Partition size recommendations?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

Hi.

I have a new DELL Inspiron loaded with WinXP-Home. I want to wipe the
drive and install (a legal copy of) W2K-Pro. My HDD is approximately
40GB and I'd like to divide it into three partitions as follows:
C: Operating System
D: Applications
E: Data files

The basic question is, how big should the Operating System partition be?
I need enough space to hold the OS, the swapper file (.swp) and any
additional application/utility software that the OS might insist on
installing on the boot drive=3F but not so big that I'd be wasting space.

I'm assuming that I do NOT need to reserve space on the boot drive to
accomodate temp-space needed for the installation of any service packs.

I welcome any advice you may have.

Thanks.
_______
-CH
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

In message <MPG.1b34f8424ea03eec989698@msnews.microsoft.com>, Crazy
Horse <nospam@all.is.best> writes
>Hi.
>
>I have a new DELL Inspiron loaded with WinXP-Home. I want to wipe the
>drive and install (a legal copy of) W2K-Pro. My HDD is approximately
>40GB and I'd like to divide it into three partitions as follows:
>C: Operating System
>D: Applications
>E: Data files
>
>The basic question is, how big should the Operating System partition be?
>I need enough space to hold the OS, the swapper file (.swp) and any
>additional application/utility software that the OS might insist on
>installing on the boot drive=3F but not so big that I'd be wasting space.
>
>I'm assuming that I do NOT need to reserve space on the boot drive to
>accomodate temp-space needed for the installation of any service packs.
>
Well, if it is any help, I have the same structure as you do. If I
exclude the swap file, I have about 1.5GB of data. This includes Common
Files which applications (Microsoft and Symantec mainly - about 120MB)
insist on putting on this partition, about 200Mb of Service Pack files,
but excludes things like "My Documents" (which I don't really use, but
in any case have moved to Data) and IE Temporary Internet Files (I don't
use that rag-bag of security holes).
I also clean out "Documents and Settings, ...., Local Settings, Temp"
fairly regularly.
I think the default swapfile size is 1.5 times physical memory, but can
be reduced if you have lots of physical memory.
Watch out for other applications that use this partition for temporary
files. For example CD burning software can create an "image" of the CD
before burning it. You may be able to redirect such usage, but some
applications don't seem to give you that option.

HTH
--
Roger

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

Roger-

Thanks for your quick reply.

In article <TS28k0A+0zyAFwYe@blueyonder.co.uk>, news@lowton.demon.co.uk
says...
> Well, if it is any help, I have the same structure as you do. If I
> exclude the swap file, I have about 1.5GB of data.
-----------------------
Hopefully, I'll be in good shape: I've carved out 4 GB for C: and 6 GB
for my application software (on D. I'd initially gone with 5 & 5, but
then read your post, decided I'd erred a little too much on the plus side
and scaled back the system partition.

> ..."My Documents" (...I don't really use, but
> in any case have moved to Data)
-----------------------
Same here... and I find it annoying that my W2k-Pro system seems intent
on putting it back under my Desktop within Windows Explorer (although one
can prevent it from showing up on the *actual* desktop).

> and IE Temporary Internet Files (I don't
> use that rag-bag of security holes).
-----------------------
Hmmm... =3Fthe rag-bag of security holes=3F... you've got me curious. I
didn't know that these constitute security holes, or what I might do to
avoid them. Are you just saying it's a good idea to routines clear these
files out (say, on a daily basis)?

> I also clean out "Documents and Settings, ...., Local Settings, Temp"
> fairly regularly.
> I think the default swapfile size is 1.5 times physical memory, but can
> be reduced if you have lots of physical memory.
-----------------------
I'll look into doing this, also (I already clean out Temp).
I've currently got 256 MB, with anothe 256-MB stick on the shelf,
awaiting installation. Unfortunately, this laptop won't accomodate more
than 512 MB, but I guess I can manage with that.

> Watch out for other applications that use this partition for temporary
> files. For example CD burning software can create an "image" of the CD
> before burning it.
-----------------------
Thanks for the heads-up.

> HTH
-----------------------
???
_______
-CH
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

In message <MPG.1b35d73f893d3a7d989699@msnews.microsoft.com>, Crazy
Horse <nospam@all.is.best> writes
>Roger-
>
>Thanks for your quick reply.
>
>In article <TS28k0A+0zyAFwYe@blueyonder.co.uk>, news@lowton.demon.co.uk
>says...
>> Well, if it is any help, I have the same structure as you do. If I
>> exclude the swap file, I have about 1.5GB of data.
>-----------------------
>Hopefully, I'll be in good shape: I've carved out 4 GB for C: and 6 GB
>for my application software (on D. I'd initially gone with 5 & 5, but
>then read your post, decided I'd erred a little too much on the plus side
>and scaled back the system partition.
Unless you have some extremely large applications, 6GB will be plenty.
I currently have about 2.5GB which includes about 1GB of install/setup
files. Typical "large" applications include some games. For example,
flight simulation - I had one which took well over a GB of disk space,
with the option to hold maps on the hard disk rather than CD.
>
>> ..."My Documents" (...I don't really use, but
>> in any case have moved to Data)
>-----------------------
>Same here... and I find it annoying that my W2k-Pro system seems intent
>on putting it back under my Desktop within Windows Explorer (although one
>can prevent it from showing up on the *actual* desktop).
I think that you will find that the "My Documents" under Desktop is
purely a virtual folder. Experiment by putting a new file into the
actual My Documents folder on your E drive. Then open Explorer and I
think you will see it under "My Documents" under Desktop. It has to be
like this for real multi-user systems, where each user's My Documents is
under their profile in Documents and Settings, but appears when they
logon to be on the desktop.
>
>> and IE Temporary Internet Files (I don't
>> use that rag-bag of security holes).
>-----------------------
>Hmmm... =3Fthe rag-bag of security holes=3F... you've got me curious. I
>didn't know that these constitute security holes, or what I might do to
>avoid them. Are you just saying it's a good idea to routines clear these
>files out (say, on a daily basis)?
I was expressing a personal view about IE. There are far too many
potential and actual security holes - not least of which is the whole
ActiveX exposure. Sure, you can disable some of these areas, but why
bother when there are other, better, browsers around like Opera,
Mozzilla, Firebird.....
>
>> I also clean out "Documents and Settings, ...., Local Settings, Temp"
>> fairly regularly.
>> I think the default swapfile size is 1.5 times physical memory, but can
>> be reduced if you have lots of physical memory.
>-----------------------
>I'll look into doing this, also (I already clean out Temp).
>I've currently got 256 MB, with anothe 256-MB stick on the shelf,
>awaiting installation. Unfortunately, this laptop won't accomodate more
>than 512 MB, but I guess I can manage with that.
>
>> Watch out for other applications that use this partition for temporary
>> files. For example CD burning software can create an "image" of the CD
>> before burning it.
>-----------------------
>Thanks for the heads-up.
>
>> HTH
>-----------------------
>???
HTH = Hope That Helps!

HTH!!

--
Roger

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

In article <Fjje8DBPjBzAFwR2@blueyonder.co.uk>, news@lowton.demon.co.uk
says...
> Unless you have some extremely large applications, 6GB will be plenty.
------------------------
Good to know. Thanks.

> I think that you will find that the "My Documents" under Desktop is
> purely a virtual folder.
> :
> [snip]
> :
------------------------
Your explanation makes sense. Thanks again.

> ...why
> bother [with MSIE] when there are other, better, browsers around like Opera,
> Mozzilla, Firebird.....
------------------------
This reminds me of one of the many things I've told myself I'd explore,
once I got a new machine up and running.

> HTH = Hope That Helps!
------------------------
Thanks.

> HTH!!
------------------------
Yup, it does. Thanks again.

_______
-CH
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

One thing occurred to me when I read your post - not sure why you'd install
apps on a different partition than the system volume. I usually create an
8-10GB system partition if I have enough drive space and that gives me
plenty of wiggle room on most systems....

Can't see where your planned setup will help with performance if the app
partition is on the same physical disk as the system volume anyway...and it
won't help you if you have to do a full reinstall of your OS, as you'll have
to reinstall all your apps anyway....

I do agree that a separate data partition is a must.

Crazy Horse wrote:
> In article <Fjje8DBPjBzAFwR2@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> news@lowton.demon.co.uk says...
>> Unless you have some extremely large applications, 6GB will be
>> plenty.
> ------------------------
> Good to know. Thanks.
>
>> I think that you will find that the "My Documents" under Desktop is
>> purely a virtual folder.
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
> ------------------------
> Your explanation makes sense. Thanks again.
>
>> ...why
>> bother [with MSIE] when there are other, better, browsers around
>> like Opera, Mozzilla, Firebird.....
> ------------------------
> This reminds me of one of the many things I've told myself I'd
> explore, once I got a new machine up and running.
>
>> HTH = Hope That Helps!
> ------------------------
> Thanks.
>
>> HTH!!
> ------------------------
> Yup, it does. Thanks again.
>
> _______
> -CH
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

Lanwench-

In article <ulFhXwVUEHA.2840@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>,
lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com says...
> Can't see where your planned setup will help with performance if the app
> partition is on the same physical disk as the system volume anyway...and it
> won't help you if you have to do a full reinstall of your OS, as you'll have
> to reinstall all your apps anyway....
--------------------
And I can't argue with any of your points. My approach would only make
sense in terms of performance and reinstall if it were implemented on
separate spindles. Still, I guess I prefer this approach, if only for
organizational/aesthetic reasons.

I appreciate your comments, though.

All the best,
_______
-CH
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

Crazy Horse wrote:
> Lanwench-
>
> In article <ulFhXwVUEHA.2840@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>,
> lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com says...
>> Can't see where your planned setup will help with performance if the
>> app partition is on the same physical disk as the system volume
>> anyway...and it won't help you if you have to do a full reinstall of
>> your OS, as you'll have to reinstall all your apps anyway....
> --------------------
> And I can't argue with any of your points. My approach would only make
> sense in terms of performance and reinstall if it were implemented on
> separate spindles. Still, I guess I prefer this approach, if only for
> organizational/aesthetic reasons.
>
> I appreciate your comments, though.

No prob - we all have our own idiosyncrisies!
>
> All the best,
> _______
> -CH
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯