Partitioning for a 40GB harddrive?

[vidar]

On my old computer i have a 8GB harddrive, it devided into C: (1,99GB FAT16) and D: (5,85GB FAT32) drives.
The new PC im building is going to have a 40GB harddrive. How do you suggest i partiton a harddrive of this size?

 

[slickstaa]

no matter how many partitions u put on it, use either FAT32 or NTFS (xp and 200 only).

 

[Arrow]

20GB/20GB in NTFS. (if you're running an NT system)

Rob
Please visit <b><A HREF="http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048" target="_new">http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048</A></b>

 

[camieabz]

3-5GB for C: if you want to keep your games and backups seperate.

3-5GB E: (mirror of C.

The rest for D: (games/music etc.)

<b><font color=blue>~ Whew! Finished...Now all I need is a Cyrix badge ~ </font color=blue> </b>

 

[Guest]

How about 1 40 GB NTFS Partition. It will be faster, more stable and more secure. If you are not willing to upgrade to Win2000/XP, go with fat32, but multiple partitions are just not needed anymore unless you are dualbooting, etc.

there are absolutely no absolutes

 

[camieabz]

I disagree.

I have half a dozen reasons for multi partitions.

Defragging is quicker.
C: can be imaged and re-written as often as you like.
Cluster waste is reduced, due to smaller partitions = smaller clusters.
Partitions can be hidden to prevent unwanted tampering.
Keep unused space on it's own partition, and allocate it as necessary.
You can allocate a partition for anything like apps or games and keep the uneeded files files off of C:

<b><font color=blue>~ Whew! Finished...Now all I need is a Cyrix badge ~ </font color=blue> </b>

 

[Zlash]

Smaller partitions = smaller clusters is no longer a factor because of NTFS.

<font color=red>:</font color=red> <font color=white>:</font color=white> <font color=blue>:</font color=blue>

 

[camieabz]

With W98SE?

<b><font color=blue>~ Whew! Finished...Now all I need is a Cyrix badge ~ </font color=blue> </b>

 

[Zlash]

I did say with NTFS =).

<font color=red>:</font color=red> <font color=white>:</font color=white> <font color=blue>:</font color=blue>

 

[camieabz]

but I'm not using NTFS. Neither is vidar I guess, as he only mentioned FAT & FAT32. Now he's talking 40GB drive, but no OS upgrade as far as we know, so I'll stick to my partitioning plan for FAT32, until he says otherwise.

<b><font color=blue>~ Whew! Finished...Now all I need is a Cyrix badge ~ </font color=blue> </b>

 

[Zlash]

The slack with FAT32 isn't too bad either even though it's 8x better with NTFS.

<font color=red>:</font color=red> <font color=white>:</font color=white> <font color=blue>:</font color=blue>

 

[Guest]

1 Defragging is not quicker, it may take less time per partition, yet the user must deal with multiple defrags and not just one.

2 A user can also Image and re-write a single partition, as often as they like.

3 with fat32 you can set cluster size

4 If your using Win98se you can't use a hidden partition with out dual booting.

5 why is keeping unused space on a separate partition a pro, it sure sounds like a con to me.

6 you can allocate a folder to apps or games much more practically, and if you think partitions keep app files off of the root drive (C, than I bet you use AOL.

there are absolutely no absolutes

 

[Zlash]

3 with fat32 you can set cluster size

Where do you get that from?


<font color=red>:</font color=red> <font color=white>:</font color=white> <font color=blue>:</font color=blue>

 

[Guest]

Check out this url

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/TechNet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/prkc_fil_lxty.asp

with winxp pro they have made it quite easy to change the DEFAULT cluster size, in the past you had to use a non-ms formating tool for that purpose.

partition magic will do the trick.

But so will an OS upgrade

there are absolutely no absolutes

 

[Zlash]

It really serves no purpose to change cluster sizes really, especially for FAT 16 which you have to use the defaults for the most part and NTFS doesn't matter since thier so small to begin with. Not sure how that will work under FAT32 but i don't see a reason to do it. Pisses me off though they try to say the limitation for FAT32 is 32GB (yes i know they say you can format with other methods in tiny print), specially on cert tests when you know it's not true.

<font color=red>:</font color=red> <font color=white>:</font color=white> <font color=blue>:</font color=blue>

 

[Guest]

Yes, I agree, I can see no atvantage to changing cluster sizes with files and drives in volume and capacity today. fat32 carries such small default cluster sizes in comparison to fat16, that it seems a non-issue. NTFS blows them both out of the water on all fronts. Unless you don't like to decide who can view and modify your data.

We have really driven this issue into the ground. Yet I still do not think everyone will convert to NTFSity on our witness alone. We must form a crusade to banish the hethen FATers to the horrific relm of WinME. :lol:

there are absolutely no absolutes

 

[Zlash]

lol

<font color=red>:</font color=red> <font color=white>:</font color=white> <font color=blue>:</font color=blue>

 

[ath0mps0]

I wonder what FATburger would have to say about that....

I thought a thought, but the thought I thought wasn't the thought I thought I had thought.