Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Partitioning Question

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 6:27:56 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I recently got a new computer with a 120 GB HD that was already
partitioned into 2 with a 40 GB drive,(OS and Program files) and an 80
GB(data files) drive.
I tried to partition both using PM 8.I went through the whole process
and everything seemed to be OK as I was doing it.
After finishing and re-booting,as required,none of the "new"
partitions showed up and the original 40 / 80 GB HD were the same as I
started.
I did the process a couple times more on the assumption I may have
done something wrong but nothing worked.I know the program works as I
used it on another machine with WIN98 and made partitions.
I have a couple questions:

1) Do I need to "merge" the 2 already partitioned HD for PM 8 to work?
If not what would cause PM 8 not to work in this scenario?

If I do have to "merge" won't the data be lost from the 80 GB HD?

2) Is there some way to find out what program may have been used to
partition the HD in the first place?

I've tried a couple other programs but they did the same thing.

Any solutions greatly appreciated.

TIA

More about : partitioning question

March 26, 2005 6:27:57 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

<mistersmitty@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:amk941dr89nahiqe5t9lf1leutkqai6qb4@4ax.com...
>I recently got a new computer with a 120 GB HD that was already
> partitioned into 2 with a 40 GB drive,(OS and Program files) and an 80
> GB(data files) drive.
> I tried to partition both using PM 8.I went through the whole process
> and everything seemed to be OK as I was doing it.
> After finishing and re-booting,as required,none of the "new"
> partitions showed up and the original 40 / 80 GB HD were the same as I
> started.
> I did the process a couple times more on the assumption I may have
> done something wrong but nothing worked.I know the program works as I
> used it on another machine with WIN98 and made partitions.
> I have a couple questions:
>
> 1) Do I need to "merge" the 2 already partitioned HD for PM 8 to work?
> If not what would cause PM 8 not to work in this scenario?
>
> If I do have to "merge" won't the data be lost from the 80 GB HD?
>
> 2) Is there some way to find out what program may have been used to
> partition the HD in the first place?
>
> I've tried a couple other programs but they did the same thing.
>
> Any solutions greatly appreciated.
>
> TIA

OK, are you trying to create more partitions within the existing partitions,
it is unclear what you want to do with the existing setup?
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 6:27:57 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Smitty

In my experience over the years, if something isn't broken, don't fix it..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





<mistersmitty@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:amk941dr89nahiqe5t9lf1leutkqai6qb4@4ax.com...
>I recently got a new computer with a 120 GB HD that was already
> partitioned into 2 with a 40 GB drive,(OS and Program files) and an 80
> GB(data files) drive.
> I tried to partition both using PM 8.I went through the whole process
> and everything seemed to be OK as I was doing it.
> After finishing and re-booting,as required,none of the "new"
> partitions showed up and the original 40 / 80 GB HD were the same as I
> started.
> I did the process a couple times more on the assumption I may have
> done something wrong but nothing worked.I know the program works as I
> used it on another machine with WIN98 and made partitions.
> I have a couple questions:
>
> 1) Do I need to "merge" the 2 already partitioned HD for PM 8 to work?
> If not what would cause PM 8 not to work in this scenario?
>
> If I do have to "merge" won't the data be lost from the 80 GB HD?
>
> 2) Is there some way to find out what program may have been used to
> partition the HD in the first place?
>
> I've tried a couple other programs but they did the same thing.
>
> Any solutions greatly appreciated.
>
> TIA
Related resources
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 6:27:57 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Not only would I not further partition the hard drive, I would not have
partitioned it in the first place. There is nothing you can really do on a
single hard drive by partitioning that you cannot do as well with folder
management. If you do partition further, you need to initialize and format.
Go to Start>Run and type diskmgmt.msc. Look for the new partitions in the
lower portion of the window (scroll down), right click in a new partition
and choose your commands from the context menu.

The problem with partitions on the system drive is that if you lose the
system you lose the rest too. Also, they can degrade performance by
increasing the distances the read/write heads have to move when reading and
writing data. I prefer a second hard drive, internal or external,
especially for backups.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
<mistersmitty@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:amk941dr89nahiqe5t9lf1leutkqai6qb4@4ax.com...
>I recently got a new computer with a 120 GB HD that was already
> partitioned into 2 with a 40 GB drive,(OS and Program files) and an 80
> GB(data files) drive.
> I tried to partition both using PM 8.I went through the whole process
> and everything seemed to be OK as I was doing it.
> After finishing and re-booting,as required,none of the "new"
> partitions showed up and the original 40 / 80 GB HD were the same as I
> started.
> I did the process a couple times more on the assumption I may have
> done something wrong but nothing worked.I know the program works as I
> used it on another machine with WIN98 and made partitions.
> I have a couple questions:
>
> 1) Do I need to "merge" the 2 already partitioned HD for PM 8 to work?
> If not what would cause PM 8 not to work in this scenario?
>
> If I do have to "merge" won't the data be lost from the 80 GB HD?
>
> 2) Is there some way to find out what program may have been used to
> partition the HD in the first place?
>
> I've tried a couple other programs but they did the same thing.
>
> Any solutions greatly appreciated.
>
> TIA
March 26, 2005 6:27:58 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%23RsXsAcMFHA.3708@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
<snipped>

> The problem with partitions on the system drive is that if you lose the
> system you lose the rest too. Also, they can degrade performance by
> increasing the distances the read/write heads have to move when reading
> and writing data. I prefer a second hard drive, internal or external,
> especially for backups.

Not if the partition(s) are set to Primary setups in Disk Management, as you
gave instructions to do.
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 6:27:59 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

It doesn't improve performance to set them primary. What improves
performance is to run two drives asynchronously. Two drives on different
IDE channels, two SATA drives, the system drive and an external drive. Any
method that does not rely on two partitions being on the same controller
will increase performance. Most other schemes degrade performance. It's
in the geometry.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"Tom" <noway@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:uUg$kGcMFHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:%23RsXsAcMFHA.3708@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> <snipped>
>
>> The problem with partitions on the system drive is that if you lose the
>> system you lose the rest too. Also, they can degrade performance by
>> increasing the distances the read/write heads have to move when reading
>> and writing data. I prefer a second hard drive, internal or external,
>> especially for backups.
>
> Not if the partition(s) are set to Primary setups in Disk Management, as
> you gave instructions to do.
>
March 26, 2005 6:28:00 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

But, having a primary will not cause a loss of data on that partition, if
one has to format the system drive (hence my point to you about losing any
data). I keep my data on the 2nd partition, and use the second physical
drive setup as E: pagefile, and F: large file storage, and system backups. I
also have an external for basically the same purpose as the second
internal.. I have mine setup this way (I have two SATA 120gigs, both set to
having two Primary partitions). Best way to do things, is to have a good
back-up/imaging program, but that is another subject..

"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:exDzmQcMFHA.3788@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> It doesn't improve performance to set them primary. What improves
> performance is to run two drives asynchronously. Two drives on different
> IDE channels, two SATA drives, the system drive and an external drive.
> Any method that does not rely on two partitions being on the same
> controller will increase performance. Most other schemes degrade
> performance. It's in the geometry.
>
> --
> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
> "Tom" <noway@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:uUg$kGcMFHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23RsXsAcMFHA.3708@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> <snipped>
>>
>>> The problem with partitions on the system drive is that if you lose the
>>> system you lose the rest too. Also, they can degrade performance by
>>> increasing the distances the read/write heads have to move when reading
>>> and writing data. I prefer a second hard drive, internal or external,
>>> especially for backups.
>>
>> Not if the partition(s) are set to Primary setups in Disk Management, as
>> you gave instructions to do.
>>
>
>
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 6:28:01 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I still would not bother partitioning. It also does not gain much with XP
to move the page file from the system drive. The best way to deal with the
page file under XP is a good dosage of ram so that the page file is not
needed as much. I have two internal SATA drives and enough memory that I
don't even worry about what the page file is doing. The concepts you are
talking about were useful with Windows 95 and 98 and 32 to 64 mb of ram.

I would just keep the data on the system drive and archive on the second
drive. An exception where performance makes a big difference when the data
file is on a second drive is an application like Virtual PC. However, that
is an example of two or more computers running simultaneously in the same
box.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"Tom" <noway@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:o g6G%23VcMFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> But, having a primary will not cause a loss of data on that partition, if
> one has to format the system drive (hence my point to you about losing any
> data). I keep my data on the 2nd partition, and use the second physical
> drive setup as E: pagefile, and F: large file storage, and system backups.
> I also have an external for basically the same purpose as the second
> internal.. I have mine setup this way (I have two SATA 120gigs, both set
> to having two Primary partitions). Best way to do things, is to have a
> good back-up/imaging program, but that is another subject..
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:exDzmQcMFHA.3788@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> It doesn't improve performance to set them primary. What improves
>> performance is to run two drives asynchronously. Two drives on different
>> IDE channels, two SATA drives, the system drive and an external drive.
>> Any method that does not rely on two partitions being on the same
>> controller will increase performance. Most other schemes degrade
>> performance. It's in the geometry.
>>
>> --
>> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
>> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
>> "Tom" <noway@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:uUg$kGcMFHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%23RsXsAcMFHA.3708@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> <snipped>
>>>
>>>> The problem with partitions on the system drive is that if you lose the
>>>> system you lose the rest too. Also, they can degrade performance by
>>>> increasing the distances the read/write heads have to move when reading
>>>> and writing data. I prefer a second hard drive, internal or external,
>>>> especially for backups.
>>>
>>> Not if the partition(s) are set to Primary setups in Disk Management, as
>>> you gave instructions to do.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 7:28:22 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Yes I'm trying to "further partition" Drives 'C' and 'D'.
Is this not possible?

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:38:21 -0500, "Tom" <noway@nothere.com> wrote:

>
><mistersmitty@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:amk941dr89nahiqe5t9lf1leutkqai6qb4@4ax.com...
>>I recently got a new computer with a 120 GB HD that was already
>> partitioned into 2 with a 40 GB drive,(OS and Program files) and an 80
>> GB(data files) drive.
>> I tried to partition both using PM 8.I went through the whole process
>> and everything seemed to be OK as I was doing it.
>> After finishing and re-booting,as required,none of the "new"
>> partitions showed up and the original 40 / 80 GB HD were the same as I
>> started.
>> I did the process a couple times more on the assumption I may have
>> done something wrong but nothing worked.I know the program works as I
>> used it on another machine with WIN98 and made partitions.
>> I have a couple questions:
>>
>> 1) Do I need to "merge" the 2 already partitioned HD for PM 8 to work?
>> If not what would cause PM 8 not to work in this scenario?
>>
>> If I do have to "merge" won't the data be lost from the 80 GB HD?
>>
>> 2) Is there some way to find out what program may have been used to
>> partition the HD in the first place?
>>
>> I've tried a couple other programs but they did the same thing.
>>
>> Any solutions greatly appreciated.
>>
>> TIA
>
>OK, are you trying to create more partitions within the existing partitions,
>it is unclear what you want to do with the existing setup?
>
March 26, 2005 7:28:23 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Yes, with your version of PM< you should. Did you try to resize (IOWs, move
your existing files to the beginnings of their respective partitions) them
beforehand?

<mistersmitty@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:v3p941pdedafgju1abmt3j9m28flacasnq@4ax.com...
> Yes I'm trying to "further partition" Drives 'C' and 'D'.
> Is this not possible?
>
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:38:21 -0500, "Tom" <noway@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><mistersmitty@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:amk941dr89nahiqe5t9lf1leutkqai6qb4@4ax.com...
>>>I recently got a new computer with a 120 GB HD that was already
>>> partitioned into 2 with a 40 GB drive,(OS and Program files) and an 80
>>> GB(data files) drive.
>>> I tried to partition both using PM 8.I went through the whole process
>>> and everything seemed to be OK as I was doing it.
>>> After finishing and re-booting,as required,none of the "new"
>>> partitions showed up and the original 40 / 80 GB HD were the same as I
>>> started.
>>> I did the process a couple times more on the assumption I may have
>>> done something wrong but nothing worked.I know the program works as I
>>> used it on another machine with WIN98 and made partitions.
>>> I have a couple questions:
>>>
>>> 1) Do I need to "merge" the 2 already partitioned HD for PM 8 to work?
>>> If not what would cause PM 8 not to work in this scenario?
>>>
>>> If I do have to "merge" won't the data be lost from the 80 GB HD?
>>>
>>> 2) Is there some way to find out what program may have been used to
>>> partition the HD in the first place?
>>>
>>> I've tried a couple other programs but they did the same thing.
>>>
>>> Any solutions greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>> TIA
>>
>>OK, are you trying to create more partitions within the existing
>>partitions,
>>it is unclear what you want to do with the existing setup?
>>
>
March 26, 2005 10:09:26 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In article <v3p941pdedafgju1abmt3j9m28flacasnq@4ax.com>,
mistersmitty@hotmail.com, says...

> Yes I'm trying to "further partition" Drives 'C' and 'D'.
> Is this not possible?

Yes..........First check your 80g partition, is it a logical? I would
hope so.........I'm assuming maybe you want 3 40g partitions, this is
just a scenario on how to do that.........
In PM right click that partition (80) and click resize, drag it to the
right(grabbing the left corner) until you achieve your desired size, 40g
lets say.....Now you will see an empty space between the two partitions,
40g.....Right click that empty area & click create, make **SURE* it is a
logical, now apply the settings. That simple. Personally I would run it
from a bootable disk, but you can do it from within windows if you have
PM installed there, all it will do is reboot the machine and you can
watch the progress.

I'm assuming by "furthur partition" you mean add more?
If you want to create more partitions than basically do the same thing I
mentioned above......You have to resize anything in order to create
"unallocated" areas to manipulate the partitions......
If you furthur explain your exact scheme than I can walk you through it
if you like...........
March 26, 2005 11:21:41 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ehwUWcdMFHA.3340@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>I still would not bother partitioning. It also does not gain much with XP
>to move the page file from the system drive. The best way to deal with the
>page file under XP is a good dosage of ram so that the page file is not
>needed as much. I have two internal SATA drives and enough memory that I
>don't even worry about what the page file is doing. The concepts you are
>talking about were useful with Windows 95 and 98 and 32 to 64 mb of ram.
>
> I would just keep the data on the system drive and archive on the second
> drive. An exception where performance makes a big difference when the
> data file is on a second drive is an application like Virtual PC.
> However, that is an example of two or more computers running
> simultaneously in the same box.

It is really preference I guess. My experiences differ from yours, as there
is very little noticable performace hits when doing partitioning as I use
extra partitions soley for storage, not for running programs from them.
Also, regardless of RAM amounts (I have a lot, but do large file editing),
having the pagefile on a separate physical hard drive has its advantages.
The late Alex Nichol advised on this extensively here (but didn't state it
as a necessity). Excerpt from http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

"If you have a second physical drive, it is in principle better to put the
file there, because it is then less likely that the heads will have moved
away from it."
March 26, 2005 6:42:01 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

3 months from now mistersmitty will post the question "I've partitioned my
hard drive 4 times and now my C drive is running out of space, how can I fix
that condition".

<mistersmitty@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:amk941dr89nahiqe5t9lf1leutkqai6qb4@4ax.com...
I recently got a new computer with a 120 GB HD that was already
partitioned into 2 with a 40 GB drive,(OS and Program files) and an 80
GB(data files) drive.
I tried to partition both using PM 8.I went through the whole process
and everything seemed to be OK as I was doing it.
After finishing and re-booting,as required,none of the "new"
partitions showed up and the original 40 / 80 GB HD were the same as I
started.
I did the process a couple times more on the assumption I may have
done something wrong but nothing worked.I know the program works as I
used it on another machine with WIN98 and made partitions.
I have a couple questions:

1) Do I need to "merge" the 2 already partitioned HD for PM 8 to work?
If not what would cause PM 8 not to work in this scenario?

If I do have to "merge" won't the data be lost from the 80 GB HD?

2) Is there some way to find out what program may have been used to
partition the HD in the first place?

I've tried a couple other programs but they did the same thing.

Any solutions greatly appreciated.

TIA
!