask. that way, you can test for free and 'get used to it' till you want a real one

and, just as my pc's, on the home server, i don't have to care about partitions, raids, etc. it just does it how it likes it best, dublicating data as needed.

 

Yes, I know what you mean. I bought SureSync a few years ago when there were few tools on the market that actually kept a database of the contents of each machine and allowed rules that would let you edit or delete files on any of the three machines and the sync would understand what to do. Now there are several that can accomplish this. I started using it with Win2000, I believe. It worked with XP and now with Vista as well, so I continue to use it. But should it give up the ghost under Win 7, I too will be searching for a new alternative.

Gary

 

check out windows home server (for a home environment, that is). it can do multipartitioned backups, too, so you can then restore "just the system" (who ever needs that.. i'm joking )

 

I said I was not going to jump back into this argument, but I will NOT stand by and allow you to put words in my mouth. Not once, never, ever did I say your way does not work. In fact I have gone out of my way to insure that the argument NEVER went in that direction. Because I do understand your way DOES work. The above quotes bare that out. My ONLY problem with your discussion of this is your dogmatic approach that no one would ever have any valid reason to use partitioning. You continue to assert some self important argument that you and you alone know better than all the rest of us, who have attempted to show you there are indeed very valid and useful cases for their use. Unlike you, we have never implied that our ways were the only valid solutions.

Gary

 

Having actually gone through four hdd deaths, and three file system corruptions, I can state beyond peradventure that only a fool fails to put his/her own documents and other data onto a separate partition. An external backup solution is an absolutely great idea that all should have, but it does you precious little good if you happen to have your notebook away from home when some bungs up the OS - unless you had your data on a separate partition, your files are as inaccessible as if you'd stored them on Mars.

So, if you're just going to leave your systems at home all the time, then you'll probably never feel the sting of running one partition, but if you happen to use your notebook as, well, as a notebook, you'd be best served by spending the small additional amount of time upfront to set up a second partition. Trust me, that small additional "hassle" will more than pay for itself when you avoid having to deal with the much greater "hassle" of having your data/documents be perfectly ok and perfectly unaccessible.

 

Windows home server is a GREAT solution, but won't work for me. But only because I am a "corporate" developer and the license won't apply. Plus I already have three servers on site, with seamless access to all three from home.

But I have toyed with the idea at the house for my wife's laptop, and if I did, I'd add my own laptop as well. No point in not having an easy redundant information management strategy, when it would be sitting there staring me in the face. ...big ol' grin...

Gary

 

Especially while sitting in a clients office with them breathing down your neck! Been there, done that, recovered in less than 18 minutes!

Gary

 

I'm sorry, I must have missinterpreted

as "daves way doesn't work".

and I always stated partitioned solutions work. I just stated there is no real gain contrary to what you believe. But don't answer on this (as you said, you don't want to).

But please answer to the one other question I had: how often do you need to restore c: without d:? once a week? once a month? once a year? once every two years?. my experience is the following:
if you have to do it very often (once a week, once a month), your installation/your usage is borked and needs to get a real fix instead of a reset everytime.
if you don't have to do it very often (like all 2 years or so maybe, as it was the case for me with xp), then managing the additional partitions is more work than gain.

there you may not agree, but i'm interested in how often do you need to restore c:

(and i've seen a lot of people that restored c: to the last years state, and then could run hours of update galore.. there, a reinstall would have been more clean, more stable, and much faster anyways, hehe.. so the backup should be actual..)