To each his own, good sir.
However ... in rebuttal, I have installed WinXP a few hundred times (at the very least) after creating multiple partitions with a standard Win98 boot disk on many PATA HDDs, with no difficulties whatsoever.
I do not use disk utilities from drive manufacturers to prepare disks, as this alters the way the partition tables are normally written, and this can cause difficulties with other programs after the OS is installed,; especially imaging programs, such as Drive Image and Norton Ghost, and partitioning programs, with Partition Magic being the first example that comes to mind. Third-party defragmenting tools, such as Perfect Disk, may also run into problems when these utilities are used to create and format partitions.
This allows XP to always be happy and you can do some cool things like creating two partions (1 gig and 10gig, format both (in NTFS, unless you have a good reason not to) and choose the second partion to load files into. When you finish loading the operting system and look in(start,setting,controlpannel,administrative tools,computer management,disk management you will see that the system and boot files have been put into seperate partions.
Again, to each his own ... but I fail to see the advantages of having system and boot files in separate partitions. Myself, I prefer having all the OS files (excepting the paging file) in a single partition of around 5GB, regardless of the files system being used, and install nearly all third-party programs in other partitions. Exceptions to that would be firewalls, anti-virus programs, e-mail programs, etc.
A single 1GB NTFS partition, simply for boot files, seems to me to be rather excessive, and a waste of space.
I see little point to having a separate partition exclusively for the paging file. I <i>do</i> see good reasons for moving the bulk of the file off onto a little-accessed partition, if for no other reason than it is unnecessary to image such a large file when backing up the operating system partition. But not for performance's sake. I routinely install at least 512MB of RAM in any system that uses WinXP, and as a result, the paging file access on those systems is completely negated. On my own systems, I have <i>never</i> had the paging files accessed, not in the last two years, despite playing many games and using several memory-intensive graphics arts programs, such as Photoshop.
This to me shows that having a separate partition devoted to the paging file is simply adding an unnecessary, basically inaccessible drive letter to the system, whether you choose to hide it ... or not.
The only reason for having a paging file at this date, with this OS (with enough physical RAM installed) is to satisfy older programs and the Windows Memory Manager that there is an actual area for any possible virtual memory pages pre-configured and accessible, even though the paging file is, for all intents and purposes, inactive.
I do not like software RAID solutions managed by Windows, and I also do not care much for dynamic disks. I have seen many instances of program incompatibility with dynamic volumes, and if I was going to implement a RAID variation, I'd install a hardware card, both for speed, stability, and additional features.
I have good reasons to avoid NTFS with the systems I build. Most users fail to understand, and/or are not willing to learn about the additional features incorporated by the file system, and as a result ... I have had many phone calls in the past from irate users who could not access compressed or encrypted files ... for one example. I have also found that although many claim that the file system is more robust, when data corruption <i>does</i> occur, or something happens to the MBR, actual repairs are much more difficult to achieve than we have all been led to believe. In other words, there's the real world scenarios we techs are supposed to correct with greater ease due the file system implementation, and then there's typical MS glorified hype.
With FAT32 in place, I still have a backdoor into the file system. With NTFS, users have to bring the system to me for file access and retrieval, unless they intend on spending quite a bit of money for a boot disk that allows both read and write access. And/or, of course ... I can spend a couple of hours explaining how to install and use the Recovery Console.
Despite my answer, I appreciate you taking the time to offer additional information and instruction to the thread, but ... in this particular situation, the offering wasn't exactly needed. You have my thanks, anyway. Helping each other is the way to go, and your contribution was interesting, although I can't say that I agree with your preferred set up. And so it goes.
Toey
<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=328&s=91c282f2e5207e99b7a652ee13b3512a" target="_new"><font color=green>My System Rigs</font color=green></A>
_______________________________________________
<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/" target="_new"><b><font color=purple>BTVILLARIN.com</font color=purple></b></A> - <i><font color=orange>Your Computer Questions Answered</font color=orange></i>