Would this be a good idea (hard drive)?

Hi,

My hard disk is 140 GB and devided to 5 local disks. Is this a good idea:

I want to install windows seven on C.
Windows XP on D.
Install all my extra softwares on E and nothing but E (is THIS a good idea?)
and leave the other two for me and my parents to put whatever we want in them.

I actually want to devide my hard disk to six. If its a good idea how much space should i give to each part and wont installing all the softwares on one local disk slow the computer?

Thanks

I voted bad idea, because I don't ever use partitions that aren't primary, and I believe you are limited to 4 per disk. You also have a small drive, so you'd be severely limiting yourself by cutting it up. Here's what I would do instead. I'd create two partitions. One would be for the OS (Windows 7) and your programs. The second would be for data storage. You could create a folder for you and a folder for your parents, and restrict permissions to each. I'd do away with dual-booting (it's a dead technology, especially when you would consider running a decade old OS). I'm always in favor of simplifying.

Partitioning a HDD has many advantages. It depends on size and application.
I think your situation, in my opinion, is straightforward. 2 partitions (3 if you had the little system reserved partition).

Partitioning is a very efficient way of managing your system. Some of my partitions (aside from system) are Data, Apps, Acronis backups, Media, Storage and others. Given that I have data going back almost 20 years, this serves me quite well in keeping organized.

That said, I don't put more than 3 partitions on a drive, and my drives are generally large (500 GB or greater). A 140 GB drive is not going to benefit to much from multiple partitions. I recommend a 2nd (and larger) drive, which you can parition, keeping the 140 GB as is.

If you must partition the 140 GB, I would limit it to only 2. I also recommend a minimum system partition size of 60 GB.

James

Bad. The first partition will be fast. The second slower, the third slower yet, etc. as you move physically from the outer part of the platters into the inner, which are slower. Defragmenters can move the more accessed data to the faster portion of the disk - but not if you partition it!

I would at most make two partitions - 1 for Windows 7 and its programs and data, and a second for XP and everything else.

I rarely partition, but I do have a data disk with a small first partition for caching and a larger partition for data. The caching partition is on the fast part of the disk, but will eventually the caching partition will get replaced with a high read & write speed SSD.

The data management advantages of partitioning are significant. Sure there is a middle ground which depends on what you use the disk for.
One extreme 1TB ; 1 partition = unthinkable = Bad
Other extreme 140GB ; 5 partitions = a few too many OP = Bad

The speed argument - the outer track radial velocity is faster than the inner track. When the disk fills up the track data transfer gets slower as shown by the blue graph.

So in your outer partition you place your OS and programs. Next large high speed, frequently accessed data: videos, music, images etc. Documents next - you get the point.
So apart from managing data (imaging for one) you can also manage speed issues. You are eventually going to use the inner tracks at some stage.