I would go with only 2 partitions
1. OS and programs
2. Data
There is nothing to be gained splitting out those OS files into a 3d partition. It just complicates your life.
For the data, you can always use a sync program to backup. That is faster than imaging (although I personally prefer imaging my data partition).
Thank you,
I would indeed prefer just syncing partition 2, because it's big. That's an advantage of that configuration and a disadvantage of Kari's. From my personal point of view. For the moment I'm checking the pros and cons of both the configurations you all suggest.
Could you please give me your opinion on this:
If I go for the above configuration (1+2), how can I be sure that, after some time, years?, the partition 1 will never get full and make the system slow down?
I've heard that it's always good to leave a rather big empty space on the OS partition, in order to let the OS "breathe". In other words, that it shouldn't be full.
It's difficult for me for the moment to forsee how the size of the programs and AppData etc on the C partition will grow over time. So I'm afraid that at some point it will be full, with me not knowing what to do. That would be an advantage for the config of Kari. Where the AppData folder being on partition 2, which would be very big and no space problem would occur.
This is one point. Another one, is, if I ever move to a SSD+HDD configuration (for the moment I have only one HDD), in that case relocating the Users folders and AppData folders seem a thing many people do when they have an SSD since it's small and expensive. In the config of Kari, I guess it would be easy to move the C parition on the SSD and the data+users partition would stay on the HDD as it is.
While with the above config, if I ever buy an SSD, I would have to relocate the Users, etc. Meaning change the configuration.
Your thoughts on these?