Partitioning a 2tb hd for Windows 7 64 bit

"Rod Speed" wrote in
:

David Simpson wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Ed Light wrote
Definitely, a small C: drive with the system and programs is the
way to go.
Not necessarily, particularly for the simpler users.
True, if they have no support at all. Glad we aren't in a news group
where
you could just type a message and then someone else could reply. ;-)
But even in that situation, you can make a case that those users
are better off with everything in a single partition, essentially
because they don’t have to ask about how to do that config.

If they know what a partition is, thay can do any of my suggestions.

And, not if they are going to backup anything large. The system and
programs are not "Large", but rather small. It's all the data people
collect these days that is "Large".

Example: My system backed up is about 20GB. (this includes the "user"
directory) I have over 1300GB of other "data" on my computer. This is
VERY small compared to others I know.


I'd say anyone that can ask the right question in the right area,
can handle it.
Doesn’t mean that they will be able to recognise a correct
answer to their question, and can do what they are told
needs to be done, and can handle the situation where it
doesn’t go as described, particularly if it’s the only system
they have, so they don’t have any way to ask about how to
get out of the mess they are in if it all goes pear shaped etc
and the system is unusable until fixed etc.

There isn't a "correct" answer. Any will "work"!

Or are you saying that moving your data will not allow a system restore?


About the only thing that would be
hard, is the size you'd make the "system",

That’s not right. Its also hard to recognise what
is the correct answer for them, and hard to do
what needs to be done correctly too.

In what way. If they can find the place to ask, they aren't stupid.

NONE of the things I suggested are "HARD", every single thing I've
suggested for others (not what I've done myself), can be done right from
the desktop, or during setup.


It's a non trivial exercise to keep the bulk of the data files
out of that even with Win7 for even quite competent users.
It's very easy under Windows 7.
Nope, not to move the My Documents folder alone, let alone
the other folders like Downloads and the mail folders.

What is hard about moving the "Documents" folder? I guess I don't know
computers well enought to understand the hard part of it.

BTW, I'm beginning to wonder if you even use 7, as there is no "My
Documents" anymore!


Almost no data is stored anywhere but the "user" folder.

But it isnt a trivial exercise to move that and have
everything completely transparently keep all data
out of the OS and apps partition in the future.

But moving the "Documents" data is! You should not move the "user"
folder at all, on a "normal" system, as too many setting that are needed
to boot are storied there!


And quite a bit of data isnt in the users folder anyway, most
obviously with Temporary Internet Files, Temp etc etc etc.

Part of the items you've listed ARE stored in the "user" folder! Do you
know anything about Windows 7 at all??? (only one of the "temp" folders
isn't, and it doesn't need to be backuped up)


My entire "User" folder is not even on my "System" drive.
Sure, but it isnt a trivial exercise for the sort of simple user
that has to ask about whether to partition their hard drive
to do that, and no one actually suggested he do that anyway.

Which is why I said what I said below. YOU cut that message in 1/2. I
just said it wasn't that hard to do. And yes, I even know what it means
if I ever have to restore my system.


I would not recommend doing what I've done to the average Joe,
And that’s just as true of having a separate OS and apps partition
with no data in it.

I never said "no data"!!! I said data like music, pics, and video.
Moving the ones I listed is about 10 mouse clicks. Nothing else adds up
to much. A good example is:
Last time I looked, my Firefox folder was the largest folder in the
"user" folder, and thatsbecause the bookmarks are so large, and it keeps
5 backups of those". One movie is easly 100 times that size. Heck, even
1 high rez picture could be that large!


but it was not "hard".
It is for the sort of simple user that has to ask about
whether to partition their hard drive to do that.

You keep saying that, but I don't see it. Now if he'd ask "What is a
partition", I'd say just click the defaults, that option is for "geeks".


I would consider myself just average,
You arent anything like that, whatever you consider yourself to be.
Even sillier.

Nope, I'm always asking questions. I learn something new about computers
almost daily. That's what a real expert does, not mouth off with 10 year
old "facts".


Yes, but that's a pretty minor consideration with modern drives.
It's the only reason SSDs are faster that HDs.
Wrong.

Do the numbers, then get back with me. There are HDs on the market right
now that can do sustained reads (single HUGE file) at 250Gbps. That's
with track changes. On one track, it would be even faster, but then the
drive's buffer gets in the way, making it almost impossable to test.


I'd call that a major.
More fool you.

On a single track, most HDs can match a SSD in data output,
But not for reads.

Sure can. If the head is already over the track, and all the data is on
one track. Max time is 1/7200 (7200 rpm) of a second. You can store a
lot of data on one track these days! Again, do the math.


it's when they change tracks that they truely loose the race.
That’s just plain wrong.

Again, do the math. On a "fast" HD, track to track time is measured in
milliseconds, on a "good" drive about 5-9. That 5/100 of a second,
comparied to track time under the head of 1/7200 of a second. Very close
to two orders of magnitude, and on a 10K RPM drive, it is!


And this is a big one for me: you can image it separately from
all the data, and restore it without back-dating your data.
You can do that with any decent backup app without it having its own
partition.
You know of a free one that's a "non trivial exercise"?
Yep, for the sort of simple user that has to ask about
whether to partition their hard drive to do that.

Could you name it?


Even my paid one, only a computer "geek" would know what folders
NOT to select to do a real system backup, but not get the data. No
you can't just exclude the "user" folder (system would not boot!).

That’s not right. The users folder would still be what it was before
the restore and so it would still boot fine after the restore.

You said it was "trivial" to excluse you "data" from a system backup. I
said it wasn't.


But the sort of simple user that has to ask about whether
to partition their hard drive to do that doesn’t know that.

If he ask what a partition was, I would not suggest what I suggested, but
since he knew ask if, in the right place, he should be able to right
click on a folder, and select add to library. QED.


You can even set it as the default "save"
location, and all your docs would go there.

But that doesn’t necessarily determine where all the apps put the
data.

Again, Under 7, almost all data is in the user directory. ALL new
programs, and most old XP ones store their settings there. Also the
default for the "Documents" folder is there. The amount of data stored
elsewhere is, lets see, how do you put it, oh yes, "trivial".

Again, I'm not saying to move the "user" folder, I'm saying to move the
pictures, music and videos. You do know that one HD video is larger that
most peoples system and program area added together?

(I did it for a reason that has nothing to do with this thread, but the
way the first gen SSDs worked.)


And most desktop power supply failures don’t risk
your data, so the hard drive should be first on the list.

Wow, you are out of the loop. Most HD failures are because of bad/cheap
power supplies. And my list was just failures, showing that HDs were
number 2, and more likely that a OS failure, which is why you should
backup your data, and on some systems it's MUCH better to partition to
control that, and on Windows 7, having data somewhere other than the
system partition IS "trivial".


Laptop ... I'm not going there!

Its hardly ever the power supply with those. A power
supply failure doesn’t normally risk your data with those.

Theft is much more likely to be the reason to need the backup.

What didn't you understand. AIN'T going there!


Then you've never used portableapps.
Doesn’t help with the OS config.

Ah, you've never used it at all. Love experts that haven't used
something, but know all about it.


They have their own "data" area in the portable folder.
Just like a full blown system, but no data is added o the
system. True, there are some limits, like you can not use
file "opens with",
Which is why I don’t use it. I use that almost exclusively.

So to open email, you click on the .pts file?


Friend uses it ALL the time at work.
I don’t.

Never even thought you did, much less said it.


--
_______________________________________________
/ David Simpson \
| |
| http://www.nyx.net/~dsimpson |
|We got to go to the crappy town where I'm a hero.|
\_______________________________________________/

John Williamson wrote in news:a2bachFbisU2
@mid.individual.net:

http://tinyurl.com

Darn, wish I'd read this first.


--
_______________________________________________
/ David Simpson \
| |
| http://www.nyx.net/~dsimpson |
|We got to go to the crappy town where I'm a hero.|
\_______________________________________________/

Mike Tomlinson wrote in news:GuBiSbCFKNwPFwU9
@jasper.org.uk:

En el artículo , Rod Speed
escribió:

[snip boilerplate - woddles has it programmed into a macro and trots it
out when he's losing the argument]

Rod Speed FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/883xp7v

Yeah, someone else told me, AFTER I typed in a long response.

Thanks though!!! What a Maroon, he is, as Bugs would say!


--
_______________________________________________
/ David Simpson \
| |
| http://www.nyx.net/~dsimpson |
|We got to go to the crappy town where I'm a hero.|
\_______________________________________________/

John,

As the OP was asking about partitioning for Windows 7, is it really
relevant to talk about Linux and partitioning for it?

Nope, nothing usefull what so ever!

Jim

John,

http://tinyurl.com/883xp7v

That's a most enlightening and accurate appraisal.
A must read for everyone.
Well done & bravo!

Jim

On 5/26/2012 3:32 AM, Alias wrote:
On 5/26/2012 3:52 AM, GreyCloud wrote:

I also back up everything to an external hard drive and two internal
hard drives. I've haven't lost anything since 1997.

Just as long as you haven't done an upgrade on line of course. There is
one that has that problem... Ubuntu.

I always to a clean install and use Linux Mint.


Maybe this is of interest to you:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/dr...;siu-container



Hopefully this url isn't munged up too bad.

But the article is rather clear about using non ECC memory.
You can blame Intel on this problem, as they have yet to really address
this problem properly and at a low cost for the consumer.
A lot of people don't know about this and aren't even aware of it.



The RAM I use is CE by Kingston. I haven't had any of the problems your
link refers to.


That is because there is nothing in software or hardware that will tell
you that you've got a problem. The article is quite firm about this.
All ram without any detection will eventually corrupt data.
This is a known fact.

On 5/26/2012 7:30 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
On 5/26/2012 3:32 AM, Alias wrote:
On 5/26/2012 3:52 AM, GreyCloud wrote:

I also back up everything to an external hard drive and two internal
hard drives. I've haven't lost anything since 1997.

Just as long as you haven't done an upgrade on line of course. There is
one that has that problem... Ubuntu.

I always to a clean install and use Linux Mint.


Maybe this is of interest to you:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/dr...;siu-container




Hopefully this url isn't munged up too bad.

But the article is rather clear about using non ECC memory.
You can blame Intel on this problem, as they have yet to really address
this problem properly and at a low cost for the consumer.
A lot of people don't know about this and aren't even aware of it.



The RAM I use is CE by Kingston. I haven't had any of the problems your
link refers to.


That is because there is nothing in software or hardware that will tell
you that you've got a problem. The article is quite firm about this.
All ram without any detection will eventually corrupt data.
This is a known fact.


I must be lucky, then, because all my data is just fine and has been
since 97. Either that or the article, firm as it may be, is incorrect.

--
Alias

En el artículo , Alias aka@maskedandano
nymous.com.invalid escribió:

I must be lucky, then, because all my data is just fine and has been
since 97

How do you know? (serious question)

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

dweebken wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dweebken wrote
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote

For most people, yes, since at least some data is irreplaceable.
However, for some, having a quickly-
restorable working system is also pretty important.

I just have one partition nowadays. And 8 GB ram on a Win 7 x64 system.
Swap file has been set to the same as the RAM, but it never gets used (I
monitor it). The 4 GB extra memory over my base system cost me something
like $40. Also I replaced the 720 RPM HDD with an SSD. Sure lots more
expensive per GB, but it simply flies like a rocket. I have a 64 GB
SanDisk USB backup stick plugged in all the time backing up my daily
data. Once a week or so I image the whole dataset to a USB3 External HDD
using AllwaySync which easliy lets me set up different data locations
and allows me to back up data from different places with one click (the
Sync All button). And once a month or so I clone the SSD to an external
USB3 disk which I can use to re-create my system any time in no time
flat. I have an older copy of the clone drive just in case I screw up
when making a new clone, and every now and then I do a duplicate of my
full data backup too. These duplicate clones and backup disks are kept
in separate buildings 99% of the time in case of theft or house fire.
And for good measure, all my family photos are on Skydrive in the cloud.

Think I'm reasonably safe. And with the RAM and SSD, the PC is just so
very very fast (and will never get a head crash with vibration & shock).

But can have a problem with a mains failure that you wont see with a hard
drive.

Not really.

Yes, really.

My laptop keeps going on battery for hours after a mains failure,

And desktops don't.

and everything else is on a UPS that's good for about 90 mins. Home type
UPSs aren't so expensive these days.

Most don't have them.

And they don't last anything like as long as the PC that's on them.

Some terminal ****wit claiming to be
Mike Tomlinson wrote
just the puerile **** that's all it can ever manage.